Generally you want your inflation to match your annual GDP growth rate.
Holy fuck, does that immediately imply that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
Given the fact that most of that growth gets distributed to the top, what, 10%, if even that? So the the goal is to cancel overall growth with inflation, but the growth was concentrated in one sector. Then relatively speaking, wealth was funneled from the non-fast-growing sector (the poors) to the fast-growing sector (the non-poors).
Those two together just seem to imply they consciously said “yeah it’s ok if the masses are always worse off as time progresses (since they’re only worse-off relatively speaking)”. It just seems seems like such a bad idea to play with fire like that but go off ya fucking landlords I guess lol
does that immediately imply that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
considering that debt is especially sensitive to inflation, yes definitely. With high inflation, debtors can pay back their debt easier since inflation eats a percentage of the principle every year. (You pay the same amount but that amount is worth less in real terms). Banks and capitalists obviously mald because they are losing a couple percent of profit (not losing money mind you, they still charge interest!! in fact some really awful loans make your interest rise with inflation)
The Gold Standard was originally there just so rich British bankers could literally put a hard cap on money and thus inflation. They even caused deflation, to the determent of the rest of the economy and especially poor debtors, just because they felt like making more money.
Holy fuck, does that immediately imply that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?
Given the fact that most of that growth gets distributed to the top, what, 10%, if even that? So the the goal is to cancel overall growth with inflation, but the growth was concentrated in one sector. Then relatively speaking, wealth was funneled from the non-fast-growing sector (the poors) to the fast-growing sector (the non-poors).
Those two together just seem to imply they consciously said “yeah it’s ok if the masses are always worse off as time progresses (since they’re only worse-off relatively speaking)”. It just seems seems like such a bad idea to play with fire like that but go off ya fucking landlords I guess lol
considering that debt is especially sensitive to inflation, yes definitely. With high inflation, debtors can pay back their debt easier since inflation eats a percentage of the principle every year. (You pay the same amount but that amount is worth less in real terms). Banks and capitalists obviously mald because they are losing a couple percent of profit (not losing money mind you, they still charge interest!! in fact some really awful loans make your interest rise with inflation)
The Gold Standard was originally there just so rich British bankers could literally put a hard cap on money and thus inflation. They even caused deflation, to the determent of the rest of the economy and especially poor debtors, just because they felt like making more money.