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...
. The fed printing money created more liquidity, but that doesn’t directly create inflation which is the rise in prices of goods and service. That’s done by people who control pricing which are the business owners.
It absolutely affects inflation because there’s more money chasing the same number of goods/services.
If business owners don’t raise their prices at all, the real price of those goods would drop, because each dollar is worth less when you pump up the money supply.
It absolutely affects inflation because there’s more money chasing the same number of goods/services.
Since the money is going predominatly to the wealthy then there isn’t more money chasing goods and services. The average consumer is not benefiting from QE as you yourself pointed out.
If they do some big ego projects, the people they hire take that money and increase their own consumption.
If they park it in investments, some company takes the capital injection and increases their spending.
All that money chases labor, and labor can be reapportioned to meet different needs. A billionaire can buy a slightly bigger yacht with their share of the Fed printing. That bigger yacht needs a little more labor, and someone ends up building more cabinets for the interior rather than building housing for the poor.
The billionaire doesn’t blame themselves for inflation, and someone at the bottom can’t figure out why suddenly a full time job doesn’t pay for housing. But that Fed decision moved labor from benefiting the poor, to benefiting the 1%.
They don’t put it under their mattress, but the projects they invest into aren’t resulting into wealth being generated by the working class. When these people create a new business ventures, they still pay subsistence wages. So, you get more employment, but it’s low quality employment. Any actual wealth produced ends up going to the capital owning class.
So again, people who own capital are the ones who decide the prices and the wages. These are the people in control of what we call inflation.
Again, they have raised prices before. Inflation didn’t just start yesterday. I’m really not following the argument you’re trying to make here. You still haven’t actually explained the causal chain between the increase in money supply and inflation, nor have you provided any counter argument to my point which provides a clear and direct explanation of what’s happening.
Again, they have raised prices before. Inflation didn’t just start yesterday.
Rapid inflation did start at the same time the money supply was increased.
We always had inflation, but it’s false equivalence to act like the 1-2% from before is the same that we’ve seen over the past two years.
You still haven’t actually explained the causal chain between the increase in money supply and inflation
If there’s more money circulating, there’s more businesses can ask for.
Whoever has the extra cash that’s been created can spend more now, and businesses will charge more to those who can pay, rather than keep their old prices.
That’s ECON101, more money chasing the same supply of goods = prices increasing. After all, someone has more money now, and the point of having money is to get what you want.
So they spend the new cash, paying marked up rates because they can afford to now. Businesses realize they can ask for more, and now someone is willing to pay more than just a 2% increase, where before customers weren’t willing/able.
nor have you provided any counter argument to my point which provides a clear and direct explanation of what’s happening.
I asked you why inflation suddenly spiked, if businesses/capital always had this power. You made the false equivalence of the previous low inflation to the current high inflation.
If grocery bills were going up 2% a year for decades, and then suddenly start going up more than 10% a year, what happened?
Do you think they weren’t greedy before? Do you think it’s a coincidence this inflation happened the same time the Fed suddenly pumped trillions into the money supply?
Ah yes econ101, taking a complex and interconnected system that we don’t fully understand, boiling it down to its simplest and most incorrect model.
This is a global issue, the fed pumping money shouldn’t have had a big an effect. My best guess would be a mix of covid money from many countries going to the rich increasing the wealth gap, gas and oil companies hiking prices because of Russia even though a lot of them have no link to Russian oil or gas and causing a knock on effect. You’ve also got a number of bubbles around the world such as housing and car loans, these are definitely caused by greed.
Ah yes econ101, taking a complex and interconnected system that we don’t fully understand, boiling it down to its simplest and most incorrect model.
Your issue with economics is that it says the ratio of currency to goods affects prices?
If prices didn’t have to go up, then increasing the money ey supply would somehow magically increase wealth because you could just use the printed money to get more goods.
Obviously printing more money doesn’t make more goods pop into
existence, so something else has to happen. That other thing is called inflation.
If prices didn’t go up, there would be shortages because some people would be walking around with more to spend. Then next the businesses would find they controlled a smaller % of currency, reducing their own buying power as other increased their prices.
This is a global issue, the fed pumping money shouldn’t have had a big an effect.
The Fed is the sole controller of the US money supply, and the US is the largest economy and the USD is held as a reserve currency for global trade.
