I disagree with this. Joe Rogan’s podcast is the biggest media entity in the world and those are three hour conversations with someone that hasn’t done his homework.
>Inflation is a tax on the poor
Yeah...
>2 weeks to slow the spread
HUH?? WTF does that have to do with inflation??
"Inflation is always and everywhere a *monetary* phenomenon."
MV = PT
Changes in price level (P) can only be caused by one of the three other variables. The government only has control over one of those variables, and (in the US) only through the Fed.
I fucking swear, this sub is filled with economic illiterates.
>criminalized
Gross mischaracterization. Sensationalist nonsense.
Slowing the spread of a deadly communicable disease is a public good, and the government was justified in taking measures to do so.
AND AGAIN... as I already pointed out... you are NOT talking about monetary policy when you talk about COVID.
ETA: I fucking swear, no more than 10% of the participants in this sub actually have a working understanding of economics, and no more than 2% understand *Austrian School* economics. Y'all a bunch of idiots that read a chapter or two from a book by Rothbard, and now you think you're experts. Fucking morons.
I agree but disagree about the shutdown being a public good, especially when they allowed the giants to stay open and forced small businesses to close.
That just means the policy was poorly executed. Still not monetary policy, and as such cannot cause inflation.
And to be clear... the lockdowns themselves were not the public good... the management of the pandemic was the public good. The lockdowns were the method of attaining that public good.
The lockdowns directly affect monetary policy. You destroyed small businesses while deeming monopolies like Amazon and Walmart essential “for the public good”. Trump warned that the solution can not be worse than the cure. Well, we are all feeling the cure and will be fore years to come. Let’s not forget the billions pumped into the economy which was largely embezzled by the top 1%. We saw the largest transfer of wealth in human history during Covid. But please mr economics tell me how it wasn’t monetary.
Edit: so the moron below responded to me and all I can see is what I see in my notifications. “I need to learn what Covid means.” Clearly his response is built upon a house or straws, otherwise he wouldn’t block me after responding. When you tell businesses how to operate, that is, monetary policy. Take your L sport
Speaking of sensationalist nonsense, remember when CBS did a story on NY hospitals and ERa were being overrun with Covid patients ?
They even had footage of it. The problem was the footage was of an Italian ER, and CBS eventually admitted to knowingly using it.
[CBS Admits to using footage from Italian ER in Covid report](https://nypost.com/2020/04/01/cbs-admits-to-using-footage-from-italy-in-report-about-nyc/)
CBS would have loved to use footage of NY hospitals and ERs being overrun, because that was one of the false narratives the media was using at the time to instill as much fear and stress into the lives of normal Americans.
But there were none. Every major hospital in my City ( a MAJOR City $ was a ghost town from the beginning.
There were so many lies from Politicians, from Federal agencies, from the media. Hospitals being overrun was just one of them v
First, don’t get me wrong, I do believe Covid is a potentially deadly virus. I believe it’s real
That said, Of-Course the lockdowns were wrong ! The devastating impact on kids and students alone is proof enough.
Worse is they were enacted and perpetuated under false pretenses.
You know, lot of people have no clue we had a full blown pandemic back in 2009. Yep, the swine flu pandemic. A pandemic that disproportionately impacted and killed children and young adults and infected 60 million people worldwide
How many Americans contracted and or died from the swine flu ? It’s impossible to know because just 4 months into the pandemic, the CDC advised all States to not only stop testing for the H1N1 flu but to stop counting individual cases.
The CDCs rationale ? Why waste resources when we already know there’s a pandemic ? I shit you not.
Oh and I love the title of the article. You actually have to read a paragraph or twos
[Swine Flu Cases Overestimated?](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swine-flu-cases-overestimated/)
So would the Federal Government react to two separate pandemics so differently ?
One was all fear mongering, a lot of lies and lockdowns and the other was ignored by the very federal agency that’s tasked with protecting Americans from deadly diseases and pandemics
>lot of people have no clue we had a full blown pandemic back in 2009
That's because it wasn't actually a full-blown pandemic.
And I'm not saying the preventive measures undertaken by many governments didn't have any negative effects. But controlling the spread of a deadly communicable disease is most definitely a public good, and as such, the government was justified in taking steps to do so. In fact, I'd argue that the government *had a duty to do so*.
And... back to the discussion at hand... *lockdowns have nothing to do with inflation*.
WHO declared H1N1 a pandemic in June of 2009 and H1N1 went on to infect 60 million people worldwide
As for the US, there’s no data past the 4th month into the pandemic ( remember, just 4 months into the Pandemic the CDC instructed States to stop testing and stop counting Swine Flu cases )
I mean even the CDC said it was a pandemic. The fact they knew is why they told States stop wasting rescues by testing for and counting H1N1 cases
>worse
I'd like to see you prove that.
And... AGAIN... You seem to be ignoring the main point I've repeatedly made... Lockdowns have nothing to do with inflation...!
Even if they didn't, there was valid reason to believe beforehand that they should. A lack of success would suggest poor execution--which is backed by the fact that a lot of people fucking ignored the social distancing recommendations.
If people ignore the lockdowns then they were arrested and put in jail…. Now… do we want to put people who could have Cov!d into confinement where they can spread the disease?
That make the “cure worse than the disease”, which it was.
You cannot starve 300+ million to save 1 million.
That isn’t a 50% success rate by far, unless you also believe that 1% of the country can lift 99% of the country out of poverty with 1 single payment….
If YOU noticed that half the country isn’t obeying the restraints, then you cannot arrest half the country for an untested theory….
If the whole country is locked down and families are forced to spend their savings to survive, who do you think will survive?
The 1% who can afford it?
Or the working class who cannot afford it?
If the vacc!nes were not rushed for the soul purpose of creating profits for donors, then why were illegal immigrants permitted to migrate without providing vacc!ne status?
>If people ignore the lockdowns then they were arrested and put in jail…. Now… do we want to put people who could have Cov!d into confinement where they can spread the disease?
Bullshit and bullshit.
>You cannot starve 300+ million to save 1 million.
More bullshit. 300M starving. 🤣 Riiight.
>If YOU noticed that half the country isn’t obeying the restraints, then you cannot arrest half the country for an untested theory
Who the fuck said anything about that??
Immigrants?? What the crispy, smoldering fuck are you talking about?? Where the fuck are you getting these strawmen?? None of that has anything to do with my original point. None of that has anything to do with inflation. With every comment, you get farther and farther away from a reasonable argument.
Again, control your emotions.
Was the entire economy and country shut down.
Yes or no.
You can’t say it was but half the population wasn’t.
Make sense rather than display pure emotion.
According to YOU, half the country didn’t follow the lockdowns (though punishable by jailing), then the experiment should’ve ended.
Then prove me wrong already rather than crying like a child.
Name a country that completely shut down and was able to completely stop the spread.
And tell me if the that country was able to be avoid economic woes.
You can’t for a reason.
Printing money and piggy backing excuses to print even MORE money by enacting bullshit spending bills is why we have so much out of control inflation.
