I just wish we’d have neither inflation nor deflation.
Candy bars used to be $0.50 when I was a kid. That would probably equal the buying power of $1.25 today. But candy bars are like $2, and about half the size.
I just want it to be still $0.50, and not get smaller.
If wages rise in conjunction, I don’t see any issue. The theory is that slight inflation encourages putting money to use, either by consuming it or saving in a bank account (where the bank can lend it out) or investing it etc. That’s why some inflation is generally considered desirable.
As you said, it had the buying power of $1.25. Therefore, at the same size and at the price of $1.25, it would be perfectly alright.
Don’t blame inflation, blame greedy companies increasing prices above inflation AND also shrinking portions.
I doubt that $0.50 was only $1.25 today, if you actually do the math, I think you’ll find it’s $2 or more.
I don’t know when this fabled $0.50 candybar was, but here are some inflation numbers given different start dates (source):
1970 - $0.50 -> $4.14
1980 - $0.50 -> $1.94
1990 -> $0.50 -> $1.22
2000 -> $0.50 -> $0.93
FWIW, I remember the big candy bars (king size or whatever) being $1 in the late 90s/early 2000s, so that absolutely tracks with current prices at $2 or whatever (just checked Walmart and that’s about accurate).
Exactly. And the trend is downward, and that includes this $80 price point. Prices will likely stay flat for the Switch 2 generation, so by the end it’ll be below the current $70 price point in inflation adjusted dollars.
Yeah, it sucks, and I get that. I wish games were cheaper too. But that doesn’t mean $80 is unreasonable.
Candy bars were 30p in Ireland in 1990s and that equates to about $0.50. I went on a trip to the USA around then and most things, especially junk food, was cheaper.
For that you would have to completely change how currency is issued and managed. Money is created by being borrowed directly or indirectly from the central bank, and the reason it is possible for those loans to later be repaid is because even more money is loaned out later, so it’s not going to be a game of musical chairs where there isn’t enough money going around to pay them all back, they keep bringing in more chairs. There is always an increasing amount of money in the system, and they make it that way on purpose to keep things running the way they want them to.
Personally what I hate about this setup is, a person who meets the requirements to obtain a business loan can now take this money that was created out of thin air, use it to coerce labor out of people who have no way to get money other than working, and keep the profits. What if our lives would all be better off working a bit less? Too bad, that decision isn’t up to us, how much we must work is indirectly decided by monetary policy, which the average person realistically has zero influence over, and the goal is a high level of “economic activity”, ie. as many people as possible subject to financial coercion.
Central banks can adjust the inputs to the formula that result in inflation or deflation, but not the result. It can be a difficult target to hit, as you can see if you followed the news in the past 3-4 years.
Tell people to stop having more than 2.1 kids, then. As long as the population increases, without making changes to the currency supply, money is going to become more scarce. Keeping it exactly in line is impossible, so it’s better to keep a small amount of inflation.
The US population in 1980 was around 226 million, and in 2020 it was around 330 million. That’s an increase of about 50%. By comparison, the GDP in 1980 was about $2.75 trillion; in 2020 it was over $20 trillion, an increase of more than 600%.
The problem isn’t that we’re spreading out the same amount of money over too many people. It’s that we’re making much, much more money, but concentrating it in the hands of a tiny number of people and letting everyone else scramble for scraps.
Alright, how about the fact that the TFR in the US has been below replacement since the 1970’s, then. (It got close to 2.1 during the 2010s and then dropped again, and is currently around 1.6-1.7.) Is that relevant enough for you? Antinatalism is just as toxic as pronatalism these days. I swear, neither side is willing to actually look at facts.
I never said that any birth rate was good or bad. I only said that if population increases, and currency supply does not increase, you will experience deflation (and that slight inflation is easier to achieve than aiming for balance and ending up too low).
It’s more run away/chain reaction type events you want to avoid I think rather than a low % inflation or deflation that remains relatively stable, swing too far in either direction and you’ll have problems.
Conventional economic theory holds that a small, consistent level of inflation is the most beneficial. In short, you don’t want hoarding cash to be a smart long term economic decision, you want more of that money invested/moving in the economy. I recommend reading about the Japanese deflation in the 90s if you’re curious what the effects of even relatively moderate deflation can be.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Inflation decreasing just means that prices aren’t rising as fast anymore.
That’s thinking like a corporation. The rest of us just stop buying games.
Also, if you’re rooting for deflation: more often than not, when deflation happens, things are not going great in terms of economics.
LOL, yeah… Cause shit is going great in America right now.
Deflation bad, fascism good.
I just wish we’d have neither inflation nor deflation.
Candy bars used to be $0.50 when I was a kid. That would probably equal the buying power of $1.25 today. But candy bars are like $2, and about half the size.
I just want it to be still $0.50, and not get smaller.
