6 ms·

As a kid, I always wondered why prices HAVE to keep going up. Seemed like a vicious cycle.

eloisant 3mo ago
It's a vicious cycle if we get in an "inflationary spiral", but most of the time a small inflation is pretty healthy.
namblooc 3mo ago
A capitalist society needs inflation in order to produce a desirable outcome. It is a driver of consumption, as opposed to people and organizations hoarding their money in a deflationary environment, as well as investments, because inflation leads to the devaluation of loans over time.
- toomuchtodo 3mo ago
  Population growth is ending globally, so I suppose the strategy is to issue debt for clean tech, affordable housing, and similar at the lowest yield for the longest duration you can and let those loans devalue over time as the population declines. China is the closest model I can put forth in this regard: their property sector is imploding for investors, but housing is affordable, for example. China Home Prices Fall at Faster Pace in Setback to Revival - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-16/china-home-prices-fall-at-faster-pace-in-setback-to-revival https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-16/china-hom... - June 15th, 2026 China Housing Demand to Stay at 75% Below Peak, Goldman Says - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/china-housing-demand-to-stay-at-75-below-peak-goldman-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/china-hou... | https://archive.today/LkbCF https://archive.today/LkbCF - June 16th, 2025
- ifyoubuildit 3mo ago
  This is the gospel that is taught. It seems to help people tolerate the fruits of their labor being quietly separated from them over time. Just another tax, except the people have even less of a say in this one.
  - namblooc 3mo ago
    Can you provide counter arguments to mine, though? It does not reduce wealth if dealt with correctly as an individual. It is meant to incentivize investments rather than hoarding, i.e., doing nothing with your money, as I explained.
- notnullorvoid 3mo ago
  I hear this argument all the time, but I've always found it lacking connection with the human behaviour I observe as someone growing up low-middle class, now middle-upper class. It completely misses the mark on human behaviour of those living in scarcity. Inflation forces them to save whatever they can in the most stable and liquid medium (cash). As a result it creates a very strong force pushing low income individuals further down, it takes a lot of hard work and luck to get out. Those with enough wealth don't need the same liquidity or stability, they have the luxury to invest and see their wealth grow and outpace inflation. As a result of this security they are more willing to spend on products and services. Inflation causes scarcity for the poor and security for the wealthy. The lower inflation is the less scarcity for the poor, and they will be more willing to spend and invest. Even in a environment with 0 inflation the wealthy still have incentive not to hoard cash. The incencentive to invest was never about the devaluation of cash, but rather the outpacing return of value that investment brings. Theoretically that still exists even in a deflationary environment, though I do suspect high enough deflation would have drastic negative impacts on the market to the point where returns are too low to justify the risk.
autoexec 3mo ago
In the end it's really just greed. Companies always want to charge as much as they can get away with. They are constantly testing price increases to see how high they can get their prices before they start losing enough customers that it hurts their profits. Older customers who have an idea in their mind of how much something is worth based on how much they've previously paid may eventually feel cheated and stop buying, but there's always a new generation of customers who never knew any better. There are things they can do to offset the backlash like they might offer a sale at the same time as they increase prices to give customers time to get used to the new sticker price. They keep the price the same and try to hide the fact that they're giving customers less product. it's pretty shortsighted though because it makes our money increasingly worthless and eventually we'll end up like Zimbabwe and a loaf of bread will cost us $100.
- themaninthedark 3mo ago
  Do you ask for/expect a raise every year? Even if your job responsibilities and workload doesn't change? It's easy to boil it down and say greed or capitalism but I don't think it is a very reasoned position. >Prices for goods in Europe in the sixteenth century rose to about four times the level that had prevailed during the preceding three centuries, increasing poverty levels but also raising the profit potential for those who were in a position to exploit an economy that was suddenly based primarily upon money and credit rather than labor and trade. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/worldwide-inflation https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/worldwide-in... Not sure if they were fully capitalistic by then but that was a long time ago. I also know that Japan has had inflation for a long time, reading history about coins and looking up the worth of a mon that would be 10000 to 1 yen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_cash_coins_by_inscription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_cash_coins_by... IMHO, inflation is driven by both greed (not just companies, everyone wants their retirement portfolio to go up) and increased money supply. The USA has a large amount of deficit spending, this is money that we just magic into existence. We have used it recently to try and manage crisis like 2008 GFC and COVID but I don't think that it is a coincidence that after those two events the costs of everything went up. Worldwide the prevailing economic theory is that deflation is bad, I am not sure but unless we are willing to allow for some deflation you will only every have inflation.
jallmann 3mo ago
I thought the same, too. Generally some small amount of inflation is preferable to encourage spending, rather than deflation which discourages it. If you know a $100 item will probably cost $102 later then you're more likely to buy it now. But if that item will cost $98 in a deflationary environment, then maybe you'll wait to buy it later. Wages also tend to fall in deflation, which makes it harder to pay back debt, so lending slows down - people won't buy houses or cars, etc. Businesses hold back on capital spending. The economy slows to a standstill: if no one is spending money, how can anyone make money?
- indoordin0saur 3mo ago
  I think its more important for investment. If you have $1mil in cash and know it's losing value every day you have an incentive to invest it in some long-term profitable way. Hire more employees, buy some more trucks for your fleet, renovate your store, do some R&D to improve your product, etc. If it's the opposite you don't feel any urgency because your $1mil is gaining value as it sits in the bank.
