•3 Jahre
Kann es erfolgreich sein?
Wenn das Drucken von Milliarden von Geld Inflation verursacht, kann das Verbrennen eines großen Teils davon dann eine Deflation verursachen?
Wenn das Drucken von Milliarden von Geld Inflation verursacht, kann das Verbrennen eines großen Teils davon dann eine Deflation verursachen?
Show original content
4 users upvote it!
3 answers
Popular
Yes of course. It is worth noting that, simply put, inflation is an excess of money in the market. The quantity of goods is determined if the amount of money in the market increases, the price equilibrium is disturbed and... Prices increase. Reversing the process generates the same change but in the opposite direction.
Yes of course. It is worth noting that, simply put, inflation is an excess of money in the market. The quantity of goods is determined if the amount of money in the market increases, the price equilibrium is disturbed and... Prices increase. Reversing the process generates the same change but in the opposite direction.
Machine translated
1 like
Yes and no. In fact, excess money causes inflation, but for a long time we have not been dealing with real printing, but rather with the digital creation of money. What we call reprinting is actually adding more numbers at the level of central or national banks. As a result, banks can grant low-interest loans to other entities, but I do not mean ordinary people here. In other words, societies do not directly benefit from this money.
Is in this situation a virtual burning of, say, 30 percent. of the funds generated could actually lead to deflation? After all, this is a completely different situation than physically taking people's paper banknotes and throwing them into a fire or a shredder. If someone had come up with such an idea in the past, the community would automatically have less resources to exchange for needed goods, and this would have measurable effects in the form of reducing demand. By the way, the banknotes themselves would become more valuable than before, because there would be more people willing to own them.
Meanwhile, in developed societies, we have an increasing share of money in the form of digital bank records rather than cash. And certainly no one would dare to mass delete from our bank accounts even part of the savings there.
There was already such an idea in Cyprus in 2013, but very quickly there were street protests. People were outraged by the attempt to save the state's finances with their private savings and the blocking of access to their own accounts. Now let's imagine that we enter the account in the morning, and 30 percent is missing there. money. It will not be enough for a loan installment, shopping or bills in a given month, because many households currently live on the edge of their means. Such a move would mean mass demonstrations, perhaps even the overthrow of the government.
For this reason, the only possible option would be to burn the money generated solely at the level of central banks and possibly those institutions and large companies that have benefited from them. In this way, the common man would not immediately feel their absence, so there would be no protests. There is no doubt, however, that the consequences of such a decision would be extensive. Some investments would stop, new transfers of fiat money would not go to the exchanges for a long time, which would probably end this crazy time of the bull. Without the cash injection, the weaker states would find themselves in an even more difficult situation, probably several of them would collapse.
Thus, deflation would probably eventually occur, but in conjunction with a whole range of other unfavorable phenomena. The financial markets are now like a balloon blown to the limit. We can let the air out slowly, which will probably cause a recession lasting for years, or sharply, but the effects of this scenario cannot be predicted. In short, we are in a sticky situation and I don't think we can get out of it painlessly.
Is in this situation a virtual burning of, say, 30 percent. of the funds generated could actually lead to deflation? After all, this is a completely different situation than physically taking people's paper banknotes and throwing them into a fire or a shredder. If someone had come up with such an idea in the past, the community would automatically have less resources to exchange for needed goods, and this would have measurable effects in the form of reducing demand. By the way, the banknotes themselves would become more valuable than before, because there would be more people willing to own them.
Meanwhile, in developed societies, we have an increasing share of money in the form of digital bank records rather than cash. And certainly no one would dare to mass delete from our bank accounts even part of the savings there.
There was already such an idea in Cyprus in 2013, but very quickly there were street protests. People were outraged by the attempt to save the state's finances with their private savings and the blocking of access to their own accounts. Now let's imagine that we enter the account in the morning, and 30 percent is missing there. money. It will not be enough for a loan installment, shopping or bills in a given month, because many households currently live on the edge of their means. Such a move would mean mass demonstrations, perhaps even the overthrow of the government.
For this reason, the only possible option would be to burn the money generated solely at the level of central banks and possibly those institutions and large companies that have benefited from them. In this way, the common man would not immediately feel their absence, so there would be no protests. There is no doubt, however, that the consequences of such a decision would be extensive. Some investments would stop, new transfers of fiat money would not go to the exchanges for a long time, which would probably end this crazy time of the bull. Without the cash injection, the weaker states would find themselves in an even more difficult situation, probably several of them would collapse.