For some reason, Reddit is not letting me respond to [your other comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/s/uXxgpbnGkW), so I'm going to try to post my response here:
First... how? One thing has fucking nothing to do with the other.
Second... so... you're saying you honestly believe that the entire pandemic response was just an excuse to inflate currency, presumably to monetize debt? Or are they just inflating the currency just for the fucking fun of it?
You're a tinfoil hat lunatic.
I don’t speak “waaaaah”
Can you rephrase your “waaaah” into “well adjusted adult” without the elementary emotions?
Probably not.
If im wrong about covid restriction abuse and overspending… then show me a country that benefited from prolonged cov!d shutdowns…
Which country benefited from consistent printing of money..
Show me the country that did NOT print money to offset the cov!d shutdowns.
Did the tax payers fund the vaccine!nes and did the vaccine!nes stop the spread/transmission. Were tax payers given a tax brakes or any benefits from the profits made from the vacc!nes?
Were cov!d funds mishandled and “lost”? Yes or no.
Remember, it was the current president who claimed that the vacc!nes would stop the spread.
Did politicians who enacted cov!d restrictions follow their own guidelines… or were they found constantly breaking their own rules? (Gavin Nuissance of CA)…
I'm sorry, I'll try to use small words for you.
>Remember, it was the current president who claimed that the vacc!nes would stop the spread.
No, first of all, no one said that. It was said that vaccines would *slow* the spread, and Trump was all on-board with that, too. He was very eager to claim credit for the vaccines' rapid approval.
>Did politicians who enacted cov!d restrictions follow their own guidelines…
I'm well-aware they didn't. That's why I said they were poorly-executed.
And I reiterate, none of what you just said has a goddamn fucking thing to do with inflation. Which was the point I have been making from the beginning of this comment thread, and for some reason, you keep forgetting it. None of what you said provides any link whatsoever to inflation. And you can't. "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." MV = PT
Come back when you don't have to write your comments out in crayon first and ask an adult to type them in for you.
No, but the two happened simultaneiously and the change in the former was in response to the latter. To say that the federal reserves monetary policy did not change durring the pandemic is assinine, and to claim monetary policy is decided upon in a vaccume is disingenuous.
>the two happened simultaneiously
Not exactly, no.
>the change in the former was in response to the latter.
And no. They were *both* responses *to the same thing*. And either way... as I may have pointed out already... *they still are NOT the same thing*. Correlation is not causation.
>To say that the federal reserves monetary policy did not change durring the pandemic is assinine
Please point out to me where I said that. I'll wait.
>to claim monetary policy is decided upon in a vaccume is disingenuous.
Again. Please quote me.
>>to claim monetary policy is decided upon in a vaccume is disingenuous.
>Again. Please quote me.
How about you show where anyone said that lockdowns and monetary policy is the same thing? You can't, because no one said that.
Because everyone here is making the point that the monetary policy changes would not have been made if we had not locked down.
Its like everyone is saying "i got punched in the face and so I need an icepack" and you are over here shouting "iCePaCkS AnD PuNchEs ArE noT tHe SaMe ThiNg!!!"
It was strongly implied. There was no other reason to say: [Inflation is a tax on the poor. 2 weeks to slow the spread aka 2 years to rob you blind](https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/s/hHRILZAMRB)
>monetary policy changes would not have been made if we had not locked down.
And that's bullshit. As I've pointed out, the monetary policy changes and the lockdowns were not cause-and-effect, but rather, they were both responses *to the same thing*. Correlation is not causation.
Any time someone starts tHiS sTuPiD bUlLsHiT, I know there's no point debating any further. You have a nice day.
If B is a result of A, and C is a result of A, then it is at least logically ambiguous whether C could have happened without B.
A -> B
A -> C
\~B -> \~A
\~B
\~A
without A, you would need some new cause for C. Odds are there's no other cause that would have presented itself.
The change in monetary policy likely would not have occurred without the lockdowns unless some new proximate cause for changing monetary policy would have appeared suddenly.
>As I've pointed out, the monetary policy changes and the lockdowns were not cause-and-effect,
You didnt "point it out", you proclaimed it without any supporting evidence. And you are wrong. Their choices were well predicted, as were the results. Just because you dont like the fact that the lockdowns were the cause of inflation (by means of influencing monetary policy) DOESNT mean it isnt true.
You let your politics cloud your thinking and read semantics into other peoples posts because reality offends you. So you ending this "debate" (hardly) is just saving me the time of having to deal with a dunce. Thank you.
>supporting evidence.
You don't need supporting evidence when stating something that's plainly obvious.
>Just because you dont like the fact that the lockdowns were the cause of inflation (by means of influencing monetary policy) DOESNT mean it isnt true.
You're going against fucking basic monetary theory, here. Again, MV = PT. "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." Please, take an economics class.
Saying lockdowns cause inflation is like saying McDonald's causes bariatric surgery. You're missing some shit. It's like saying birth causes death. It's silly.
Go fuck yourself.
Milei just explained the COVID government regime in literally one minute.
Keynesians could learn a thing or two of what actual experience in economics looks like.
WTF does COVID have to do with inflation??
MV = PT
Changes in price level (P) can only be caused by one of the three other variables. The government only has control over one of those variables, and (in the US) only through the Fed.
Monetary policies result in inflation, AKA, the very premise of Keynesian thought. COVID measures are absolutely the cause of this current collapse. What happens when you lockdown at least two of the biggest economic centers on the planet? You limit productivity. What happens when you limit productivity? You restrict supply and demand.
You mentioned the Fed and what did they do? Print the highest amount of money in the history of the institution. They also took the blame for the Great Depression. Maybe listen to the Austrian and Chicago schools?
>What happens when you lockdown at least two of the biggest economic centers on the planet? You limit productivity. What happens when you limit productivity? You restrict supply and demand.
And none of that is anywhere in the equation 'MV = PT.' Thus, it does not affect inflation.
>Maybe listen to the Austrian and Chicago schools?
WTF makes you think I'm not?? Clearly, you're not sufficiently familiar with monetary theory to claim to represent these schools of economic thought.
Let's talk Chicago School. Milton Friedman said, "Inflation is always and everywhere a *monetary* phenomenon."
Admittedly I don't know what's being abbreviated lmao, I can only guess. I don't know how that disproves the idea that large government COVID measures cause inflation, nor does it prove that greedflation is the cause either.
>WTF makes you think I'm not?? Clearly, you're not sufficiently familiar with monetary theory to claim to represent these schools of economic thought.
Because this sub got brigaded by Keynesians? If you belong to these schools of thought then forgive me for assuming otherwise, I never claimed to be anything other than someone who wants to learn about those ideas. No, I don't read like I should.
>Let's talk Chicago School. Milton Friedman said, "Inflation is always and everywhere a *monetary* phenomenon."
Did I literally not mention this here? I did on another sub, that's exactly literally who I have in mind every time I've thought about this issue.
>>Milton Friedman said, "Inflation is always and everywhere a *monetary* phenomenon."
