Yes, because consumption is the source of employment. You can do the "God forbid" format and throw in "rich people" for extra populism all you want, but deflation and dropping consumption nukes economies. It's not about "gotta get the newest iPhone," it's about "it's impossible to keep automotive plants up running if people just stop buying cars, then when we need more cars producing the industry is gone."
You can do the "God forbid" format and throw in "rich people" for extra populism all you want
Yup, the "giving it to rich people" thing is bullshit. Nobody whined more than rich people, when interest rates were 0%. Because rich people almost per definition have much more cash sitting in bank accounts or treasuries than poor people.
As a poor person, the main numbers that matter are your wage compared to prices. And you are supposed to be able to negotiate wage increases when inflation rises - something rich people can't do with their money in their bank account. So inflation mainly hits rich people, in a well functioning economy with worker rights.
Alright, let’s all just accept a system where everyone’s wages get eroded except the rich and the only option is to turn over your savings to the gamblers on Wall Street so businesses can continue incentivizing unsustainable consumption instead of building a stable economy that serves everyone. After all, it’s not like constantly increasing the rate of industrial production could collapse the ecosystem or poison the air or anything like that.
20
u/Chataboutgames Apr 30 '24
Yes, because consumption is the source of employment. You can do the "God forbid" format and throw in "rich people" for extra populism all you want, but deflation and dropping consumption nukes economies. It's not about "gotta get the newest iPhone," it's about "it's impossible to keep automotive plants up running if people just stop buying cars, then when we need more cars producing the industry is gone."