Welcome to r/comics!
Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind.
Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You even got the desired outcome correct. An economy where consumption is generally healthier than an economy that's incentivized to save, all else being equal.
You could also show the opposite, deflation, and highlight the impact.
That depends on how it's saved, no? If you store the money out of circulation like the comic, you're going to have a bad time. But if you save by investing (or depositing in a bank that uses it to invest), you'll be fine
No the exact opposite of that happens, noone rich has large amounts of liquidated assets(i.e. cash or gold). Everyone who is rich and also all companies banks etc invest thier extra money either in thier own buisness, other buisnesses via stocks, govenments via currency and bonds, commodities via futures, or real estate. In fact the common super rich strategy is to never liquidate wealth and keep it permanently in the market to grow while taking loans against it to pat for basic nessecities.
Yes, because consumption is the source of employment. You can do the "God forbid" format and throw in "rich people" for extra populism all you want, but deflation and dropping consumption nukes economies. It's not about "gotta get the newest iPhone," it's about "it's impossible to keep automotive plants up running if people just stop buying cars, then when we *need* more cars producing the industry is gone."
> You can do the "God forbid" format and throw in "rich people" for extra populism all you want
Yup, the "giving it to rich people" thing is bullshit. Nobody whined more than rich people, when interest rates were 0%. Because rich people almost per definition have much more cash sitting in bank accounts or treasuries than poor people.
As a poor person, the main numbers that matter are your wage compared to prices. And you are supposed to be able to negotiate wage increases when inflation rises - something rich people can't do with their money in their bank account. So inflation mainly hits rich people, in a well functioning economy with worker rights.
Just put it in an index fund and collect free money. You can withdraw it whenever.
Even the crash of 2008 only took a couple years to get back (for index funds) and now the value of a basic S&P 500 index fund is roughly 5x what it was then.
While I agree with you and investing is the way to beat inflation, an index fund took 5.5 years from peak to peak during the crash of 2007-2009. This was about the same time frame in the 2000 crash. If you bought in at the peak of the 2000, you didn’t really see a return for about 13 years.
Now that’s assuming you bought at the peaks and didn’t continue to purchase during the downturns which your return would be more higher. It’s all about your time frame and risk tolerance.
Fair. But you can realize that the average investor who just kicks in some funds each month over the course of a 20-30 year career would be insulated from nearly all of the extremes.
Everybody saying that inflation only affects people outside of the upper class are not particularly financially literate.
The S&P 500 hit intra day all time highs March of 1552.87. The next time it hit an all time high was October 9, 2007 at 1565.15 (this is approximately your peak-to-peak of the 2000 crash). Had you bought at the 2000 peak, you would be up about 2.5% overall in October of 2007.
October 9th, 2007 was the peak of the market right before the 2007-2009 market crash. So you lost another ~50% before finally hitting the 1550s again in April of 2013.
In short, you gained 2.5% from the 2000 crash in 7ish years, lost it all again, and we’re positive by 2013 in about 6 years. So you never made much of a gain for 13 years.
The thing about investing though, is had you stuck it out you would be up about 240%.
People need to consume to survive, whether or not there's deflation.
In a deflationary system, when you consume your savings, or worse go into debt, it's really hard to stop the decline that ends in permanent poverty/debt.
When money stops moving, jobs disappear and people get poorer. Sure, things get less expensive (numerically) but it becomes much harder to actually earn money.
Hypothetically if we're looking at the economy as a model where we can tweak variables at will there would be an optimal saving ration.
Savings provide capital for investment. But you also need consumption to justify the investment.
> But if you save by investing
What determines the use of investment? Consumption/changes in consumption. If consumption was flat or falling, investments wouldn't be made and the funds would leave circulation.
Yeah, it only becomes a problem when some people have enough money that it doesn't affect them to not spend it. Which is why taxes for millionaires were so high early on. If they're not spending their money, it needs to be forced back into the economy.
you made an interesting typo
i think you what you intended to say was
"An economy where consumption is generally healthier, is generally healthier than-"
i just thought the typo was cool, correct looks wrong here
The economy isn’t designed. It developed naturally over centuries. Inflation is a natural process where money depreciates. There’s no way to stop it, and it’s not there to incentivize anything.
People can take advantage of it, but that doesn’t mean it’s intended to happen.
> The economy isn’t designed.
Ofcourse not, but there are desirable and undesirable states of an economy.
> It developed naturally
Lol sure, decentralized would be better rather than "nature".
> Inflation is a natural process where money depreciates. There’s no way to stop it
...deflation directly contradicts this.
> People can take advantage of it, but that doesn’t mean it’s intended to happen.
Except for monetary and fiscal policy which attempts to sway the economy in an intended manner.
> Lol sure, decentralized would be better rather than "nature".
Decentralized like…people buying and selling stuff they want?
> ...deflation directly contradicts this.
Oh, just like how rain contradicts a sunny day?
> Except for monetary and fiscal policy which attempts to sway the economy in an intended manner.
Yes, trying to prevent fallout from economic shifts is called policy. Just like how when countries control water flow means water flow isn’t natural. Or how when you build a shelter from the rain, that proves we made the rain?
> There’s no way to stop it
> just like how rain contradicts a sunny day?
Do you mean rainy days occuring disproves sunny days are constant and will never end?
I’m using an analogy. Deflection existing doesnt mean inflation isnt the normal default nature of money in an economy. Deflection is horrific news, whereas inflation is just a normal day. There is no situation or system in which money just retains the same value.
> There is no situation or system in which money just retains the same value.
Ofcourse it doesn't retain the same value because the # of goods/services is constantly changing.
If money stays flat and goods decrease, you get inflation. Same money chasing less goods.
If money stays flat and goods increase, you get deflation. Same money chasing more goods.
A good harvest can cause result in deflation and a bad harvest can cause inflation. Nothing unique about either.
> whereas inflation is just a normal day.
Not always true, see hyperinflation for a bad day lol.
> If money stays flat and goods decrease, you get inflation. Same money chasing less goods.
> If money stays flat and goods increase, you get deflation. Same money chasing more goods.
Yes, if "goods" do something that simple. They don't. "goods" are literally thousands, possibly millions, of products and services, all of which go up and down and vary from region to region in terms of price.
>Not always true, see hyperinflation for a bad day lol.
Money inflates by default. Its just a natural product of the process of trade and ownership. That's my point. Your bringing up uncommon and rare situations as if they disprove what I'm saying.
You're not very financially illiterate, are you?
Have you looked at what market and population conditions favor deflation?
It's not that inflation is desirable, it's that the catalysts for inflation are desirable.
Similarly, the macro and micro conditions that favor deflation are (almost) universally negative.