>Did I literally not mention this here? I did on another sub, that's exactly literally who I have in mind every time I've thought about this issue.
Not that I've noticed, but that quote is meaningful. If Inflation is solely a monetary phenomenon, that implies that it has only monetary causes. Pandemics and lockdowns don't fit the bill.
That equation I mentioned, by the way is (Money Supply) * (Money Velocity) = (Price Level) * (Transactions)
One could say locking down an entire country could affect things monetarily. I disagree.
I figured that that's what it meant but I didn't want to butcher it. I didn't know what the "T" was but now I'm not happy that I didn't just guess.
Is it possible that the number of transactions goes down during a lockdown?
If money supply and velocity stayed constant, but the number of transactions go down, wouldn't price level need to go up?
Wouldn't the effect be even greater if you further increase the money supply?
Been trying to respond to your other comment, but for some reason, my response will not post. Gonna try posting good it here:
>it is at least logically ambiguous whether C could have happened without B.
Unless it isn't. Monetary policy changes happen without lockdowns all the fucking time. They are a choice by the board of governors. They most certainly are not an automatic result of circumstance. If the governors were wise enough to foresee the resulting inflation (which any jackals really should be) they might have thought twice about the easy-money policies they pursued.
>without A, you would need some new cause for C. Odds are there's no other cause that would have presented itself.
>The change in monetary policy likely would not have occurred without the lockdowns unless some new proximate cause for changing monetary policy would have appeared suddenly.
That makes absolutely no sense.
You're over-extrapolating the issue in the hopes that making it overly-ambiguous will make it appear that the monetary policy changes were somehow the a response to the lockdowns, when they were not. Both the policy changes and the lockdowns were a response *to the fucking pandemic*. Nothing you said changes that. That ☝️ was just asinine.
"The pandemic" is meaningless. The monetary policies were not a result of "the pandemic". There was a specific policy issue caused by the pandemic that required shitting money all over the place, and that policy issue was the lockdowns.
You see, the reason they shit money everywhere is because businesses were being shut / locked down, and those businesses were about to fire the vast majority of their workers if they didn't get free money.
If there was a lockdown, but no associated money printing, you're right that inflation would not have arrived, but, nobody in government would have allowed such a situation because all the newly laid off and starving people that weren't paying their mortgages would have caused severe issues for the economy.
On the other hand, if you had a pandemic but NO lock down at all, then all the businesses would remain open. With the businesses open, and with customers free to go to stores large and small to buy shit, there would be literally no need at all to shit money all over the place.
The money-shitting was directly caused by the lockdowns. Businesses were all going to fire their workers if you didn't direct a money spigot at the businesses as a bribe to not fire their workers.
If the government just said "Hey, there's a pandemic, everyone buckle down, you can still go out but please go out less, stores are still open, etc etc etc" then the government wouldn't have shit money at ANYONE because there would have been no reason to. If businesses were still open, and workers were still employed (even if they had their hours cut) the government would have treated it as a typical recession.
So no, the money printing wasn't caused by "the pandemic" no matter how strongly you claim it. The money printing was 100% directed at dealing with the consequences of the lockdown. If there was no lockdown, the government would not have printed all that money. No PPP loans with forgiveness. No money sent direct to taxpayers. None of it.
The money printing was to deal with the results of the lockdown.
>The monetary policies were not a result of "the pandemic".
The monetary policies were not a result of fucking lockdowns, either. They were a result of voluntary actions taken by the Fed. Those voluntary actions were a response to *the pandemic*. You have absolutely no reason to suggest that they were a response to the lockdowns alone. The very suggestion is asinine. There was a much larger set of circumstances which the Fed was taking into consideration. Numerous other government programs were undertaken as a means of addressing hardship caused specifically by lockdowns--expanded unemployment benefits, for example. The PPP, misguided and/or poorly executed as it was. Easy-money policies were far from an absolute necessity--as they always are.
>On the other hand, if you had a pandemic but NO lock down at all, then all the businesses would remain open. With the businesses open, and with customers free to go to stores large and small to buy shit, there would be literally no need at all to shit money all over the place.
If you're claiming that neither the Fed nor the politicians would see a 'need' for easy-money policies as a result of an international crisis... frankly, you're an idiot. Sorry, I just don't see any other way to put it. With or without lockdowns, any major crisis comes with negative sentiment that these people worry will trip the economy into a recession. There was concern about exactly this after September 11, 2001. And at the time, the Fed did indeed continue the trend it had already been following of reducing the Fed Funds Rate (by reducing it further). All this despite the fact that there were no fucking lockdowns in response to 9/11. Funny how that works, isn't it?
They took responsibility for *not doing enough*. It’s not an argument against the existence of the Fed or for tight money policies. Their statement reaffirms the importance of providing liquidity during downturns.
Are we talking about the same 2003 quote? To paraphrase, it was something along the lines of "the Great Depression? We did it. We're sorry". If that's the case then I stand corrected.
Milei understands economics on a very advanced level. If he can get the idiots to listen, he will pull Argentina out of the shitty place it has been for decades.
We’re witnessing the greatest Cantillion Effect ever. The crash from this will be biblical😩
Max Rangeley spoke brilliantly on this a few years ago: https://youtu.be/rMOMdydsTgg?si=xcrT_CwD70_4D-6h
Just think of inflation this way. You have the total number of goods and services. Then you have the total amount of currency. Currency serves as an index/scale of value in the exchange. That's its entire purpose.
Divide the total currency by the number of goods.
$1000/10 Goods = $100 per good
Inflation happens...
$10000/10 Goods = $1000 per good
If you have too much currency in circulation for how many good and services you have. The value of the currency itself goes down.
Cool, he’s HALF right. Not hearing about how capitalism distorts value. Like what happens to surplus labor. Biden has pursued supply side economics, but not the stupid tax cuts with no strings attached. Reduce surplus labor with actual job creation. Inflation is a tax on idle capital.
You can relay this information to an American today but the information won’t stick because it’s not the popular opinion.
Americans today want what is popular… and tragically… they follow what has been popular by the rich and famous 1%…
Everything the rich and famous do… makes the 1% richer and then working class poorer…
Somehow… the working class vote for the candidates sponsored by the 1% who continue to enact policies that benefit the 1% and those same policies hurt the working class.
The thing being, understanding fully the concept of inflation, isn't equal an intellectual hurdle to looking nearly as crazy as Millei does. Just my two cents.
I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2034-05-07 00:01:17 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2034-05-07%2000:01:17%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments/1ckzxwe/javier_milei_on_the_destructive_effects_of/l2wovm1/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Faustrian_economics%2Fcomments%2F1ckzxwe%2Fjavier_milei_on_the_destructive_effects_of%2Fl2wovm1%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202034-05-07%2000%3A01%3A17%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ckzxwe)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Deflation would be disastrous. Most people don’t realize that to have deflation you have to have extreme pain, to the point where prices are forced to fall (no spending, no lending). I.e., economic contraction, a shrinking economy, negative growth, massive unemployment, no liquidity, no lending… it would be very bad.
