This is a nice takedown of a New York Times article by an economist who argued that inflation doesn't matter. I particularly enjoyed this take on savings:
Savers Are Suckers Second, you know what’s not affected by the tendency of prices and wages to go up under inflation? Savings. Your money in the bank was not somehow adjusted further up by virtue of inflation. So Professor Wolfers’ entire analysis is blown up as a result: It simply does not pertain to any deferred consumption of the past.
Savings is the basis of investment and thus future prosperity, so inflationary regimes always punish those who are frugal and reward those who live for today and save nothing. Indeed it is deeply punishing toward long-term thinking in general.
Of course the "economist" fails to mention that even if it were true that wages keep up with inflation and that the cpi is an actual reflection of the rate of inflation, desirable goods that people needs such as housing, food, energy, education, healthcare and that make up the majority of most people's budgets, go up more than the CPI.
It's not like there is a law of physics that says the price of all goods must precisely reflect the stated CPI.
reply
I don't understand the mindset. These economists seem to believe that inflation is necessary for economic growth. Savers get punished. I'm reminded of George W Bush after 9/11. It became US citizen's patriotic duty to buy stuff:
reply
People also believed the sun revolved around the earth until someone showed them they were wrong and the next generation didn't buy it anymore. Ok, some people do still believe that but they are rare these days.
But as Upton Sinclair said "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Maybe I should use that quote for the next edition of discuss this quote.
reply
I love that quote. It's applicable in so many situations.
reply
Great quote, and always applicable! I vote yes.
reply
At some point the gaslighting can't hide that an hours work nets you less and less, and the savings you had nets you less and less, you don't even need to be literate to understand that, you have to be pretty insolated/earn a pretty high income to not feel that and perhaps these economists are in that minority
For sure cash savers are taking the pain and it in a way it pays to be in debt instead and servicing it with your future income instead, but how many people can sustain something like that? Not many, most of us are taught to save some for a rainy day and you rainy day fund however big or small gets pillaged
Lol when I see takes like this it always reminds me of the saying the plumbers taps are always the one that leaks. I guess the new saying should be the economists theories are always the ones that don't reflect economic reality
One thing I am thinking about from this is If wages kept up with inflation I don't think it really makes inflation less impactful, would it result in more people saving or more people spending? We simply don't know
reply
This reminds me of the education system in america. They are barely teaching math now to students. Who remembers balancing a checkbook anymore?
reply
Exactly. That's why I hold 0 balance in my bank account. I still have bank accounts because I have some business to deal with and that I can't escape them.
Saving fiat money is absolutely unnecessary and a foolish act IMO. People must try to learn how to make their money regenerative and reproductive. Without reproduction, it will be of no use. Also, if that's not naturally (like printing them) done, I believe it will be extinct and powerless one day.
reply
Wolfers has lost his mind the last 15 years.
He wrote an article defending Seattle for passing instead of running the ball with beast mode at the end of Super Bowl 49
reply
For those that tire of fiat ruining stuff. Here's your time pref
Indeed it is deeply punishing toward long-term thinking in general.
reply