LOL, yeah… Cause shit is going great in America right now.
Deflation bad, fascism good.
Comment on [deleted]
Dicska@lemmy.world 21 hours agoAlso, if you’re rooting for deflation: more ofthen than not, when deflation happens, things are not going great in terms of economics.
Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
whotookkarl@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
It’s more run away/chain reaction type events you want to avoid I think rather than a low % inflation or deflation that remains relatively stable, swing too far in either direction and you going to have problems.
Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
Conventional economic theory holds that a small, consistent level of inflation is the most beneficial. In short, you don’t want hoarding cash to be a smart long term economic decision, you want more of that money invested/moving in the economy. I recommend reading about the Japanese deflation in the 90s if you’re curious what the effects of even relatively moderate deflation can be.
Dicska@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
I’m otherwise not super deep into economics so thanks for the correction. TIL.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
I just wish we’d have neither inflation nor deflation.
Candy bars used to be $0.50 when I was a kid. That would probably equal the buying power of $1.25 today. But candy bars are like $2, and about half the size.
I just want it to be still $0.50, and not get smaller.
Dicska@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
As you said, it had the buying power of $1.25. Therefore, at the same size and at the price of $1.25, it would be perfectly alright. Don’t blame inflation, blame greedy companies increasing prices above inflation AND also shrinking portions.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
I doubt that $0.50 was only $1.25 today, if you actually do the math, I think you’ll find it’s $2 or more.
I don’t know when this fabled $0.50 candybar was, but here are some inflation numbers given different start dates (source):
FWIW, I remember the big candy bars (king size or whatever) being $1 in the late 90s/early 2000s, so that absolutely tracks with current prices at $2 or whatever (just checked Walmart and that’s about accurate).
Here’s a decent article about inflation-adjusted game prices that shows a general downward trend. Here’s the most revealing chart, which shows nominal (sticker price; blue) vs real (inflation adjusted; orange) game prices:
Image
As a couple examples, here’s the purchasing power today of game prices for various consoles:
At $80 per game, games are a little more expensive than the current gen, but only by a little, and that’s because prices are sticky in a given gen.
Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
Finally I’m seeing someone giving proof that games were more expensive back in the days.
Of course the gaming market was smaller, but I remember my parents buying me shitty games for a really high price.
I’m not asking for a price increase, but clearly games were more expensive in the 80-90-00s.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
Exactly. And the trend is downward, and that includes this $80 price point. Prices will likely stay flat for the Switch 2 generation, so by the end it’ll be below the current $70 price point in inflation adjusted dollars.
Yeah, it sucks, and I get that. I wish games were cheaper too. But that doesn’t mean $80 is unreasonable.
edgemaster72@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
You doubt they were a kid in 1990?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
I doubt candy bars were $0.50 in 1990.
qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 17 hours ago
Some tech has followed this pattern. For example: entry level Mac laptop in ~2000 was the iBook, priced at $1599 ($3k+ in today’s dollars). The current entry level Mac laptop (M4 Air) starts at $999 — cheaper in absolute dollars, and way cheaper in relative dollars.
(Macs are just an example since Apple doesn’t have a very extensive product list, so there’s only one “entry level” laptop to choose from. And yes it’s fair to ask if the relative specs have just gotten worse, but I think this is also the opposite — the iBook was iirc criticized as being underpowered, whereas the M4 Air is afaik well regarded.)
jacksilver@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Yeah, if you look at most electronics, appliances, etc. you’ll see where purchasing power has increased. Just not sure why food is one of the things that seems to be going crazy lately with inflation.
ChapulinColorado@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Personal opinion: Because some food should not be that cheap. It’s part of the reason we are so fat in the US (plus car centric cities). Subsidies keep some things like corn artificially low and they end up being hammered in into every product (biodiesel, sweeteners, animal feed, etc.). With that setup, companies have learned to use those subsidies and other workarounds and loopholes to maximize profit at the expense of the product being output and we fall for it every time .
PixxlMan@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
If wages rise in conjunction, I don’t see any issue. The theory is that slight inflation encourages putting money to use, either by consuming it or saving in a bank account (where the bank can lend it out) or investing it etc. That’s why some inflation is generally considered desirable.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Soooooo…you see the issue, right?
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 hours ago
For that you would have to completely change how currency is issued and managed. Money is created by being borrowed directly or indirectly from the central bank, and the reason it is possible for those loans to later be repaid is because even more money is loaned out later, so it’s not going to be a game of musical chairs where there isn’t enough money going around to pay them all back, they keep bringing in more chairs. There is always an increasing amount of money in the system, and they make it that way on purpose to keep things running the way they want them to.
Personally what I hate about this setup is, a person who meets the requirements to obtain a business loan can now take this money that was created out of thin air, use it to coerce labor out of people who have no way to get money other than working, and keep the profits. What if our lives would all be better off working a bit less? Too bad, that decision isn’t up to us, how much we must work is indirectly decided by monetary policy, which the average person realistically has zero influence over, and the goal is a high level of “economic activity”, ie. as many people as possible subject to financial coercion.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Central banks can adjust the inputs to the formula that result in inflation or deflation, but not the result. It can be a difficult target to hit, as you can see if you followed the news in the past 3-4 years.
catloaf@lemm.ee 20 hours ago
Tell people to stop having more than 2.1 kids, then. As long as the population increases, without making changes to the currency supply, money is going to become more scarce. Keeping it exactly in line is impossible, so it’s better to keep a small amount of inflation.
monotremata@lemmy.ca 19 hours ago
The US population in 1980 was around 226 million, and in 2020 it was around 330 million. That’s an increase of about 50%. By comparison, the GDP in 1980 was about $2.75 trillion; in 2020 it was over $20 trillion, an increase of more than 600%.
The problem isn’t that we’re spreading out the same amount of money over too many people. It’s that we’re making much, much more money, but concentrating it in the hands of a tiny number of people and letting everyone else scramble for scraps.
catloaf@lemm.ee 19 hours ago
That’s a separate problem.
OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 19 hours ago
Fuck off. The richest 1% own over half the world’s wealth. That’s where the money is going, not Mrs. Johnson down the street having 3 kids.