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.
What we need is degrowth and a transition away from capitalism.
Whinnie the pooh whinnie the pooh…
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.
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.
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.
It creates an ever increasing mountain of debt
No, it creates seignorage. Central bank lends money to bank so bank has a reserve so that it can lend book money, bank’s customer pays back loan, bank pays back loan, central bank made a profit. Profit is put into the state budget and thus re-distributed.
If your business accumulates an ever-increasing mountain of debt then that’s a problem with your business, not the monetary system. You could, for example, not take on loans, or not more than you can pay off. I’d say that’s the smart thing to do.
And the whole thing is necessary: Without the banks having to pay back more money than what they got from the central bank the central bank could not lower the amount of money in circulation which, during a recession, would mean uncontrolled inflation. That is why you see central banks raising interest rates when there’s inflation: So that they can mop up surplus money, so that the value of money stays stable. Similarly, during deflation they want to increase the amount of money in circulation so they lower the interest rate, might even turn it negative, or (this has been on the table for the Euro) even right-out transfer money into everyone’s bank accounts.
This one thing (at least in the case of the ECB) is the sole purpose of the central bank and the monetary system: To make sure, as best as possible, that a sandwich tomorrow costs the same as it did yesterday. When the economy grows more money is needed to reflect the value in circulation or you’d get deflation, when the economy shrinks, less value is in circulation thus less money is needed or you’d get inflation. The central bank always has to adjust.
…the target is 2% inflation instead of 0% because you need some wiggle room and some inflation is better than any deflation. The amount the central bank adds or subtracts from the monetary supply has no direct connection to the inflation rate, for that you have to take the actual economy into account, as said, if monetary supply tracks the economy perfectly, shrinking and expanding in response to it, there’s no inflation, and no deflation.
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.
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.
Why would inputs increase?
Because everyone wants infinite growth, including the companies supplying your inputs.
Incorrect, anyone that wants infinite growth is too stupid to breathe, much less be a part of a successful business.
Yeah, take a look around bud.
That’s a factor, yes, but deflation can easily make a company unprofitable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only nonessential purchases. The poor generally don’t have a choice to not pay rent in the US, you can get evicted after being 3 days late in most US states.
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.
As someone in the lower class, yes. A decade ago you might have had a point, but unless they’re maxing out credit cards no one below median income is spending on non essentials.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
There’s also the fact that debts increase in relative value over time, therefore discouraging people taking out loans for various purposes (mortgages, starting businesses, etc.), which was a major reason for the protests against the gold standard in the US around the late 1800s - see the Cross of Gold speech.
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.
So do you do 4k as well or just hd projection?
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.
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.
Removed by mod
