It has long been a rule of thumb to have $1 million saved for a comfortable retirement; but, thanks to inflation, the youngest generation of workers likely will need three times as much. According to...
I feel like we’re just going in circles here. Unless workers get higher wages, their capacity to pay rent does not change.
If housing supply contracts because the increase in the money supply is used by the rich to purchase real estate, then it does raise the market price for the remaining apartments.
So people sacrifice a luxury if they have one, or they add roommates, or get less picky about amenities.
And that doesn’t change the situation for the workers in any way because their wages are not rising.
We’ve been over this so many times. The workers don’t need to have money, for money to get spent in the economy.
One billionare could have an outsized impact on new cash in the system as they take their new money and reallocate land, labor, and raw materials from projects benefiting the masses to projects benefiting them.
What this looks like for the worker is shortages and higher prices. Land owners and employees want to rent to and work for the people who actually have some cash to spend. If you want to keep getting a good or service you now need to offer more money- that’s inflation.
Currency does not represent wealth
That’s literally the entire point. It’s a store of value. Not the paper itself, but what you expect to trade it for.
When currency starts depreciating in value then people who own significant portion of financial wealth simply transfer it into physical assets or move it to other currencies. All this has little to do with internal inflation mechanics of the country.
Currency depreciating has little to do with inflation mechanics? 🤔
When all those people transfer their liquid cash into hard assets, it bids the price up. If they are doing it because the currency has been depreciating, and this trigger many people to bid up prices (more dollars necessary, i.e. depreciation/inflation) then you are talking about runaway inflation.
Capitalists spending more on land/labor/raw materials does not translate into increased wages or increased spending power of the workers. Let me know if you need me to clarify that further for you.
I never said it had to result in higher wages, as long as someone (the billionaire) is spending money then prices will begin to climb.
If you don’t have the wages to buy it, it can still go up. Simply because you need more money to attract inputs to producing anything at all.
How many people agree with an idea says nothing about the merit of the idea. Plenty of western economists agree that neoliberal economics work and that you can do QE indefinitely.
Except this is accepted among all schools. Even modern monetary theorists say you need taxation of equal proportion to offset increases in the money supply.
Do any published Marxists even claim you can increase the money supply without inflation? I haven’t heard of them.
Once again, prices go up as a result of people who own businesses choosing to raise them. It’s incredible that you continue to refuse to acknowledge this simple fact
Once again, if it were that simple why didn’t they do it before the money supply was inflated?
Businesses were greedy and tried it before, but there were limits to how much they could charge and still expect sales.
Pumping trillions in meant that it took more to compete against the new money, and that someone ended up with the money being spent and did the same things themselves.
You can’t have twice as much being spent, and expect each dollar to buy the same amount of stuff. For that to be possible, you’d need twice as much stuff. If prices are the same as before, and people start spending money, inventory would be cleared out.
You’re expecting a market to just act like nothing has happened when there’s suddenly
We really are going in circles here. However, one thing I will point out is that billionaires didn’t lack liquid assets to buy up things like housing before money printing started. What facilitated that was the fact that lots of people ended up becoming insolvent during the pandemic. Businesses went under, people weren’t able to afford their mortgages, and so on. This forced people to put their assets up on the market at which point the billionaires started buying them up.
For money printing to affect general spending, the money has to go to regular people. There was a brief period during the start of the pandemic when that happened, and that did end up heating up the economy briefly. That’s when a lot of the inflation happened because businesses realized they could now jack up prices since people had cash to spend.
If housing supply contracts because the increase in the money supply is used by the rich to purchase real estate, then it does raise the market price for the remaining apartments.
So people sacrifice a luxury if they have one, or they add roommates, or get less picky about amenities.
We’ve been over this so many times. The workers don’t need to have money, for money to get spent in the economy.
One billionare could have an outsized impact on new cash in the system as they take their new money and reallocate land, labor, and raw materials from projects benefiting the masses to projects benefiting them.
What this looks like for the worker is shortages and higher prices. Land owners and employees want to rent to and work for the people who actually have some cash to spend. If you want to keep getting a good or service you now need to offer more money- that’s inflation.
That’s literally the entire point. It’s a store of value. Not the paper itself, but what you expect to trade it for.
Currency depreciating has little to do with inflation mechanics? 🤔
When all those people transfer their liquid cash into hard assets, it bids the price up. If they are doing it because the currency has been depreciating, and this trigger many people to bid up prices (more dollars necessary, i.e. depreciation/inflation) then you are talking about runaway inflation.
I never said it had to result in higher wages, as long as someone (the billionaire) is spending money then prices will begin to climb.
If you don’t have the wages to buy it, it can still go up. Simply because you need more money to attract inputs to producing anything at all.
Except this is accepted among all schools. Even modern monetary theorists say you need taxation of equal proportion to offset increases in the money supply.
Do any published Marxists even claim you can increase the money supply without inflation? I haven’t heard of them.
Once again, if it were that simple why didn’t they do it before the money supply was inflated?
Businesses were greedy and tried it before, but there were limits to how much they could charge and still expect sales.
Pumping trillions in meant that it took more to compete against the new money, and that someone ended up with the money being spent and did the same things themselves.
You can’t have twice as much being spent, and expect each dollar to buy the same amount of stuff. For that to be possible, you’d need twice as much stuff. If prices are the same as before, and people start spending money, inventory would be cleared out.
You’re expecting a market to just act like nothing has happened when there’s suddenly
We really are going in circles here. However, one thing I will point out is that billionaires didn’t lack liquid assets to buy up things like housing before money printing started. What facilitated that was the fact that lots of people ended up becoming insolvent during the pandemic. Businesses went under, people weren’t able to afford their mortgages, and so on. This forced people to put their assets up on the market at which point the billionaires started buying them up.
For money printing to affect general spending, the money has to go to regular people. There was a brief period during the start of the pandemic when that happened, and that did end up heating up the economy briefly. That’s when a lot of the inflation happened because businesses realized they could now jack up prices since people had cash to spend.