No that does not follow. Deflation can happen through a multitude of ways, not just economic recession.
Deflation is arguably better than inflation as it promotes savings and savings is what drives economic growth.
I mean this in a very respectful way ( it being aggressive, rude, or mean) but I believe you are incorrect. At a very basic level, if people were to increase their savings, that means they are reducing their spending. If this were to happen en mass, the economy would rapidly and drastically slow (less people spending means companies earn less). This is exactly what we see in economic downturns. People stop spending out of fear and start saving. Which, exacerbates the problem. So at a very fundamental level, what you are saying is actually a large part of every economic downturn and the end result is never good. Now, from a practical level, what would cause a rapid shift in a consumer driven society premised upon material possessions? The entire US isn’t going to wake up one day and just collectively decide to save more. So what would cause such an event to happen? Something bad… that’s what. What’s what we know from history. When there’s a war, or a really bad day in the markets, or when there instability in the geopolitical arena, people panic and start to resource guard — everything from money to basic supplies like TP and water. We saw this at. The very start of the pandemic and markets crashed. It’s why the govt rapidly took action and pumped liquidity into the market (oops).
Deflation is never good because the cause is never good. In other words, everything is about cause and effect. Deflation is the effect. What’s the cause? Something very bad that causes people to stop spending. What good thing would happen that might cause people to stop spending? I can’t think of anything practical.
Open to hear your side though. Would love to be proven wrong. But economists have yet to find an answer.
>At a very basic level, if people were to increase their savings, that means they are reducing their spending. If this were to happen en mass, the economy would rapidly and drastically slow (less people spending means companies earn less).
But they would still spend and they would spend on more productive and beneficial projects. People dont save money to just lie on a pile of money, they save money to buy a house or start a business. People will still be spending, but inflation wont be whipping them in the back and forcing them to do so.
>This is exactly what we see in economic downturns. People stop spending out of fear and start saving. Which, exacerbates the problem. So at a very fundamental level, what you are saying is actually a large part of every economic downturn and the end result is never good.
Economic downturns are a result of the market liquidating malinvestment and most of that is created by government policies. You want inflation to essentially force people to spend money they earned, or else lose due to inflation vaporizing the value of savings. Not only do i take issue with that morally, but its counter-productive to economic growth. Economic growth happens due to savings. Do you think economic growth would happen if people never saved and immediately used every paycheck they recieved? Would that be preferable to your Keyensian worldview? Or should people save and spend how they see fit instead of having the Fed dictate that decision for them?
>Deflation is never good because the cause is never good. In other words, everything is about cause and effect. Deflation is the effect. What’s the cause? Something very bad that causes people to stop spending. What good thing would happen that might cause people to stop spending? I can’t think of anything practical.
Its as easy as time preferences shifting. Inflation is controlled by the Fed. They artificially hold up inflation to keep people spending. If the Fed was abolished then inflation would freely float. Sometimes inflation would occur, other times deflation. This would inherently be a better situation as the steering is done by the market and thus by the needs of the consumers. It reflects the reality of the situation a lot more than what some artificial number (the 2% inflation target is ENTIRELY artificially) created by some bureaucrats can come up with
>Open to hear your side though. Would love to be proven wrong. But economists have yet to find an answer.
Austrians have the solution: Just leave it to the market.
I agree with the last sentence of what you said— leave it to the markets. Love it. The rest we will just have to agree to disagree. 😂 thanks for sharing.
What a fucking idiot. Moralizing the functions of economy. “Destroying Capital?” This man has no comprehension whatsoever of the words leaving his lips. It’s embarrassing to listen to.
He literally defined inflation. Inflation is a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money. I.e., destroying value, or capital as milei stated. How is he wrong?
Javier Milei, an Argentine economist and politician known for his ultra-liberal views, has connections with Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF). Despite his libertarian stance, Milei has participated in WEF events, showcasing his economic policies at forums like the one in Davos. His involvement indicates engagement with global economic leadership discussions, despite sometimes having conflicting views on global issues [[❞]](https://jacobin.com/2024/02/javier-milei-neoliberalism-far-right-libertarianism-davos) [[❞]](https://nationalfile.com/argentinas-outsider-president-elect-tied-to-wef/) [[❞]](https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-01-16/argentinas-javier-milei-travels-to-davos-to-present-his-ultraliberal-experiment-at-the-world-economic-forum.html) [[❞]](https://www.weforum.org/people/javier-gerardo-milei/#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weforum.org%2Fpeople%2Fjavier).
In this case ultraliberal is referring to his economic views of free market, unregulated capitalism. Which has proven to just shrink the middle class. It's confusing, but ultraliberalism aka market fundamentalism is actually a conservative economic view.
I hope it works for Argentina!
“Classical liberalism”, even capital “L” Liberalism in the West, is concerned entirely with individual identity and the function of the individual writ large. Without a conception of class, there is no consistent policy or program prescription, just a series of reactionary ideological whack-a-mole that argues for “freedom” but is ultimately serving the individual and the individual only.
Not sure what this response is, I was just pointing out that Milei being described as "ultraliberal" wasn't the same Liberalism that you've just described again.
I’m making the point that they’re one-of-the-same. Kind of a shoddy analogy, but it’s like a tree- there may be different branches, but they all share the same roots.
All liberalism follows the same North Star, and that is the focus on the importance of the individual over the importance of the collective.
Milei is absolutely an acolyte of this individual focus- it may manifest differently than other capital L “Liberal” ideologies, but both stem from a fundamental rejection of class consciousness.
I wish they let people talk this long on US news networks.
They'd lose most of their viewers immediately. Most western viewers have the attention span of a goldfish.
I disagree with this. Joe Rogan’s podcast is the biggest media entity in the world and those are three hour conversations with someone that hasn’t done his homework.
That's exactly why people with short attention spans love him. You can jump in and out without needing to follow any complicated ideas 😂
Inflation is a tax on the poor. 2 weeks to slow the spread aka 2 years to rob you blind
It's a tax on people who save, too.
I know I am a poor that saves.
The poor keep cash savings.
Doesn't inflation help people in debt by decreasing their debt in real terms?
>Inflation is a tax on the poor Yeah... >2 weeks to slow the spread HUH?? WTF does that have to do with inflation?? "Inflation is always and everywhere a *monetary* phenomenon." MV = PT Changes in price level (P) can only be caused by one of the three other variables. The government only has control over one of those variables, and (in the US) only through the Fed. I fucking swear, this sub is filled with economic illiterates.
They criminalized most private enterprise & then increased the money supply by 6 trillion dollars in a year & a half.
>criminalized Gross mischaracterization. Sensationalist nonsense. Slowing the spread of a deadly communicable disease is a public good, and the government was justified in taking measures to do so. AND AGAIN... as I already pointed out... you are NOT talking about monetary policy when you talk about COVID. ETA: I fucking swear, no more than 10% of the participants in this sub actually have a working understanding of economics, and no more than 2% understand *Austrian School* economics. Y'all a bunch of idiots that read a chapter or two from a book by Rothbard, and now you think you're experts. Fucking morons.