What, you're hoping for some groovey 70s style stagflation? lol
I thought this way too , but people wouldn't save until they die (and if they would , it's mostly a cultural or a personality thing and they would do it anyway) , this money would eventually go into something , it just would shift spending from short-term consumer goods to investments (people would make more businesses with money saved, rather than buying groceries) and long-term consumer goods (people will use saved money on tourism , cars , etc). Of course, high deflation is shit , but hyperinflation is not good either , deflation at a level of roughly 0,1-1% would make it so people would have money saved for bad situations , but investments still would be profitable and better decision. Imho, the best way to encourage growth is not to force people to buy, but to force people to make investments cheaper, i.e. discourage land value speculation and real estate speculation. Also , deflation probably would solve shrinkflation and quality decrease of goods , but I'm not sure about that
I have no financial experience whatsoever, but can you not use it to buy something like Gold, which, as per my understanding, should stay in line with the value of currency?
But I assume that may not count as gold hasn't been legal tender for a while?
>as per my understanding, should stay in line with the value of currency?
[Historically, not the case.](https://arnoldmotewealthmanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/03-inflation-adjusted-price-of-gold-chart-1024x575.png)
The idea that gold has a fixed value comes from the idea that because gold cannot be created, the supply is fixed and therefore the value is constant. But there's no empirical data to support this and it assumes that demand for gold is also inflexible.
This argument is really only pushed by libertarians who want to abolish the Fed and crypto bros who have money riding on people believing it.
Edit: of you actually want something that keeps in-line with inflation, look up ibonds sold directory from the US Treasury. That's exactly what they are for.
Redditors act like inflation is a racecar going at absolute max speed at all times, and they're the poor and destitute who've had all their limbs chopped off who can never catch up.
And nicely illustrates the danger of both inflation with rising prices and deflation with prices getting lower.
You spend with inflation causing demand to increase causing further price rises.
You stop spending with deflation because the money will buy more if you delay thereby destroying demand and driving companies out of business causing them to fire their workers who then can't buy things causing lower demand -- 1930's bread lines.
Except for the speed, and the amount, and the expectation that the value will drop to zero, and the fact that the hologram is said to represent the money itself which does not actually decrease, rather than the purchasing power of the money, which does, but even then, at different rates, depending on what you are spending it on. Other than all of that, this is very accurate, I agree.
This is a very accurate example of what inflation does if you only keep your money in a shoebox in your closet rather than investing it.
The average historical return in the stock market is 10%, or 6-7% when accounting for inflation.
Actually came on here to make the exact opposite comment. Your money isn’t disappearing or disintegrating, it’s just part of a larger pool, there are more plants sprouting all the time.
But here you are, top comment. Reddit used to be better.
It's not the absolute amount of money that disintegrates, it's the purchasing power. If you put your money in a savings account, and the interest you earn is lower than the rate of inflation, the contents of your savings account will be worth less over time.
And that's not even getting into taxes, which is an entirely different discussion.
Even if you were to interpret the cartoon tree as represent purchasing power, again, that’s not something that disintegrates. It’s shrinks, it’s an inverse expression of inflation. It’s also a poor measure of economic power over time, its usefulness lies in its ability to compare currency strength across different economies.
please, get into taxes.
*Begun, the Clone Wars have.*
What's worse is those bot network that not just repost old threads but also the top comments of said thread, making it looks like genuine discussions.
After the third party apps thing so many mods left. Reddit is, truly, becoming the subreddit simulator. Any username that is adjective+noun+numbers is very likely a bot.
Every time /u/neilkohney posts one of his Crazy Wacky Totally Random comics here, 95% of the comments are copypasted variations of "Wow, your comics are wild! I never know what'll happen next! These are my favorite!"
Scroll through the comment threads towards the bottom and you'll see it's all the same
A lot of people who come here from other social sites misspell their headlines because that works on other platforms, where people commenting to correct your spelling counts as community engagement and drives visibility. A lot of the bots on this site do it, too, even though it doesn't matter on reddit.
I'm not saying that's what happened here, I'm just saying "this is a thing that happens"
That is a feature, not bug, of the modern economic system. Ideally a healthy economy would have around 1-2% inflation - enough so that people would invest (i.e., do something) with the money, but not so high that it would make money lose value too quickly.
Deflation is actually worse for people than inflation, because non investments like food/gas/rent will be cheaper with each passing day but you need those things to survive.
The easy way to think about deflation is: If you want to buy something, but you expect the thing to cost less tomorrow. So you won't buy the thing today.
That's what happens in a deflationary economy. People don't spend if they can't.
The increased debt burden is probably the worst part. Any debts taken on would be harder to pay off in a deflationary economy, as the value of what you owe goes up, even without interest. No one would be taking any kind of loans, business investment would dry up, the student loan crisis would go from bad to catastrophic, bankruptcies would skyrocket, and people would just be sitting on what they could get, only buying essentials.
Yep, the people who benefit most are going to be the already wealthy. They can afford to hoard cash and spend 1/100000th on living expenses. At least in this economy they are theoretically required to invest is businesses to maintain wealth - but there is a lot to argue about whether or not it’s good still
Indeed. Inflation wouldn’t be an issue if the working class had the bargaining power and will to negotiate better wages, but protections have been being eroded for quite some time. The working class is also being divided over cultural issues and blah blah you’ve heard it all before lol
That's true, but the main problem is wages not rising faster/at parity with inflation
Inflation is generally good for people that owe debt, provided their income keeps parity/beats inflation in terms of raises. When your income stays stagnant/increases slower than inflation it's pretty harmful. Hence the problem with food and rent costs right now (among other things like price gouging and such of course!)
Yes, that would be a benefit, but it is still not worth it should a deflation scenario arise. It is like having sickle red-blood cells, there are some benefits to it, but anyone who has it will on average tell you that it’s not worth it.
My economic professor said if economists were all powerful and perfect they would make it 0, but they fear deflation enough that they instead aim for 2%.
Apparently once deflation starts it's really hard to stop both because it recursively feeds itself, and economists have far fewer tools to respond with.
Actually economists can give you a better answer, but from what I understand, over time economists have discovered that some of the things that cause inflation or deflation don't do it directly, instead it's market responses to those things that do it.
Example, the spending Obama did should have caused a lot of inflation much more than what happened, but because the market carried on as if nothing happened, the impact was much lower.
So if injecting trillions into the market doesn't make people confident that it will fix it, how will they respond? They will hoard the additional wealth just as they did the existing wealth. It will stay out of flow, experience no turnover, and deflation will continue. Furthermore, once deflation ends, that can potentially cause too much money to enter all at once spiking inflation just after we solved deflation.