- Root_Denied 3mo ago
  Velocity of Money is the term to look into. Governments also like it because as money circulates it generates tax revenue through sales tax/VAT.
- Dylan16807 3mo ago
  This is true for investment-level amounts of money and larger percentages, but much less true for everyday purchases and small percentages. For buying a thing, a year of ownership is much more valuable than saving 2%. Look at the computer industry where waiting a year or two almost always gets you significantly better hardware but that doesn't stop people from buying new ones often. And debts adjust their rates along with inflation/deflation so that effect ends up much smaller. As for houses and cars, we desperately need to make the economy less focused on the value of houses and cars...
indoordin0saur 3mo ago
I'm not an economist, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can weigh in. But my understanding is that deflation is worse. If you can just stick $10k under your mattress and expect it to be worth 10% more in a year you have no incentive to invest. Businesses will just hold their cash, banks won't have money to loan out and the sort of investments that provide new jobs, goods and services are a risky high-effort bet compared to just saving.
- steveBK123 3mo ago
  Right, a steady low level of inflation is a driver for risk taking, which drives investment cycle, hiring, etc. This cascades thru economy from firm to firm, in a virtuous cycle of growth. Zero inflation even as a target would be hard to hit, as it would imply some absolute perfect match of supply/demand for goods. Deflation leads to the opposite behavior - hoard your resources, don't invest, don't lend, don't hire. This then cascades through economy in a downward spiral.
- yobbo 3mo ago
  This (classic) argument is symmetric with respect to the value of money and quantity of goods. As in "if you know money will buy more in the future, it increases your incentive to sell now rather than wait for higher prices. And if you know prices will increase, you will hoard products." The argument doesn't favour either side. One mechanism of inflation is that it effectively lowers wages (and other contracts) without negotiation. Asset prices are valued by markets and increase with inflation. It effectively transfers wealth from wage earners to capital owners. Deflation would effectively increase wages instead, and require occasional renegotiations if productivity isn't keeping pace.
  - js8 3mo ago
    The problem is you can't really hoard products. Most products depreciate - it's a force of nature called entropy. I think the argument from symmetry still holds, but it leads into a different conclusion. Since products (goods, physical assets) depreciate in value over time, money must too decrease in value. Hence you get inflation. I believe that "natural rate of inflation" is driven by natural depreciation of goods and the free market mechanism that exchanges money and products as you describe.
__turbobrew__ 3mo ago
Inflation makes servicing debt cheaper which incentivizes getting loans to build things. It also leads to those who have little bargaining power to become underpaid as they cannot negotiate higher salaries as inflation squeezes them.
- skybrian 3mo ago
  Inflation usually results in the central bank raising interest rates and thereby discouraging new loans for new projects, to try to prevent further inflation. Maybe you could win if you’re leveraged using fixed-rate, long-term loans and you’re also confident that you can sell something at a higher price. But that’s a rather specific financial maneuver.
  - __turbobrew__ 3mo ago
    You win when you have a fixed rate 30 year mortgage
    - skybrian 3mo ago
      Maybe, if you also get a raise. But there might be better ways to get a raise than hoping it will happen due to inflation.
kuhsaft 3mo ago
Inflation can exist because of a lot of things: natural loss of value, resource scarcity, monetary policy, greed, etc. And it's even harder to make sense of with fiat currency. > Seemed like a vicious cycle. The issue is inflation and deflation both tend to be positive feedback loops. Inflation can promote behavior that promotes inflation. Deflation can promote behavior that promotes deflation. Note that I use "tend to" and "can promote". It's all based of off assumptions on how people value things and their behaviors, as is all economic models. > why prices HAVE to keep going up It really doesn't have to. We do so because economic models show that we should because of the way we behave. But, we also behave the way we do because of the economic systems that we've designed. Prices have to keep going up if you want a system that promotes endless consumption and growth in consumption. It also lets you have a "non-zero-sum" economy, where it appears everyone is making a "profit". But, in reality it isn't.
fhn 3mo ago
part of it has do do with scarcity and gas prices. Gas is used to produce and transport. If gas prices go up, prices go up just to pay for gas. Basic supply and demand. There are more humans, more cars so the demand is higher and gas is a finite resource. Alternative energies help but gas still heavily used.
derf_ 3mo ago
A steady amount of inflation allows interest rates to be near zero or even negative in real terms without actually being negative in nominal terms. Negative (real) interest rates are sometimes a necessary policy tool (see: 2008...2021), but negative nominal rates are difficult to implement in practice in our current regime of privately-controlled money creation via bank lending. There are other monetary schemes that allow for negative nominal rates (100% reserve-backed lending, a.k.a. The Chicago Plan, or the gold or silver standard, etc.), and in those one does not need steady inflation. There was basically no inflation for most of the 19th century, when most currencies were backed by gold or silver. That had other drawbacks: for example, a relative inability to control the money supply. An expanding money supply following the California gold rush helped fuel speculation during the railroad boom, and the inability to expand the money supply on demand exacerbated the ensuing panic of 1873. Governments at the time did not believe it was their job to dampen the impacts of the business cycle, however.
downrightmike 3mo ago
Interest rates create more money, inflation makes more money worth less. Spain was pretty poor in the 1600's inspite of new world gold and silver, because inflation made everything more expensive as supply of goods wasn't really increased, but money supply was. in 2020, USA increased money supply by 20% of their all time supply. So inflation has to devalue the currency by at least that much to keep it balanced. Which is why they are distracting us with all the shit they are doing. and they are ignoring the real issue.

