Comment on [deleted]
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 day agoTell people to stop having more than 2.1 kids, then. As long as the population increases, without making changes to the currency supply, money is going to become more scarce. Keeping it exactly in line is impossible, so it’s better to keep a small amount of inflation.
As long as the population increases, without making changes to the currency supply, money is going to become more scarce.
Fuck off. The richest 1% own over half the world’s wealth. That’s where the money is going, not Mrs. Johnson down the street having 3 kids.
monotremata@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
The US population in 1980 was around 226 million, and in 2020 it was around 330 million. That’s an increase of about 50%. By comparison, the GDP in 1980 was about $2.75 trillion; in 2020 it was over $20 trillion, an increase of more than 600%.
The problem isn’t that we’re spreading out the same amount of money over too many people. It’s that we’re making much, much more money, but concentrating it in the hands of a tiny number of people and letting everyone else scramble for scraps.
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 day ago
That’s a separate problem.
monotremata@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Alright, how about the fact that the TFR in the US has been below replacement since the 1970’s, then. (It got close to 2.1 during the 2010s and then dropped again, and is currently around 1.6-1.7.) Is that relevant enough for you? Antinatalism is just as toxic as pronatalism these days. I swear, neither side is willing to actually look at facts.
fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINUSA
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 day ago
I never said that any birth rate was good or bad. I only said that if population increases, and currency supply does not increase, you will experience deflation (and that slight inflation is easier to achieve than aiming for balance and ending up too low).