Not strictly. If more money is saved, that does reduce economic activity, but then it's the governments responsibility to create more money. It makes no sense to blame the actions of individuals for systemic failure, especially when there is an entire class of people whose job it is to keep the system running.
But yeah inflation itself is not a bad thing if that's what you're saying.
I'm happy to pay you $25 for it!
Not so stable this past year tbh
The year is 2027. A beginner programmer searches how to access the last array element in a programming language she is unfamiliar with. The results come in. "Top 10 array accesses that will make you want to buy our sponsors product". She sighs and asks Claude instead. She pastes the one-liner into her code. Finishes the remaining code. Tests. Double-check. Commit. Push. A notification appears. "Your account has been temporarily suspended for violating GitHub's terms of service". Forgot to mark claude as a co-author. She sighs again
I'm sick and tired of these incel memes.
I appreciate your response but I think you are applying Economics 101 haha :P
Monetarism hasn't held up historically and doesn't even take employment, growth, savings, price stickiness or export/import into account. Besides, we are talking about government spending, not private sector.
More money in circulation means more taxes - the money gets taken back out. And taxes can always be increased when the economy gets a lil too hot (we are nowhere near that). The picture you are painting onoy holds up when we have full employment and all businesses are at capacity, which is not how things look in most economies right now. More money results in businesses getting more revenue, which they can invest and use to hire more workers. No inflation, just growth and more employment.
The fact that buying power has decreased over the last decade is true but not because of inflation. It's because neoliberalism has allowed capital to claim all of economic growth for itself. Before neoliberalism, higher profits could be captured for workers by strong unions (broadly speaking)
The kind of inflation that decreases purchasing power is a price shock, which has caused most of the inflation in the last few years. This has indeed impacted the poor most, but this kind of inflation also has nothing to do with an expanding monetary supply.
I really recommend researching MMT or demand-side economics.
Not always, and no.
New money is created all the time, and most of it not even by government spending, but through businesses taking loans.
When governments spend too much in competitive markets, i.e. on resources that aren't there yet, then yes it drives up prices. Just running a deficit does increase the money supply, which still only causes inflation in some cases.
The classic inflation from the economy working a little too well is not a flat tax, since both wages and prices are growing. Savings on the other hand (except stocks), lose their value. Classic inflation erodes the savings of the rich, and erodes the debts of the poor.
And even then, the central bank can always increase the cost of businesses lending to slow things down. That has other downsides, but the point is:
But yes, tax the rich. Can't argue with that
governments with their own currencies don't require taxes to have/spend money btw
Saw these guys live, was a hoot!
Most 13 year olds have been on porn sites. Lemmy should be fine hehe
dabbing? you mean that thing my great-grandfather does? He's a millenial