The reason foreign real estate investment is so high is because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, and since those countries produce so much they have a huge excess of dollars but the US produces so little they have nothing to buy with those dollars. The only thing the US can realistically offer is land, if you ban it it will only accelerate the collapse.
Banning foreign investment in real estate forces foreign investors into more productive investments while simultaneously lowering the cost of living for workers and cost of business for companies.
Moving inflation to 6% will create millions of working class jobs in the US due to both a weaker dollar and cheaper money supply for value creation.
The losers in all of this are wealthy Americans. They will see their assets depreciate and buying power diminish. And that’s why we don’t do it.
Banning foreign investment will force them to dump dollars and treasury bonds and will accelerate the development of an alternative to it for international trade.
But I guess since what you want is inflation that is one way to get it, tho it will not be 6% but closer to 30%.
Yield curve control has not worked for anyone, it is a death spiral that results in zombie economies, at best.
> Banning foreign investment will force them to dump dollars and treasury bonds and will accelerate the development of an alternative to it for international trade.
How does this harm a working class American that derives all of their income from working wages as opposed to assets?
> it will not be 6% but closer to 30
Cite and example where a country did not default/print money for their debt payments and inflation went to 30%
> Yield curve control has not worked for anyone, it is a death spiral that results in zombie economies, at best.
How does this harm a working class American that derives all of their income from working wages as opposed to assets?
Lastly, address how any of the above prevents an increase in manufacturing jobs, which was the intent of the measures originally listed.
> How does this harm a working class American that derives all of their income from working wages as opposed to assets?
Their wage-dollars will now buy less stuff.
> Cite and example where a country did not default/print money for their debt payments and inflation went to 30%
The US has the world reserve fiat currency, so there are no examples because a fiat reserve currency has never existed before, but we know hyperinflation is a likely outcome. Now, from the experience we do have, ~30% inflation like in the 70s is the best we can hope for. A zombie economy like japan's would frankly be fantastic given the conditions.
>How does this harm a working class American that derives all of their income from working wages as opposed to assets?
Their wage-dollars will now buy less stuff.
> Lastly, address how any of the above prevents an increase in manufacturing jobs, which was the intent of the measures originally listed.
Don't worry, americans will have plenty of $1/hour manufacturing jobs like asians do now (or the nominal equivalente to $1 in a hyper-inflationary world). The US doesn't have the technical capacity or workforce to compete in high paying manufacturing any more and will take decades of pain to build.
Well, you don't seem to understand the fundamental problem. Whatever labor force exists in America should see rapidly growing wages because the unemployment rate is relatively low. The reality is that not only do we not see inflation the fed has set the interest rates to almost zero and injected an insane amount of money into the stock market with no change in sight. There is slack in the system, a lot of slack. This causes wage growth to stagnate while rich people in the USA still make loads money off Chinese labor. They don't have to care about Americans because there are work forces abroad waiting for them.
>The US has the world reserve fiat currency, so there are no examples because a fiat reserve currency has never existed before, but we know
This is completely irrelevant. The primary benefit of a world reserve fiat currency is running a trade surplus without financing but if you don't produce anything, not even housing that advantage is meaningless.
>hyperinflation is a likely outcome.
Banning investments into real estate might not be optimal but hyperinflation is not going to happen because the economy isn't even close to it's production capacity.
>Now, from the experience we do have, ~30% inflation like in the 70s is the best we can hope for.
There is a response to your commend that disputes that we even had this "experience".
>A zombie economy like japan's would frankly be fantastic given the conditions.
The USA is already partially a zombie. You have public companies with record stock growth despite no changes in fundamentals. It's easier to make money off the stock market because that's where the rich are using the watering can of the fed even though there are lots of withering plants surrounding the almond farm. The stock market looks significantly brighter than it should.
>Banning foreign investment will force them to dump dollars and treasury bonds and will accelerate the development of an alternative to it for international trade.
Only if they don't find a better alternative than real estate.
Moving inflation to 6% will almost certainly not impact any wealthy American with most of their net worth in equity. It will impact working class Americans who have their savings, however little, in bank accounts.
Which is exactly the problem: wealth inequality can't be solved by fixing wages.
Asian or "factory" countries (not necessarily from Asia but for illustration) have an "artificially" held minimum wage, which indirectly subsidizes the US minimum wage. This is happening to all wages not just minimum wages mind you, so the market needs rebalancing. Wages need rebalancing, taxes need rebalancing, but most wages, including the minimum wage need to come down (in real terms not necessarily in fiat terms).