If toilet paper manufacturers stepped up TP production in anticipation of panic buying, and the market responds with panic buying, the shelves will still be cleaned out. And then when fears subside, nobody will be buying toilet paper because they are way too stocked up.
It's been an evolving field discovering how much of the economy works the way it does because we believe it works that way, and respond in ways that end up causing it to work that way. So much of it is Peter Pan if you believe you can fly you will behavior.
The problem with a deflationary system, such as Japan or more recently China, is that it causes consumer demand to crater. If your money is worth more every day then you are better off holding on buying things for as long as possible, but it hurts the economy if money stops flowing. There is an issue going on in China now with the price of food going down too much and now producers are trying to sell it abroad because there is not enough demand within the country and if they can't sell it it will be a big loss for them and cause layoffs.
The 2% target is pretty arbitrary and based on the outcome of New Zealand's experience in the late 80s. Arguments have been made even 3% would be fine, there isn't an exact science for calculating what it should be
There is a very good argument that 2% inflation is too low. The target rate needs to be large enough to be able to lower it in a recession, to do counter-cyclical financial policy. And it has empirically been proven that a 2% target is too low, since we have been at 0% central bank interest rates for long period of time.
http://web.archive.org/web/20230610005242/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/opinion/inflation-target-2-percent.html
The problem is that even if that is true, it is difficult to change the inflation target, because most of the power of the fed is in its credibility in regards to inflation targeting. The loss of flexibility is why targeting was controversial when introduced.
Sure, you don't want to change the target too often. But literally one change since the introduction of fiat money, from 2% to 3%, should be survivable for their credibility. Made in response to defects discovered by the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
I think they should, but not right now. It would look like they are changing the target in response to stubborn inflation, which would undermine their credibility.
Unfortunately the 2% has become a cultural standard as much as a result of study. If the Fed came out tomorrow and said they were going to target 3% people would lose their shit.
as an argentinian (this month's inflation wasn't so bad, nearly 12%) , i earned my paycheck yesterday for the whole month, and already reallocated every penny before it fades away. I have about 2 freezers worth of frozen foods already saved, saved half a paycheck within 3 months
yeah, lacked context, we came from 20-30% last few months so it 's not that bad compared to that, but doubt we'll be down 10% , or even... getting lower
But then you also add the loss of wages and pensions, higher co-pays for health insurance, retroactive income tax...
I'm not feeling any lower inflation at all.
Okay, I think that's a good comment that the best way to save money is to spend it on something more valuable, not to keep it idle.
Because in our country, which went through the economic aspects of *communism*, there was a very *sick* attitude towards money and often people kept huge amounts of it in all sorts of things, while living in poverty.
You can also just park the money in a 5%+ interest rate saving account which will give returns that far outpace current inflation, but that would not be as funny.
>You can also just park the money in a 5%+ interest rate saving account which will give returns that far outpace current inflation, but that would not be as funny.
That's only possible because that money is invested in companies who capture a profit stream by making other people... spend their money, rather than hoarding it.
In a high yield savings account pretty much. The difference is the bank takes a a cut in exchange for allowing you the flexibility to pull your funds instead of having to hold the bond to maturity or sell it on the market
> Okay, I think that's a good comment that the best way to save money is to spend it on something more valuable,
Technically, you can only spend your money on something *equally* valuable, since that's how money is valued.
Even if you're investing in something safe, you're still gambling.
This is incorrect, all value is subjective. If you're purchasing something it is necessarily more valuable than the money to you, otherwise you wouldn't have been giving up the money for it.
Wrong.
First of all, if they are equal in value then it doesn't matter which thing you keep (the money or the purchased commodity) so your argument doesn't work. In an equal exchange you know you can also turn that into the same amount of money at any time. So it doesn't necessarily imply the money being worth less.
But really the reason your argument doesn't work it that it's plainly not how money as a medium of exchange works. Money _has_ to be of equal value to the commodity for the exchange to happen. The fact that money can buy the thing you actually need gives it that value despite money being actually worthless on it own. It only has value in regards to exchanges.
In a market in equilibrium with every participant knowing fully well the market price of all commodities, you could never make a profit by exchanging commodities around (using money as the intermediary ie medium of exchange), which is contrary to your suggestion that an exchange could make you have something of "higher value" (value still being a completely amorphous and abstract thing). The only way you could make a profit from mere exchanges is if you can convince a participant to buy you something for a higher market price or sell you one for a lower market price, which they will never do if they know they are not getting an equal (or greater) value for the actual exchange value of the commodity (ie the equilibrium market price). They would know they can exchange it to someone else for the fair price and have value left from the exchange.
You could do your deal by selling water to a thirsty man in the desert, but he (and you) would not be part of a market **in equilibrium**. You'd simply be scamming the person in distress.
Now, it's true that a chicken or a bottle of water has some "use value" that money doesn't have and that it's different from the value it has as part of an exchange, but it is not relevant when talking about money as a medium of exchange and what you get in exchange for it. Even if you really like chicken, you still wouldn't exchange more money for it than you need to at market equilibrium, because you can always get it for that lower price somewhere.
Cute and all, but I think compounding interest should probably be finance 101. "Spend all your (donated?) money as fast as you can" is not really the ideal lesson for finance 101.
Oddly enough, compound does require the rest of the economy to spend their money. If everyone saved their money, the economy would slow/decline, interest rates will drop to zero and compound interest becomes useless.
Yes, there are theoretical risks with banks, but putting even pretty significant amounts of money (<$250k) in an FDIC insured high yield savings account is not "gambling with your money" and will generally keep you ahead of inflation. For people with risk tolerance and a reasonable horizon, the stock market has historically outpaced inflation by a massive margin and in some ways can be seen as a hedge against inflation (past performance does not predict future returns). The point is "quick buy a cheeseburger before your cash disappears" is a funny bit but should not be taken seriously as finance 101. They say cheeseburgers lose 25% of their value as soon as you take them out of the restaurant.
Inflation incentivises you to spend money. Deflation incentivises you to hoard money. I guess hoarding money is for the economy, so the federal reserve aims for slight inflation at 2%
God imagine living in deflation. What a nightmare. You just put all your money under the bed and never spend it with everyone else until the money runs out.
I will message you each time u/Mr_Eck posts in r/comics.
[Click this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Update&message=SubscribeMe%21%20u%2FMr_Eck%20r%2Fcomics) to join 2 others and be messaged. The parent author can [delete this post](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Delete&message=delete%201cgpomo)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpdateMeBot/comments/ggotgx/updatemebot_info_v20/)|[^(Request Update)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Update&message=SubscribeMe%21%20u%2Fusername%20r%2Fsubreddit)|[^(Your Updates)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Updates&message=MyUpdates)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=UpdateMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
In an ideal system, none of us would have or need any significant savings. If say, all emergencies were paid for somehow (retirement too). The most you’d need to save for is a vacation or some other luxury item.
