While consumers can benefit from falling prices, persistent deflation can also lead to a downward spiral for spending and investment.
This seems like an absolute win.
Isn’t it great that we also have people who do know about economics?
“The people are tired of experts” stupidity apparently knows no political borders.
You can find an “expert economist” to paint you any picture you like. I mean, hell, we still have people in the US thinking trickle down economics is a rule that works. To the point it’s even flooded into the housing market, where people still believe that building luxury housing with tax dollars is a way to create cheap housing.
Okay, but the only economists who believe in trickle-down bullshite are Austrian School clowns who aren’t taken seriously by the discipline as a whole. Even the extremely pro-free-market Chicago School thinks it’s bunk. It would be like pointing to the 2% or so of climate scientist denialists as proof that there’s serious dissent as to the nature or seriousness of climate change inside of the discipline, when, in reality, there isn’t. It’s just politically convenient to pretend so.
Okay, but the only economists who believe in trickle-down bullshite are Austrian School clowns who aren’t taken seriously by the discipline as a whole
Well, they are taken seriously by… Every politician.
It would be like pointing to the 2% or so of climate scientist denialists as proof that there’s serious dissent as to the nature or seriousness of climate change inside of the discipline, when, in reality, there isn’t. It’s just politically convenient to pretend so.
May I remind you who drives economic policy? Checks notes… Politicians.
I mean, I’m not trying to say that morons and swindlers don’t have influence over the real world, I’m just saying that legitimate experts are generally trustworthy with regards to their field of expertise - if not necessarily in presenting the correct view, in at least presenting a supported view, and trickle-down is anything but. A fucking zombie theory only given life by horrific amounts of dark money, that makes everyone in economics academia retch when it enters the room.
Legitimate economic experts are still using the assumption that the world has infinite resources to be exploited, and therefore, we should have infinite growth…
So, color me skeptical on whatever the “economic experts” state. Because they also state privatization and commodification of social interactions is “Good actually”… Those same experts have “gifted” us enshittification.
Not all experts are equal. Climate science is a hard science with decades of data and evidence backing it up. Economics is a soft science with policy recommendations based on politics, running a feedback loop where the rich boost policies that benefit themselves.
I’m glad this got press.
Such slowdowns tend to be good for the average person.
They’re bad for speculators, investors, shareholders – mostly rich people who are too moneyblind to see that endless growth is untenable. To those people, I say: fuck you.
Your thinking of disinflation, not deflation…
Ask the average person how great the Great Depression really was to live through.
Deflation was a symptom, not the cause, of the great depression.
Up until the 20th century it wasn’t uncommon to have cycles of inflation and deflation.
https://iamkate.com/data/uk-inflation/
The reason deflation is so highly feared is because it increases the value of debt. In particular, government debt. China owns large parts of the debt of the US. Deflation makes them stronger.
Not exactly. Deflation basically slows down the economy. If you think your money will worth more tomorrow, then you are less likely to invest/spend them.
But the whole purpose of money is to be used. Money is a tool, the oil that facilitates trade and keeps the economy going. And while too much money(oil) can overheat the economy(inflation), too little money can straight up bring the economy to a halt(deflation).
Deflation, even in small amounts, is more dangerous, thats why ideally you prefer having a small amount of inflation.
If you think your money will worth more tomorrow, then you are less likely to invest/spend them.
I see this argument being thrown around a lot. How does it work when a fair share of people are not doing investment at all, and are unable to spend the bare minimum to live, to begin with?
I ask this because the argument of “people will spend less” only works with people that spend extra money on unnecessary things, which is becoming less and less of a thing.
Because no matter what proportion of the population they are, many many businesses are kept afloat by discretionary spending. Be that TVs, laptops, clothing, grooming, beauty products, heath+fitness, cars, holidays, tourism, travel, even house moves.
These are all things that can be ‘put off a little while’ if there’s serious prospect of your money going further. Which, as OP says, slows the economy and makes deflation worse… The thing that suffers in the meantime is cash flow in these businesses (and dependent businesses) and an extended period of slow trade with no prospect of it ending would see many of them go to the wall. See: covid. Had governments not acted it would have naturally led to deflation. That’s not the reason they acted though, they pumped money into the economy because long before deflation/inflation would have been a worry bankruptcy would have cut deep into thousands of regular ‘good’ businesses. (So they over inflated and then we had globally crap price inflation but still the risk of an economy wide shut down was that bad…)
Technology is inherently deflationary in that superior versions come out for the same or even less money all the time yet people still regularly buy TVs, phones, laptops, etc.
