Comments by "" (@downshift4503) on "The days when managing the economy is all about inflation should be over" video.

@foxmoongaze Well, people earn a lot more than they did 50 years ago. Who in their right mind would have cash stored for 50 years?
4
@foxmoongaze It's simply a limitation of the technology itself. Ignoring credit creation, government money can be added into the system (according to government policy) and it could be approximated where its ending up and causing distortions, but its difficult to get it back out as people don't like taxation. The blunt instrument is interest rates that I would argue don't really control inflation, but do hurt one particular group to the benefit of a different group. I would also argue that risk free rates should be zero in real terms. Money shouldn't be expected to appreciate by doing nothing. A system could be innovated that instead enabled a more active approach targeting the money that causes the inflation. That'll be unpopular though as asset holders just love bubbles. Social breakdown is more likely to be a catalyst for change.
1
@foxmoongaze Depends on definitions. More money doesn't mean more inflation. If the economy grows then prices don't necessarily change regardless of adding money.
1
@foxmoongaze I don't think most problems would disappear. Money has a tendency to drift towards wealth and asset markets which is all very well if you are in that group. I suspect left unchecked the distribution tends to pareto levels (in the order of 1% own 50% assets, 50% own 1% assets). That leads to social breakdown unless the money can be extracted and new spending targeted, dampening the effect. The current system doesn't do that well.
1
@foxmoongaze "but the money supply has always grown far more than the economy/production has, which is why we have constant inflation" I'm not sure over long periods that is a problem, though it clearly is over short periods. For example, if a tin of tomatoes costs 30p today but £30 in fifty years, does it really matter if all other prices have moved with it? (including wages).
1
@foxmoongaze "Government spending should not be included as growth, as it's a cost until any consequential real growth feeds back into the economy." Does that account for the government being the biggest customer for many industries? People don't weapons for example (at least in the UK), governments do. Does that mean the "defence" industry shouldn't be counted as being productive?
1
Not beyond their control. They have the power to employ the people who want to work.
1
@andyinsuffolk If people want to work and the private sector won't employ them, then that is resource being unused - and people can get stuck in unemployment. There is always work in community service that doesn't get performed. I pretty much agree that unemployment is created by rulers (or authorities in general) because you need to get the money to pay the tax and for most that means a job. The system imposes liabilities on individuals and therefore needs to provide a solution to meet them. People overall do pay the bill, but they also enjoy the benefits as well as suffer the downside.
1
People imagine money to be a commodity that should grow at zero risk by simply doing nothing. Consumer price inflation is unpopular because everyone experiences it. Asset price inflation is very popular for those who own the assets. The current approach is likely to keep going for a while yet until inequality reaches such a point that the system breaks down.
1
I think its the other way around, that inflation is a signal the economy isn't working according to expectations which in itself is the cause of misery.
1
@ChuckY229 That's over simplistic. You would likely have inflation due to supply chains being impacted, not to say that injecting huge amounts of money into the private sector wouldn't cause further distortions. It's been a global problem. If that £400 billion is the cause of inflation, then identify where the surplus money is more likely to be, and tax it out.
1