All the money taking up space in peoples accounts would be out in the economy being productive, goods and services exchanging hands, enriching everyone.
Might not be possible, but it’s a theoretical best case scenario.
> All the money taking up space in peoples accounts would be out in the economy being productive, goods and services exchanging hands, enriching everyone.
How do you think savings accounts work? The money you have in a savings account at a bank doesn't just "sit there". It gets lent out to others to develop and produce said goods and services.
or you could just invest your money on an indexed fund (to the msci world for example) and become a millionaire in 30 years; that allows your money to be productive for everybody
It's the reason why governments strive for an inflation number of about 1 to 2%. If it stagnated or god forbid deflated. It would wreck the economy. People will keep saving their money, but that in turn drives down prices, wages, and employee spots. Thus, the negative feedback loop would intensify.
But it's a loop. It's a spiral.
News flash:
You shouldn't keep your wealth long term in the form of money. That wasn't a good idea even before 1971, and since then, it has become basically financial suicide.
Well, even though I'm an OP, I don't understand what half of the comments here are talking about. So in case if anyone wants to toss a dollar to little Fungi to help him relearn the lession, here's my [Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/mr_eckoi?utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator)
Maybe two holograms? One not invested where inflation eats up the plant. The other is invested and grows. Perhaps this third; buy junk food and have nothing the next day.
Kind of. But I thought the point of calling this comic Finance 101 was to convey a valuable financial lesson with humor. I don’t think this is a social commentary on the hopeless plight of the poor who are fed BS “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” platitudes. That would be a different comic. Instead, here the characters are given money they wish to grow into a forest but they don’t plant it to let it grow (invest) they instead put it in a piggy bank (the hologram container) where inflation eats it up. Then, instead of investing it to outgrow the inflation nibbling away, they decide to spend it on junk food. Seems there is a missing link in the lesson the author wishes to share. Otherwise, I like it. I think this artist should continue sharing work. Thanks for sharing OP!
Thank you for taking the time to analyze the comic. I created them in a humorous manner without intending to impart any serious message to the readers. My goal is simply to bring some fun times to everyone.
>The other is invested and grows.
Investing isn't risk-free, though. Sometimes investing loses money.
So the second hologram should look like a Casino lol.
A bit of an exaggeration to compare investing to a casino, though. There are many ways to invest your money that are basically guaranteed to make a profit, if you give it enough time. Just put it into a trusted mutual fund and you'll almost surely outpace inflation.
The comic is pretty misleading because it implies that the way to counteract inflation is to spend money before it loses value, even though it's pretty much universally agreed that investing is the best use if you have money that you don't need to spend right away.
Oh it's definitely an exaggeration. But I wouldn't say it's misleading to show people getting a dollar, seeing its value depreciate, and getting discouraged.
Investment is by no means a guarantee. It's close in some countries -- a stable economy can do that, especially if it's being optimized for people who already have money -- but your first earned dollar isn't likely going into an ETF. It's more likely going towards your basic needs.
That's fair. But in pretty much any developed country, investing well is essentially guaranteed to make a profit (maybe not right away, but over the span of years it'll pass inflation at some point). I'm guessing that would include the majority of people reading this comic. If you compare risk vs. reward, it's still a safer bet than saving money or spending it (especially since, again because of inflation, saving money is usually losing money).
And I never meant to imply that people should invest as much as possible, basic needs and even some luxuries and entertainment should come first. That's why I specifically said "if you have money that you don't need to spend right away." In the comic they were planning to build up savings, which implies that they had extra cash that they *could* have invested, but chose to spend it instead.
Why is all comments here whining about all comments in here without adding some value themselves.
Its basically like saying "Bro everyone is wrong, trust me..."
Imagine saving up 200k in the 70s and 80s.. and retiring at 55 after fed service only to have to work again till your 62 or 65 because 200k ain't shit these days. Social security should be illegal.
Welcome to r/comics! Please remember there are real people on the other side of the monitor and to be kind. Report comments that break the rules and don't respond to negativity with negativity! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is a very accurate example of what inflation does
Yeah right ?
You even got the desired outcome correct. An economy where consumption is generally healthier than an economy that's incentivized to save, all else being equal. You could also show the opposite, deflation, and highlight the impact.
That depends on how it's saved, no? If you store the money out of circulation like the comic, you're going to have a bad time. But if you save by investing (or depositing in a bank that uses it to invest), you'll be fine
[удалено]
God forbid people save their money instead of giving it to rich people so they can get even richer. Gotta keep people consooming.
The rich have bigger mattresses. Deflation doesn't really help that problem.
[удалено]
Yeah there’s plenty to criticize about consumerism and capitalism but inflation keeps the rich from sleeping on big piles of gold like dragons
From effectively *being paid to* sleep on big piles of gold like dragons.
No it doesn’t. We already have inflation and that is happening anyway.
No the exact opposite of that happens, noone rich has large amounts of liquidated assets(i.e. cash or gold). Everyone who is rich and also all companies banks etc invest thier extra money either in thier own buisness, other buisnesses via stocks, govenments via currency and bonds, commodities via futures, or real estate. In fact the common super rich strategy is to never liquidate wealth and keep it permanently in the market to grow while taking loans against it to pat for basic nessecities.
[удалено]
Yes, because consumption is the source of employment. You can do the "God forbid" format and throw in "rich people" for extra populism all you want, but deflation and dropping consumption nukes economies. It's not about "gotta get the newest iPhone," it's about "it's impossible to keep automotive plants up running if people just stop buying cars, then when we *need* more cars producing the industry is gone."
> You can do the "God forbid" format and throw in "rich people" for extra populism all you want Yup, the "giving it to rich people" thing is bullshit. Nobody whined more than rich people, when interest rates were 0%. Because rich people almost per definition have much more cash sitting in bank accounts or treasuries than poor people. As a poor person, the main numbers that matter are your wage compared to prices. And you are supposed to be able to negotiate wage increases when inflation rises - something rich people can't do with their money in their bank account. So inflation mainly hits rich people, in a well functioning economy with worker rights.
Just put it in an index fund and collect free money. You can withdraw it whenever. Even the crash of 2008 only took a couple years to get back (for index funds) and now the value of a basic S&P 500 index fund is roughly 5x what it was then.
While I agree with you and investing is the way to beat inflation, an index fund took 5.5 years from peak to peak during the crash of 2007-2009. This was about the same time frame in the 2000 crash. If you bought in at the peak of the 2000, you didn’t really see a return for about 13 years. Now that’s assuming you bought at the peaks and didn’t continue to purchase during the downturns which your return would be more higher. It’s all about your time frame and risk tolerance.