True, they’re poor examples. But discretionary spending, on the whole, is not on depreciating items.
Humans are not rational actors. We never have been and we never will be. There are different gradations of “necessary”.
“The economy” in this instance being a playground for the rich.
People won’t stop paying for food or rent just because their money might be worth a little more tomorrow. They won’t skip buying minor entertainments just because maybe their meager salaries might be worth a little more next week.
Deflation is poison for the owner class, not the working class.
“The economy” in this instance being a playground for the rich.
People won’t stop paying for food or rent just because their money might be worth a little more tomorrow.
Indeed, people won’t stop paying for everyday necessities, but the economy consists of more than just individual people: there’s the state and there are businesses too. You conflate the latter with “the rich”, which is generally true for corporations, but corporations are not the only form of business; there are cooperatives, partnerships, and others which can distribute profits more fairly. In any case, deflation affects all businesses, including fair ones, and the state itself. As another commentator suggested, money is meant to change hands and should never become an asset worth holding.
money is meant to change hands and should never become an asset worth holding.
Forgive my admitted ignorance. If money should never become an asset worth holding, how can inflation be better than deflation for the working class?
Proportionately, the rich hold a lot more money assets than the poor, who generally don’t hold any or very little.
If you have debt, inflation eats away at that debt. If you’re paying 5% per year on that debt, but inflation goes up 3%, you’re actually only paying 2% on that debt. That’s good for people who have debt, and bad for the people who invested the initial money for that debt. With deflation, it’s the opposite.
This assumes your wages go up with inflation, though. Over the long term, that does tend to happen, but there are certainly periods where that is not true.
Over the long term, that does tend to happen
Not in the US. We haven’t seen a real pay increase since the early 1980s.
That became something of a meme post-2008 financial disaster, and it was true then. It’s not true anymore. That’s what I meant by it not being true in certain time periods. It depends on where you put the start and end dates.
As of now, median wages are significantly better off in real terms than any time in the 1980s: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
If money should never become an asset worth holding, how can inflation be better than deflation for the working class?
It’s deflation that turns money into an asset worth holding and thus slows down economies. Too much inflation isn’t good either, for different reasons. A slight and stable inflation is the sweet spot.
Proportionately, the rich hold a lot more money assets than the poor, who generally don’t hold any or very little.
Indeed, the rich do proportionately hold a lot more money than the poor, but it isn’t much. The rich mostly have shares in corporations, bonds and real estate.
Inflation is generally worse for workers than for the rich because the latter have more pricing power. If both your living expenses and your income after taxes increased by 20%, you’d even end up with more money than before, assuming your living expenses were a fraction of your income. Unfortunately, prices haven’t risen equally; the cost of living increase has generally outpaced real wage growth. The rich have been able to set higher prices; workers haven’t been able to extract high enough wage raises.
Neither high inflation nor deflation are good for workers. What workers need is pricing power through strong unions and political support.
A slight and stable inflation is the sweet spot.
Only if you enjoy living on debt.
My understanding is that a slight and stable increase in the money supply is beneficial regardless of the monetary system in use, because it incentivizes economic activity. That said, I’m only somewhat familiar with our current fractional-reserve banking system and don’t know enough about other systems, historical or hypothetical, to present my understanding as fact.
That just shows how broken the system is, though, doesn’t it? It’s geared towards benefitting the haves over the have-nots. Yes, it probably hurts the people further down the line from the shareholders and board members… but mostly because they can’t countenance not having their numbers going up. So they pass along losses to the people who can tolerate the least.
I’m sure you’re just approaching this from a sterilized, clinical approach “that’s just the way things are”… but it’s not particularly beneficial to people to consider things exclusively that way.
I think we both agree that capitalist logic is inherently extractive, exploitative and generally unhealthy. What I’ve been trying to point out is that we should not cherish deflationary tendencies in China or seek deflation in our own economies as a solution of sorts to the cost of living crisis, but rather pursue the power to increase our wages to at least match our ever rising productivity. In my opinion, unionizing –hard as it is– is more feasible than changing our monetary system –necessary and desirable as that would be– or overcoming capitalism.
You conflate the latter with “the rich”, which is generally true for corporations, but corporations are not the only form of business; there are cooperatives, partnerships, and others which can distribute profits more fairly.
And if those other types of business don’t place “Profit maximization” as their primary focus, then a deflationary period wouldn’t be bad for them, either.
Again, it’s only bad for people with debt. And the more debt you have, the worse delfation is for you.
Debt, is really only “good” if you are a corporation. Because debt lets you spend a load of money that ain’t yours, and getting the working class deep into debt is a good way to ensure you have a decent slave labor force.
