4 ms·

> somewhat toxic asset and motivates the hoarding of things. As opposed to hoarding money which is both bad for the economy and made you richer for doing absol

> somewhat toxic asset and motivates the hoarding of things. As opposed to hoarding money which is both bad for the economy and made you richer for doing absolutely nothing? e.g. prices halved between 1865 and ~1900. The rich got richer, lack of freely available capital limited growth and anyone who had loans got screwed (imagine being a farmer who mortgaged his farm and is seeing agricultural prices go down every year). Constant technological progress bailed everyone out but it wasn’t a pretty time. My point is that consistent and mostly predictable inflation (i.e. that was the case only during a fraction of of the last ~50 years) is much preferable than constant boom and bust cycles and volatile price swings that were frequent under the gold standard. Of course it’s very easy to mismanage monetary and fiscal policy when you can print an unlimited amount of money and put incompetent/corrupt people in charge.

somenameforme 1y ago
Try to put yourself in my shoes for a second, and think about what I'm reading from you. The example you chose was not only the exact year the US Civil War had just ended, but also the start of the second US industrial revolution and even a peak of the transition from rural->urban life. So in other words - some very major events. And over 35 years during this wild times, prices dropped by half, all while wages for workers were raising rapidly. And debt was quite rare 'back in the day'. In 1890 about 39% of farms had a mortgage [1], and that was near a peak of the bell curve on that. Go back before the Civil War and other such events and it shrinks down to 10-20%. For some contrast to this point, I'll pick my date of 1971. Over just 9 years prices more than doubled. If we do the same timeline of 35 years, prices increased by more than 500%. And during this time, wages didn't come even remotely close to keeping up. So people were paying more and earning less. And obviously indebtedness also skyrocketed during this era, which is indeed nice for inflation (at least if wages keep up, which again they often don't), but that's only because people could no longer afford anything! Like in modern times the median home costs 7 years of median salary, which means basically nobody, outside of the very wealthy, can afford a home without going into decades of debt. By contrast in the past there were homes available for less than a year's salary - which is rather necessary when you can't just go get endless funny money to buy something. And you're arguing that this new system is better for workers. Now of course it's possible I'm straw-manning you, though I assure you it's not intentional if so! But if not, then what am I missing here? Because I think surely, if you put yourself in my shoes, you can see that your argument isn't the most compelling. [1] - https://www.mba.org/docs/default-source/research---riha-reports/86099_13129_riha_history_paper.pdf https://www.mba.org/docs/default-source/research---riha-repo... (page 32)

somenameforme 1y ago

Try to put yourself in my shoes for a second, and think about what I'm reading from you. The example you chose was not only the exact year the US Civil War had just ended, but also the start of the second US industrial revolution and even a peak of the transition from rural->urban life. So in other words - some very major events. And over 35 years during this wild times, prices dropped by half, all while wages for workers were raising rapidly. And debt was quite rare 'back in the day'. In 1890 about 39% of farms had a mortgage [1], and that was near a peak of the bell curve on that. Go back before the Civil War and other such events and it shrinks down to 10-20%. For some contrast to this point, I'll pick my date of 1971. Over just 9 years prices more than doubled. If we do the same timeline of 35 years, prices increased by more than 500%. And during this time, wages didn't come even remotely close to keeping up. So people were paying more and earning less. And obviously indebtedness also skyrocketed during this era, which is indeed nice for inflation (at least if wages keep up, which again they often don't), but that's only because people could no longer afford anything! Like in modern times the median home costs 7 years of median salary, which means basically nobody, outside of the very wealthy, can afford a home without going into decades of debt. By contrast in the past there were homes available for less than a year's salary - which is rather necessary when you can't just go get endless funny money to buy something. And you're arguing that this new system is better for workers. Now of course it's possible I'm straw-manning you, though I assure you it's not intentional if so! But if not, then what am I missing here? Because I think surely, if you put yourself in my shoes, you can see that your argument isn't the most compelling. [1] - https://www.mba.org/docs/default-source/research---riha-reports/86099_13129_riha_history_paper.pdf https://www.mba.org/docs/default-source/research---riha-repo... (page 32)