Inflation, deflation, both...how do you see the future?

Inflation, deflation, both...how do you see the future?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see a future of either inflation, deflation or neither.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Inflation and an eventual recover.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dysfunctional logistics and market disruptions will spasmodically continue throughout the rest of the decade. As new wars/conflicts slash threat of them, the ensuing "crisis" replacements for COVID of one sort or another, and the economic earthquakes caused by various government-compelled transitions to GreenSoc and adult daycare bureautopia likewise proceed.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-ev-transition-explained-2659368857

https://www.military.com/daily-news...der-his-command-say-it-was-inappropriate.html
_

 

Traditionally we have been in an inflation/debt system. Tech tends to be deflationary but initially it was a small part of the economy. As time goes on tech becomes a much larger part of the economy and this is deflationary. The deflationary model is best described by deflation/abundance.

As time goes on I think that is what we will be transitioning to. Bitcoin is a good example of that. Bitcoin is deflationary, decentralized and therefore were it the largest currency it would be immune from governmental monetary policies. They wouldn't have that "tool" or "weapon".

Another change in this system should appeal to the current "progressives". The benefits of the economy are more evenly distributed naturally in the form of "abundance". If energy is virtually free (looking ahead to fusion energy) then food becomes much cheaper, if work is needed less and more distributed then you can live anywhere and housing becomes cheaper.

If everything you really need is free or very inexpensive you don't need to work many hours to pay for that so this means that everyone benefits and not just those at the top.

This doesn't change the system however. If you have a great idea and provide the best product or service you will still receive profits from that. It's just that profits will be less in a deflationary system and it's still the case that everyone else will be better off as well.

Of course vested interests in any system always fight the change so that will occur here as well. That's the case with Bitcoin. It's slowly being adopted here in the U.S. because the dollar works better than most other fiat currencies. It's still slowing debasing the currency but it's not in your face as is the case in many 3rd world countries.

Those are the countries with the highest adoption now and those are the ones who will likely benefit the most early on. It's like the wired power grid system that we have here. We started out with telephone lines, banks on every block, etc. In much of Africa they just jumped ahead to cell phone usage, digital banking using Bitcoin and their phones rather than having a bank building on every block.

People will worry about there not being enough jobs but work will still be needed, just not as much. Even if society had to pay some kind of Universal Basic Income to be derived from all the automation and AI taking over, the cost would still be much smaller due to deflation and "abundance".

I think all this is inevitable and it's just a matter of how long it takes and how much disruption occurs while changing "models".

Jeff Booth has written a lot about this along with others but I think this idea is pretty accurate but that's only as accurate as predicting the future can be.

It's true that in hindsight we can compare certain "ignorant" comments of today to the same things that were said about computers, the internet, Amazon, etc and they all look silly today.

To be fair though, similar comments were made about technologies that didn't make it and those comments don't look so silly today. If Bitcoin sees mass adoption current comments will look silly. If it doesn't they won't. It's the same with comments about technology and deflation. It's all likely to play out as described, IMO, but it may not and the cons of deflation may play a greater role than we anticipate.

It's an interesting topic though!

 

An ad for Bitcoin is what you got out of all that? You accuse me of bias and it's like you can't look at the bigger picture in any post? What's up with that?

 

Inflation for another few months. The fed will keep raising interest rates. That will have a chilling effect on the economy, which will both cause a recession and end inflation in about six months. Once we start dropping rates the economy will recover with about a year's delay.

 

He's just trolling, but, alas, nothing can be done about it.
As for the UK, I think we'll be pretty much in line with the others as far as inflation trajectory is concerned, as most is globally influenced. I'm not sure how much the interest rate rises will impact the speed of reduction beyond those, but I'd hope the BoE will bring us back to their 2% target by early/mid next year. I don't see it happening any quicker than that, but I also don't see us entering deflation.

"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable." — John Kenneth Galbraith

 

To be clear, my overview of the inflation/deflation models is a long term view given the nature of technology. Energy may be almost free when fusion is commonplace but that's a long term view in and of itself.

The trend is, IMO, toward more tech in the economy over the years and tech is deflationary.

 

Huh?

 

This is a ridiculous question. I have a favorable view of Bitcoin obviously. There is nothing to "declare". Whether I own any Bitcoin or not is not relevant nor is it any of your business.

My thread isn't about Bitcoin. Bitcoin fits in with a deflationary model but that's not the point of this discussion.

If I have some Bitcoin your response would be "Ah ha, I knew you had Bitcoin!". If I don't have any Bitcoin your response would be "So you're just a paid shill for Bitcoin, I thought so!".

Do you just need to be in control or something? I can't help with that.

The whole line of logic is stupid. I'm talking about whether or not technology will become a larger percentage of our population and how that may lead to a more deflationary model and how that might change the economy.

I suppose you'll find a way to bring UFO's into this as well? When will you declare your vested interest in UFO's? Do you have a financial interest in a weather balloon company?

 

That was a lot of words where a simple yes or no would suffice.

Do you have a vested interest in Bitcoin? It's not a big deal. I mean, I have a vested interest in the last four companies I worked for (via stock option programs) and a few companies like Enphase and Tesla. They are infinitesimal amounts compared to the total market cap of those companies, but they're not zero.

 

It's a bullying approach. It isn't relevant and to answer the question is to enable his bad behavior by rewarding this kind of bad behavior.

I own some Bitcoin. I own a house. I own some stock. What does any of that have to do with anything?

I have an opinion regarding nuclear weapons, do I need to mention whether or not I own any nuclear weapons? It's not relevant.

It's an even more ridiculous question because the thrust of my thread wasn't about Bitcoin. Even in my thread about Bitcoin, it's not relevant whether I have Bitcoin or not.

As I said it's a bullying approach and a need to be controlling by posting dismissively, sarcastically, in every thread. It's like responding to every post in the UFO thread, a thread that is in a sub-forum about Ghosts, Monsters and UFO's and berating MR in every post. It's an unnatural need (it appears) to control every thread and in a way to imply that there is something going on with the other party. This isn't even in a science subforum. It's a subforum about Ghost, Monsters and UFO's.

I posted, Sarkus posted and then he implies that we must be the same person. I responded to a thread that he started, answered the question posed, he didn't like my view and then asked "why are you so interested in this subject?".

I wasn't interested, I just answered his question. He didn't like the answer so that's the kind of disingenuous reply that's common on his part. I just responded in another thread to a comment that Dave made and said that it hasn't a logical response. James said something like "yeah, it makes no sense, why don't you tell that to MR".

I wasn't responding to MR, I was responding to Dave. James knew that. He just has to bully everyone who replies even if he needs to do it in a dishonest way.

Me "declaring" an interest in Bitcoin is a dishonest approach and you should know that.

 

Cool, thanks.

 

Are you now, or where you ever, a member of the Communist Party?

 

Not that I know of!

 

OK, just checking to make sure you are fully declaring your vested interests. You and James aren't the same person are you?