> Is that actually true? Is inflation really worse than default? I mean, we don't have any samples from "advanced" economies, but from the what I've seen, high inflation, in the long run, doesn't seem to be that much worse for economic health than default.
I grew up in an Eastern-European post-communist country which was very badly affected by inflation in the '90s (it ran in the high double-digits for almost all the decade, and in one year it actually surpassed 100%). Let me tell you that to see your life-savings absolutely annihilated in a matter of 2-3 years it's much, much, much worse than deflation. Japan got into the current mess after 20 years and it still manages to build Maglev trains and to be an economic power, but in a country affected by very high inflation all that goes out of the window (see the Soviet Union implosion).
And anecdotal recollection, I remember when my parents had asked me to be the one in charge of answering the family's phone (I was 14 or 15), and to tell whomever was calling that they were not home (they had borrowed money from lots of their friends to buy food and to pay for basic apartment maintenance and there is no-way to pay it back). One day a lady judge called, asking my parents to pay back the money they owned her because she did not have money to buy bread. Now, you can imagine that in a country where even judges cannot afford to buy bread for their family things are worse than worse.
Your response completely misses quanticle's point. Quanticle was talking about the choice between inflation and default. (So, when it comes to your life-savings, both can be utterly destructive.)
Instead of actually addressing quanticle, you went into an irrelevant inflation/deflation rant. It would be nice if we could actually talk with each other rather than at each other in this kind of discussion.
Edit to point out once again: Default and deflation are not the same thing. By bringing up deflation in this particular sub-thread, you are further reducing the signal-to-noise ratio in a comment thread that is already of low average quality.
> (So, when it comes to your life-savings, both can be utterly destructive.)
As I was trying to say, after 20 years of a shitty deflationary economy the Japanese people still pretty much have their pensions more or less intact, while in a highly inflationary economy (like the one I experienced) the pensions become almost null in a matter of maximum 5 years. So your point, "So, when it comes to your life-savings, both can be utterly destructive" is actually demonstrably false, based on recent historic examples. I agree, we can start the discussion from here, i.e. from demonstrable economic facts.
Granted, English is my second to third language, so I try my best at holding a conversation.
I grew up in an Eastern-European post-communist country which was very badly affected by inflation in the '90s (it ran in the high double-digits for almost all the decade, and in one year it actually surpassed 100%). Let me tell you that to see your life-savings absolutely annihilated in a matter of 2-3 years it's much, much, much worse than deflation. Japan got into the current mess after 20 years and it still manages to build Maglev trains and to be an economic power, but in a country affected by very high inflation all that goes out of the window (see the Soviet Union implosion).
And anecdotal recollection, I remember when my parents had asked me to be the one in charge of answering the family's phone (I was 14 or 15), and to tell whomever was calling that they were not home (they had borrowed money from lots of their friends to buy food and to pay for basic apartment maintenance and there is no-way to pay it back). One day a lady judge called, asking my parents to pay back the money they owned her because she did not have money to buy bread. Now, you can imagine that in a country where even judges cannot afford to buy bread for their family things are worse than worse.