Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Talk about something people have been saying for years! And even getting to normal inflation is a struggle, let alone "hyperinflation". The fact is that as long as our economy is so far under capacity, additions to the monetary supply won't lead to "hyperinflation".
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that greater short term harm would lead to more long term benefit, and it isn't working in any of the countries that have actually tried to follow this theory.
The basic problem is that many economic resources, when not used, are simply wasted. That includes willing labor. So the more years we spend wasting economic resources like willing labor, the worse off we are going to be in the long run.
Wow, we mostly agree! Glad you said, "willing labor". Lots of potential labor won't work no matter what.
They obviously don't or there wouldn't be countless $10 an hour jobs.
There are always millions of job openings in the United States each month, even as there are also millions of people being hired each month. That is because each month there are millions of new job openings arising as people are fired or quit, or businesses expand, or new businesses are started, and so on. The job market in that sense is in a constant state of turnover, but the NET effect can vary considerably over time:
It is true that at any given time, some unemployed people are in the process of searching for a suitable job. The amount of unemployment attributable to that factor, what is sometimes called "frictional unemployment", is going to be around 5% or so in the United States.
The other 5% or so of unemployed people in the United States today are not in that category, but rather cannot actually find any employment (and this isn't even counting the millions more people who have become so discouraged they have dropped out of the labor force entirely). It would literally be impossible for all of them to choose to take a job, because enough job openings simply don't exist for all of them. And in fact most of the millions of hires each month are going to people who were not unemployed for very long, and the longer you are unemployed, the harder it gets to become hired.
I've never understood riots as a way to protest economic conditions. All that happens is the economic conditions in your neighborhood become worse.
I can understand riots when they result in a certain objective--overturning a political system, or drawing attention to a specific injustice that can be changed (police brutality, for example).
Just my two cents, but if the issue is the economy, I don't think the people of Pittsburgh (or any other city) will be rioting. Unless it's outside the offices of S&P, which I could see happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