It's a vicious cycle if we get in an "inflationary spiral", but most of the time a small inflation is pretty healthy.

A capitalist society needs inflation in order to produce a desirable outcome. It is a driver of consumption, as opposed to people and organizations hoarding their money in a deflationary environment, as well as investments, because inflation leads to the devaluation of loans over time.

toomuchtodo 3mo ago
Population growth is ending globally, so I suppose the strategy is to issue debt for clean tech, affordable housing, and similar at the lowest yield for the longest duration you can and let those loans devalue over time as the population declines. China is the closest model I can put forth in this regard: their property sector is imploding for investors, but housing is affordable, for example. China Home Prices Fall at Faster Pace in Setback to Revival - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-16/china-home-prices-fall-at-faster-pace-in-setback-to-revival https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-16/china-hom... - June 15th, 2026 China Housing Demand to Stay at 75% Below Peak, Goldman Says - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/china-housing-demand-to-stay-at-75-below-peak-goldman-says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/china-hou... | https://archive.today/LkbCF https://archive.today/LkbCF - June 16th, 2025
ifyoubuildit 3mo ago
This is the gospel that is taught. It seems to help people tolerate the fruits of their labor being quietly separated from them over time. Just another tax, except the people have even less of a say in this one.
- namblooc 3mo ago
  Can you provide counter arguments to mine, though? It does not reduce wealth if dealt with correctly as an individual. It is meant to incentivize investments rather than hoarding, i.e., doing nothing with your money, as I explained.
notnullorvoid 3mo ago
I hear this argument all the time, but I've always found it lacking connection with the human behaviour I observe as someone growing up low-middle class, now middle-upper class. It completely misses the mark on human behaviour of those living in scarcity. Inflation forces them to save whatever they can in the most stable and liquid medium (cash). As a result it creates a very strong force pushing low income individuals further down, it takes a lot of hard work and luck to get out. Those with enough wealth don't need the same liquidity or stability, they have the luxury to invest and see their wealth grow and outpace inflation. As a result of this security they are more willing to spend on products and services. Inflation causes scarcity for the poor and security for the wealthy. The lower inflation is the less scarcity for the poor, and they will be more willing to spend and invest. Even in a environment with 0 inflation the wealthy still have incentive not to hoard cash. The incencentive to invest was never about the devaluation of cash, but rather the outpacing return of value that investment brings. Theoretically that still exists even in a deflationary environment, though I do suspect high enough deflation would have drastic negative impacts on the market to the point where returns are too low to justify the risk.