Wages in the US are artificially high because of the dollar's position, but the US needs to either a) match the wages of the countries producing similar stuff or b) increase productivity and value to the levels of countries like Germany.
Since b) requires decades in factories, supply chains, trade agreements and most importantly training in actually producing things which means science and engineering, exactly the occupations an increasingly large portion of the US population has been taught to abhor, it is very unlikely to happen. The US has spent the last decades destroying all those things, so the only real option is to sadly let wages fall to levels markets are willing to pay for. It will bring a lot of suffering but is the consequence of decades of mismanagement and complacency, and it is unavoidable so it will either happen by will or by force. And we know it won't happen by will.
Of course there is always c) keep forcing the rest of the world to pay for the US standard of living while they themselves live beneath their means, but that is the actual problem now so how much longer can it last?
The average operating margin for the S&P 500 is 10.53% (although that may have been 2018). And economists are worried that even that is high - traditional manufacturers like Ford typically manage operating margins of ~5%. Workers are already getting 95%. And then everything after that like R&D, marketing, and capital amortization has to come out of that 5%. And then finally a bit is left over for earnings for the owners. You’re mistaking wealth for income. Surely the workers could use more wealth, but what we’re discussing is the price of goods and this is operating revenue and income. And workers already get the lions share of this.
If you’re going to make US manufactured goods cost competitive with foreign goods, much of it has to come out of that 95% operating revenue that is operating expenses, most of which will be employee wages. There’s no way around this.
workers are not getting 95%. Corporate profit and revenue is at an all time high, but wages are down since the 1980s. All that corporate growth goes into price fixing schemes and mergers to establish monopoly, and "consulting fees" to suspiciously named LLCs in the Caymans.
Read some 10-Qs for some big companies sometime. You might be surprised. Like I said - S&P 500 average operating margin was 10.53% a couple of years ago. And that’s crazy high - probably because of pharma stocks and the US’ dysfunctional generic drug regulation.
This isn't a correct way of looking at it. You're assuming that the sum total of profit generated is in that one manufacturer. It isn't the case. You have subcontractors that also make an additional ten percent, then materials coming from a supplier that takes another ten percent, which comes from raw material suppliers that make yet another 10%, and then you're going to have consultants in R&D and marketing that might make even more than 10%, and so on. So it really can end up quite a bit higher than that.
Possibly - although if your suppliers have operating margins that are as wide as yours, or wider, it might actually make sense to just buy them and take those earnings for yourself. I wonder how many of Ford's suppliers have an operating margin as wide as Ford's 5%?
I know these discussions always end up in worker vs owner debates, but what I'm talking here is about the nation.
Factories will need to adjust their prices, now you take that as you will, and if one is naive one can think it means executives will take a pay cut while workers do not, but in the end it mean less wealth for everyone, less money for taxes, less money for shareholders, less money for executives, and of course less money for workers. That is less wealth for the nation.
So yes, owners will take smaller profits, along with everyone else.
>keep forcing the rest of the world to pay for the US standard of living while they themselves live beneath their means, but that is the actual problem now so how much longer can it last
Our entire society is built on this, though. Silicon Valley wouldn't exist if electronics couldn't be produced for comparatively cheaper overseas. You bring up an interesting moral point, but if you're serious about that there's a lot of reckoning society will have to deal with. It's not just going to affect minimum wage lol. It'll affect wages across the board. You're really talking about totally reforming the economy
Now that he's not there other willing people will have the chance to apply to those subsidies aware of the new regulations and the change in direction the state is taking.
Because the government will not always be on your side, as 2020 demonstrated so well what many peoples outside the US have know from experience for decades.
This is a valid concern, but what do you say to the current system that does not prevent all kinds of fraud. Perhaps even rampant with it. An easy search will show you that large regulated institutions participate and engage in fraud at all levels of their institution. Why is it that crypto must bear a larger burden of scrutiny against the status quo?
I believe that fraud is easier to identify and financially punish on public blockchains. Exchanges and other entities already have the ability to blacklist an address's assets and prevent them from off-ramping into fiat ms being used in future transfers. Businesses exist today to prevent payments of blacklisted assets.
