Exactly, when you say "de-abstract money back to what it really is: food" you are really just saying "wealth"... so yes, when you stop viewing the number of dollars you are having as meaningful and instead look at how much **wealth** you have then slow healthy inflation is good
No it doesnt.. your employer pays you the same wealth as inflation happens... Thus the amount of food people can buy as inflation happens remains stable (assuming there are no other effects at play).
Price of food goes up but as I showed the average hourly wage of the population also goes up by an equal amount. So you can buy the same amount of food post-inflation.
> if i put 100$ in a crate and come back in 2 years, i get less apples than in the timeline i didn't wait two years.
1) No responsible person puts a large amount of wealth in a crate for 2 years, first thing anyone who learns money management learns is you do not keep any more than a small emergency fund as cash, the rest should be in investments, at a minimum a mutual fund.
2) We dont **want** people keeping money in crates for long periods of time. That is devastating to the economy as it causes economies to go stagnant as no one is using money to advance knowledge or build newer, better, and cheaper things.
3) Money is **not** and never was intended to be a long-term store of wealth, it is intended to be a short-term store of wealth.
Therefore inflation is good on the above counts, it discourages people hoarding large piles of cash, ensuring a healthy economy, and ensuring everyone benefits from the growing economy.
> Your story is the standard Keynes / Krugman interpretation, but it is by no means uncontested.
Keynes is a very common interpritation, so you will hear them say a lot of things that are common to other models.. Those models still have nothing to do with whats being discussed.
No it doesnt assume all stocks are net interest.. any investment will do doesnt have to be stocks really.
Who said anything about sneaky monetary monkeyings. Inflation can occur completely naturally, no monkeying needed, no printing of money needed. It happens naturally when the wealth of a country increses and its monetary supply stays fixed as well. Printing money can accelerate it of course, but not needed.
@freemo @icedquinn @melovida @clacke ??except that your premise is based on aggregate ‘investment’ in a C + G + I + NX formula. It ignores the role of entrepreneurship or risk in the investment process, it just assumes all dollars put in the stock market are a net positive to the economy. There’s a bit of a conflict of interest in the people who stand to gain the 2% of gdp pushing this story despite the many counter factual episodes in history.