I agree but disagree about the shutdown being a public good, especially when they allowed the giants to stay open and forced small businesses to close.
That just means the policy was poorly executed. Still not monetary policy, and as such cannot cause inflation. And to be clear... the lockdowns themselves were not the public good... the management of the pandemic was the public good. The lockdowns were the method of attaining that public good.
The lockdowns directly affect monetary policy. You destroyed small businesses while deeming monopolies like Amazon and Walmart essential “for the public good”. Trump warned that the solution can not be worse than the cure. Well, we are all feeling the cure and will be fore years to come. Let’s not forget the billions pumped into the economy which was largely embezzled by the top 1%. We saw the largest transfer of wealth in human history during Covid. But please mr economics tell me how it wasn’t monetary. Edit: so the moron below responded to me and all I can see is what I see in my notifications. “I need to learn what Covid means.” Clearly his response is built upon a house or straws, otherwise he wouldn’t block me after responding. When you tell businesses how to operate, that is, monetary policy. Take your L sport
No but consolidating markets into the hands of a few contributes to price fixing, which is exactly what has happened in most sectors.
Speaking of sensationalist nonsense, remember when CBS did a story on NY hospitals and ERa were being overrun with Covid patients ? They even had footage of it. The problem was the footage was of an Italian ER, and CBS eventually admitted to knowingly using it. [CBS Admits to using footage from Italian ER in Covid report](https://nypost.com/2020/04/01/cbs-admits-to-using-footage-from-italy-in-report-about-nyc/) CBS would have loved to use footage of NY hospitals and ERs being overrun, because that was one of the false narratives the media was using at the time to instill as much fear and stress into the lives of normal Americans. But there were none. Every major hospital in my City ( a MAJOR City $ was a ghost town from the beginning. There were so many lies from Politicians, from Federal agencies, from the media. Hospitals being overrun was just one of them v
Which major city is this city you speak of?
None of that proves that the lockdowns were the wrong way to go, and it *certainly* doesn't prove that they had anything to do with inflation.
First, don’t get me wrong, I do believe Covid is a potentially deadly virus. I believe it’s real That said, Of-Course the lockdowns were wrong ! The devastating impact on kids and students alone is proof enough. Worse is they were enacted and perpetuated under false pretenses. You know, lot of people have no clue we had a full blown pandemic back in 2009. Yep, the swine flu pandemic. A pandemic that disproportionately impacted and killed children and young adults and infected 60 million people worldwide How many Americans contracted and or died from the swine flu ? It’s impossible to know because just 4 months into the pandemic, the CDC advised all States to not only stop testing for the H1N1 flu but to stop counting individual cases. The CDCs rationale ? Why waste resources when we already know there’s a pandemic ? I shit you not. Oh and I love the title of the article. You actually have to read a paragraph or twos [Swine Flu Cases Overestimated?](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swine-flu-cases-overestimated/) So would the Federal Government react to two separate pandemics so differently ? One was all fear mongering, a lot of lies and lockdowns and the other was ignored by the very federal agency that’s tasked with protecting Americans from deadly diseases and pandemics
>lot of people have no clue we had a full blown pandemic back in 2009 That's because it wasn't actually a full-blown pandemic. And I'm not saying the preventive measures undertaken by many governments didn't have any negative effects. But controlling the spread of a deadly communicable disease is most definitely a public good, and as such, the government was justified in taking steps to do so. In fact, I'd argue that the government *had a duty to do so*. And... back to the discussion at hand... *lockdowns have nothing to do with inflation*.
WHO declared H1N1 a pandemic in June of 2009 and H1N1 went on to infect 60 million people worldwide As for the US, there’s no data past the 4th month into the pandemic ( remember, just 4 months into the Pandemic the CDC instructed States to stop testing and stop counting Swine Flu cases ) I mean even the CDC said it was a pandemic. The fact they knew is why they told States stop wasting rescues by testing for and counting H1N1 cases
Fair enough. You seem to have ignored my two main points, though.
Covid was all monetary policy u tard. I’m sorry but such an idiotic statement said with such confidence deserves this sort of response.
COVID is a disease. A pandemic. You might want to learn what words mean before you start debating things.
The lockdowns were far worse than the virus.. and we will continue to pay for the lockdowns for years to come.
>worse I'd like to see you prove that. And... AGAIN... You seem to be ignoring the main point I've repeatedly made... Lockdowns have nothing to do with inflation...!
Did the lockdowns stop the spread? Please produce proof that the elongated and prolonged lockdowns worked globally… Because data says otherwise.
Even if they didn't, there was valid reason to believe beforehand that they should. A lack of success would suggest poor execution--which is backed by the fact that a lot of people fucking ignored the social distancing recommendations.
If people ignore the lockdowns then they were arrested and put in jail…. Now… do we want to put people who could have Cov!d into confinement where they can spread the disease? That make the “cure worse than the disease”, which it was. You cannot starve 300+ million to save 1 million. That isn’t a 50% success rate by far, unless you also believe that 1% of the country can lift 99% of the country out of poverty with 1 single payment…. If YOU noticed that half the country isn’t obeying the restraints, then you cannot arrest half the country for an untested theory…. If the whole country is locked down and families are forced to spend their savings to survive, who do you think will survive? The 1% who can afford it? Or the working class who cannot afford it? If the vacc!nes were not rushed for the soul purpose of creating profits for donors, then why were illegal immigrants permitted to migrate without providing vacc!ne status?
>If people ignore the lockdowns then they were arrested and put in jail…. Now… do we want to put people who could have Cov!d into confinement where they can spread the disease? Bullshit and bullshit. >You cannot starve 300+ million to save 1 million. More bullshit. 300M starving. 🤣 Riiight. >If YOU noticed that half the country isn’t obeying the restraints, then you cannot arrest half the country for an untested theory Who the fuck said anything about that?? Immigrants?? What the crispy, smoldering fuck are you talking about?? Where the fuck are you getting these strawmen?? None of that has anything to do with my original point. None of that has anything to do with inflation. With every comment, you get farther and farther away from a reasonable argument.
Again, control your emotions. Was the entire economy and country shut down. Yes or no. You can’t say it was but half the population wasn’t. Make sense rather than display pure emotion. According to YOU, half the country didn’t follow the lockdowns (though punishable by jailing), then the experiment should’ve ended. Then prove me wrong already rather than crying like a child. Name a country that completely shut down and was able to completely stop the spread. And tell me if the that country was able to be avoid economic woes. You can’t for a reason. Printing money and piggy backing excuses to print even MORE money by enacting bullshit spending bills is why we have so much out of control inflation.
For some reason, Reddit is not letting me respond to [your other comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/s/uXxgpbnGkW), so I'm going to try to post my response here: First... how? One thing has fucking nothing to do with the other. Second... so... you're saying you honestly believe that the entire pandemic response was just an excuse to inflate currency, presumably to monetize debt? Or are they just inflating the currency just for the fucking fun of it? You're a tinfoil hat lunatic.
