What an awful system

How long will it take for starving millennials with crippling student debt and no jobs to become violently hungry after their parents pass away and stop buying them food?

GUESS WE'LL FIND OUT

But globalization is good. Multiculturalism is good. Free trade is good. Don't be a racist neo-nazi and question any of it.

>hurr durr

Think about how much wages have gone up over the same period.

i think this is pretty interesting too, here you can see who really needed to pay for 2008 and who benefited from it

how much?

well done depriving everyone of their disposable income ya hack

Nice comeback, kid.

It is, you need to consider the wages back them and today. The only bad thing about it is that so much wealth went to the all ready rich. we need to change the distribution and not the economy back to 1900.

that much

>Wages

Inflation has been up. The value has dropped significantly even if it is more money.

You think this system is in place to help the customer?

It's a great system if you inherit capital.

I dont get it, why is there a green and a blue line for the same thing?

Mean median

forget it. im a retard.

sure, based on what?

Then Jews couldn't make interest work.

t. Literally a Jew

Seriously though how do you intend to operate an economy without interest?

Is that adjusted for inflation?

aol.com/article/2009/12/29/then-vs-now-how-prices-have-changed-since-1999/19284554/

it would be anudda shoah

it seems people doesn't really like it, thats why Trump won.

Money most be worth less, if middle class/working class services are constantly more money. If not, and businesses are just charging more for no reason, they should be arrested.

Doesn't seem like anyone benefitted from it.

yeah but who lost and who not

Millionaires must have, as supposedly more exist now than ever. Granted that's still an extremely small fraction of the population.

You think inflation is caused by "multiculturalism." You got the comeback that deserves.

>Said no one

You mean capitalism.

Not all Jews are capitalists, but all capitalists look to control government to protect their fortune.

>As the Jackson becomes more inflated, more useless, and more unable to solely provide the food for an average family; the Treasury decides to make the person drawn on the dollar a strong woman of color.

like pottery

is not that they look to control de gov to protect their status. Is that the gov is burgeois itself. That was a Lennin thesis, so eventually in a revolution every institution of the gov (specially army, and police) should be replaced.

>except literally you

It's a typical bread and circus show for the unenlightened masses.

>Made no statement connecting multiculturalism to inflation
>except literally you

Why do you think the very wealthy want more millionaires?

well... , your right. didnt know its that bad in the US. statista.com/statistics/200838/median-household-income-in-the-united-states/

I think it's just a result of so much wealth being concentrated.

Maybe you're just too dumb to realize this thread is about inflation? Because you were certainly talking about multiculturalism for some reason.

Maybe your reading comprehension skills are just too weak?

it won't be long before money has no value whatsoever...

What does millionaire even mean? Is it enough money that you never, ever have to work again, as it was when the term was coined?

Why would the very wealthy want more very wealthy people? Why would people who enjoy fantastic wealth want to share it?

>What does millionaire even mean?

Having more than a million dollars.

>Is it enough money that you never, ever have to work again, as it was when the term was coined?

Depends on how you live.

It doesn't.

There is a certain amount of wealth that you can have that allows you to hire someone to manage it. If you have 27 million dollars, and you lose it, that is on you, society is set up to protect those kind of fortunes.

real wages have been stagnating tho

This is only bad if you stepped out of a time machine from 1998 with twenty bucks and hoped to do futuristic grocery shopping. Or if you're my grandmother and still think five dollars will feed a family for several days.

nvm if you take 100$ in 1999 and add 15 years of inflation you get 146,77$ so its not that bad statista.com/statistics/191077/inflation-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

>Commie can't into economics
Not surprised.

>Inflation isn't bad

Tell that to Sierra Leone and the Weimar Republic.

wtf I hate inflation now

well you can't take the Weimar Republic as an example, because the economic crisis was not caused by the inflation, it was different the infation was caused by printing way to much money

Inflation is necessary because it increases spending, which in cruticial for growth. Economies without inflation can stagnate, with decreased consumption, increased unemployment, and building debt. But high inflation is likewise bad so it is important to maintain that golden percentage number, usually 2-3%.

Those computers in 96 were some of the best the consumer could get for the time. The computer on the right is a half decent computer for these days.

Explain Thailand

Or the EU 2013-present

Heck, even the US has been about 1% average inflation since 2008

Ambiguities are the only certain things in the universe - Professor Einstein

Statistics is a very important tool. It's like looking at paintings, sometimes you have to look at it from afar to appreciate it. I'm sure Thailand and any other stable economy's average inflation over a few decades would be a reasonable number although temporary unheavels happen sometimes.
About your last point, that is one of the main reasons why the US debt is now almost twenty thousand billion dollars.

And that is just the national debt. The country also owes some fifty thousand billion more dollars as private debts.

The PC on the right is 10000x faster than the one on the left.

>all labor is valued equally

Fucking lol

Thats okay because it was the lower class that caused the crash by being dumbasses.

Inflation hurts the rich more than the poor.

Commies should be required to take economics classes before posting oti.

Reagan/Nixon happened.

So it's dumb to take out a loan you may not be able to pay back, but it's not dumb to give a loan you know may not be paid back?

Not that user(and I don't agree that it was the poor people who caused the crash, because that clearly wasn't the case), but...

That's part of the reason for interest. It means that, on average, you don't lose money even if some people fail to pay their debts. It's only stupid if you invest too much money in high risk loans or miscalculate the risk of not getting your money back. You might argue that it's selfish and irresponsible(after all, look at what giving bad loans did to the economy), but it's not STUPID if you're doing it right.