If wages rise in conjunction, I don’t see any issue. The theory is that slight inflation encourages putting money to use, either by consuming it or saving in a bank account (where the bank can lend it out) or investing it etc. That’s why some inflation is generally considered desirable.
Soooooo…you see the issue, right?
As you said, it had the buying power of $1.25. Therefore, at the same size and at the price of $1.25, it would be perfectly alright. Don’t blame inflation, blame greedy companies increasing prices above inflation AND also shrinking portions.
I doubt that $0.50 was only $1.25 today, if you actually do the math, I think you’ll find it’s $2 or more.
I don’t know when this fabled $0.50 candybar was, but here are some inflation numbers given different start dates (source):
FWIW, I remember the big candy bars (king size or whatever) being $1 in the late 90s/early 2000s, so that absolutely tracks with current prices at $2 or whatever (just checked Walmart and that’s about accurate).
Here’s a decent article about inflation-adjusted game prices that shows a general downward trend. Here’s the most revealing chart, which shows nominal (sticker price; blue) vs real (inflation adjusted; orange) game prices:
As a couple examples, here’s the purchasing power today of game prices for various consoles:
At $80 per game, games are a little more expensive than the current gen, but only by a little, and that’s because prices are sticky in a given gen.
Finally I’m seeing someone giving proof that games were more expensive back in the days.
Of course the gaming market was smaller, but I remember my parents buying me shitty games for a really high price.
I’m not asking for a price increase, but clearly games were more expensive in the 80-90-00s.
Exactly. And the trend is downward, and that includes this $80 price point. Prices will likely stay flat for the Switch 2 generation, so by the end it’ll be below the current $70 price point in inflation adjusted dollars.
Yeah, it sucks, and I get that. I wish games were cheaper too. But that doesn’t mean $80 is unreasonable.
You doubt they were a kid in 1990?
I doubt candy bars were $0.50 in 1990.
Candy bars were 30p in Ireland in 1990s and that equates to about $0.50. I went on a trip to the USA around then and most things, especially junk food, was cheaper.
For that you would have to completely change how currency is issued and managed. Money is created by being borrowed directly or indirectly from the central bank, and the reason it is possible for those loans to later be repaid is because even more money is loaned out later, so it’s not going to be a game of musical chairs where there isn’t enough money going around to pay them all back, they keep bringing in more chairs. There is always an increasing amount of money in the system, and they make it that way on purpose to keep things running the way they want them to.
Personally what I hate about this setup is, a person who meets the requirements to obtain a business loan can now take this money that was created out of thin air, use it to coerce labor out of people who have no way to get money other than working, and keep the profits. What if our lives would all be better off working a bit less? Too bad, that decision isn’t up to us, how much we must work is indirectly decided by monetary policy, which the average person realistically has zero influence over, and the goal is a high level of “economic activity”, ie. as many people as possible subject to financial coercion.
Central banks can adjust the inputs to the formula that result in inflation or deflation, but not the result. It can be a difficult target to hit, as you can see if you followed the news in the past 3-4 years.
Tell people to stop having more than 2.1 kids, then. As long as the population increases, without making changes to the currency supply, money is going to become more scarce. Keeping it exactly in line is impossible, so it’s better to keep a small amount of inflation.
The US population in 1980 was around 226 million, and in 2020 it was around 330 million. That’s an increase of about 50%. By comparison, the GDP in 1980 was about $2.75 trillion; in 2020 it was over $20 trillion, an increase of more than 600%.
The problem isn’t that we’re spreading out the same amount of money over too many people. It’s that we’re making much, much more money, but concentrating it in the hands of a tiny number of people and letting everyone else scramble for scraps.
That’s a separate problem.
Alright, how about the fact that the TFR in the US has been below replacement since the 1970’s, then. (It got close to 2.1 during the 2010s and then dropped again, and is currently around 1.6-1.7.) Is that relevant enough for you? Antinatalism is just as toxic as pronatalism these days. I swear, neither side is willing to actually look at facts.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA
I never said that any birth rate was good or bad. I only said that if population increases, and currency supply does not increase, you will experience deflation (and that slight inflation is easier to achieve than aiming for balance and ending up too low).
Fuck off. The richest 1% own over half the world’s wealth. That’s where the money is going, not Mrs. Johnson down the street having 3 kids.
It’s more run away/chain reaction type events you want to avoid I think rather than a low % inflation or deflation that remains relatively stable, swing too far in either direction and you’ll have problems.
Conventional economic theory holds that a small, consistent level of inflation is the most beneficial. In short, you don’t want hoarding cash to be a smart long term economic decision, you want more of that money invested/moving in the economy. I recommend reading about the Japanese deflation in the 90s if you’re curious what the effects of even relatively moderate deflation can be.
I’m otherwise not super deep into economics so thanks for the correction. TIL.