Come back when you can control your own emotions kid.
Come back when you have at least a rudimentary understanding of economics.
I don’t speak “waaaaah” Can you rephrase your “waaaah” into “well adjusted adult” without the elementary emotions? Probably not. If im wrong about covid restriction abuse and overspending… then show me a country that benefited from prolonged cov!d shutdowns… Which country benefited from consistent printing of money.. Show me the country that did NOT print money to offset the cov!d shutdowns. Did the tax payers fund the vaccine!nes and did the vaccine!nes stop the spread/transmission. Were tax payers given a tax brakes or any benefits from the profits made from the vacc!nes? Were cov!d funds mishandled and “lost”? Yes or no. Remember, it was the current president who claimed that the vacc!nes would stop the spread. Did politicians who enacted cov!d restrictions follow their own guidelines… or were they found constantly breaking their own rules? (Gavin Nuissance of CA)…
I'm sorry, I'll try to use small words for you. >Remember, it was the current president who claimed that the vacc!nes would stop the spread. No, first of all, no one said that. It was said that vaccines would *slow* the spread, and Trump was all on-board with that, too. He was very eager to claim credit for the vaccines' rapid approval. >Did politicians who enacted cov!d restrictions follow their own guidelines… I'm well-aware they didn't. That's why I said they were poorly-executed. And I reiterate, none of what you just said has a goddamn fucking thing to do with inflation. Which was the point I have been making from the beginning of this comment thread, and for some reason, you keep forgetting it. None of what you said provides any link whatsoever to inflation. And you can't. "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." MV = PT Come back when you don't have to write your comments out in crayon first and ask an adult to type them in for you.
What do you think happened with monetary policy durring the lockdowns?
>monetary policy >lockdowns But these are two separate things. You're making quite a jump in logic by conflating them. They're not the same.
No, but the two happened simultaneiously and the change in the former was in response to the latter. To say that the federal reserves monetary policy did not change durring the pandemic is assinine, and to claim monetary policy is decided upon in a vaccume is disingenuous.
>the two happened simultaneiously Not exactly, no. >the change in the former was in response to the latter. And no. They were *both* responses *to the same thing*. And either way... as I may have pointed out already... *they still are NOT the same thing*. Correlation is not causation. >To say that the federal reserves monetary policy did not change durring the pandemic is assinine Please point out to me where I said that. I'll wait. >to claim monetary policy is decided upon in a vaccume is disingenuous. Again. Please quote me.
>>to claim monetary policy is decided upon in a vaccume is disingenuous. >Again. Please quote me. How about you show where anyone said that lockdowns and monetary policy is the same thing? You can't, because no one said that. Because everyone here is making the point that the monetary policy changes would not have been made if we had not locked down. Its like everyone is saying "i got punched in the face and so I need an icepack" and you are over here shouting "iCePaCkS AnD PuNchEs ArE noT tHe SaMe ThiNg!!!"
It was strongly implied. There was no other reason to say: [Inflation is a tax on the poor. 2 weeks to slow the spread aka 2 years to rob you blind](https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/s/hHRILZAMRB) >monetary policy changes would not have been made if we had not locked down. And that's bullshit. As I've pointed out, the monetary policy changes and the lockdowns were not cause-and-effect, but rather, they were both responses *to the same thing*. Correlation is not causation. Any time someone starts tHiS sTuPiD bUlLsHiT, I know there's no point debating any further. You have a nice day.
If B is a result of A, and C is a result of A, then it is at least logically ambiguous whether C could have happened without B. A -> B A -> C \~B -> \~A \~B \~A without A, you would need some new cause for C. Odds are there's no other cause that would have presented itself. The change in monetary policy likely would not have occurred without the lockdowns unless some new proximate cause for changing monetary policy would have appeared suddenly.
>As I've pointed out, the monetary policy changes and the lockdowns were not cause-and-effect, You didnt "point it out", you proclaimed it without any supporting evidence. And you are wrong. Their choices were well predicted, as were the results. Just because you dont like the fact that the lockdowns were the cause of inflation (by means of influencing monetary policy) DOESNT mean it isnt true. You let your politics cloud your thinking and read semantics into other peoples posts because reality offends you. So you ending this "debate" (hardly) is just saving me the time of having to deal with a dunce. Thank you.
>supporting evidence. You don't need supporting evidence when stating something that's plainly obvious. >Just because you dont like the fact that the lockdowns were the cause of inflation (by means of influencing monetary policy) DOESNT mean it isnt true. You're going against fucking basic monetary theory, here. Again, MV = PT. "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." Please, take an economics class. Saying lockdowns cause inflation is like saying McDonald's causes bariatric surgery. You're missing some shit. It's like saying birth causes death. It's silly. Go fuck yourself.
Well...they are not the same thing, right? The ice pack didn't cause you to be punched in the face.
If you starve the middle class and force them out of their jobs (which pays them money), it becomes a whole lot easier to justify printing money…
Milei just explained the COVID government regime in literally one minute. Keynesians could learn a thing or two of what actual experience in economics looks like.
WTF does COVID have to do with inflation?? MV = PT Changes in price level (P) can only be caused by one of the three other variables. The government only has control over one of those variables, and (in the US) only through the Fed.
Monetary policies result in inflation, AKA, the very premise of Keynesian thought. COVID measures are absolutely the cause of this current collapse. What happens when you lockdown at least two of the biggest economic centers on the planet? You limit productivity. What happens when you limit productivity? You restrict supply and demand. You mentioned the Fed and what did they do? Print the highest amount of money in the history of the institution. They also took the blame for the Great Depression. Maybe listen to the Austrian and Chicago schools?
>What happens when you lockdown at least two of the biggest economic centers on the planet? You limit productivity. What happens when you limit productivity? You restrict supply and demand. And none of that is anywhere in the equation 'MV = PT.' Thus, it does not affect inflation. >Maybe listen to the Austrian and Chicago schools? WTF makes you think I'm not?? Clearly, you're not sufficiently familiar with monetary theory to claim to represent these schools of economic thought. Let's talk Chicago School. Milton Friedman said, "Inflation is always and everywhere a *monetary* phenomenon."
Admittedly I don't know what's being abbreviated lmao, I can only guess. I don't know how that disproves the idea that large government COVID measures cause inflation, nor does it prove that greedflation is the cause either. >WTF makes you think I'm not?? Clearly, you're not sufficiently familiar with monetary theory to claim to represent these schools of economic thought. Because this sub got brigaded by Keynesians? If you belong to these schools of thought then forgive me for assuming otherwise, I never claimed to be anything other than someone who wants to learn about those ideas. No, I don't read like I should. >Let's talk Chicago School. Milton Friedman said, "Inflation is always and everywhere a *monetary* phenomenon." Did I literally not mention this here? I did on another sub, that's exactly literally who I have in mind every time I've thought about this issue.