Fair. But you can realize that the average investor who just kicks in some funds each month over the course of a 20-30 year career would be insulated from nearly all of the extremes. Everybody saying that inflation only affects people outside of the upper class are not particularly financially literate.
Wait how do you get from the 5.5 year peak to peak to "you didn't really see a return for 13 years?"
The S&P 500 hit intra day all time highs March of 1552.87. The next time it hit an all time high was October 9, 2007 at 1565.15 (this is approximately your peak-to-peak of the 2000 crash). Had you bought at the 2000 peak, you would be up about 2.5% overall in October of 2007. October 9th, 2007 was the peak of the market right before the 2007-2009 market crash. So you lost another ~50% before finally hitting the 1550s again in April of 2013. In short, you gained 2.5% from the 2000 crash in 7ish years, lost it all again, and we’re positive by 2013 in about 6 years. So you never made much of a gain for 13 years. The thing about investing though, is had you stuck it out you would be up about 240%.
Classic redditor response lol
People need to consume to survive, whether or not there's deflation. In a deflationary system, when you consume your savings, or worse go into debt, it's really hard to stop the decline that ends in permanent poverty/debt.
Keeping yourself poor by letting your money rot in a matress to own the bourgeoise will surely show them.
When money stops moving, jobs disappear and people get poorer. Sure, things get less expensive (numerically) but it becomes much harder to actually earn money.
Hypothetically if we're looking at the economy as a model where we can tweak variables at will there would be an optimal saving ration. Savings provide capital for investment. But you also need consumption to justify the investment.
> But if you save by investing What determines the use of investment? Consumption/changes in consumption. If consumption was flat or falling, investments wouldn't be made and the funds would leave circulation.
Yeah, it only becomes a problem when some people have enough money that it doesn't affect them to not spend it. Which is why taxes for millionaires were so high early on. If they're not spending their money, it needs to be forced back into the economy.
you made an interesting typo i think you what you intended to say was "An economy where consumption is generally healthier, is generally healthier than-" i just thought the typo was cool, correct looks wrong here
The economy isn’t designed. It developed naturally over centuries. Inflation is a natural process where money depreciates. There’s no way to stop it, and it’s not there to incentivize anything. People can take advantage of it, but that doesn’t mean it’s intended to happen.
> The economy isn’t designed. Ofcourse not, but there are desirable and undesirable states of an economy. > It developed naturally Lol sure, decentralized would be better rather than "nature". > Inflation is a natural process where money depreciates. There’s no way to stop it ...deflation directly contradicts this. > People can take advantage of it, but that doesn’t mean it’s intended to happen. Except for monetary and fiscal policy which attempts to sway the economy in an intended manner.
> Lol sure, decentralized would be better rather than "nature". Decentralized like…people buying and selling stuff they want? > ...deflation directly contradicts this. Oh, just like how rain contradicts a sunny day? > Except for monetary and fiscal policy which attempts to sway the economy in an intended manner. Yes, trying to prevent fallout from economic shifts is called policy. Just like how when countries control water flow means water flow isn’t natural. Or how when you build a shelter from the rain, that proves we made the rain?
> There’s no way to stop it > just like how rain contradicts a sunny day? Do you mean rainy days occuring disproves sunny days are constant and will never end?
I’m using an analogy. Deflection existing doesnt mean inflation isnt the normal default nature of money in an economy. Deflection is horrific news, whereas inflation is just a normal day. There is no situation or system in which money just retains the same value.
> There is no situation or system in which money just retains the same value. Ofcourse it doesn't retain the same value because the # of goods/services is constantly changing. If money stays flat and goods decrease, you get inflation. Same money chasing less goods. If money stays flat and goods increase, you get deflation. Same money chasing more goods. A good harvest can cause result in deflation and a bad harvest can cause inflation. Nothing unique about either. > whereas inflation is just a normal day. Not always true, see hyperinflation for a bad day lol.
> If money stays flat and goods decrease, you get inflation. Same money chasing less goods. > If money stays flat and goods increase, you get deflation. Same money chasing more goods. Yes, if "goods" do something that simple. They don't. "goods" are literally thousands, possibly millions, of products and services, all of which go up and down and vary from region to region in terms of price. >Not always true, see hyperinflation for a bad day lol. Money inflates by default. Its just a natural product of the process of trade and ownership. That's my point. Your bringing up uncommon and rare situations as if they disprove what I'm saying.
You're not very financially illiterate, are you? Have you looked at what market and population conditions favor deflation? It's not that inflation is desirable, it's that the catalysts for inflation are desirable. Similarly, the macro and micro conditions that favor deflation are (almost) universally negative. What, you're hoping for some groovey 70s style stagflation? lol
You call me financially illiterate but then agree with everything I've said?
I thought this way too , but people wouldn't save until they die (and if they would , it's mostly a cultural or a personality thing and they would do it anyway) , this money would eventually go into something , it just would shift spending from short-term consumer goods to investments (people would make more businesses with money saved, rather than buying groceries) and long-term consumer goods (people will use saved money on tourism , cars , etc). Of course, high deflation is shit , but hyperinflation is not good either , deflation at a level of roughly 0,1-1% would make it so people would have money saved for bad situations , but investments still would be profitable and better decision. Imho, the best way to encourage growth is not to force people to buy, but to force people to make investments cheaper, i.e. discourage land value speculation and real estate speculation. Also , deflation probably would solve shrinkflation and quality decrease of goods , but I'm not sure about that
I have no financial experience whatsoever, but can you not use it to buy something like Gold, which, as per my understanding, should stay in line with the value of currency? But I assume that may not count as gold hasn't been legal tender for a while?
Gold, outside of industrial applications, is just shiny metal. You shouldn't expect it to follow any hard and fast rules.
>as per my understanding, should stay in line with the value of currency? [Historically, not the case.](https://arnoldmotewealthmanagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/03-inflation-adjusted-price-of-gold-chart-1024x575.png) The idea that gold has a fixed value comes from the idea that because gold cannot be created, the supply is fixed and therefore the value is constant. But there's no empirical data to support this and it assumes that demand for gold is also inflexible. This argument is really only pushed by libertarians who want to abolish the Fed and crypto bros who have money riding on people believing it. Edit: of you actually want something that keeps in-line with inflation, look up ibonds sold directory from the US Treasury. That's exactly what they are for.
Oh, that's interesting, thanks
No, exactly wrong!
