A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
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.
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..)
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.
"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.
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.
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.
If we are so extremely focused on making sure money gets used, could we first deal with the people hoarding most of it?
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.
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?
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.
Until your company, your salary and your job start deflating too.
The obsession with companies needing to post increasing profits every single year is frankly baffling. Let's say a company makes X amount in profits in 2024, and everyone—employees, shareholders, stakeholders—are happy and well-compensated. Why should the expectation be that profits must increase in 2025, even if the company is already performing well? The only explanation that comes to mind is greed. It seems like the focus is less on long-term sustainability or fairness and more about feeding the insatiable hunger of CEOs and executives who just want more—more profits, more bonuses, more power. It’s as if they’re modern-day dragons, hoarding wealth for the sake of hoarding, rather than for the health of the business or the people within it.
You can have inflation and lower profits, no issue there. The unit of account shifting in value has some, but ultimately little, impact on how much of the value-add companies keep for themselves, or how much their business expands or contracts. The same percentage of a less valuable unit of account is a larger number, but still the same percentage.
People like when if their rent is suddenly a lower percentage of their wages, they don't really care about the absolute numbers.
Unfair redistribution is an issue, but it's a bit orthogonal from deflation issues. I think people expect to get opportunities, promotions, new jobs, raising salary etc. this works better with a little inflation.
So long as the increases in salary outweigh the increases in inflation, sure. But that will never happen. The entire system is flawed. Debt will grow and grow and those holding the debt will pull the puppet strings and make those below them dance (and suffer).
Companies need to ditch their boards. They need to delist from the stock market. They need to be 100% employee owned. Profits need to be set at a specific percentage of COGS.
…but greed, greed never changes.
That's a factor, yes, but deflation can easily make a company unprofitable.
If a company isn't profitable, during a delfationary period, we really need to examine whether or not that business should even exist in the first place, since it apparently is only sustainable if there is an unsustainable economic model supporting it...
Let's say a company makes X amount in profits in 2024, and everyone—employees, shareholders, stakeholders—are happy and well-compensated. Why should the expectation be that profits must increase in 2025, even if the company is already performing well?
Many of the products and services that businesses depend on will or might raise in price. This is by design; most central banks target a low inflation rate, often around 2%. Without an increase in profits, raising prices on inputs will eat away at a business' profit margin.
It's how the financial system works. Money is created out of loans that need to be paid back with interest, and the money for that interest comes out of other loans made by other people. It creates an ever increasing mountain of debt, and it pushes businesses to keep growing to stay ahead of their interest payments. The ones that don't are bought up by the ones that do. Naturally the most greedy and sociopathic float to the top in this system.
And so you get the eternal search for more things to exploit to keep growing and more profit. These things are baked in at a fundamental level.
That would mean I need to work fewer hours, to buy the same things?
If so, how is that bad?
Usually when a company has less work over a prolonged period, it's not just going to reduce worked hours, it's going to reduce the number of workers.
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.
I think the usual issue with deflation that people will wait for prices to keep going down and therefore keep buying less which feeds the deflation.
It's one of those vicious cycles - it's really hard to stop once it starts.
Also, bear in mind that China's recent economic growth has been mainly internal consumer driven (external infrastructure investments have slowed down noticeably as belts are tightened) so while they aren't as fucked as America would be they could see a dramatic rapid decline.
People buying less, ie being more risk averse, and not wanting to take on debt, is a net benefit for everyone. Buying less means less ecological impact. Being more debt averse means fewer wage slaves.
The only people who suffer from "buying less" are corporate owners.
Definitely agree on the ecological advantage, but the current economical system that provides most of the jobs of people here would deflate, people would lose jobs. Less human activity will always be better for ecology, but there's probably some activity we want to keep to make our lifes good.
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).
Jesus Christ.
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