[tossandthrow]

> Fiat money is not going down as much as asset prices are going up, though.

How do you measure this? What is this claim founded in?

You could indeed say that inflation should be defined by the asset prices. This would couple fiat and asset prices definatorically.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

Because normal people mainly use money to pay rent and utilities and taxes and buy corn from the grocery store, not to buy future cash flows.

[Ancapistani]

At any given time, most of the money isn't in the hands of "normal people", though. It's in the hands of banks, states, and large companies.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

The amount of money isn't relevant. Money is fake.

The real economy isn't.

[jhrmnn]

I’m guessing what was meant is that the price of things that are to be invested in is growing wrt the price of things that are to be consumed. Which naively makes sense to me in an economy based on growth where the total consumption starts to stagnate—the surplus still has to go somewhere. Is it so or is reality more complicated than that?

[tossandthrow]

I think this is a key observation.

Apparently consumables have become incredibly cheap.

But then again, consumables will like start to rise in price now people need more money to buy a house, etc.

You could also say that real salaries have gone down a lot, which is probably also true.

These effects have to go through very complex value chains.

[paulpauper]

It makes more sense or is more plausible to say that asset prices are rising to hedge or tracking inflation, versus a falling dollar. I