And I mean, there's never 100% guarantee that you get back the money you've loaned someone.

So so long as you are paying interest, it's your right to be bankrupt and discharge your loan that way. You will pay a price in your credit rating.

But this is not how it is. If you have more money, if you have better connects, than the person who owes you money, they have to pay you back no matter what. It's not debtors who were bailed out, it was creditors.

20 dollars did not give you that in 1998. Maybe 78

If I understand the current backward trend in Finance, taking out or giving loans is never a bad idea unless limited by a regulatory agency. The big banks are leveraged by other loans and deposits and the big companies are leveraged by other loans and assets, so they have nothing to lose. You, as a person? That question is more along the lines of personal finance.

This is somewhat close, but this isn't horseshoes. Irving Fisher cites the existence of interest rates as a PENALTY of the debtor's inability to pay back debts. It has very little to do with overall leveraging, which does play an important role in financial institutions' balance sheets. Also, many economists work interest into their general theories of the employment of money, all the way from the Classical school to the Currency school to the Austrian school

Indeed, socialism is a very scary thing.

>So it's dumb to take out a loan you may not be able to pay back, but it's not dumb to give a loan you know may not be paid back?

Either can be smart or dumb, depending on the level of risk and the expected return. e.g. if 10% chance of default, you need sufficient profit to cover that.

There is literally nothing wrong with slow, predictable inflation like the United States has had for most of the last 100 years.

No it's not because those loans are not on their balance sheet, they sell those loans for fees making billions with no risk.

Thanks to the US government.

But that's wrong, because poor people cannot invest in stuff.

I will defend what you just said till the day I die. Actually using Von Mises' theoretical framework, this idea is an important tenet in why when the central banks inject money into the economy, the effects hit the entrepreneurs first and the poor last.

Rich people have most of their assets in the form of stocks and investments, which means they aren't hurt by inflation. Poor people have most of their assets in bank accounts or in the form of goods which lose value over time(unless they own their own apartment), which means they ARE hurt by inflation.

Yes when you are buying the most expensive frozen berry brands on the market. I'm surprised you could even afford bananas. Are those organic and imported from the pink himalayan salt state of mocacaramba, too?

Which is why it's tolerable for businesses to offer loans only with interest. They don't get to demand interest if they also insist everyone pays them back, if they insist that the state should pay them back if this doesn't happen.

So because inflation exists the average amount of money should buy increasingly depreciating qualities of goods

Some roaring twenties
Some great depression

Charts seems... wrong

The loans don't just go away if you don't pay them on time, unless the debtor defaults which is obviously much more rare than nonpayment. What this means is a tweaking in your definition. Interest doesn't exist as a penalty on the person for other people's inability to pay, but his own which must be realized at the time his payments are delayed.

So if /you/ pay on time, they weren't justified in demanding interest of /you/?

IRL, only very rich people get that kind of deal.

The roaring twenties was largely built upon by the use of debt to buy a lot of objects that had just started to be mass produced at the time.

The Great Depression didn't happen because of inflation.

>Charts seems... wrong

The chart is correct. What's wrong is your assumption that decreasing value of the dollar is a bad thing.

Considering the money rate of interest for that loan is simply the real interest rate of products that he would have access to trade against plus the depreciation of the monetary unit, no I don't think it was unjustified. This existence of interest in the first place and why it exists is still an anomaly for some though. Von Mises doesn't consider it anything other than what Mill does: an application of productive industry to the environment creating an average rate of profit for a given amount of capital, or foregone current income o capitalize on future profits. But there are some like Fisher who just say that the existence of interest in the first place is fundamentally unsound and move on. Especially since historicAlly and culturally it was an aberration and cultures like early Christian cultures and Islam deprecated the existence of any interest at all.

Nice comeback, kid.

So only interest that exceeds inflation is unjustified?

That's right, but it was speculation not debt. Mismanagement of debt caps or the nonexistent market switches.

I mean, as Mill correctly put it, credit increases the severity of commercial crises.

I don't really know what to think. Fisher seems to think so, but other economists don't. Either way, that original definition for interest you had is slightly wrong

I'm not with Fisher on this one; but I do think that it should be possible to discharge your debt without being completely destitute, and so it should be possible to negotiate it down.

Call it my tinfoil hat, but I'm fully convinced the US is allowing rapid inflation that way they can justify using cards for transaction rather then cash. Which would make it easier for the government to monitor everything that people are buying.

It's just a sign of widespread expansion of credit. This is a hallmark of such a depreciated media of exchange that interest is ultimately going to have to rise, causing widespread lending during times when the Federal Reserve was injecting capital into banks assets, making their reserve ratios grow. After a time though, Janet Yellen has to raise the interest rate. It was fun to be a lender for a little while but I wonder how this general rise of interest rates is going to treat these brittle financial institutions.

>dat Taragui
HOLY KEK, source on the pic OP?

Agreed money creation should be a private affair the state has no right to issue currency it always end in a disaster

There will be an increase in millionaires in our ssystem at all times without reforms. Wealthier people have a lower MPC, which coupled with inflation guarantees ~top 10% will steadily increase assets while the bottom socioeconomically have relatively low savings and assets.

We tried that since the midde ages.
We went full central bank because it was way more stable and less retarded than private currency.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_the_United_States#Wildcat_banking_and_the_failure_of_the_Free_Banking_system