What economic approach would actually work?

[Husar]

Over time economies fluctuate. Deflation is falling prices on goods and services brought on by over supply. Inflation means the medium of exchange is lessening in value and takes more to buy the same item. If you had money put away it’s value steady decreases in buying power and that discourages savings.

If Johnny Doe has his savings in a box or even a bank the value of it falls over time because of central banks management of the money supply. Sir John on the other hand may own the bank or get a loan from his bank (which created the money by lending it) His money is at full value when he gets it but worth less as he pays it back. If he has other investments, that cushions his wealth or makes him more. Johnny on the other hand has to spend more for what he needs while his money has lost in value.

As to regulation: If it is a good idea, why must people be forced into it? Wouldn’t they naturally take it upon themselves to do like wise and protect what they have? Farmers don’t put salt on their fields to make them unusable. If people can agree that something needs preserved or looked after can they not care for it? Does it have to be government which intervenes and prohibits anyone from doing anything?

Sometimes I just want to despair. Do I sound stupid or are you just not capable of answering a simple question?

I asked you about the benefit of deflation for the small man and you explain to me what inflation and deflation are. That's not what I asked because I already know what they are.
The rich man benefits from falling prices as much or more than the poor man does, so that is surely not an answer to my question.

I know I sound angry but that's because this happens relatively often, don't take it personal.


As for regulation, no, they don't, and yes, they have to be forced. We have soil degradation all over the world, so farmers are actually making their soil unusable in the long term right now. Why do they do it? Because they don't notice it yet and they have plenty of short-term benefits that incentivize this behavior. The incentives aren't changed because those who could do that also benefit from it right now and may just think the next generation can deal with it once it becomes an unavoidable problem. The people who think the soil needs to be preserved and looked after right now before people start to actually starve from the effects of the misuse cannot do that because it's not their soil and they aren't allowed to.

Humanity as a whole is not very good at cooperating for long-term benefits if and when this runs counter to advantages that can be gained in the context of short-term competition. Using regulation to force the behavior that is beneficial in the long term is sometimes the only option. See all the regulation to make the air cleaner, the markets didn't do jack about that, just look at China. The government in China let the markets handle it for a long time and the result was smog and sickness everywhere and now they're introducing legislation...

VW and others cheated with the diesel cars because the market incentivized this instead of actually making them cleaner.