2 ms·

With an inflationary currency all those wonderful things you describe that allegedly help recovery are actually done at the expense of those who save. When you

by snitko 13y ago

With an inflationary currency all those wonderful things you describe that allegedly help recovery are actually done at the expense of those who save. When you say "deflation punishes those who are in debt" I raise you "inflation punishes those, who save". Now why do you believe being in debt is somehow more noble than saving? I beg to disagree. Also, remember, borrowers, if they really need to borrow, may decide to only borrow from those who account for estimated deflation, so that they would be able to pay back. It's just an accounting trick really. Deflation only punishes unsmart people who mindlessly seek for deals that don't account for the changes in the economy. Inflation punishes people who didn't want any kind of deal and simply had their money saved somewhere. > It reduces the velocity of money and therefore economic output You would have to explain how exactly this happens. Output != value. If you dig holes or build cars no one buys you increase output, but you don't add value to the economy.

kybernetikos 13y ago
There's a lot that can be said on this topic (I'm even tempted to make the argument that borrowing is indeed, in most cases, more noble than saving), but I just want to pick you up on one point. When you say 'save', it's not clear whether you're talking about hoarding (where the money is no longer doing anything useful in the economy) or investing (where the money is still part of the economy). Inflation doesn't punish those whose savings are invested, in fact it rewards them, it does however punish those whose savings are hoarded.
- snitko 13y ago
  I talk about hoarding and there's nothing wrong with that. If you want a new house or a new car, I think saving money until you have enough is a much nobler way to do it. When you say that "money should work and do something useful in the economy" what you're actually saying is that they should work "now". Hoarder's money will work just the same when he decides to spend them. Thus, what you have to discuss here is not hoarding, but rather "spending now" vs "spending later". Why do you think the former is superior to the latter?

by snitko 13y ago

kybernetikos 13y ago

There's a lot that can be said on this topic (I'm even tempted to make the argument that borrowing is indeed, in most cases, more noble than saving), but I just want to pick you up on one point. When you say 'save', it's not clear whether you're talking about hoarding (where the money is no longer doing anything useful in the economy) or investing (where the money is still part of the economy). Inflation doesn't punish those whose savings are invested, in fact it rewards them, it does however punish those whose savings are hoarded.

snitko 13y ago
I talk about hoarding and there's nothing wrong with that. If you want a new house or a new car, I think saving money until you have enough is a much nobler way to do it. When you say that "money should work and do something useful in the economy" what you're actually saying is that they should work "now". Hoarder's money will work just the same when he decides to spend them. Thus, what you have to discuss here is not hoarding, but rather "spending now" vs "spending later". Why do you think the former is superior to the latter?