Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

How does inflation wipe out the middle class?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Verified) This post has 2 verified answers | 8 Replies | 2 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
89 Posts
Points 1,840
fancyshirtman posted on Mon, Jun 14 2010 5:02 AM

Hey guys,

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/129989

Does inflation wipe out the middle class? Are there any historical examples of this happening? Why does inflation hurt the poor the most? The statist in the video disagrees with Ron Paul and says that inflation is felt evenly between all income groups. Is he wrong?

Thanks.

"No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person." ~ Karl Hess

"look, property is theft, right? Therefore theft is property. Therefore this ship is mine, OK?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox

Answered (Verified) Verified Answer

Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,592 Posts
Points 63,685
Answered (Verified) Sieben replied on Mon, Jun 14 2010 8:11 AM
Verified by fancyshirtman

People on hourly sallary are hurt by inflation. Particularly because they see that they were getting paid $5/hr when they were 20, and now their sallary has doubled to $10/hr when they're 40.

People who save a lot of money and keep their assets in CASH are hurt by inflation. So if a rich person just kept cash, stored it under his mattress, he would totally lose money. The deal is though that rich people only keep a small fraction of their assets in dollars, whereas poor/middle class people are paid in dollars and have comparably few non-dollar investments.

For example, I'm a student. My bank account never breaks 10,000 dollars and I basically need all of it to get through the year. I can't afford to take any risk with it, even by buying gold. Actually really gold is not a risk and ima try and get a physical bar of it soon. But I am the exception, not the rule.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
694 Posts
Points 11,400
Answered (Verified) Joe replied on Mon, Jun 14 2010 11:49 AM
Verified by fancyshirtman

inflation hurts the least politically connected.  These people get their hands on the newly created money last, while they still had to deal with rising prices.  People that get their hands on the new money first have the advantage of being able to spend all the new money on things that were priced at the old money supply levels.

  • | Post Points: 5

All Replies

Top 200 Contributor
Male
390 Posts
Points 7,705

The reason is because the middle class are mostly savers. And typically the decrease in the purchasing power of money is more than the interest rate that is offered to savers. So, in other words, the middle class savers are being cheated with repayment in dollars of lower purchasing power. The debtors (like the corporations) are benefited since they have to repay their loan in dollars of lower purchasing power. Thus you have the rich getting richer, and the middle class getting poorer comparatively.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
265 Posts
Points 4,725

The reason is because the middle class are mostly savers.

I disagree that the middle class are mostly savers.

Based upon the fact that they have very little to save.

"If you want to lift yourself up, lift up somebody else." Booker T. Washington
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,209 Posts
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Mon, Jun 14 2010 7:58 AM

I would not take the ‘middle class saves a lot’ argument to readily. Savings could be in the form of stock, and stock does not loose value with inflation. If anything, a well-diversified portfolio is the surest hedge against inflation.

 The thing with inflation is that, it’s crippling to economic calculation and that means that operating a business would be near to impossible. So, I’d say that inflation destroys entrepreneurs, not the middles class. Being ‘middle class’ per se, has nothing to do with it.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,592 Posts
Points 63,685
Answered (Verified) Sieben replied on Mon, Jun 14 2010 8:11 AM
Verified by fancyshirtman

People on hourly sallary are hurt by inflation. Particularly because they see that they were getting paid $5/hr when they were 20, and now their sallary has doubled to $10/hr when they're 40.

People who save a lot of money and keep their assets in CASH are hurt by inflation. So if a rich person just kept cash, stored it under his mattress, he would totally lose money. The deal is though that rich people only keep a small fraction of their assets in dollars, whereas poor/middle class people are paid in dollars and have comparably few non-dollar investments.

For example, I'm a student. My bank account never breaks 10,000 dollars and I basically need all of it to get through the year. I can't afford to take any risk with it, even by buying gold. Actually really gold is not a risk and ima try and get a physical bar of it soon. But I am the exception, not the rule.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
694 Posts
Points 11,400
Answered (Verified) Joe replied on Mon, Jun 14 2010 11:49 AM
Verified by fancyshirtman

inflation hurts the least politically connected.  These people get their hands on the newly created money last, while they still had to deal with rising prices.  People that get their hands on the new money first have the advantage of being able to spend all the new money on things that were priced at the old money supply levels.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
390 Posts
Points 7,705

Cognitivist, aren't middle class families usually better savers? I assume their lifestyle (salaried class, with the responsibility to take care of themselves during retirement) presupposes a savigs habit.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
390 Posts
Points 7,705

Merlin, investing in stocks is a form of saving.

I'm not sure how many investors really know about smart investing. Most just see stockmarkets as a place for speculation, not really as a steady source of income that beats inflation.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,209 Posts
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Tue, Jun 15 2010 1:24 AM

It’s not that much about smart investing if what you want is to beat inflation in the long run. You could limit yourself to a ‘passive’ strategy, i.e. picking a well-diversified portfolio and sticking to it whatever happens (a portfolio with 11-17 different stocks is considered well diversified). That will probably outdo inflation.

Now sure, it is far form the best strategy, market beating is the best. But that is for entrepreneurs who go in the market to make a profit, while the idea here is just to hedge against inflation.

The long-run problem with that strategy is that, in the current situation I’m not sure whether the stock market will survive the next crash. Malinvestment in the US is soaring too high, and when it all comes down the capital stock per head will probably be much lower than the level needed for a stock market.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (9 items) | RSS