The latest article by Kel Kelly How the Stock Market and Economy Really Works, has really got me thinking about the topic of inflation and savings.
In it he states,
The fact that we have to save for the future is, in fact, an outrage. Were no money printed by the government and the banks, things would get cheaper through time, and we would not need much money for retirement, because it would cost much less to live each day then than it does now. But we are forced to invest in today's government-manipulated inflation-creation world in order to try to keep our purchasing power constant.
Which truly makes sense given the year upon year increases in productivity. Any thoughts?
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Yes and no. The premise is certainly right that "Were no money printed by the government and the banks, things would get cheaper through time," and also that "we are forced to invest in today's government-manipulated inflation-creation world in order to try to keep our purchasing power constant."
But that doesn't mean one need not save for retirement. If a person spent every last penny and saved nothing, how would he buy bread and so on if he has no money, cheap thought the bread is?
I would put it a little differently. For the reasons he mentions, we CANNOT save for retirement, because our money becomes worthless over time.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer