|
|
|
|
|
by AngrySkillzz
1942 days ago
|
|
> It decreases the value of the money use to pay for them That is meaningless, though. Imagine last year you bought some asset, that someone else did not, and it appreciated 2% with the price level. You are not any better off. I see you are implying that the other person "couldn't afford" to invest and kept their money in cash instead, to argue that the other person is worse off. That is also wrong - the issue here is holding cash, not the wealth disparity. Don't hold cash if you are worried about inflation. Mutual funds have low minimums, and you can buy fractional ETF shares at this point. You have no argument here. |
|
I am better off if the nominal value of that asset matters, which it does if I want to sell it or leverage it. And anyone on a dollar denominated income is worse off.
> I see you are implying that the other person "couldn't afford" to invest and kept their money in cash instead, to argue that the other person is worse off.
You misunderstand, they don’t need to “keep their money in cash”. The asset price increased. Thats all. They are paid less in real terms, by design, therefore the asset costs more to them, because of inflation.
> the issue here is holding cash, not the wealth disparity.
This applies to people who are paid in dollars, it does not require them to hold them.
> Don't hold cash if you are worried about inflation.
Obviously the wealthy are in much better position to take this advice than the middle class, the working class, and the poor. Therefore inflation benefits the wealthy disproportionately.