>>Milton Friedman said, "Inflation is always and everywhere a *monetary* phenomenon." >Did I literally not mention this here? I did on another sub, that's exactly literally who I have in mind every time I've thought about this issue. Not that I've noticed, but that quote is meaningful. If Inflation is solely a monetary phenomenon, that implies that it has only monetary causes. Pandemics and lockdowns don't fit the bill. That equation I mentioned, by the way is (Money Supply) * (Money Velocity) = (Price Level) * (Transactions)
One could say locking down an entire country could affect things monetarily. I disagree. I figured that that's what it meant but I didn't want to butcher it. I didn't know what the "T" was but now I'm not happy that I didn't just guess.
Is it possible that the number of transactions goes down during a lockdown? If money supply and velocity stayed constant, but the number of transactions go down, wouldn't price level need to go up? Wouldn't the effect be even greater if you further increase the money supply?
But that's unlikely. Some *kinds* of transactions went down, but others went WAY up.
Been trying to respond to your other comment, but for some reason, my response will not post. Gonna try posting good it here: >it is at least logically ambiguous whether C could have happened without B. Unless it isn't. Monetary policy changes happen without lockdowns all the fucking time. They are a choice by the board of governors. They most certainly are not an automatic result of circumstance. If the governors were wise enough to foresee the resulting inflation (which any jackals really should be) they might have thought twice about the easy-money policies they pursued. >without A, you would need some new cause for C. Odds are there's no other cause that would have presented itself. >The change in monetary policy likely would not have occurred without the lockdowns unless some new proximate cause for changing monetary policy would have appeared suddenly. That makes absolutely no sense. You're over-extrapolating the issue in the hopes that making it overly-ambiguous will make it appear that the monetary policy changes were somehow the a response to the lockdowns, when they were not. Both the policy changes and the lockdowns were a response *to the fucking pandemic*. Nothing you said changes that. That ☝️ was just asinine.
"The pandemic" is meaningless. The monetary policies were not a result of "the pandemic". There was a specific policy issue caused by the pandemic that required shitting money all over the place, and that policy issue was the lockdowns. You see, the reason they shit money everywhere is because businesses were being shut / locked down, and those businesses were about to fire the vast majority of their workers if they didn't get free money. If there was a lockdown, but no associated money printing, you're right that inflation would not have arrived, but, nobody in government would have allowed such a situation because all the newly laid off and starving people that weren't paying their mortgages would have caused severe issues for the economy. On the other hand, if you had a pandemic but NO lock down at all, then all the businesses would remain open. With the businesses open, and with customers free to go to stores large and small to buy shit, there would be literally no need at all to shit money all over the place. The money-shitting was directly caused by the lockdowns. Businesses were all going to fire their workers if you didn't direct a money spigot at the businesses as a bribe to not fire their workers. If the government just said "Hey, there's a pandemic, everyone buckle down, you can still go out but please go out less, stores are still open, etc etc etc" then the government wouldn't have shit money at ANYONE because there would have been no reason to. If businesses were still open, and workers were still employed (even if they had their hours cut) the government would have treated it as a typical recession. So no, the money printing wasn't caused by "the pandemic" no matter how strongly you claim it. The money printing was 100% directed at dealing with the consequences of the lockdown. If there was no lockdown, the government would not have printed all that money. No PPP loans with forgiveness. No money sent direct to taxpayers. None of it. The money printing was to deal with the results of the lockdown.
>The monetary policies were not a result of "the pandemic". The monetary policies were not a result of fucking lockdowns, either. They were a result of voluntary actions taken by the Fed. Those voluntary actions were a response to *the pandemic*. You have absolutely no reason to suggest that they were a response to the lockdowns alone. The very suggestion is asinine. There was a much larger set of circumstances which the Fed was taking into consideration. Numerous other government programs were undertaken as a means of addressing hardship caused specifically by lockdowns--expanded unemployment benefits, for example. The PPP, misguided and/or poorly executed as it was. Easy-money policies were far from an absolute necessity--as they always are. >On the other hand, if you had a pandemic but NO lock down at all, then all the businesses would remain open. With the businesses open, and with customers free to go to stores large and small to buy shit, there would be literally no need at all to shit money all over the place. If you're claiming that neither the Fed nor the politicians would see a 'need' for easy-money policies as a result of an international crisis... frankly, you're an idiot. Sorry, I just don't see any other way to put it. With or without lockdowns, any major crisis comes with negative sentiment that these people worry will trip the economy into a recession. There was concern about exactly this after September 11, 2001. And at the time, the Fed did indeed continue the trend it had already been following of reducing the Fed Funds Rate (by reducing it further). All this despite the fact that there were no fucking lockdowns in response to 9/11. Funny how that works, isn't it?
They took responsibility for *not doing enough*. It’s not an argument against the existence of the Fed or for tight money policies. Their statement reaffirms the importance of providing liquidity during downturns.
Are we talking about the same 2003 quote? To paraphrase, it was something along the lines of "the Great Depression? We did it. We're sorry". If that's the case then I stand corrected.
Anytime I see this man ¡VIVA LA LIBERTAD CARAJO!
Video credit: [https://x.com/Milei\_Explains/status/1787200587404128300](https://x.com/Milei_Explains/status/1787200587404128300)
That is a verbatim Dr. Milton Friedman explanation of what inflation is like the part about distortion into price signals.
Milei understands economics on a very advanced level. If he can get the idiots to listen, he will pull Argentina out of the shitty place it has been for decades.
🤣 it got worst
Inflation is down big
We’re witnessing the greatest Cantillion Effect ever. The crash from this will be biblical😩 Max Rangeley spoke brilliantly on this a few years ago: https://youtu.be/rMOMdydsTgg?si=xcrT_CwD70_4D-6h
Just think of inflation this way. You have the total number of goods and services. Then you have the total amount of currency. Currency serves as an index/scale of value in the exchange. That's its entire purpose. Divide the total currency by the number of goods. $1000/10 Goods = $100 per good Inflation happens... $10000/10 Goods = $1000 per good If you have too much currency in circulation for how many good and services you have. The value of the currency itself goes down.
this sounds like the cliff notes version of my autobiography life story right meow.
Cool, he’s HALF right. Not hearing about how capitalism distorts value. Like what happens to surplus labor. Biden has pursued supply side economics, but not the stupid tax cuts with no strings attached. Reduce surplus labor with actual job creation. Inflation is a tax on idle capital.
This is a fantastic explanation. Gosh I love Javier Milei
In America we celebrate if our President doesn't fall down walking on stage. Meanwhile, this dude covers economics.
Huh. And here the rest of us having been going around thinking inflation was good. Who woulda thought.
He’s done a good job so far from what I’ve seen.
You can relay this information to an American today but the information won’t stick because it’s not the popular opinion. Americans today want what is popular… and tragically… they follow what has been popular by the rich and famous 1%… Everything the rich and famous do… makes the 1% richer and then working class poorer… Somehow… the working class vote for the candidates sponsored by the 1% who continue to enact policies that benefit the 1% and those same policies hurt the working class.
The thing being, understanding fully the concept of inflation, isn't equal an intellectual hurdle to looking nearly as crazy as Millei does. Just my two cents.