My best guess would be a mix of covid money from many countries going to the rich increasing the wealth gap, gas and oil companies hiking prices because of Russia even though a lot of them have no link to Russian oil or gas and causing a knock on effect. You’ve also got a number of bubbles around the world such as housing and car loans, these are definitely caused by greed.
Greedy that always existed, but was enabled through recent events.
I agree with the Russian oil supplies being embargoed allowing greedy energy companies to charge more, but that is just one factor.
Money has no inherent value, it’s value comes from being accepted and how rare it is.
A simple formula is, if you doubled the money supply, each dollar would have half the spending power it did before.
Since money is just a paper that says you get to trade it for other things, the more circulating the higher prices will be.
Rapid inflation did start at the same time the money supply was increased.
There was a brief period when people got direct cash during the pandemic which businesses used as an excuse to hike up prices. However, once again, it was the choice of the business owners to raise the prices.
If there’s more money circulating, there’s more businesses can ask for.
Only if that money goes to the working people who can in turn spend it. If the money stays at the top then it does not result in increased spending power. Most of the money that was created did not end up in the hands of the people who are spending it day to day. Bulk of the money went to the oligarchs, you get that right?
Do you think they weren’t greedy before? Do you think it’s a coincidence this inflation happened the same time the Fed suddenly pumped trillions into the money supply?
I think they saw an opportunity to jack up prices. In fact, we see this happen any time there’s a disaster, no money printing is needed here. There’s even a term for this: disaster capitalism.
There was a brief period when people got direct cash during the pandemic which businesses used as an excuse to hike up prices. However, once again, it was the choice of the business owners to raise the prices.
The cash regular people got was a fraction given to the capital class through Fed stimulus and PPP.
All three of these together means there’s more money flowing. If businesses didn’t increase their nominal prices, they’d in effect be lowering the real prices because the old price is suddenly a much smaller share of the total currency.
Even if all businesses tried this, there would be supply shortages because the amount of spending power would be more than the goods being sold.
Only if that money goes to the working people who can in turn spend it.
No because the inputs for what regular people need (like labor, land, or raw materials) are also something the wealthy want. They’d like people to use these resources for their own use.
If the inputs are all going to the rich, the working class has to spend more to bid for these now.
Someone building affordable housing might follow the money and switch to building yacht interiors because the rich have more to spend now.
The worker has to pay more to get them to come back to working for the regular person.
Bulk of the money went to the oligarchs, you get that right?
When an oligarch can hire more people, and hoards raw materials, where do you think that comes from?
Everything extra they can buy now comes at the expense of the workers.
Workers get outbid for the labor of others, or land, because an oligarch is buying more.
I think they saw an opportunity to jack up prices.
And that opportunity was an increase to the amount of money circulating.
It absolutely affects inflation because there’s more money chasing the same number of goods/services.
If business owners don’t raise their prices at all, the real price of those goods would drop, because each dollar is worth less when you pump up the money supply.
Since the money is going predominatly to the wealthy then there isn’t more money chasing goods and services. The average consumer is not benefiting from QE as you yourself pointed out.
Business owners are raising prices in way that’s increasing their profits, they’re not doing it to keep up their rate of profit steady. https://thehill.com/business/3756457-corporate-profits-hit-record-high-in-third-quarter-amid-40-year-high-inflation/
The wealthy don’t just put it under the mattress.
If they do some big ego projects, the people they hire take that money and increase their own consumption.
If they park it in investments, some company takes the capital injection and increases their spending.
All that money chases labor, and labor can be reapportioned to meet different needs. A billionaire can buy a slightly bigger yacht with their share of the Fed printing. That bigger yacht needs a little more labor, and someone ends up building more cabinets for the interior rather than building housing for the poor.
The billionaire doesn’t blame themselves for inflation, and someone at the bottom can’t figure out why suddenly a full time job doesn’t pay for housing. But that Fed decision moved labor from benefiting the poor, to benefiting the 1%.
They don’t put it under their mattress, but the projects they invest into aren’t resulting into wealth being generated by the working class. When these people create a new business ventures, they still pay subsistence wages. So, you get more employment, but it’s low quality employment. Any actual wealth produced ends up going to the capital owning class.
So again, people who own capital are the ones who decide the prices and the wages. These are the people in control of what we call inflation.
Irrelevant, because I never claimed it did. I only said that money ends up competing for labor and other resources.