Compared to cash, blockchain based cryptoassets have more choice in enforcement against fraud. Also, crypto assets can be seen by all publicly on chain. It fairly easy to trace the work of cryptoasset fraudsters
If the whole point of cryptocurrencies is to work around the government and cryptocurrencies are going to strip them of various tools they use (control over inflation and monetary mass, monetary controls in the sense of taking money outside of a country, etc), governments will most likely not allow that, for pretty solid reasons.
It's an interesting experiment, I'll grant it that. But I don't think it can have its cake and eat it, too. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
10 years of debatable so-called-crimes with crypto VS at least 5000 years of wars, crimes and corruption with gold and government money...which side are we supposed to be on?
The end of the gold standard in the 70s meant the US could "afford" to fight infinite wars by just printing dollars and passing the real cost to the rest of the world, that is why the US is now the world's biggest borrower nation when it used to be the world's biggest creditor nation. The current state of endless military interventions is only possible because of the huge deficits in the US that are not possible with hard money.
People, and state economists, have confused inflation and deflation so much for their propaganda that right now is almost imposible to have a discussion around it primarily because different people don't mean the same things when they use those words.
Is the inflation you talk about consumer price inflation? is it assets price inflation? or is it money supply inflation? is the deflation caused by increases in productivity or is it caused by decrease in demand? Is inflation a product of regulations? of corruption? or was it caused by central banks and politicians' stupidity?
Those are all very different situations that require very different approaches, but because the "inflation-good deflation-bad" mantra has been repeated for so long (without any actual proof!) idiots now can't see past it, and think it's fine because they call themselves economists.
> An inflationary currency incentivises you to invest it, otherwise you lose real purchasing power. With a deflationary currency, you can just stuff it anywhere and see gains. You steal from tomorrow. As the material wealth of the world increases, our money supply should increase to match.
You don't understand the WHY of those gains.
A deflationary environment is the only real environment, that is why central banks are set up to fight deflation, because deflation is the natural order of things.
And in that real environment, gains in productivity are only possible because of savings, people invest not because of fear, the investments takes place because people truly believe the business proposals will produce VALUE, and hence REAL GAINS, which necessitates that people be not drowning in debt. That is why an inflationary system is a bubble system, it cannot be sustained on its own. It is a perpetual motion machine, or tries to be anyways.
Society has made a lot of progress, but the price has been an unprecedented amount of debt. In essence, we've mortgage the future, and at some point those bills will be paid either by will of by force.
Deflation reduces the velocity of money (why spend something now when you can spend less for the same thing later). This creates a negative feedback cycle which reduces economic activity and worse it increases inequality.
This happens because the poor continue to transact hand to mouth and are unable to save while the wealthy accreted value on their idle cash. Invested cash creates economic activity. The cash in your mattress does not. The opposite is true in a deflationary environment.
Debt in an inflationary environment benefits the debtor, as the loans are denominated in the dollars at the time of loan issuance. To the extent that the economy grows faster than your debt load you do not in fact ever have to pay it off.
> why spend something now when you can spend less for the same thing later
That is nonsense. Sadly by repeating it enough people have started to actually believe it, and repeat it without looking at the evidence of the real world.
A cheap pair of jeans, adjusted for inflation was ~$150 in 1980. Now you can get one for $10. Did no one wore jeans for 40 years? Meat, it has never been so cheap IN HISTORY to buy meat, and if the trend continues, next year you could buy even more meat with the same money! (adjusting for inflation of course) Are you not gonna eat for a year?
That is not even talking about tech, were a cheap laptop 20 years ago adjusted for inflation was over $1000 and now is $300.
People prefer things now not later, that is why if you offer them $50 today instead of $100 in 10 $10 monthly payments most people pick the $50. The same thing happens when buying stuff. Sadly evidence is not as marketable as propaganda.
Those things got cheaper because of advances in supply chains and technology.
I mean you can just do the simple mathematics. Suppose there are 100 utility units of wealth in the world - machinery, homes, anything tangible to improve lives - and 100 units of currency to match. Through human labour we produce another 100 utility units. Now each unit of currency can provide me 2 utility units. This is just a system that rewards wealth more than work, even more so than our current system.
Let's look at capital flows. Why in the world would I ever loan to a small business if I could see gains just by holding the money? Why would I ever give companies money in IPOs? There is much less of an incentive to direct capital to those who can be the most productive with it.
> Those things got cheaper because of advances in supply chains and technology.
That is why things get cheaper all the time, yes.
> Why in the world would I ever loan to a small business if I could see gains just by holding the money?
