> But hoarding wealth isn't a problem for inequality.
It absolutely can be, especially for wealth that is finite. (Like land for housing)
> Inflation is the process that incentivizes capital to be put to work.
Does it though? Inflation mostly just punishes labor alone, labor feels the effects of inflation far more severely than anyone else.
With enough capital (the amount anyone 'hoarding wealth' already has), the capital automatically buys itself out of any problem of inflation, because the returns to sit on that cash are routinely higher than inflation itself is.
Inflation can't currently incentivize capital to be put to work, because capital just sitting doing nothing already far out-earns any loss from inflation. And for inflation to be strong enough to actually incentivize capital to be used, you'd have to bump it to astronomical heights (like say, 15-25%), at which point you've completely obliterated all wage-earning people's lives.
This is why many well-respected people advocate for a wealth tax. In a perfect world, inflation would be exactly 0, and a strong punitive wealth tax would discourage greedy people from hoarding wealth.
The market already has a mechanism for incentivizing putting capital to work, though. If something is held off the market ("hoarded", in your terminology), it reduces supply, and the returns in that area go up, making it more attractive to do something with it.
For money-wealth, the outlook is even better. If Scrooge McDuck, puts all his money into his basement so he can swim in them, he has removed those from the supply and increases the value of everyone else's money while he holds it off the market.
I'm not an expert, but what you describe as "capital sitting doing nothing" is, presumably, capital invested in some kind of market index? In which case it's by definition not "sitting doing nothing", right?
Unless you were referring to capital in the sense of owned non-market property that appreciates with time? Land/property values are a major topic of discussion throughout this thread for sure.
Just trying to make sure I'm following the thread of the argument here.
> With enough capital (the amount anyone 'hoarding wealth' already has), the capital automatically buys itself out of any problem of inflation, because the returns to sit on that cash are routinely higher than inflation itself is.
I remember the late 1970s, when inflation was 14%, and sitting on cash paid 5%. There have been times when your "just sit on cash" approach meant losing your shirt.
It absolutely can be, especially for wealth that is finite. (Like land for housing)
> Inflation is the process that incentivizes capital to be put to work.
Does it though? Inflation mostly just punishes labor alone, labor feels the effects of inflation far more severely than anyone else.
With enough capital (the amount anyone 'hoarding wealth' already has), the capital automatically buys itself out of any problem of inflation, because the returns to sit on that cash are routinely higher than inflation itself is.
Inflation can't currently incentivize capital to be put to work, because capital just sitting doing nothing already far out-earns any loss from inflation. And for inflation to be strong enough to actually incentivize capital to be used, you'd have to bump it to astronomical heights (like say, 15-25%), at which point you've completely obliterated all wage-earning people's lives.
This is why many well-respected people advocate for a wealth tax. In a perfect world, inflation would be exactly 0, and a strong punitive wealth tax would discourage greedy people from hoarding wealth.