Are we really heading towards hyperinflation or towards deflation?

[Tytanowy Janusz]

First, your math is wrong.  It would take you 20 years to lose 40k on 200k at this inflation rate, but if you had the $200k 20 years ago, you already would have bought the house and not experienced the inflation loss.  Which is my whole point.  Who holds $200k in cash for 20 years?  Nobody, because if you do that you're not very smart.  

My math is correct. 20% in 10 years from 200k= 40k, not in 20 years! I was describing 20 years period. So if you started with 0 ended with 200k after 20 years you hold 100k on average - 40% in inflation during 20 year period = 40k. Situation when you started saving when you were 25 and buying house when you are 45. thats not an uncommon situation.

Second, -20% in 10 years is appropriate for an asset that is ]designed to slowly depreciate over time. Compare that to bitcoin which loses 20% in less than a week on a regular basis and there's no comparison.  

Dolar is losing in value ... only. Bitcoin is mainly gaining. If you only don't shit your pents seing -5% 5min candle, relax, zoom out you will see that bitcoin had only 1 red year!:

From 2013 to 2014: $94 -> $600 (538%)
From 2014 to 2015: $600 -> $292 (48%)
From 2015 to 2016: $292 -> $624 (113%)
From 2016 to 2017: $624 -> $2,700 (332%)
From 2017 to 2018: $2,700 -> $8,100 (200%)
From 2018 to 2019: $8,100 -> $10,100 (24%)
From 2019 to 2020: $10,100 -> $10,900 (7.9%)
From 2020 to 2021: $10,900 -> $40,000 (266%)

Third, the handcuffs on macro economic prosperity created by the gold standard is much greater than the current system, which is why the world changed.  I'll take the current system over the former 100 out of 100 times.

Elites strive for the greatest possible power over a crowd of sheeps. Thats why world changed.

[jaysabi]

First, your math is wrong.  It would take you 20 years to lose 40k on 200k at this inflation rate, but if you had the $200k 20 years ago, you already would have bought the house and not experienced the inflation loss.  Which is my whole point.  Who holds $200k in cash for 20 years?  Nobody, because if you do that you're not very smart.  

My math is correct. 20% in 10 years from 200k= 40k, not in 20 years! I was describing 20 years period. So if you started with 0 ended with 200k after 20 years you hold 100k on average - 40% in inflation during 20 year period = 40k. Situation when you started saving when you were 25 and buying house when you are 45. thats not an uncommon situation.

Then the math is correct, the logic is wrong.  If you need $200k to buy the house, then you buy the house when you have $200k.  So you wouldn't have $200k when you're 25 and then wait 20 years to buy the house for $200k and you wouldn't suffer $40k of inflationary losses.  If you are trying to save $200k and it takes you 20 years to do it, your actual losses are significantly less, because it takes you 20 years to get to that point.  You're calculating it as if you have $200k from the start but for some reason wait 20 years to spend it.  You're so focused on the inflation rate you're ignoring the impracticality of people holding vast amounts of cash for decades at a time, which they don't do.  You're arguing against a hypothetical situation that doesn't practically exist in the real world.

Second, -20% in 10 years is appropriate for an asset that is ]designed to slowly depreciate over time. Compare that to bitcoin which loses 20% in less than a week on a regular basis and there's no comparison.  

Dolar is losing in value ... only. Bitcoin is mainly gaining. If you only don't shit your pents seing -5% 5min candle, relax, zoom out you will see that bitcoin had only 1 red year!:

This ignores the fact that you're arguing that 2% annually is too risky to accept but ignores the fact that the likelihood of being down many times more than this in any given day with bitcoin is several hundred times higher, if not more.  The point of cash is that it's safe, you know exactly how much it's going to be worth tomorrow, because the only wealth you keep in cash is what you need in the immediate future.  You can't do that with bitcoin because you don't know how much it's going to be worth tomorrow, let alone next week or month.

Third, the handcuffs on macro economic prosperity created by the gold standard is much greater than the current system, which is why the world changed.  I'll take the current system over the former 100 out of 100 times.

Elites strive for the greatest possible power over a crowd of sheeps. Thats why world changed.

Of course you believe in conspiracy theories, this doesn't surprise me in the least.

[cabron]

One will think the prices had gone up because the amount to pay for products are increasing which they will think inflation is going on but because the purchasing power of the money is going down there is also deflation.

This is the worse situation I think because this is squeezing both the rich and the poor which even the rich will eventually give up their properties and investment.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

First, your math is wrong.  It would take you 20 years to lose 40k on 200k at this inflation rate, but if you had the $200k 20 years ago, you already would have bought the house and not experienced the inflation loss.  Which is my whole point.  Who holds $200k in cash for 20 years?  Nobody, because if you do that you're not very smart.  

My math is correct. 20% in 10 years from 200k= 40k, not in 20 years! I was describing 20 years period. So if you started with 0 ended with 200k after 20 years you hold 100k on average - 40% in inflation during 20 year period = 40k. Situation when you started saving when you were 25 and buying house when you are 45. thats not an uncommon situation.