They won’t skip buying minor entertainments just because maybe their meager salaries might be worth a little more next week.
Have you never seen somebody wait for a sale to make purchases? Or cut coupons? “The poor” frequently put off purchases to save some money.
Removed by mod
Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. Do you think the lower class only spends money on food, rent and gas? Some may but there are a lot of “non rich” people who buy nonessentials.
Removed by mod
That’s a completely indefensible statement and you know it.
Not because of deflation, but because they’re looking for “The deal”. More akin to the dopamine inducing tricks many microtransaction games use these days.
Not because of deflation
Because there is no deflation… Unless you’re living in China?
deleted by creator
Shower thought. Economists by nature are professional dick riders to anyone with hoards of cash be they individuals or governments.
Deflation, even in small amounts, is more dangerous, thats why ideally you prefer having a small amount of inflation.
This is only accurate if you measure economic success by “Corporate profits”.
Deflationationary phases are very helpful for the working class, as their dollar now buys MORE things. Like food. And housing. And health care.
Deflationary periods may be helpful to those with large amounts of cash or cash equivalents, which generally isn’t the working class. Wage growth outpacing inflation helps the working class more.
Wage growth outpacing inflation helps the working class more.
Except, by design, that will not happen, not for longer than a few quarters or so.
Why do you think there is a push to get people back in the office?
Why do you think there is a push to get people back in the office?
Because the corporate realty market is a bubble, and companies have to find a way to justify big spends if they can’t get out of a lease, and plenty of corporate landlords can’t let people out of their leases because then their buildings would be underwater and likely forclosed?
Deflationationary phases are very helpful for the working class, as their dollar now buys MORE things. Like food. And housing. And health care.
What kind of braindead take is that? The working class? The same working class that majorly lives paycheck to paycheck and can’t even afford an unexpected $500 expense?
What dollars do you think they are going to have in a deflationary economy after they get laid off?
You know in what form those paychecks generally come in? Cash, so their paycheck is now literally worth more without wage increases (which aren’t horribly stable for those generally loving paycheck to paycheck).
If they still have a paycheck, sure. But historically, deflation leads to unemployment.
Yes. That is caused by corporate greed. Not deflation.
You’ve got that backwards. People get laid off, can’t buy things, then prices go down because demand is lower.
It’s not just consumer spending that influences inflation,/deflation but also institutional spending. The consumer price index is a lagging indicator. Decreases in institutional spending precede unemployment and the eventual reduced demand for consumer goods and services. And increases in the fed rate (and/or other forces which cause the cost of borrowing money for institutions/investors to rise) generally precede that.
The working class? The same working class that majorly lives paycheck to paycheck and can’t even afford an unexpected $500 expense?
Yes, that working class. You know the people whose pay has pretty much been frozen in time since the 80s, even though the cost of everything is always going up faster than the paycheck they get?
What dollars do you think they are going to have in a deflationary economy after they get laid off?
Depends. I mean, I’m not going to offer solutions to try to make an exploitive system friendlier to the wage slaves… I’d prefer not having wage slavery anymore.
But, perhaps, we need to guarantee everyone the right to the basic requirements of life? Then we don’t have to make sure billionaires get more billions, just so they can try to survive the hellscape we have created?
But, perhaps, we need to guarantee everyone the right to the basic requirements of life? Then we don’t have to make sure billionaires get more billions, just so they can try to survive the hellscape we have created?
Sure. But that is outside of the scope of your original take and in no way validates it.
Its not outside of the scope of “Demanding infinite growth isn’t sustainable”…
Yes, every time you move the goalposts, you change the scope.
But sure, I’ll bite, again.
What does infinite growth have to do with deflation? You don’t have to have one or the other. You can also just have stagnation, which is arguably more sustainable than the unemployment caused by deflation.
“Deflationationary phases are very helpful for the working class, as their dollar now buys MORE things. Like food. And housing. And health care.”
Shhh can’t be having that. Don’t worry, we beat inflation. Everything is just more expensive now. Deal with it.
Their dollar buy more until the company folds as the economy goes to shit.
Yes and no. If deflation is at 1% or 2% investing your money should have significantly higher returns. What it does is make people more risk adverse.
They’re not entirely wrong about it increasing the value of debt and that being undesirable to some governments, though. I agree with you as well.
I agree on the money thing. I view money like potential and kinetic energy and its only in use that it has real value and at rest it basically has potential value that will only be determined when used. It annoys me the government only does half of what keynes advized. The downturn activity and never do the good times activity.
China owns large parts of the debt of the US. Deflation makes them stronger.