Thus, deflation would probably eventually occur, but in conjunction with a whole range of other unfavorable phenomena. The financial markets are now like a balloon blown to the limit. We can let the air out slowly, which will probably cause a recession lasting for years, or sharply, but the effects of this scenario cannot be predicted. In short, we are in a sticky situation and I don't think we can get out of it painlessly.
Yes and no. In fact, excess money causes inflation, but for a long time we have not been dealing with real printing, but rather with the digital creation of money. What we call reprinting is actually adding more numbers at the level of central or national banks. As a result, banks can grant low-interest loans to other entities, but I do not mean ordinary people here. In other words, societies do not directly benefit from this money.
Is in this situation a virtual burning of, say, 30 percent. of the funds generated could actually lead to deflation? After all, this is a completely different situation than physically taking people's paper banknotes and throwing them into a fire or a shredder. If someone had come up with such an idea in the past, the community would automatically have less resources to exchange for needed goods, and this would have measurable effects in the form of reducing demand. By the way, the banknotes themselves would become more valuable than before, because there would be more people willing to own them.
Meanwhile, in developed societies, we have an increasing share of money in the form of digital bank records rather than cash. And certainly no one would dare to mass delete from our bank accounts even part of the savings there.
There was already such an idea in Cyprus in 2013, but very quickly there were street protests. People were outraged by the attempt to save the state's finances with their private savings and the blocking of access to their own accounts. Now let's imagine that we enter the account in the morning, and 30 percent is missing there. money. It will not be enough for a loan installment, shopping or bills in a given month, because many households currently live on the edge of their means. Such a move would mean mass demonstrations, perhaps even the overthrow of the government.
For this reason, the only possible option would be to burn the money generated solely at the level of central banks and possibly those institutions and large companies that have benefited from them. In this way, the common man would not immediately feel their absence, so there would be no protests. There is no doubt, however, that the consequences of such a decision would be extensive. Some investments would stop, new transfers of fiat money would not go to the exchanges for a long time, which would probably end this crazy time of the bull. Without the cash injection, the weaker states would find themselves in an even more difficult situation, probably several of them would collapse.
Thus, deflation would probably eventually occur, but in conjunction with a whole range of other unfavorable phenomena. The financial markets are now like a balloon blown to the limit. We can let the air out slowly, which will probably cause a recession lasting for years, or sharply, but the effects of this scenario cannot be predicted. In short, we are in a sticky situation and I don't think we can get out of it painlessly.
Is in this situation a virtual burning of, say, 30 percent. of the funds generated could actually lead to deflation? After all, this is a completely different situation than physically taking people's paper banknotes and throwing them into a fire or a shredder. If someone had come up with such an idea in the past, the community would automatically have less resources to exchange for needed goods, and this would have measurable effects in the form of reducing demand. By the way, the banknotes themselves would become more valuable than before, because there would be more people willing to own them.
Meanwhile, in developed societies, we have an increasing share of money in the form of digital bank records rather than cash. And certainly no one would dare to mass delete from our bank accounts even part of the savings there.
There was already such an idea in Cyprus in 2013, but very quickly there were street protests. People were outraged by the attempt to save the state's finances with their private savings and the blocking of access to their own accounts. Now let's imagine that we enter the account in the morning, and 30 percent is missing there. money. It will not be enough for a loan installment, shopping or bills in a given month, because many households currently live on the edge of their means. Such a move would mean mass demonstrations, perhaps even the overthrow of the government.
For this reason, the only possible option would be to burn the money generated solely at the level of central banks and possibly those institutions and large companies that have benefited from them. In this way, the common man would not immediately feel their absence, so there would be no protests. There is no doubt, however, that the consequences of such a decision would be extensive. Some investments would stop, new transfers of fiat money would not go to the exchanges for a long time, which would probably end this crazy time of the bull. Without the cash injection, the weaker states would find themselves in an even more difficult situation, probably several of them would collapse.
Thus, deflation would probably eventually occur, but in conjunction with a whole range of other unfavorable phenomena. The financial markets are now like a balloon blown to the limit. We can let the air out slowly, which will probably cause a recession lasting for years, or sharply, but the effects of this scenario cannot be predicted. In short, we are in a sticky situation and I don't think we can get out of it painlessly.
Machine translated
1 like
Yes, there is a possibility that burning a significant portion of newly printed money could cause deflation. If the amount of money in circulation is reduced, it can result in a decrease in prices of goods and services, which in turn leads to deflation.
Yes, there is a possibility that burning a significant portion of newly printed money could cause deflation. If the amount of money in circulation is reduced, it can result in a decrease in prices of goods and services, which in turn leads to deflation.
Machine translated