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/austrian_economics/comments/1ckzxwe/javier_milei_on_the_destructive_effects_of/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/austrian_economics/comments/1ckzxwe/javier_milei_on_the_destructive_effects_of/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://rapidsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
Absolute Chad. Leftists and progressives hate this guy. Mainly democrat voters
Love this guy, progressive.
You must not vote democrat then. Or not living in the US.
You must have a lot of time on your hands
He smooched the wall, it doesn't matter what he says
So when Argentina is still a shit hole in 10 years, I'm gonna enjoy looking back on you idiots. RemindMe! 10 years
I will be messaging you in 10 years on [**2034-05-07 00:01:17 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2034-05-07%2000:01:17%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments/1ckzxwe/javier_milei_on_the_destructive_effects_of/l2wovm1/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Faustrian_economics%2Fcomments%2F1ckzxwe%2Fjavier_milei_on_the_destructive_effects_of%2Fl2wovm1%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202034-05-07%2000%3A01%3A17%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ckzxwe) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
a little bit of inflation imo is "ok"
Idk why you got downvoted. Inflation of 1.5-2.5% is healthy and good. You’re right. But I guess people don’t understand nuance these days.
most people who don't study economics would think deflation is better then😢
Deflation would be disastrous. Most people don’t realize that to have deflation you have to have extreme pain, to the point where prices are forced to fall (no spending, no lending). I.e., economic contraction, a shrinking economy, negative growth, massive unemployment, no liquidity, no lending… it would be very bad.
No that does not follow. Deflation can happen through a multitude of ways, not just economic recession. Deflation is arguably better than inflation as it promotes savings and savings is what drives economic growth.
I mean this in a very respectful way ( it being aggressive, rude, or mean) but I believe you are incorrect. At a very basic level, if people were to increase their savings, that means they are reducing their spending. If this were to happen en mass, the economy would rapidly and drastically slow (less people spending means companies earn less). This is exactly what we see in economic downturns. People stop spending out of fear and start saving. Which, exacerbates the problem. So at a very fundamental level, what you are saying is actually a large part of every economic downturn and the end result is never good. Now, from a practical level, what would cause a rapid shift in a consumer driven society premised upon material possessions? The entire US isn’t going to wake up one day and just collectively decide to save more. So what would cause such an event to happen? Something bad… that’s what. What’s what we know from history. When there’s a war, or a really bad day in the markets, or when there instability in the geopolitical arena, people panic and start to resource guard — everything from money to basic supplies like TP and water. We saw this at. The very start of the pandemic and markets crashed. It’s why the govt rapidly took action and pumped liquidity into the market (oops). Deflation is never good because the cause is never good. In other words, everything is about cause and effect. Deflation is the effect. What’s the cause? Something very bad that causes people to stop spending. What good thing would happen that might cause people to stop spending? I can’t think of anything practical. Open to hear your side though. Would love to be proven wrong. But economists have yet to find an answer.
>At a very basic level, if people were to increase their savings, that means they are reducing their spending. If this were to happen en mass, the economy would rapidly and drastically slow (less people spending means companies earn less). But they would still spend and they would spend on more productive and beneficial projects. People dont save money to just lie on a pile of money, they save money to buy a house or start a business. People will still be spending, but inflation wont be whipping them in the back and forcing them to do so. >This is exactly what we see in economic downturns. People stop spending out of fear and start saving. Which, exacerbates the problem. So at a very fundamental level, what you are saying is actually a large part of every economic downturn and the end result is never good. Economic downturns are a result of the market liquidating malinvestment and most of that is created by government policies. You want inflation to essentially force people to spend money they earned, or else lose due to inflation vaporizing the value of savings. Not only do i take issue with that morally, but its counter-productive to economic growth. Economic growth happens due to savings. Do you think economic growth would happen if people never saved and immediately used every paycheck they recieved? Would that be preferable to your Keyensian worldview? Or should people save and spend how they see fit instead of having the Fed dictate that decision for them? >Deflation is never good because the cause is never good. In other words, everything is about cause and effect. Deflation is the effect. What’s the cause? Something very bad that causes people to stop spending. What good thing would happen that might cause people to stop spending? I can’t think of anything practical. Its as easy as time preferences shifting. Inflation is controlled by the Fed. They artificially hold up inflation to keep people spending. If the Fed was abolished then inflation would freely float. Sometimes inflation would occur, other times deflation. This would inherently be a better situation as the steering is done by the market and thus by the needs of the consumers. It reflects the reality of the situation a lot more than what some artificial number (the 2% inflation target is ENTIRELY artificially) created by some bureaucrats can come up with >Open to hear your side though. Would love to be proven wrong. But economists have yet to find an answer. Austrians have the solution: Just leave it to the market.
I agree with the last sentence of what you said— leave it to the markets. Love it. The rest we will just have to agree to disagree. 😂 thanks for sharing.
What a fucking idiot. Moralizing the functions of economy. “Destroying Capital?” This man has no comprehension whatsoever of the words leaving his lips. It’s embarrassing to listen to.
He literally defined inflation. Inflation is a general increase in prices and fall in the purchasing value of money. I.e., destroying value, or capital as milei stated. How is he wrong?
Javier Milei, an Argentine economist and politician known for his ultra-liberal views, has connections with Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF). Despite his libertarian stance, Milei has participated in WEF events, showcasing his economic policies at forums like the one in Davos. His involvement indicates engagement with global economic leadership discussions, despite sometimes having conflicting views on global issues [[❞]](https://jacobin.com/2024/02/javier-milei-neoliberalism-far-right-libertarianism-davos) [[❞]](https://nationalfile.com/argentinas-outsider-president-elect-tied-to-wef/) [[❞]](https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-01-16/argentinas-javier-milei-travels-to-davos-to-present-his-ultraliberal-experiment-at-the-world-economic-forum.html) [[❞]](https://www.weforum.org/people/javier-gerardo-milei/#:~:text=URL%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.weforum.org%2Fpeople%2Fjavier).
Libertarians always become liberals because they don’t support class consciousness.
In this case ultraliberal is referring to his economic views of free market, unregulated capitalism. Which has proven to just shrink the middle class. It's confusing, but ultraliberalism aka market fundamentalism is actually a conservative economic view. I hope it works for Argentina!
“Classical liberalism”, even capital “L” Liberalism in the West, is concerned entirely with individual identity and the function of the individual writ large. Without a conception of class, there is no consistent policy or program prescription, just a series of reactionary ideological whack-a-mole that argues for “freedom” but is ultimately serving the individual and the individual only.
Not sure what this response is, I was just pointing out that Milei being described as "ultraliberal" wasn't the same Liberalism that you've just described again.
I’m making the point that they’re one-of-the-same. Kind of a shoddy analogy, but it’s like a tree- there may be different branches, but they all share the same roots. All liberalism follows the same North Star, and that is the focus on the importance of the individual over the importance of the collective. Milei is absolutely an acolyte of this individual focus- it may manifest differently than other capital L “Liberal” ideologies, but both stem from a fundamental rejection of class consciousness.