| > Why should the government actively try to de-value people's savings? Is it a good thing to squeeze elderly retirees back into the work-force? I don’t want to devalue their savings. I’m in my 50s and looking forward to retiring myself. I want them to have productive savings that grow and provide them with a retirement income. Savings accounts, ISAs, pension funds, stocks and bonds, even property are all productive savings that grow and can provide income in retirement. They help the economy and help savers. > who gets to allocate my capital? I contend it should be me, you seem to think otherwise Not at all, it should absolutely be you, we just talking about incentives. The question we’re debating is what should happen to the value of cash you keep in your pocket. Literal cash. Should it appreciate in value or depreciate? Is there a benefit to society either way? If money itself appreciates in value that’s because someone is paying a cost for that to happen. I don’t think that’s a reasonable expectation. Beyond that, it benefits society if savings are put to economically useful purposes, such as savings accounts and investments. A small amount of inflation incentivises this. I’m not telling anyone what to do. But on the flip side you can’t tell people what to do either. You can’t tell them what they will or won’t pay you to do, and they’re not going to pay you to keep your money in your pocket, mattress, whatever by inflating the value of cash. Cash is a financial instrument. You own the notes, but can’t set its value. We all do that collectively, so other people have a say in it. That’s just the nature of it. |
Hallelujah! I do presume this means the /kind/ of savings or /where/ it's held is immaterial.
Sometimes I like to keep a portion of my savings as seashells in a shoe-box. But as you acknowledge...
> Not at all, it should absolutely be you,
And after all that circumlocution I was beginning to think you'd never concede. You've made my day!