Then the math is correct, the logic is wrong.  If you need $200k to buy the house, then you buy the house when you have $200k.  So you wouldn't have $200k when you're 25 and then wait 20 years to buy the house for $200k and you wouldn't suffer $40k of inflationary losses.  If you are trying to save $200k and it takes you 20 years to do it, your actual losses are significantly less, because it takes you 20 years to get to that point.  You're calculating it as if you have $200k from the start but for some reason wait 20 years to spend it.  You're so focused on the inflation rate you're ignoring the impracticality of people holding vast amounts of cash for decades at a time, which they don't do.  You're arguing against a hypothetical situation that doesn't practically exist in the real world.

You still dont get it. When you started with 0 and have 200k after 20 years you hold 100k on average dont you? And I take this 100k into calculation. 40% from 100k = 40k

To end this nonsense calculation discussion:

When you start with 0. Save 10k$ annually. Than you hold 10k for 19 years, another 10k for 18 years (20k in bank account), another 10k for 17 years (30k in bank account)... another 10k for 1 year (190k in bank account). This sum up to ~40k lost in inflation.

"of people holding vast amounts of cash for decades at a time, which they don't do"

Because they desperately tries to run from inflation. Buying things they dont need. Investing without proper education. Give people fair interest rates - much higher than inflation and people will stop buying 5th house. Will save money in bank account for son, grandson.

This ignores the fact that you're arguing that 2% annually is too risky to accept but ignores the fact that the likelihood of being down many times more than this in any given day with bitcoin is several hundred times higher, if not more.  

It was 2%. Now its 5% in US. 3-10% in europe. Average lifespan of currency is 27 years. In my country (central europe) last time people lost all their fiat savings in 1995. After hyperinflation and redenomination. While BTC had only 1 red year and is the most asymmetrical deal in the history. Means that if your goal is diversification and safety ... 5% in BTC is a must have. And don't say about intra day volatility. This dont matter. Answer a question. Where will be your 10k$ of present purchasing power after 50 years. Somewhere around 1 familly dinner. Where will it be invested in BTC? 0 (you are 1 familly dinner short) or 1 mln$? I agree. Not worth to put there 5% of your wealth?

[stompix]

I repeat that I don't actually say that, I summarize what Alessio says in the video, which sounded plausible to me. Now, you make me doubt. It sounds to me like a question of which came first the chicken or the egg.
~
Perhaps the inflation problem is more complicated than it would seem at first glance.

Ok, sorry for that but for me it's easier to address you than every time saying "what that guy was saying is not ..."  
As for the dilemma, yeah, the situation is not as simple as Alessio    thought it is, you can throw cheap credits at people, if they don't want to spend or they choose to spend it on things that have a very low return rate to the economy you will not generate inflation.
You can give 1 million dollars to 1000 people they buy all shoes and clothes and here you have consumption, the other 1000 might put the money together buy land and start growing stuff while the seller of the land will put the 1 million in a bank. Inflation? No way!!!

When you start with 0. Save 10k$ annually. Than you hold 10k for 19 years, another 10k for 18 years (20k in bank account), another 10k for 17 years (30k in bank account)... another 10k for 1 year (190k in bank account). This sum up to ~40k lost in inflation.

But what about interest?
The 10k you have deposited in 2000 would have not stayed still, right onw deposits rates are indeed under 1% but they were not like that 20 years ago.
So to have the perfect picture you would have to count that too, who knows, you might have ended a billionaire!

[Tytanowy Janusz]

But what about interest?
The 10k you have deposited in 2000 would have not stayed still, right onw deposits rates are indeed under 1% but they were not like that 20 years ago.
So to have the perfect picture you would have to count that too, who knows, you might have ended a billionaire!

We have negative real interest rates starting from 2008.


https://www.longtermtrends.net/real-interest-rate/

Currently real interest rates are negative 5.32%. "The real interest rate is calculated as the difference between the nominal interest rate and the inflation rate.". Last time it was that bad in 1980, but it was just 1.5 year spike not ATL of 30 year trend (13 years mostly under 0%) which makes me estimate that it will scale even worse for next 20 years. Especially with 20% M2 supply pump in 7 months.

[stompix]

~
Currently real interest rates are negative 5.32%.

Sorry but that's not what I've asked you.
Your scenario was about putting in a bank 10 000 20 years ago then you went and sliced 40% of that sum.
I simply asked you if those 10 000 might have not increased in the last 20 years because of interest paid by the bank, so they might not be 10k but 11k.
Please don't derail this into another mess, it was a simple question with a simple answer!

So, how much you would have now in a bank account if you would have deposited 10k 20 years ago?
Then cut off 40% of that, and compare what's remaining to the 10k sum deposited.

[Ucy]

One will think the prices had gone up because the amount to pay for products are increasing which they will think inflation is going on but because the purchasing power of the money is going down there is also deflation.

This is the worse situation I think because this is squeezing both the rich and the poor which even the rich will eventually give up their properties and investment.

People's purchasing power typically goes down when prices of basic goods and services go above their normal prices which could be caused by inadequate supply of goods and services. You need producers to produce enough of the goods and services...but if you just print money and share to millions of producers to seat and do nothing, remaining producers may not produce enough and there won't be enough goods/services to go around, then price of things will increase.
Printed money has to go to productive sectors so that more will be produce to meet demand and avoid inflation. And producers must not compromise on quality to keep price cheap/low