autoexec 3mo ago

In the end it's really just greed. Companies always want to charge as much as they can get away with. They are constantly testing price increases to see how high they can get their prices before they start losing enough customers that it hurts their profits. Older customers who have an idea in their mind of how much something is worth based on how much they've previously paid may eventually feel cheated and stop buying, but there's always a new generation of customers who never knew any better. There are things they can do to offset the backlash like they might offer a sale at the same time as they increase prices to give customers time to get used to the new sticker price. They keep the price the same and try to hide the fact that they're giving customers less product. it's pretty shortsighted though because it makes our money increasingly worthless and eventually we'll end up like Zimbabwe and a loaf of bread will cost us $100.

themaninthedark 3mo ago
Do you ask for/expect a raise every year? Even if your job responsibilities and workload doesn't change? It's easy to boil it down and say greed or capitalism but I don't think it is a very reasoned position. >Prices for goods in Europe in the sixteenth century rose to about four times the level that had prevailed during the preceding three centuries, increasing poverty levels but also raising the profit potential for those who were in a position to exploit an economy that was suddenly based primarily upon money and credit rather than labor and trade. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/worldwide-inflation https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/worldwide-in... Not sure if they were fully capitalistic by then but that was a long time ago. I also know that Japan has had inflation for a long time, reading history about coins and looking up the worth of a mon that would be 10000 to 1 yen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_cash_coins_by_inscription https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_cash_coins_by... IMHO, inflation is driven by both greed (not just companies, everyone wants their retirement portfolio to go up) and increased money supply. The USA has a large amount of deficit spending, this is money that we just magic into existence. We have used it recently to try and manage crisis like 2008 GFC and COVID but I don't think that it is a coincidence that after those two events the costs of everything went up. Worldwide the prevailing economic theory is that deflation is bad, I am not sure but unless we are willing to allow for some deflation you will only every have inflation.

jallmann 3mo ago

I thought the same, too. Generally some small amount of inflation is preferable to encourage spending, rather than deflation which discourages it. If you know a $100 item will probably cost $102 later then you're more likely to buy it now. But if that item will cost $98 in a deflationary environment, then maybe you'll wait to buy it later. Wages also tend to fall in deflation, which makes it harder to pay back debt, so lending slows down - people won't buy houses or cars, etc. Businesses hold back on capital spending. The economy slows to a standstill: if no one is spending money, how can anyone make money?

indoordin0saur 3mo ago
I think its more important for investment. If you have $1mil in cash and know it's losing value every day you have an incentive to invest it in some long-term profitable way. Hire more employees, buy some more trucks for your fleet, renovate your store, do some R&D to improve your product, etc. If it's the opposite you don't feel any urgency because your $1mil is gaining value as it sits in the bank.
Root_Denied 3mo ago
Velocity of Money is the term to look into. Governments also like it because as money circulates it generates tax revenue through sales tax/VAT.
Dylan16807 3mo ago
This is true for investment-level amounts of money and larger percentages, but much less true for everyday purchases and small percentages. For buying a thing, a year of ownership is much more valuable than saving 2%. Look at the computer industry where waiting a year or two almost always gets you significantly better hardware but that doesn't stop people from buying new ones often. And debts adjust their rates along with inflation/deflation so that effect ends up much smaller. As for houses and cars, we desperately need to make the economy less focused on the value of houses and cars...

indoordin0saur 3mo ago

I'm not an economist, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can weigh in. But my understanding is that deflation is worse. If you can just stick $10k under your mattress and expect it to be worth 10% more in a year you have no incentive to invest. Businesses will just hold their cash, banks won't have money to loan out and the sort of investments that provide new jobs, goods and services are a risky high-effort bet compared to just saving.

