INFLATION is actually a tool utilised by the rich and powerful to enslave poor / ignorant people and

It's easier for the rich to put their wealth in forms that are protected from inflation. By contrast, a larger percent of the savings of poorer people will be vulnerable to inflation.

 

He's talking about when you hand out more purchasing power to people who didn't (or out of proportion to) get that purchasing power from supplying goods and services.

I think that's what he meant.
I'm not sure what he meant by "normal phenomena".

 

And yet, how much have home prices been going up? How much has the price of college education been going up?
Are those official inflation statistics really that accurate?
It seems all the very most expensive things in a normal person's budget are the things that have been increasing in price faster than the official inflation rate.

 

I don't disagree with you stating that as a fact.
But I do disagree about that being a good thing, or the way it should be.

 

The debt money system FORCES them to become too large, for, in Dr Strangelove's delicious phrase, "reasons which must be all too obvious at this moment."

 

Yet so many on the Left advocate running up the debt even higher.

 

Wrong. They need to earn money in order to afford the higher prices of what they want to buy.

That's just clearly false, historically. Real economic growth is strongly related to low single-digit inflation.

 

If they're going to have more difficulty affording things in the future, don't you think there might also be some incentive for them to start saving more of their money now, to be able to afford things when it gets more difficult?

 

So there won't actually be any real change in goods transferred, will there?

The prices change, but what is traded does not.

You can't get people to spend more of their money without getting other people to not want that money less. You may not be able to see it but your logic here is inconsistent.

If people want to earn more money (to pay for higher prices), then they'll also not want to spend more money.

 

Yes, there will, because whatever money they earn will be losing value, so they will be motivated to spend it.

Wrong.

Nope. The people (businesses) who want to get consumers' money didn't want to keep it anyway: they are businesses, and they want revenue in order to be able to yield profits to their owners.

Wrong again. They'll want to spend more because the alternative is to lose its purchasing power to inflation.

 

No, because unlike you, they will understand that any money they save will just be losing value.

 

Look at the other side of the reflection. Whatever money they earn will be losing value, so they will be motivated not to earn it.

You can't claim people will want more money to keep up with increasing prices, while claiming people will not want that money as much so they will spend it.

Logically inconsistent.

 

You're claiming savings rates will go down.

But you're claiming the demand for money will go up because prices have gone up.

Maybe your claim is people will try harder to earn money but not try harder to save money?

If people are not trying as hard to save money though, that certainly is going to cut into the overall demand for that money. Wouldn't you say?

 

Bingo. Maybe there is hope for you yet.

Right. People will no longer demand money for saving. They will spend it. Someone will have to produce the additional goods and services they spend it on. That is the point.

 

Okay, but now let us turn our attention to the argument of whether it is a good thing to be encouraging people to spend more of their money, having a smaller savings rate.

 

Yeah, but poorer people aren't saving a lot. Plus, everyone has 401Ks, IRAs, and investment options available.

 

True, but what little they do save is important to them.

These type of policies are going to punish the responsible savers.

Imagine you're a person with a low income who's scraped and scrimped to manage to put away a sizeable chunk of money in savings, to hopefully better themselves in the future, and then inflation comes in and wipes that all away.

That doesn't seem fair to me.

 

That will depend on whether you can find a willingness to know the fact that money in the hands of producers is more likely to be devoted to productive investment than money in the hands of savers seeking low-risk rent collection privileges.

 

Let's focus specifically on demand for money here. How does that change?

It's demand for money (total demand) that's going to drive any changes in productivity.

 

No it's not, because it is so little compared to their income and expenses.

Savers irresponsibly distort the economy because they expect something for nothing.

It is very fair, because the community would be better served by their purchasing power being devoted to productive investment rather than idle hoarding. A large pool of savings tends to accentuate economic cycles.

 

That's a fair point, but how exactly is this inflation (and alleged increase in general spending) going to focus more of the money on producers?

 

It is reduced as people don't want to hold it.

Demand is not demand for money. Demand is demand for goods and services. You are just wrong and wrong and wrong.

 

Because a person spending their money on goods and services inherently involves giving that money to the producers of said goods and services. I'm not sure there is any clearer or simpler way of explaining that to you.

 

"Idle hoarding" is important to poor people. It helps give them security and stability in an unpredictable economy.
They don't know if they could be fired from their job tomorrow.

 

Aren't they just as likely to give more of their money in rent?

I don't see movement of money from the savings of the poor to producers as a good thing.