[kogus]

I'm pretty sure you are right. Or to emphasize the devaluation, "$100 today would be worth only $3.05 in 1914."

I think it is astonishing that we accept that in a best case scenario of sustained 2% inflation, we are literally planning for the value of the dollar to be cut in half every 36 years.

[ramesh31]

>I think it is astonishing that we accept that in a best case scenario of sustained 2% inflation, we are literally planning for the value of the dollar to be cut in half every 36 years.

Our system is designed to encourage asset ownership, not cash saving. If you stuff it under a mattress for 36 years, yeah you'll get fleeced. But buying assets is the way to keep up; an investment of $100 in the S&P500 in 1990 and never touched would be worth $4,120.93 today.

[empthought]

Dollars that people hold onto, instead of using to purchase something else of value, are effectively worthless to everyone.

[rationalist]

That means there are less dollars in circulation, which is the opposite of inflation.

[empthought]

Yes, I wasn’t clear.

I was offering a reason why dollars “losing value” is not actually a thing to worry about. If they didn’t lose value, people would hold onto them instead of spending them. Which is objectively a loss to everyone, regardless of how you decide to denominate it.