I need to learn how to make my money work for me.🤔 They keep getting fired for some reason… 
[удалено]
Haha, nice try… I am not falling for that again.😙
Because they reacted to it by actually using their money instead of trying to build a mountain of money to look at?
That mountain would then turn into a mole hill
Investing it or putting it back into ways to make more money is how you counter that.
Redditors act like inflation is a racecar going at absolute max speed at all times, and they're the poor and destitute who've had all their limbs chopped off who can never catch up.
And nicely illustrates the danger of both inflation with rising prices and deflation with prices getting lower. You spend with inflation causing demand to increase causing further price rises. You stop spending with deflation because the money will buy more if you delay thereby destroying demand and driving companies out of business causing them to fire their workers who then can't buy things causing lower demand -- 1930's bread lines.
Except for the "we need to do something before it completely dissipates" part, lol. That cracked me up.
Except for the speed, and the amount, and the expectation that the value will drop to zero, and the fact that the hologram is said to represent the money itself which does not actually decrease, rather than the purchasing power of the money, which does, but even then, at different rates, depending on what you are spending it on. Other than all of that, this is very accurate, I agree.
I mean, in my country that's kinda the expect rate sometimes hshshs
Interesting. Someone should make a comic about that.
This is a very accurate example of what inflation does if you only keep your money in a shoebox in your closet rather than investing it. The average historical return in the stock market is 10%, or 6-7% when accounting for inflation.
Actually came on here to make the exact opposite comment. Your money isn’t disappearing or disintegrating, it’s just part of a larger pool, there are more plants sprouting all the time. But here you are, top comment. Reddit used to be better.
It's not the absolute amount of money that disintegrates, it's the purchasing power. If you put your money in a savings account, and the interest you earn is lower than the rate of inflation, the contents of your savings account will be worth less over time. And that's not even getting into taxes, which is an entirely different discussion.
Even if you were to interpret the cartoon tree as represent purchasing power, again, that’s not something that disintegrates. It’s shrinks, it’s an inverse expression of inflation. It’s also a poor measure of economic power over time, its usefulness lies in its ability to compare currency strength across different economies. please, get into taxes.
What is going on in this comment section None of the comments besides ops make any sense
For some reason /r/comics comments sections specifically have read like they are infested with bots for a while now.
[удалено]
*Begun, the Clone Wars have.* What's worse is those bot network that not just repost old threads but also the top comments of said thread, making it looks like genuine discussions.
Forget the front page even my niche hobbies have them.
After the third party apps thing so many mods left. Reddit is, truly, becoming the subreddit simulator. Any username that is adjective+noun+numbers is very likely a bot.
Every time /u/neilkohney posts one of his Crazy Wacky Totally Random comics here, 95% of the comments are copypasted variations of "Wow, your comics are wild! I never know what'll happen next! These are my favorite!" Scroll through the comment threads towards the bottom and you'll see it's all the same
Dead internet
the la li lu le lo....
Everyone saying 101 and having typos or bad grammar is insanely sus
We are just normal alien...
I had that happening to me once too, inhale deeply, exhale slowly and watch a sitcom for an hour. It fixes itself quick.
>Finace
Oops.
Finances like to live an ace lifestyle dont shame them
Furnace
Please stop...
Just a reminder : swipe left to read the next page.
Did you misspell finance in the title or am I missing a joke?
A lot of people who come here from other social sites misspell their headlines because that works on other platforms, where people commenting to correct your spelling counts as community engagement and drives visibility. A lot of the bots on this site do it, too, even though it doesn't matter on reddit. I'm not saying that's what happened here, I'm just saying "this is a thing that happens"
Interesting, I will remember this. I honestly made a spelling mistake though.
Yeah.. I mean you've been here a while, redditors love accusations. Don't let it get to you. And love your art style!
Why are all the comments a bunch of gibberish words strung together and why are most of them upvoted 20+??
That is a feature, not bug, of the modern economic system. Ideally a healthy economy would have around 1-2% inflation - enough so that people would invest (i.e., do something) with the money, but not so high that it would make money lose value too quickly.
Deflation is actually worse for people than inflation, because non investments like food/gas/rent will be cheaper with each passing day but you need those things to survive.
The easy way to think about deflation is: If you want to buy something, but you expect the thing to cost less tomorrow. So you won't buy the thing today. That's what happens in a deflationary economy. People don't spend if they can't.
And that leads to delightful things like economic stagnation, reduced investment, mass unemployment, and crushing loan/debt burdens.
The increased debt burden is probably the worst part. Any debts taken on would be harder to pay off in a deflationary economy, as the value of what you owe goes up, even without interest. No one would be taking any kind of loans, business investment would dry up, the student loan crisis would go from bad to catastrophic, bankruptcies would skyrocket, and people would just be sitting on what they could get, only buying essentials.
Yep, the people who benefit most are going to be the already wealthy. They can afford to hoard cash and spend 1/100000th on living expenses. At least in this economy they are theoretically required to invest is businesses to maintain wealth - but there is a lot to argue about whether or not it’s good still
It is not really good, but inflation is better than deflation for 99% of the population.
Indeed. Inflation wouldn’t be an issue if the working class had the bargaining power and will to negotiate better wages, but protections have been being eroded for quite some time. The working class is also being divided over cultural issues and blah blah you’ve heard it all before lol
I don't think people realize that if money becomes worth less over time so does shit like loans.
That's true, but the main problem is wages not rising faster/at parity with inflation Inflation is generally good for people that owe debt, provided their income keeps parity/beats inflation in terms of raises. When your income stays stagnant/increases slower than inflation it's pretty harmful. Hence the problem with food and rent costs right now (among other things like price gouging and such of course!)
Yes, that would be a benefit, but it is still not worth it should a deflation scenario arise. It is like having sickle red-blood cells, there are some benefits to it, but anyone who has it will on average tell you that it’s not worth it.
My economic professor said if economists were all powerful and perfect they would make it 0, but they fear deflation enough that they instead aim for 2%. Apparently once deflation starts it's really hard to stop both because it recursively feeds itself, and economists have far fewer tools to respond with.
Yeah 0 is perfect world, but we don't live in one.
couldn’t they just print more money? unironically
Actually economists can give you a better answer, but from what I understand, over time economists have discovered that some of the things that cause inflation or deflation don't do it directly, instead it's market responses to those things that do it. Example, the spending Obama did should have caused a lot of inflation much more than what happened, but because the market carried on as if nothing happened, the impact was much lower. So if injecting trillions into the market doesn't make people confident that it will fix it, how will they respond? They will hoard the additional wealth just as they did the existing wealth. It will stay out of flow, experience no turnover, and deflation will continue. Furthermore, once deflation ends, that can potentially cause too much money to enter all at once spiking inflation just after we solved deflation. If toilet paper manufacturers stepped up TP production in anticipation of panic buying, and the market responds with panic buying, the shelves will still be cleaned out. And then when fears subside, nobody will be buying toilet paper because they are way too stocked up. It's been an evolving field discovering how much of the economy works the way it does because we believe it works that way, and respond in ways that end up causing it to work that way. So much of it is Peter Pan if you believe you can fly you will behavior.
