The problem with economists and journalists that report on economics is that
they like simple, easy to understand, definitions and cannot think rationally if
a definition is involved. Take for instance deflation. Economists define
deflation as inflation below o%. And although the only instance of real
deflation was in 1930's USA, economists are almost united in saying it would be
bad for any economy. Now, some countries in Europe that import every single drop
of oil they use, had very low inflation. The recent steep fall in oil price
meant that the economies of those countries were now officially in deflation and
economists and journalists had a field day forecasting doom and gloom. Because
the economies were in deflation. But they forgot to include the reason for the
fall into deflation into the equation. Cheaper oil is a godsend to any economy
dependent on oil imports, it is in no way a bad thing. It means cheaper
transport, heating, manufacturing, farming, in fact cheaper everything that uses
oil or oil derivatives. But most economists and financial journalists, with
their closed minds, can only see the minus sign in front of the inflation
statistics and therefore denounce a bonanza as a catastrophe. The massive
numbers of unemployed and underemployed, or those barely getting by on jobs in
our neoliberal economic wonderland where living-wage salaries are a thing of the
past, would welcome not having their purchasing power robbed by central bank
debasement of the currency and asset bubbles, not to mention the unpayable debts
they and their children are being saddled with by being forced to bail out
financial speculators.
No comments:
Post a Comment