The same reason you do now, which is the only reason you ever lend money: by lending it (to someone more productive than yourself of course) you gain more.
the return on holding is not risk free. in the absence of progress money will be inflationary as there are more people competing for fewer goods. there's no free lunch
lol that’s what happens when technology increases productivity. I actually addressed all this. Staples will continue to be purchased hand to mouth leaving the poor unable to benefit from deflation while the rich sit on their idle cash and grow their largesse without increasing economic activity.
No, you repeated propaganda that told you to think you did, but as with the rest of your “points”, too many lols very little substance.
> that’s what happens when technology increases productivity.
Not when, technology ALWAYS increases productivity, that is the point of technology. Deflation is inevitable because productivity increases are inevitable.
And the poor have benefitted immensely from deflation, despite central banks doing everything they can to rob you of its benefits. More people than ever can now afford to eat meat, or drink single malt scotch, or whatever. More people eat lobster now than in any other time in history, that is the power and benefit of deflation.
To date since the 1970s, on average, on an inflation adjusted dollars per square foot basis, the price of real estate in the US has not changed. It’s not really deflationary since you can always build up (except where city councils tip the scales and prevent construction like SF).
Any deflationary nature is a council level imposition on an otherwise pretty neutral asset class.
No, it’s well documented. [1] That data is captured by the BLS.
> By that definition Bitcoin is a neutral asset class as well since it's deflationary nature is also artificially imposed.
Deflationary is not neutral, it’s deflationary. That’s an artificial imposition of directionality. Further that’s only in isolation. Once you consider the economy expanding and contracting around it, externalities, shocks and the addition and removal of market participants - and loss of coins - its claim to neutrality is like that of a baby fighting Muhammad Ali. It requires positive control to match market conditions. It’s only neutral if you pretend the rest of the world and the economy don’t exist.
What I was saying is that on average real estate is not deflationary, it tracks inflation, and there’s data to back that. In specific instances of markets where it is deflationary it’s not due to intrinsic qualities of the asset class but rather externalities.
> Fine, but we generally don't average out values nationally to price homes.
Not home prices, but the trend in home prices. I think we do, that's why the BLS is tracking this number. I don't work in the industry though, so I can't say for sure.
> Real estate is deflationary because each asset is unique - like fine art or a 1 in millions baseball card misprint.
Respectfully I disagree. Real estate is only deflationary if you're looking at the square footage on the ground alone, but if you can build up a practically unlimited amount (and we really, really can) then it's not a relevant thing to look at. Each square foot on the ground turns into more and more square feet of real estate over time as you build higher and higher.
Bitcoin is perhaps the most important project we'll see in our lifetimes.
The liberation of the most important asset in a capitalist society, money, from the tragedy that has been the current fiat system can not be over emphasized.
Money touches everything and is about time the market takes control of it, takes it away from the crony-states destroying the value of our savings, hence destroying our productivity, undermining the law at every turn in defense of a faux-egalitarianism when in reality that power has only been used to inflict (unwillingly or not) more pain to the marginalized sectors propping up a financialized economy that only exacerbates the wealth gap and radicalizes society to a dangerous level that sadly we all know where it ends up.
Bitcoin may not end up succeeding, but its fight is worthwhile, and necessary, and in the end inevitable, and because of that if the price now is 7 nuclear power plants we should pay it, as god knows we waste enough resources in lobbying, war and corruption already, because the cost to society of not doing it will be even greater in the future, and most probably, bloodier too.
None of the social ills you identify are a function of fiat currency which is intentionally a temporary, lossy store of value. You take your fiat and you invest it and nothing you say below the first paragraph matters.
Savings are meant to be assets not currency, whether that’s stock, bonds, real estate - whatever. Even a savings account collateralizes loans. You’re not supposed to save cash. Whoever told you that has misled you. You’re supposed to keep a small stockpile to see you through a rainy few months. No more.
The issue is that people don’t have money, and they don’t have wealth. This is strictly a social problem. This is not true in all countries but it certainly is true in the US which has a worse wealth and income distribution than your average banana republic. However there’s zero political will to change it. By anyone, on either side of the political spectrum (with the possible exception of the centre-left Bernie Sanders). Social policy is the only and I do mean only way to make real meaningful progress here.
Replacing one inflationary currency with a worse distribution than a banana republic, with a different deflationary currency with a worse distribution than a banana republic changes nothing.