I don’t follow you here. How does deflation in China make the debt of the US stronger? Am I understanding you wrong?
If the renminbi appreciated over time against the US dollar, dollar-denominated debt held by the People’s Republic would yield less and less, wouldn’t it?
- Inflation makes the purchasing power of a dollar smaller
- Deflation makes the purchasing power of a dollar larger
I owe you $100. Over time the value of that $100 debt goes down with price inflation. You charge me interest to make up for this fact and make some profit also.
If prices deflate the value of the $100 debt goes up, but you’re still going to charge me interest. When I pay you back, not only can you buy more with the $100 than I could when I borrowed it, you’ve charged me for the privilege.
Thank you for expanding on your point. What I did not and still do not understand is the following part of your original comment:
China owns large parts of the debt of the US. Deflation makes them stronger.
Deflation in China –that’s where deflation might occur or even be occuring– would not make the US Treasuries held by China more valuable, would it? Only deflation in the US, with the dollar appreciating, would have that effect, right?
The price of goods going down is not contained to one country. We have global markets. Deflation would be global.
The price of goods going down is not contained to one country. […] Deflation would be global.
That contradicts both present reality and future expectations as far as I understand both.
In the past two years, China has been grappling with deflationary tendencies at the same time that much of the world has been experiencing extraordinary inflation.
China’s current deflationary tendencies stem from a combination of relatively low domestic demand and an ongoing decrease in exports. This decrease in exports was mostly caused by US protectionism, which is set to expand in both rates and scope under Trump.
Looking forward, the divergence I aluded to –deflation in China, inflation elsewhere– seems poised to continue. Further protectionism and the looming tariff war –not only with China, but possibly with Canada, Mexico and others– are expected to both fuel inflation in the United States and further reduce imports of Chinese goods. That would strengthen deflationary tendencies in China unless the government pulls off a stimulus package for their domestic economy more effective than the ones deployed thus far.
I mean, it’s a fair question for a political leader to ask his economic advisors, no? Pretty sure Obama would have asked his advisors the same question back in 2009.
The issue, by the way, is a lot less settled than a lot of people think. Macroeconomics still seems to do a surprisingly bad job at understanding the links between inflation, interest rates, and economic activity, beyond giving some rough guidelines.
Obama would have been president for one year in 2009 and I still would hope he understood the problem with deflation.
Xi Jinping has been in power for over 12 years now.
Fears about persistent deflation in China are relatively recent. It’s come up now because of the live question of whether the government should engage in a big fiscal stimulus (the same debate the US went through in 2009).
Macroeconomics still seems to do a surprisingly bad job at understanding the links between
This is because Macroeconomics isn’t a science. Its gamblers attempting to create rules on “how to win at gambling” when everyone knows the only winner in gambling is the house.
What we need is degrowth and a transition away from capitalism.
Jesus Christ.
Deflation has a good chance of forcing a stop to endless consumerism - and that will at least be good for the climate. It will cause havoc to the current economic system though, and that in turn could make things worse for investments into green tech.
So … yeah.
I can tell you what. States like Japan and USA running budget deficit for decades managed to build 120-260% debt to GDP ratio. This will collapse the entire economies if currency starts deflating
Whinnie the pooh whinnie the pooh…
Hey China, your senile leader is loose again.
Better get him before genocides any Islamic subsets of the chinese population in order to staff sweatshop for temu and shein.
Man, this whole “one china” thing seems to be racially based bs designed to generate profit off the backs of the people. Weird.
Ok but actually think about it. What’s bad about deflation? Poor people’s money becomes more valuable? Deflationary periods are bad in the US because companies don’t take care of their employees and lay them off instead of having 1 qtr with low profits.
Because when prices are constantly going down, it’s always better to wait until prices have gone down even more before you make a purchase.
The result is that as deflation sets in, consumption also starts going down, which means profits and revenues go down, which means costs have to be cut, which ultimately leads to layoffs, and as more people become unemployed and have reduced income, what they are willing/able to pay for goods and services goes down.
And now you have a deflationary spiral. These spirals tend to be hard to avoid under deflation and can lead to very high levels of unemployment.
Ok but why do costs have to go down? God forbid the company posts a flat earnings report for the qtr. your problem of thinking is that you are giving companies the benefit of the doubt. In economic down turns they are slow to lower prices but will raise them at the drop of a hat. They are quick to lay them off in bad times but slow to hire in good times.
Corporate greed is why deflationary periods are so harsh.
Corporate greed is why deflationary periods are so harsh.
In what way does this disagree with the quote.
So do you do 4k as well or just hd projection?
Removed by mod
