Naked Capitalism has the article No, Inflation Doesn’t Erode the Burden of Debts.

The author comes to sort of the right conclusion for sort of the wrong reasons.

Debt is one such example. In the United States most people have debts denominated in U.S. Dollars. A useful proxy for the burden of debt is the ratio between an individual’s or sector’s nominal debt to its nominal income.

To me the author wanders back and forth between identifying the right issue and confusing the situation. I guess I should state what I think the right answer for the right reasons is.

With the current rigged economy in the US and the world, long term moderate inflation is not as likely to erode the burden of your long term debt the way it used to do. This outcome could be changed by changing the way the system is rigged. So it is wrong to leave the impression that long term moderate inflation never eroded long-term debt burden, or to leave the impression that it never could again.

I posted the following comment:

The inflation/debt argument really only applies to long-term debt – mortgages [at fixed principal and fixed or refinanceable interest rate], student loans [at fixed principal and fixed or refinanceable interest rate], etc. And, yes, it depends on the historical relation between price inflation and wage inflation.

Rabid outsourcing and destruction of unions (related to each other) seems to have broken the connection between price inflation and wage inflation. If that connection remains severed, then inflation won’t do for the economy what is has done in the past.

When economists build theories on historical evidence of relations and correlations, they must always ask what caused those relations and correlations. If those causes are no longer present, then they are probably looking at a history that does not apply to current conditions. Not surprisingly, applying the wrong historical precedents leads to faulty predictions about the future.

If the economists won’t exercise the proper care when promoting theories, at least the reader can make her or his own judgment. Don’t depend on the corporate media to make that judgment for you. Almost none of the corporate media “journalists” have the competency to judge economics, and those that have the competency don’t have the incentive. Either way, the “journalists” get paid to tell you what their bosses want them to tell you.

Perhaps debtors can take solace in the fact that although inflation may no longer erode the burden of debts, it does at least erode the value of the debt to the lender. Misery loves company.

Vox has an article and a cute video Donald Trump’s supporters on Reddit explain why they support Trump — and it’s fascinating.

The article is focused on the Reddit item [Serious] Redditors who want Trump to become president, why?. As suggested on Reddit itself, the above link sorts the responses based on “most controversial”

Vox has the article Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to use the tax code to weaken Wall Street.

In 2008, candidate Barack Obama’s tax policies sought to achieve the normal ends of Democratic tax policy: Fund the basic operations of the federal government, give more money to the poor and middle class, and take more money from the rich. That is, for the most part, what we expect Democratic tax plans to do.

But the tax plans Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have unveiled are more radical than that. Yes, they raise money to fund government operations, and sure, they redistribute wealth a bit. But their real aim is far more ambitious: They want to change the way the economy actually works.

They may think they have a pretty radical article, but I have a slightly different view. Here is my comment that I posted on the article:

Give some coverage to the idea that paying down the debt may be unnecessary and destructive to the economy. Ever hear of Modern Money Theory? Do you know who Sanders’ appointment to chief economist for the minority on the Senate Budget Committee, Stephanie Kelton, is?

There may be bigger things coming than you can dream of.