• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    Again, they have raised prices before. Inflation didn’t just start yesterday. I’m really not following the argument you’re trying to make here. You still haven’t actually explained the causal chain between the increase in money supply and inflation, nor have you provided any counter argument to my point which provides a clear and direct explanation of what’s happening.

      • spiderplant@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah yes econ101, taking a complex and interconnected system that we don’t fully understand, boiling it down to its simplest and most incorrect model.

        This is a global issue, the fed pumping money shouldn’t have had a big an effect. My best guess would be a mix of covid money from many countries going to the rich increasing the wealth gap, gas and oil companies hiking prices because of Russia even though a lot of them have no link to Russian oil or gas and causing a knock on effect. You’ve also got a number of bubbles around the world such as housing and car loans, these are definitely caused by greed.

          • spiderplant@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My issue was with using econ101 as part of an argument, I’m sure you’ve heard of the saying about economics is that you spend most of the course learning why econ101 doesn’t actually work when applied to most real world scenarios.

              • Melonius [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Money supply is a specific term and it will not always result in inflation. You’ve acknowledged that several times but still repeat it. It will depend how that increase in money supply is used, if at all.

                If I got a trillion dollars printed and did nothing with it, no change in inflation. If I deposit it at banks, there would probably be some knock on effects on interest rates that make their way to the broader system.

                If I go on a coordinated buying spree of oranges with the explicit goal of owning every last orange and orange producing land possible, inflation in oranges and substitute goods of oranges will occur. Easy conclusion.

                You can argue that: When the capital owners get free money in bailouts, while workers get crumbs, there is an obvious disparity. Capitalists see less value in currency and will want more of it in exchange for their contributions (leeching) to society. So they raise prices because selling an orange for $1 doesn’t feel as good as before.

                If workers got more money while capitalists got nothing, that disparity is reversed. Capitalists want to compete for a supply of cash that they didn’t have access to before. Prices will rise in inelastic markets because the opportunity to exploit presents itself, but in competitive markets there is a real drive to entice more purchasing. That’s not to say that prices will go down (they can!) But raising your prices on food because everyone got $1000 could mean missed sales if the price raise isn’t coordinated across the industry.

                You saying that inflation is driven by money supply is not the direct reason for prices rising.

                  • Melonius [he/him]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The rich are spending the money

                    If a rich person gets money, what evidence do you have that they would spend it or invest it? It is not a factual assumption and depends on many factors, and not just in a pedantic way. If market conditions are sour, a rich person would avoid investing it for fear of losing it.

                    Capitalists are middle men who sell our labor + a product back to us at a higher price. If they don’t need cash right now, they will raise prices and sell fewer units at a higher rate to maximize the margin (on durable goods). If they do want cash, they will lower prices and trade margins for volume. Take oil as an example - if you can sell a barrel now for X or tomorrow for more, you would price the oil higher as long as opportunity cost < selling it lower now. How does other people having more money affect this?

                    Consider your labor and pretend you are fairly compensated right now. If the money supply increases, do you demand, or at least deserve, higher wages? If so, why?

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Rapid inflation did start at the same time the money supply was increased.

        There was a brief period when people got direct cash during the pandemic which businesses used as an excuse to hike up prices. However, once again, it was the choice of the business owners to raise the prices.

        If there’s more money circulating, there’s more businesses can ask for.

        Only if that money goes to the working people who can in turn spend it. If the money stays at the top then it does not result in increased spending power. Most of the money that was created did not end up in the hands of the people who are spending it day to day. Bulk of the money went to the oligarchs, you get that right?

        Do you think they weren’t greedy before? Do you think it’s a coincidence this inflation happened the same time the Fed suddenly pumped trillions into the money supply?

        I think they saw an opportunity to jack up prices. In fact, we see this happen any time there’s a disaster, no money printing is needed here. There’s even a term for this: disaster capitalism.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            You still haven’t explained what your thesis here is exactly. If capitalists aren’t raising wages then people don’t have more spending power no matter how much money is printed. What you still haven’t established here is how there’s more money circulating in the economy when wages have remained stagnant. Nobody is arguing that the oligarchs aren’t benefiting from the QE, but it’s not a direct cause of inflation.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ok, but capitalists aren’t the ones primarily consuming basic goods they raise the prices on. We’re talking about consumer inflation here. An oligarch getting a big cash infusion and buying up land or hiring servers isn’t affecting the prices of consumer goods.

                Workers, and people selling land, and so on shifted from selling their time and resources to regular people, to serving oligarchs. They do this, because those oligarchs have more money now.

                That still doesn’t change the formula for inflation which is the relative cost of goods and services to salaries.

                Then the money supply is inflated, and now $10 is circulating, but there’s still only 5 items for sale.

                And who decides that it’s now circulating for $10? The business owner decides that, which was my original point all along!

                Meanwhile, your example is too simplistic because there isn’t $10 circulating since economy isn’t homogeneous. People consuming regular goods who are affected by inflation didn’t get a chunk of the new money printed, so they have exact same spending power they did when there was $5 circulating.

                If there’s more money, with the same supply of goods, price have to increase.

                They don’t have to increase, people who own businesses make a conscious decision to increase them. You’re also conflating the amount of money in circulation with purchasing power here.

                Printing money doesn’t magically let people buy more than exists.

                We’re in complete agreement here.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    9
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If they buy up land, you need to pay more to get some of your own. Or you pay more to rent some of your own.

                    This doesn’t apply to vast majority of the population who don’t actually own any land.

                    If they hire workers who would otherwise be making and servicing consumer goods, it will be harder to get reliable goods. Fixing that will mean paying a premium to reattract workers.

                    Are you saying companies wouldn’t want to produce and sell more goods if there was demand for them?

                    No, they don’t. The Fed chooses how much money circulates.

                    More money in circulation does not magically make prices increase, people who own businesses choose on what they charge. Increase in money supply also doesn’t translate into decreased purchasing power all on its own.

                    Again, whoever gets the money and spends it will be using that money to computer for labor, land, and raw materials.

                    Again, the types of goods that oligarchs consume are not the same goods that regular people consume.

                    The fact that oligarchs buy different things doesn’t matter, they take up many forms of resources that would otherwise be allocated to the regular person.

                    That’s nonsensical, if you’re buying up all the oranges in town and I eat apples, the scarcity of oranges has no effect on me.

                    Purchasing power is directly tied to the money circulating.

                    No, it’s not.

                    If the money supply contracts there’s more competition for the remaining money. If it expands, each dollar is less important.

                    LMAO, financial economy isn’t some money pit that people dive into and grab as much as they can. Working people get money from their wages, and their wages don’t magically increase when the money supply is increased.