> You take your fiat and you invest it and nothing you say below the first paragraph matters.
If only.
The problematic part of a fiat system is not that is fiat, but that is in the hands of the government who knows not how to exercise constraint and inflates it at will to "pay" for things, more realistically, to promise to pay for things that if it had to actually pay for it will never be able to afford.
> The issue is that people don’t have money, and they don’t have wealth. This is strictly a social problem.
What do you think money is? Money is how societies choose to interact with each other; in a sense, money IS society, at the very least money is the first brick on which to build one. The government printing money and using it to pay for political favors (via military or natural resources contracts, monopoly markets, etc.) is at the core of the wealth gap.
> Replacing one inflationary currency with a worse distribution than a banana republic, with a different deflationary currency with a worse distribution than a banana republic changes nothing.
You don't understand what bitcoin is. Bitcoin's advantage is that the inflation rate is not controlled by the government, ie. they can't print money to buy stuff they can't afford, With bitcoin, governments can't print the wealth gap.
> The problematic part of a fiat system is not that is fiat, but that is in the hands of the government who knows not how to exercise constraint and inflates it at will to "pay" for things, more realistically, to promise to pay for things that if it had to actually pay for it will never be able to afford.
If economic growth outpaces debt growth then it does not ever have to be paid back.
> ...what do you think money is?
Money is an intentionally lossy temporary store or value and a medium of exchange. Interact, yes. Store long term, no.
If you have problems with monetary policy vote in a new government, just taking your ball to the BVI isn’t a solution.
> ...you don’t understand what Bitcoin is.
I understand full well, and I believe those are bad things. Deflation is bad, for the reason I stated, and an inability to print means an inability to respond to geopolitical shocks (like COVID, for instance Canada has been paying everyone $2000/month this whole time). Not to mention an inability to grow supply with the entry of new market participants.
Bitcoin cannot and will not change the wealth gap when it’s overwhelmingly spoken for already. The best you can do is sentence your children to fight for scraps while the new moneyed class of criminals and lowlifes continues to grow in relative wealth as a fraction of economic activity by doing literally nothing with their money - backed on an inflation schedule created and managed not by economists or experts but a narcotics smuggler and a bunch of random GitHub contributors.
If you really want to change society for the better, run for office, don’t shill magic beans.
The fact that so many people don't know that cash/fiat is losing value over time makes it somewhat of a problem. Furthermore the creation of cash/fiat creates high benefits to those that benefits from the newly created money first, before the money spreads and devalues its value due to inflation over time.
Inflation vs deflation debate is a complicated one, I don't know which is best in terms of enabling technical progress. One is more short termist, another is more long termist.
But fiat/inflated currencies won't go away. It's just that those kinds of currencies just tends to blow up at some point because of inflation and human nature. It's more than nice to have other options, especially digital. The idea to have some kind of worldwide standard that is open and won't change is also nice.
Not changing is nice conceptually but very bad in practice because the real world changes. It doesn’t map. It’s one of those software engineering tendencies to rewrite instead of understand and improve.
One side note though. Consider that inflation doesn’t affect the poor as the poor live paycheck to paycheck and wages in the US have kept pace with inflation. The wealthy don’t hold cash, they invest. Even cash tends to be held in a savings account with at least partially offsets inflationary pressure. Has it impacted anyone materially? I’d love to see some quantification.
In practice, I'd say "selected" lower level standards aren't changed but built upon. Standard tools also tends to not change much. web protocols, C, C++, php, those are not getting away despite many attempts to reinvent the wheel. Maybe someone will make a better wheel one day, or maybe not, but for me it's nice to have a starting point in the domain of p2p "exchange" that may or may not be adopted as a standard.
As for inflation, it makes it harder for the poor workers to become wealthier, but the issue is more when it stops being sustainable. Inflationary fiat has proven that it could fail. I personally don't trust those persons handling it and I feel that such sentiment is growing among people. There's reasons behind that. That is terrible for a currency. Governments may or may not start having a better monetary policy. We don't have guarantees and much control over it, that's the issue for me.
I'd rather avoid an economical disaster and keep a business running than having to deal with the failure of others.
Each of the languages you called out have changed dramatically to respond to the needs of users, which Bitcoin cannot, has not and will not do. You’re basically advocating for K&R C forever.
