The argument about what is causing our current inflation is a battleground for class warfare. But we don't talk about things in that context in this country, because the war (and almost every single battle) is being won by the rich.
This will either be corrected by new growth, or zero-sum rebalancing via inflation. Currently most growth is captured via capital holders, and this is unlikely to change. Leaving the zero-sum options as the most likely outcome.
The current structure doesn’t appear sustainable. As a millennial parent, I’m starting to observe the majority of the people I know skip having children or stick to one. The common reason is that the costs of children and pressure of career are too much. Eventually, you get too old to have children.
If the birth rate falls to .5-1.0, then the status quo will most likely end in economic crises as the future population can no longer support the liabilities of the prior population. While it's possible to print money and perform other games to hide this reality, I don't think it's possible to maintain the farse against the backdrop of a 3-4x population decline.
Not only technological.
> Not only technological.
they mean violent. something that the bourgeoisie HN types need to keep in mind.
True, but just how many of the 1% and above are members of the military? "I ain't no Senator's son.", after all.
If you have a supply chain disruption limiting the supply of raw materials or finished goods to get into the market, and you increase the supply of money in consumers' hands without any corresponding increase in supply of goods/services, I wouldn't expect anything other than an increase in inflation.
I'm not saying that it shouldn't have been done, but to say it was done and didn't contribute significantly to inflation seems extremely unlikely to be correct.
People are not exclusively consumers and stockpiling is a dynamic thing.
If the government is actively stopping goods production from increasing, the prices raising is a good default assumption. But it's not an universal consequence.
But anyway, the inflation spike happened much after the government stopped intervening and production of everything was already increasing quite quickly. But the main argument people use for that is that the COVID relief (and all the money going to workers) was tiny and irrelevant when compared to the direct interventions of the US government on its economy at the time, that had the explicit intent of creating inflation.
Apparently most of that money went to entertainment, travel, etc., Not for any long-term life improvement (which is kinda in line with the insanity of the student loan business model)
Do you have anything I can read on this?
Owning most / the loudest media outlets is a guarantee for this.
Whoever frames the issue, wins.
Defining people’s refusal to accept starvation wages as “nobody wants to work” is an example. See the work of George Lakoff on framing for details. His Framelab podcast is excellent.
"perception is reality"
Your argument is a bit of a stretch. Class warfare is some strong rhetoric that I don't think many people have adopted.
There's piles of evidence that companies have been using the fears of recession and cover of inflation to increase prices simply to pad profit margins by increasing prices and lasting people off. That's the rich fucking over the poor and the working classes; or, as some might call it, class warfare.
As well - as his business is development (like physical spaces) he is probably in a world of hurt with the interest rates absolutely killing the business model. Look at how much the real estate world and big developers have been crippled (I'm not saying you should feel bad for them - they took on that risk when they over levered themselves and reap what they sow). However I imagine because they are taking on losses their staff are going to feel the pain as are the investors (my speculation).
My point is your reference is a bad one for the topic of the thread.