I’m not denying that. I’m just pointing out that the perceived damage, if you will, varies because different goods and services people want inflate at different rates. Maybe you could get an extra haircut or two back in 2020 with $1200 vs now, but you can get a lot less steak now vs 2020 with that same amount. Not everyone experiences inflation or debasement the same way.
You can’t eat an iPad, but you can’t run a business out of a steak either.
Sure, but all of that misses the point. Of course it affects things differently because industries and goods differ. The point of money is to reveal their differences. When it’s being corrupted and printed it lies to us. It causes misallocation, it forces investment in things that lose value without realizing it, it dilutes the differences or completely obscures others. It is misinformation, plain and simple. And it doesn’t matter if it affects one area more than another, the question is about the degree of misinformation, because it’s bad no matter where or how it shows up. And it is axiomatic that it can do nothing but damage.
In other words, it’s like saying “not all cancer is the same, some is very serious, some is easily treatable.”
While this is true, the point is that cancer is bad, it is always serious to varying degrees, and that it shouldn’t be diminished or passed off like it’s no big deal that someone gave us cancer.
Your point, sure. The point I was making with my comment was about the specific instance of the $1,200 stimulus check and how the loss of purchasing power of those dollars was felt differently depending on the individual. I don’t think most people think of inflation as being a vector and individual to them. I was not excusing money printing; perhaps I could have made that more clear.