Re inflation again, has no impact on poor workers. The amount of value transferred to them in exchange for work is purely social policy and fiscal policy not monetary policy. You can improve workers mobility by supporting unions and minimum wage, not by changing the inflation characteristics of their medium of exchange they don’t get to hold on to anyways. None of your criticisms matter if you’ve invested your fiat.
Bitcoin can change depending on the need of the users, assuming it's something accepted by them, which sounds fair to me.
As for the inflation/fiat it just seems to me that you keep ignoring the possibility of a failure of such system. A failure of such system would for sure have terrible consequences and the poor unlike the wealthier will have harder times. Investing the fiat is a good idea, not something remotely popular in my country alas. Here, saving mostly means saving money at the bank (which devalues over time). No wonder why they feel they're losing purchasing power. People who work shall earn wealth simply put, not diminished wealth if they don't learn about financial tricks from someone they trust.
> Bitcoin can change depending on the need of the users, assuming it's something accepted by them, which sounds fair to me.
No? In what way.
> As for the inflation/fiat it just seems to me that you keep ignoring the possibility of a failure of such system. A failure of such system would for sure have terrible consequences and the poor unlike the wealthier will have harder times.
A collapse in finance would affect the people who have money and value, that'd be the rich who'd be affected. It would not affect those who don't have money. Like inflation.
The wealthier might lose more wealth overall (if we exclude the options they have to diversify and protect) but that doesn't mean it won't be harder for the poor. A poor by definition doesn't own much. They probably have no house, no easy way to eat, no way to transport if the system collapse and the merchants aren't interested in the little fiat they have. All in all I'm having a hard time to defend the idea that it would be harder for the wealthier to go through a collapse of the currency.
As for bitcoin, well, you can audit the commits on github if you want. There's plenty of things added lately. Miners or other entities like nodes can decide to fork the protocol into another chain (already happened, the protocol is then developed differently in those chains). Rules are subject to a consensus. Also if a user is not happy with a change, he's free to stop using it or to exchange his bitcoins for something else. All in all there's no reasons for participants to refuse modifying and improving the protocol over time.
> If economic growth outpaces debt growth then it does not ever have to be paid back.
Bernie Maddoff said the same thing. He also tried to create a perpetual motion machine.
> Canada has been paying everyone $2000/month this whole time)
Canada has been lending everyone $2000/month this whole time.
> Bitcoin cannot and will not change the wealth gap when it’s overwhelmingly spoken for already.
Again, you don't understand what bitcoin is, nor money apparently. People don't stash money away, not all of it anyways, and specially not when its inflation rate is limited (as in there is not a lot of excess to stash like right now), they use it to buy stuff, to pay for stuff, to invest in stuff, they enjoy it, that is why you want money in the first place! Money is, was and always will be exchanged, which means it changes hands. Odd concept, I know.
> backed on an inflation schedule created and managed not by economists or experts but a narcotics smuggler and a bunch of random GitHub contributors.
Yes, the "experts" managing the "economy" right now are doing such a great job.
> just taking your ball to the BVI isn’t a solution.
At some point, sooner rather than later by the looks of it, it will be the only solution.
> If you really want to change society for the better, run for office, don’t shill magic beans.
Weird advice from someone convinced we'll never have to pay back our debts.
> Bernie Maddoff said the same thing. He also tried to create a perpetual motion machine.
Bernie Madoff doesn't get to print his own currency, you see why that's different right? You know who does though? Tether.
> Canada has been lending everyone $2000/month this whole time.
Paying. Lending implies that it has to be returned, it does not.
> Again, you don't understand what bitcoin is, nor money apparently.
Incorrect, I know what money is for and how it works. I don't disagree with anything you said about money. What I disagree with is that inflation matters in that context. It does not. I also see Bitcoin as having been spoken for already, and it has. with a worse wealth distribution than a banana republic, which it has.
> Yes, the "experts" managing the "economy" right now are doing such a great job.
Inflation has been in a tightly controlled 1-2% range in the US since the 1970s. They are. So forgive me for not giving a bunch of un-elected, un-accountable randos with commit privileges and a narcotics trafficker the steering wheel lol.
> At some point, sooner rather than later by the looks of it, it will be the only solution.
Agree to disagree.
> Weird advice from someone convinced we'll never have to pay back our debts.
Who is "our" and why does one have anything to do with the other?
> Bernie Madoff doesn't get to print his own currency, you see why that's different right? You know who does though? Tether.
