European Tribune

Display:
But inflation hurts the the workers as well as the lenders, unless wages are inflation-indexed. And the harm done to the worker class seems more severe than the harm done to the lender class. So why is inflation bad for the lender class? It isn't like inflation directly affects the amount of stuff available in society - just the distribution of said stuff. And that's a zero-sum game. So if both the lender class and the borrower class lose, who gain?

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 01:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is no lender and borrower 'class'. RE owners profit from inflation.
And inflation hurts the lenders only shortly. You can redistribute once. But in the next round of lending the lenders will ask for higher interest with higher real interest rates. There is a reason why some people are worried about the current Fed policy, despite the US has more dollar denominated debt than credit. The long term interest may shoot up badly or hyperinflation may follow, with prices for some products of inf - not sellable for dollars. Depending if the printing press will be used or not.
Of course you can make every now and then a currency reform, but then you'll get a massive capital flight problem.

Gemach, gemach
by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 02:06:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Martin:
There is no lender and borrower 'class'.

Quite so. If there were only "lenders" and "borrowers" there would be no new money.

Banks create credit and lend it as new money into circulation, and it is simultaneously redeposited.

Some of this new credit is used to create new productive assets, which is fine - without this there can be no development.

Unfortunately a very large amount of it is used to purchase productive assets once they have been developed. This is where asset price inflation and "bubbles" come from.

Credit has no "cost" when created, and through the cycle its cost comprises operating costs, default costs and bank profits.

Productive Capital (ie property in assets with a value in use) also has a "cost" or market price and this has come down from 25% pa in Babylonian times, through 10% pa in medieval times to 5% before the Industrial Revolution.

"Financial Capital" (ie Debt and Equity) then kicked in and funded the Industrial Revolution and everything since. The result is that the world is now awash in productive capital to the extent that the "Cost" is probably now less than 1% pa.

Interest rates are purely arbitrary and bear no relationship at all to either the cost of Credit or this Cost of Productive Capital.

Inflation is IMHO caused by a combination of:

(a) deficit spending by governments (other than on productive assets);

(b) the deficit basis of Bank created credit; and

(c) the "profit" motive.

The problem is that because our Money is Credit then we have essentially conflated Capital and Credit within a parasitic overlay of "Financial Capital" upon the productive economy.

The rates of return demanded by investors take into account the inflation which is inherent in the system itself.

Productive assets are not only inequitably shared among the population, but the system leads inevitably to the concentration of "Wealth" in fewer and fewer hands. Which is how it has evolved as it has developed organically under the control of the rich.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 04:38:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't confuse the question of whether workers would be better off with no inflation, if everything else was the same, and the question of whether workers will tend to be better off if we do the things that are proposed as the correct way to "fight inflation".

"Fight inflation" policies boil down to "slow down the economy":

  • raise interest rates, to reduce spending on infrastructure, productive capacity, and consumer durables
  • cut government spending to cut economic activity to produce the goods and services the government is buying
  • raise taxes, to reduce disposable incomes and cut purchasing power.

Now, if the cause of the inflation is effective demand that is outstripping the economy's ability to produce goods and services, then much of the above, done prudently, is quite sensible economic policy.

However, that is not the cause of the inflation that we have been experiencing ... its part of the cause of the inflation experienced by China, but in the US and EU its mostly driven by costs of energy and food.

So why take policies that make sense for an economy being stretched to its limits, and apply them when quite obviously that is not the problem?

Well, it depends on whether you are more concerned with preserving the living standards of the majority or the wealth of the wealthy. Cost push inflation is a reduction in the actual income available to a nation in terms of goods and services.

  • You can protect the level of economic activity, at the cost of tolerating a higher level of inflation which will tend to reduce the wealth of those holding large portfolios of financial assets
  • You can protect the wealth of those holding large portfolios of financial assets, by deflating the economy to offset the cost-push, which will tend to reduce the income that can be earned by those working for a living.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Apr 27th, 2008 at 06:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series