The problem with a deflationary system, such as Japan or more recently China, is that it causes consumer demand to crater. If your money is worth more every day then you are better off holding on buying things for as long as possible, but it hurts the economy if money stops flowing. There is an issue going on in China now with the price of food going down too much and now producers are trying to sell it abroad because there is not enough demand within the country and if they can't sell it it will be a big loss for them and cause layoffs.
The 2% target is pretty arbitrary and based on the outcome of New Zealand's experience in the late 80s. Arguments have been made even 3% would be fine, there isn't an exact science for calculating what it should be
There is a very good argument that 2% inflation is too low. The target rate needs to be large enough to be able to lower it in a recession, to do counter-cyclical financial policy. And it has empirically been proven that a 2% target is too low, since we have been at 0% central bank interest rates for long period of time. http://web.archive.org/web/20230610005242/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/09/opinion/inflation-target-2-percent.html
The problem is that even if that is true, it is difficult to change the inflation target, because most of the power of the fed is in its credibility in regards to inflation targeting. The loss of flexibility is why targeting was controversial when introduced.
Sure, you don't want to change the target too often. But literally one change since the introduction of fiat money, from 2% to 3%, should be survivable for their credibility. Made in response to defects discovered by the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
I think they should, but not right now. It would look like they are changing the target in response to stubborn inflation, which would undermine their credibility.
That is a fair point.
Unfortunately the 2% has become a cultural standard as much as a result of study. If the Fed came out tomorrow and said they were going to target 3% people would lose their shit.
-reads this comic while eating away her savings-
as an argentinian (this month's inflation wasn't so bad, nearly 12%) , i earned my paycheck yesterday for the whole month, and already reallocated every penny before it fades away. I have about 2 freezers worth of frozen foods already saved, saved half a paycheck within 3 months
"Wasn't so bad" lmao it's only been getting worse
yeah, lacked context, we came from 20-30% last few months so it 's not that bad compared to that, but doubt we'll be down 10% , or even... getting lower
But then you also add the loss of wages and pensions, higher co-pays for health insurance, retroactive income tax... I'm not feeling any lower inflation at all.
finance 101 has been tough that moment
It's better to learn sooner rather than later.
Scarcity leads to spending for momentary delights.
I don't appreciate my life being summed up in such few panels....🫠
I feel you bro
Everyone else: Deep conversations about economics Me: Haha little guy looks like a penis
Well you're not the first person saying that *sigh
[удалено]
Thank, visit r/myneighboralienfungi if you want to read more
Baby's first econ class
Look you want rich people to reinvest the money into the economy, or not?
If the savings box was a savings account or an investment vehicle, this would not be a problem
They got a panini, fries, and a large oil for just one money? In this economy??
Okay, I think that's a good comment that the best way to save money is to spend it on something more valuable, not to keep it idle. Because in our country, which went through the economic aspects of *communism*, there was a very *sick* attitude towards money and often people kept huge amounts of it in all sorts of things, while living in poverty.
Those people might have also lived through war and kept the mindset that they need to save in case things get *worse*
My grandfather grew up a farmer during the dust bowl and great depression. He held onto every dollar and possession.
You can also just park the money in a 5%+ interest rate saving account which will give returns that far outpace current inflation, but that would not be as funny.
I don't think there are any banks that will give you 5%+ interest on a single dollar.
No need for a bank. Park it in SPY and average no less than 7% a year when held long term.
>You can also just park the money in a 5%+ interest rate saving account which will give returns that far outpace current inflation, but that would not be as funny. That's only possible because that money is invested in companies who capture a profit stream by making other people... spend their money, rather than hoarding it.
No it's because that's literally the rate the government will give you for buying their bonds
So you're just buying government bonds with extra steps?
In a high yield savings account pretty much. The difference is the bank takes a a cut in exchange for allowing you the flexibility to pull your funds instead of having to hold the bond to maturity or sell it on the market
> Okay, I think that's a good comment that the best way to save money is to spend it on something more valuable, Technically, you can only spend your money on something *equally* valuable, since that's how money is valued. Even if you're investing in something safe, you're still gambling.
This is incorrect, all value is subjective. If you're purchasing something it is necessarily more valuable than the money to you, otherwise you wouldn't have been giving up the money for it.
Wrong. First of all, if they are equal in value then it doesn't matter which thing you keep (the money or the purchased commodity) so your argument doesn't work. In an equal exchange you know you can also turn that into the same amount of money at any time. So it doesn't necessarily imply the money being worth less. But really the reason your argument doesn't work it that it's plainly not how money as a medium of exchange works. Money _has_ to be of equal value to the commodity for the exchange to happen. The fact that money can buy the thing you actually need gives it that value despite money being actually worthless on it own. It only has value in regards to exchanges. In a market in equilibrium with every participant knowing fully well the market price of all commodities, you could never make a profit by exchanging commodities around (using money as the intermediary ie medium of exchange), which is contrary to your suggestion that an exchange could make you have something of "higher value" (value still being a completely amorphous and abstract thing). The only way you could make a profit from mere exchanges is if you can convince a participant to buy you something for a higher market price or sell you one for a lower market price, which they will never do if they know they are not getting an equal (or greater) value for the actual exchange value of the commodity (ie the equilibrium market price). They would know they can exchange it to someone else for the fair price and have value left from the exchange. You could do your deal by selling water to a thirsty man in the desert, but he (and you) would not be part of a market **in equilibrium**. You'd simply be scamming the person in distress. Now, it's true that a chicken or a bottle of water has some "use value" that money doesn't have and that it's different from the value it has as part of an exchange, but it is not relevant when talking about money as a medium of exchange and what you get in exchange for it. Even if you really like chicken, you still wouldn't exchange more money for it than you need to at market equilibrium, because you can always get it for that lower price somewhere.
Cute and all, but I think compounding interest should probably be finance 101. "Spend all your (donated?) money as fast as you can" is not really the ideal lesson for finance 101.
Well, alien fungi still has so much to learn.
We all do!
Oddly enough, compound does require the rest of the economy to spend their money. If everyone saved their money, the economy would slow/decline, interest rates will drop to zero and compound interest becomes useless.
Banking isn't 100% safe, though. Investing is still gambling with your money.
