But let’s focus on the choice of a 2% target. After the high inflation of the late 1970s and early 1980s, when it reached over 20% in the UK, central banks were left scrambling to find some new theoretical model to deal with rising prices. The first central bank to propose an inflation target of 2% was in New Zealand. But where did they get it from? Apparently, from thin air.

Recently, I came across this one story that suggested the choice of 2% was the result of an off the cuff remark by then New Zealand finance minister, during a TV interview, who told reporters he would be happy with an inflation between 0% and 1%. This led the governor of the central bank at the time, Don Brash, to factor in an inflation bias of roughly 1% to arrive at the magical number of 2%. Michael Reddell, a colleague of Brash’s at the time at the Reserve Bank, admitted: “It wasn’t ruthlessly scientific.” Brash himself admitted as much: “It was almost a chance remark. The figure was plucked out of the air to influence the public’s expectations.”

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Agreed.

      I read a quote some time ago that made a whole lot of sense to me …

      If you want to change what Economics does, you have to change what economists are taught.

      • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        The creditors do fine, unless inflation outpaces interest. It mostly hurts those on fixed incomes (non-investors).

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          That’s an argument to peg social security to inflation, not to get rid of inflation.

            • PugJesus@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Yes, absolutely. The number of reasons why inflation is good for the general economy is… rather vast.

              • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                10 months ago

                Only because our economic system is underpinned by consumption and “always more”. A more sustainable form of capitalism needs to be imagined, imo

                • PugJesus@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  It’s not just a question of growth. It’s also a question of wealth inequality and the accumulation of liquid capital, of the velocity of money, avoiding liquidity traps, etc etc etc etc.

                  • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Which is all, unsurprisingly, based on unfettered and unlimited capitalism.