Funster you said
"When a country experiences hyperinflation such as Germany in the 1920/30s I don't quite understand how that affected savers.
In this example historybooks tell us that it was the middle class and the elderly who had saved all their lives that suffered greatly."
"Basically the answer then is that, in the real world, the banks, government and other institutions would, due to their own nervousness, probably be expected to conspire against the common saver in some such way that would have a contra or lagging effect to the predominant trend of hyperinflation."
No
Basically the answer is
It mainly had to do with the EFFECTS OF INFLATION, not a lag or contra trend or a conspiracy
It was the savers' original saved principal which was mainly affected (and therefore, the middle class and the elderly who had saved all their lives that were most aversely affected and suffered greatly.
If you had $1000 saved today and someone else had $1,000,000
saved today. Then, if by next week prices had gone up %1000 which would be 10 times,
your $1000 (1000/10 )would buy $100 worth of goods and services at todays prices. You basically lost $900.
The other person's $1,000,000 (1,000,000/10) would buy $100,000 worth of goods and services at todays prices.
They lost $900,000.
A $900 loss is bad a $900,000 loss is generally devastating!
It was the original (saved) principal which was mainly affected by the inflation after the money had been saved.
I ask, "Who was hurt worse when inflation took off. The person with $1000 saved or the person with $1,000,000 saved?"
It mainly had to do with the EFFECTS OF INFLATION, not a lag or contra trend or a conspiracy.
"When a country experiences hyperinflation such as Germany in the 1920/30s I don't quite understand how that affected savers.
In this example historybooks tell us that it was the middle class and the elderly who had saved all their lives that suffered greatly."
"Basically the answer then is that, in the real world, the banks, government and other institutions would, due to their own nervousness, probably be expected to conspire against the common saver in some such way that would have a contra or lagging effect to the predominant trend of hyperinflation."
No
Basically the answer is
It mainly had to do with the EFFECTS OF INFLATION, not a lag or contra trend or a conspiracy
It was the savers' original saved principal which was mainly affected (and therefore, the middle class and the elderly who had saved all their lives that were most aversely affected and suffered greatly.
If you had $1000 saved today and someone else had $1,000,000
saved today. Then, if by next week prices had gone up %1000 which would be 10 times,
your $1000 (1000/10 )would buy $100 worth of goods and services at todays prices. You basically lost $900.
The other person's $1,000,000 (1,000,000/10) would buy $100,000 worth of goods and services at todays prices.
They lost $900,000.
A $900 loss is bad a $900,000 loss is generally devastating!
It was the original (saved) principal which was mainly affected by the inflation after the money had been saved.
I ask, "Who was hurt worse when inflation took off. The person with $1000 saved or the person with $1,000,000 saved?"
It mainly had to do with the EFFECTS OF INFLATION, not a lag or contra trend or a conspiracy.
It is also interesting that a Multi-Million Dm family (in the time where you bought a car for 800dm) did not instantly move the money into commodities and get the fuck out of germany 
