|
|
|
|
|
by wpietri
2728 days ago
|
|
I think we're talking about two different things: economic value and the price of currency. I agree that you don't want currency deflation. But over decades, I don't think that has much to do with the value to users of goods. I can think of a few obvious places where they split. One is where we increase quality. A well-trained chef doesn't use significantly more resources than a bad cook, but the result is much better. There's also quantity; by 1980s prices, I have lost millions of dollars worth of data storage in my couch cushions. (Entertainment is a great example of both dimensions.) And it can be perfectly healthy for an economy to decrease hours worked for the same or better result, as in Germany: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/12/28/why-do-s... So sure, we want currency stability, and we don't want recessions. But I don't think we face a Midas Plague [1] scenario. [1] https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1954-04/Galaxy_195... |
|
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...
> Yet when you have very low inflation, getting relative wages right would require that a significant number of workers take wage cuts. So having a somewhat higher inflation rate would lead to lower unemployment, not just temporarily, but on a sustained basis.
Just to be clear that we understand the policy here in blunt terms: The point of inflation is to cheat the working classes out of their income so that the ruling class can lay claim to high employment metrics. This is the price of currency stability.