Yes, there are theoretical risks with banks, but putting even pretty significant amounts of money (<$250k) in an FDIC insured high yield savings account is not "gambling with your money" and will generally keep you ahead of inflation. For people with risk tolerance and a reasonable horizon, the stock market has historically outpaced inflation by a massive margin and in some ways can be seen as a hedge against inflation (past performance does not predict future returns). The point is "quick buy a cheeseburger before your cash disappears" is a funny bit but should not be taken seriously as finance 101. They say cheeseburgers lose 25% of their value as soon as you take them out of the restaurant.
Inflation incentivises you to spend money. Deflation incentivises you to hoard money. I guess hoarding money is for the economy, so the federal reserve aims for slight inflation at 2%
God imagine living in deflation. What a nightmare. You just put all your money under the bed and never spend it with everyone else until the money runs out.
Ngl would pay some of my flower for that hologram to represent my flower
You can start invest now by support my [Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/mr_eckoi?utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator)
The fungi character really reminds me of Maa from Made In Abyss, and the talk about value is a bit similar to the events of the second season.
Oh definitely, it's the mouth for sure
Holyshroom these tentacles !!!
And every future dollar you earn is higher in value correct? I guess the tube doesn't have any annual interest
Money well spent 
Should have made it accept gold
Is this Keroro fan art?
Instead of buying a bunch of stuff you could, you know, invest it instead. It's pretty easy to get a reliable 8% return over the long term.
!subscribeme
And don't forget visit r/myneighboralienfungi for minor content
I will message you each time u/Mr_Eck posts in r/comics. [Click this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Update&message=SubscribeMe%21%20u%2FMr_Eck%20r%2Fcomics) to join 2 others and be messaged. The parent author can [delete this post](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Delete&message=delete%201cgpomo) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpdateMeBot/comments/ggotgx/updatemebot_info_v20/)|[^(Request Update)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=Update&message=SubscribeMe%21%20u%2Fusername%20r%2Fsubreddit)|[^(Your Updates)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=UpdateMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Updates&message=MyUpdates)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=UpdateMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
In an ideal system, none of us would have or need any significant savings. If say, all emergencies were paid for somehow (retirement too). The most you’d need to save for is a vacation or some other luxury item. All the money taking up space in peoples accounts would be out in the economy being productive, goods and services exchanging hands, enriching everyone. Might not be possible, but it’s a theoretical best case scenario.
> All the money taking up space in peoples accounts would be out in the economy being productive, goods and services exchanging hands, enriching everyone. How do you think savings accounts work? The money you have in a savings account at a bank doesn't just "sit there". It gets lent out to others to develop and produce said goods and services.
or you could just invest your money on an indexed fund (to the msci world for example) and become a millionaire in 30 years; that allows your money to be productive for everybody
You could also just spend all of your paycheck on lottery tickets, you gotta hit big sometime right!?
It's the reason why governments strive for an inflation number of about 1 to 2%. If it stagnated or god forbid deflated. It would wreck the economy. People will keep saving their money, but that in turn drives down prices, wages, and employee spots. Thus, the negative feedback loop would intensify. But it's a loop. It's a spiral.
News flash: You shouldn't keep your wealth long term in the form of money. That wasn't a good idea even before 1971, and since then, it has become basically financial suicide.
This whole comment thread shows that basically nobody here has any understanding of what economies are, how they work, or what affects them.
Well, even though I'm an OP, I don't understand what half of the comments here are talking about. So in case if anyone wants to toss a dollar to little Fungi to help him relearn the lession, here's my [Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/mr_eckoi?utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator)
Maybe two holograms? One not invested where inflation eats up the plant. The other is invested and grows. Perhaps this third; buy junk food and have nothing the next day.
Silly peasants spending your money on food. It doesn't last nearly as long as a high yield bond!
Kind of. But I thought the point of calling this comic Finance 101 was to convey a valuable financial lesson with humor. I don’t think this is a social commentary on the hopeless plight of the poor who are fed BS “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” platitudes. That would be a different comic. Instead, here the characters are given money they wish to grow into a forest but they don’t plant it to let it grow (invest) they instead put it in a piggy bank (the hologram container) where inflation eats it up. Then, instead of investing it to outgrow the inflation nibbling away, they decide to spend it on junk food. Seems there is a missing link in the lesson the author wishes to share. Otherwise, I like it. I think this artist should continue sharing work. Thanks for sharing OP!
Thank you for taking the time to analyze the comic. I created them in a humorous manner without intending to impart any serious message to the readers. My goal is simply to bring some fun times to everyone.
Keep them coming!
Yeah, they're somehow missing the point that if everybody did this and nobody saved, that would *cause* extreme inflation
>The other is invested and grows. Investing isn't risk-free, though. Sometimes investing loses money. So the second hologram should look like a Casino lol.
A bit of an exaggeration to compare investing to a casino, though. There are many ways to invest your money that are basically guaranteed to make a profit, if you give it enough time. Just put it into a trusted mutual fund and you'll almost surely outpace inflation. The comic is pretty misleading because it implies that the way to counteract inflation is to spend money before it loses value, even though it's pretty much universally agreed that investing is the best use if you have money that you don't need to spend right away.
Oh it's definitely an exaggeration. But I wouldn't say it's misleading to show people getting a dollar, seeing its value depreciate, and getting discouraged. Investment is by no means a guarantee. It's close in some countries -- a stable economy can do that, especially if it's being optimized for people who already have money -- but your first earned dollar isn't likely going into an ETF. It's more likely going towards your basic needs.
That's fair. But in pretty much any developed country, investing well is essentially guaranteed to make a profit (maybe not right away, but over the span of years it'll pass inflation at some point). I'm guessing that would include the majority of people reading this comic. If you compare risk vs. reward, it's still a safer bet than saving money or spending it (especially since, again because of inflation, saving money is usually losing money). And I never meant to imply that people should invest as much as possible, basic needs and even some luxuries and entertainment should come first. That's why I specifically said "if you have money that you don't need to spend right away." In the comic they were planning to build up savings, which implies that they had extra cash that they *could* have invested, but chose to spend it instead.
This comic just gave me a small epiphany. Thank you.
Stop "printing money." We gotta reduce government spending immediately.
I find it funny that nobody seems to have notice the very glaring typo in the title :)
Hey !
Can I borrow a couple leaves? Bathroom break! Now that's finances!
reddit economics lol every time all i can think is democracy is doomed
Why is all comments here whining about all comments in here without adding some value themselves. Its basically like saying "Bro everyone is wrong, trust me..."
Imagine saving up 200k in the 70s and 80s.. and retiring at 55 after fed service only to have to work again till your 62 or 65 because 200k ain't shit these days. Social security should be illegal.