If they could just raise prices, they would have done it before. So why didn’t they?
Because what actually changed was an increase to the money supply.
Again, they have raised prices before. Inflation didn’t just start yesterday. I’m really not following the argument you’re trying to make here. You still haven’t actually explained the causal chain between the increase in money supply and inflation, nor have you provided any counter argument to my point which provides a clear and direct explanation of what’s happening.
Rapid inflation did start at the same time the money supply was increased.
We always had inflation, but it’s false equivalence to act like the 1-2% from before is the same that we’ve seen over the past two years.
If there’s more money circulating, there’s more businesses can ask for.
Whoever has the extra cash that’s been created can spend more now, and businesses will charge more to those who can pay, rather than keep their old prices.
That’s ECON101, more money chasing the same supply of goods = prices increasing. After all, someone has more money now, and the point of having money is to get what you want.
So they spend the new cash, paying marked up rates because they can afford to now. Businesses realize they can ask for more, and now someone is willing to pay more than just a 2% increase, where before customers weren’t willing/able.
I asked you why inflation suddenly spiked, if businesses/capital always had this power. You made the false equivalence of the previous low inflation to the current high inflation.
If grocery bills were going up 2% a year for decades, and then suddenly start going up more than 10% a year, what happened?
Do you think they weren’t greedy before? Do you think it’s a coincidence this inflation happened the same time the Fed suddenly pumped trillions into the money supply?
Ah yes econ101, taking a complex and interconnected system that we don’t fully understand, boiling it down to its simplest and most incorrect model.
This is a global issue, the fed pumping money shouldn’t have had a big an effect. My best guess would be a mix of covid money from many countries going to the rich increasing the wealth gap, gas and oil companies hiking prices because of Russia even though a lot of them have no link to Russian oil or gas and causing a knock on effect. You’ve also got a number of bubbles around the world such as housing and car loans, these are definitely caused by greed.
Your issue with economics is that it says the ratio of currency to goods affects prices?
If prices didn’t have to go up, then increasing the money ey supply would somehow magically increase wealth because you could just use the printed money to get more goods.
Obviously printing more money doesn’t make more goods pop into
existence, so something else has to happen. That other thing is called inflation.
If prices didn’t go up, there would be shortages because some people would be walking around with more to spend. Then next the businesses would find they controlled a smaller % of currency, reducing their own buying power as other increased their prices.
The Fed is the sole controller of the US money supply, and the US is the largest economy and the USD is held as a reserve currency for global trade.
Greedy that always existed, but was enabled through recent events.
I agree with the Russian oil supplies being embargoed allowing greedy energy companies to charge more, but that is just one factor.
Money has no inherent value, it’s value comes from being accepted and how rare it is.
A simple formula is, if you doubled the money supply, each dollar would have half the spending power it did before.
Since money is just a paper that says you get to trade it for other things, the more circulating the higher prices will be.
There was a brief period when people got direct cash during the pandemic which businesses used as an excuse to hike up prices. However, once again, it was the choice of the business owners to raise the prices.
Only if that money goes to the working people who can in turn spend it. If the money stays at the top then it does not result in increased spending power. Most of the money that was created did not end up in the hands of the people who are spending it day to day. Bulk of the money went to the oligarchs, you get that right?
I think they saw an opportunity to jack up prices. In fact, we see this happen any time there’s a disaster, no money printing is needed here. There’s even a term for this: disaster capitalism.
The cash regular people got was a fraction given to the capital class through Fed stimulus and PPP.
All three of these together means there’s more money flowing. If businesses didn’t increase their nominal prices, they’d in effect be lowering the real prices because the old price is suddenly a much smaller share of the total currency.
Even if all businesses tried this, there would be supply shortages because the amount of spending power would be more than the goods being sold.
No because the inputs for what regular people need (like labor, land, or raw materials) are also something the wealthy want. They’d like people to use these resources for their own use.
If the inputs are all going to the rich, the working class has to spend more to bid for these now.
Someone building affordable housing might follow the money and switch to building yacht interiors because the rich have more to spend now.
The worker has to pay more to get them to come back to working for the regular person.
When an oligarch can hire more people, and hoards raw materials, where do you think that comes from?
Everything extra they can buy now comes at the expense of the workers.
Workers get outbid for the labor of others, or land, because an oligarch is buying more.
And that opportunity was an increase to the amount of money circulating.