steveBK123 3mo ago
Right, a steady low level of inflation is a driver for risk taking, which drives investment cycle, hiring, etc. This cascades thru economy from firm to firm, in a virtuous cycle of growth. Zero inflation even as a target would be hard to hit, as it would imply some absolute perfect match of supply/demand for goods. Deflation leads to the opposite behavior - hoard your resources, don't invest, don't lend, don't hire. This then cascades through economy in a downward spiral.
yobbo 3mo ago
This (classic) argument is symmetric with respect to the value of money and quantity of goods. As in "if you know money will buy more in the future, it increases your incentive to sell now rather than wait for higher prices. And if you know prices will increase, you will hoard products." The argument doesn't favour either side. One mechanism of inflation is that it effectively lowers wages (and other contracts) without negotiation. Asset prices are valued by markets and increase with inflation. It effectively transfers wealth from wage earners to capital owners. Deflation would effectively increase wages instead, and require occasional renegotiations if productivity isn't keeping pace.
- js8 3mo ago
  The problem is you can't really hoard products. Most products depreciate - it's a force of nature called entropy. I think the argument from symmetry still holds, but it leads into a different conclusion. Since products (goods, physical assets) depreciate in value over time, money must too decrease in value. Hence you get inflation. I believe that "natural rate of inflation" is driven by natural depreciation of goods and the free market mechanism that exchanges money and products as you describe.

__turbobrew__ 3mo ago

Inflation makes servicing debt cheaper which incentivizes getting loans to build things. It also leads to those who have little bargaining power to become underpaid as they cannot negotiate higher salaries as inflation squeezes them.

skybrian 3mo ago
Inflation usually results in the central bank raising interest rates and thereby discouraging new loans for new projects, to try to prevent further inflation. Maybe you could win if you’re leveraged using fixed-rate, long-term loans and you’re also confident that you can sell something at a higher price. But that’s a rather specific financial maneuver.
- __turbobrew__ 3mo ago
  You win when you have a fixed rate 30 year mortgage
  - skybrian 3mo ago
    Maybe, if you also get a raise. But there might be better ways to get a raise than hoping it will happen due to inflation.

kuhsaft 3mo ago

Inflation can exist because of a lot of things: natural loss of value, resource scarcity, monetary policy, greed, etc. And it's even harder to make sense of with fiat currency. > Seemed like a vicious cycle. The issue is inflation and deflation both tend to be positive feedback loops. Inflation can promote behavior that promotes inflation. Deflation can promote behavior that promotes deflation. Note that I use "tend to" and "can promote". It's all based of off assumptions on how people value things and their behaviors, as is all economic models. > why prices HAVE to keep going up It really doesn't have to. We do so because economic models show that we should because of the way we behave. But, we also behave the way we do because of the economic systems that we've designed. Prices have to keep going up if you want a system that promotes endless consumption and growth in consumption. It also lets you have a "non-zero-sum" economy, where it appears everyone is making a "profit". But, in reality it isn't.

fhn 3mo ago

part of it has do do with scarcity and gas prices. Gas is used to produce and transport. If gas prices go up, prices go up just to pay for gas. Basic supply and demand. There are more humans, more cars so the demand is higher and gas is a finite resource. Alternative energies help but gas still heavily used.

derf_ 3mo ago

A steady amount of inflation allows interest rates to be near zero or even negative in real terms without actually being negative in nominal terms. Negative (real) interest rates are sometimes a necessary policy tool (see: 2008...2021), but negative nominal rates are difficult to implement in practice in our current regime of privately-controlled money creation via bank lending. There are other monetary schemes that allow for negative nominal rates (100% reserve-backed lending, a.k.a. The Chicago Plan, or the gold or silver standard, etc.), and in those one does not need steady inflation. There was basically no inflation for most of the 19th century, when most currencies were backed by gold or silver. That had other drawbacks: for example, a relative inability to control the money supply. An expanding money supply following the California gold rush helped fuel speculation during the railroad boom, and the inability to expand the money supply on demand exacerbated the ensuing panic of 1873. Governments at the time did not believe it was their job to dampen the impacts of the business cycle, however.

downrightmike 3mo ago

Interest rates create more money, inflation makes more money worth less. Spain was pretty poor in the 1600's inspite of new world gold and silver, because inflation made everything more expensive as supply of goods wasn't really increased, but money supply was. in 2020, USA increased money supply by 20% of their all time supply. So inflation has to devalue the currency by at least that much to keep it balanced. Which is why they are distracting us with all the shit they are doing. and they are ignoring the real issue.