[rsync]

"Remember that the "biggest losers" in inflationary economies are people who hold assets, not investors ..."

The biggest losers among sophisticated, moneyed actors are indeed people who hold assets.

But the biggest losers overall are those with fixed incomes dealing with rapidly rising prices.

[dragonwriter]

> But the biggest losers overall are those with fixed incomes dealing with rapidly rising prices.

So, non-SS pensioners?

Not: Social Security recipients (it has an inflation-indexed COLA).

Not: public benefit recipients (this inflation is in part a product of temporary increases to aid at the lower end of the economic spectrum).

Not: low-end labor, where prices are being bid up. (And also, often a beneficiary of the previous point.)

[mc32]

The government basket used to calculate inflation isn’t the same basket of goods pensioners buy from.

If inflation were “good” then the US along with many countries the word over would cause it to happen —it’s easy to do.

[dragonwriter]

> if inflation were “good” then the US along with many countries the word over would cause it to happen

Literally every single one of them that controls its own monetary policy (including the US) actively and deliberately does, so there's that.

[mc32]

My implication was extraordinary inflation isn’t good. The fed, since Bush/Clinton/Greenspan targeted 2-3.5% as desirable “good”.

What I mean is if what we have now (which is about double the norm) were good, we would have done it a long time ago and so would have others.

[AnimalMuppet]

Even those with COLAs. See, prices go up, and then, later, the COLA adjustment kicks in. It still hurts those who get COLA adjustments, just not as bad as it hurts those who don't.

[rdtwo]

Only if you own paper debt assets like bonds. If you own dividend paying stock or property you are going to be fine. If you buy stock in a company with a heavy debt load that is slowly digging it’s way it (not sure they exist) you might come out a big winner

[bityard]

Key word there, might. Even people who's actual job it is to pick winners and losers do worse in aggregate than an index fund.

[vineyardmike]

> do worse in aggregate than an index fund.

This is widely stated, but only barely accurate sentiment.

First, index funds do good at 1 thing - which is provide "market returns". Market returns is basically defined by an index, so naturally the definition is circular. The parent mentioned dividends, which are not the normal target for investors (but useful for retirees and others who want an "income" from investment). Dividend stocks may do worse at beating market returns, but better at income generation.

[ethbr0]

> company with a heavy debt load that is slowly digging [its] way [out?]

Telecom? Utilities? Mining?

[newacct583]

> But the biggest losers overall are those with fixed incomes dealing with rapidly rising prices.

And therein lies one of the big pseudo-centrist points here. A mild reduction[1] in fixed-rate entitlement programs is coming down the pipe at some point regardless. This essentially gets the hard part of that political calculus out of the way "for free" (or at least in a cheaper way, since you can blame covid).

[1] Contra the nutjobs who predict the Death of Social Security or whatnot.

[dragonwriter]

> This essentially gets the hard part of that political calculus out of the way "for free"

No, if anything it hastens having to deal with the hard part, since SS benefits are wage indexed during employment and CPI-indexed in retirement, not fixed. Inflation drives up the nominal $ cost for current retirees, and, ceteris paribus, hastens trust fund depletion.