You're confusing the economic effects of inflation and deflation with environments of low and high real interest rates.
I'd counter by saying that the strongest decades of median real wage growth and general GDP growth were during the high inflation 1960s and 1970s.
I'd argue that the fact nobody was starving at the beginning of the great depression means that the economic mess didn't cause the starvation is a bit of a straw man. Of course, at the beginning, people don't immediately find themselves in destitution, they draw down savings. The destitution begins when the economic disruption becomes prolonged.
I can't find any primary sources on the government policy of destroying food, but I'd conjecture the reason it was done (if it happened) was to support nominal food prices and therefore the apparent credit-worthiness of farms in a highly deflationary environment. Of course, the real problem was that there was insufficient aggregate demand to support the nominal food price, i.e. deflation combined with wage-price downward stickiness caused the market to fail to clear.
In terms of numbers, your logic is slightly off because of the distortions of tax law, which means in fact, the bulk of the S&P's distributions in any given year are often buybacks. It makes the net yield of the S&P500 closer to 5% over the last decade: https://www.yardeni.com/pub/buybackdiv.pdf
People rationally buy 5% perpetual yields to cream the asset, not HODLing in the hopes some other buyer will come.
Absolutely I would make a case about the net present value of future distributions - the clearing IRR is currently around 4%, having been around 5% last year.
Similarly real estate pays rent or owners equivalent rent (the value the owner derives from living in it rather than paying market rents). Here, the market seems to clear around 2-3% net of maintenance, having previously cleared around 6% when interest rates were higher.
Bonds pay interest, albeit at this time the clearing yield level is very very low.
What is the clearing yield of bitcoin? Undefined, because it has no expected future intrinsic cashflow payable to the owner.
Bitcoin hodlers have only one possible way to collect a future cashflow, sale to another person for either fiat or goods/services.
This process of cutting out traditional retail banks destroys liquidity, which the central bank knows it would probably have to offset through either becoming an explicit uncollateralised lender to banks or other monetary policy.
They are likely to be very conservative about that.
the standard (as a regulated person) is intention - you don't even have to succeed at moving the price in order to be guilty of market abuse/manipulation
I'd counter by saying that the strongest decades of median real wage growth and general GDP growth were during the high inflation 1960s and 1970s.
I'd argue that the fact nobody was starving at the beginning of the great depression means that the economic mess didn't cause the starvation is a bit of a straw man. Of course, at the beginning, people don't immediately find themselves in destitution, they draw down savings. The destitution begins when the economic disruption becomes prolonged.
I can't find any primary sources on the government policy of destroying food, but I'd conjecture the reason it was done (if it happened) was to support nominal food prices and therefore the apparent credit-worthiness of farms in a highly deflationary environment. Of course, the real problem was that there was insufficient aggregate demand to support the nominal food price, i.e. deflation combined with wage-price downward stickiness caused the market to fail to clear.