As I said, you don’t understand money. Currency is not wealth. Purchasing power cannot be printed, despite what MMT claims real wealth has to be produced using real resources. You can print all the dollars you want, in fact, that is exactly what the monopoly board game creators do.
> Paying. Lending implies that it has to be returned, it does not.
As I said, again, you don’t understand what money is. Under the current system all money is debt. And governments have no purchasing power to give but what they confiscate from citizens via taxes in the present, or take via inflation from the future. Either way, canadians are paying those $2000 back.
> Inflation has been in a tightly controlled 1-2% range in the US since the 1970s. They are. So forgive me for not giving a bunch of un-elected, un-accountable randos with commit privileges and a narcotics trafficker the steering wheel lol.
Which is why the FED came out saying they are gonna increase the rate of inflation that has actually been lower than reported all these past years right? The inflation metrics do not represent real inflation and even the FED admitted it, nor do they capture the wealth inequality even if they did. The riots on the streets, the uncertainty, most americans living paycheck to paycheck, miles of lines at food banks, most americans not having even $400 in savings, all signs of how the experts are such experts at managing the economy right? Not even 1 week of trouble could handle this wonderful economy when covid started they had to print trillions to bail out mega corporations. Such a well managed economy right?
> Who is "our" and why does one have anything to do with the other?
You, the one that claims having a printing press and growing gdp faster than inflation means governments will outrun debts. Don’t shill magic beans.
There is no getting around the fact Bitcoin is distributed in a fabulously unequal manner.
The rest of the world is going mint a set of new global elite because they mined a stack a coins when the computational cost was tiny? If crypto dream of having Bitcoin as some global reserve currency is achieved that is what will happen.
To be honest that situation is not far off the inherited wealth of a lot of the super rich families that exist now. But at least you know somewhere along the family tree something worthwhile was achieved. Their claim to wealth is not simply being on the right internet forum in 2010.
You should really go and spend some time learning about the current monetary and fiscal systems from places other than Bitcoin subreddits.
The claim that “Purchasing power cannot be printed, despite what MMT claims real wealth has to be produced using real resources” is trivially falsifiable. The M2 money supply is 15X what it was in the 1970s but inflation caused the value to drop to 1/7th. That means net new buying power was in fact created - doubled even. The reason is you have too simplistic an understanding of money. Velocity of money matters.
There’s actually a term for excess value created through the addition of new money into the supply which eludes me right now.
> Either way, canadians are paying those $2000 back.
You have way too simplistic a take on the current financial system. Money is a social construct.
> The inflation metrics do not represent real inflation and even the FED admitted it, nor do they capture the wealth inequality even if they did.
lol, inflation is defined in terms of a specific basket of goods and services. If they want to redefine the baskets that’s fine but there’s no such thing as real inflation and fake inflation any more than there’s real math and fake math. If you want, talking about quality of life, standard of living, all that — that’s a much more interesting topic and again 100% social policy not monetary.
> Such a well managed economy right?
Yep! Well managed money supply. Well managed economy, I’m not sure Id go that far but they are two different things.
> You, the one that claims having a printing press and growing gdp faster than inflation means governments will outrun debts. Don’t shill magic beans.
You’ve hopelessly entangled a temporary medium of exchange and a long-term store of value in your brain. This has confused your understanding of economics. Spend less time in Bitcoin subreddits.
Growing gdp faster than debt does allow you never to pay it off, this principal is one that extends from personal finance. If you have an interest only loan all you ever need to pay is the interest. If the growth in the loan interest remains lower than the growth in your income (or inflation) it’s not in your interest to pay back that loan. Doing so increases opportunity cost. You get that right?
I could pay off my whole mortgage today but I won’t. Because I can do more with that money, and expect a better return than mortgage interest minus inflation. So, I refinanced. Thanks to inflation and tax deductions, my real interest rate is almost 0%.
You have been grinding this axe so hard it's almost gone at this point. When BTC is 30k, 50k, 100k you will still be tilting at windmills, and no one will care. You are so wrong and incorrect on nearly everything you type, you must be an absolutely insufferable person to deal with.
I could not care less what price Bitcoin ends up at, it will not change the garbage fundamentals, or my opinion of it, nor should it change yours. There's tons of different ways to make money investing, and I stick to traditional markets. Tesla has seen a 15X increase in value over the last year, Square 20X since 2016.
I suspect I may be insufferable when I see something that's just a giant waste of time, power, energy, effort and brain power, and I'm not mad about that.
I do wish you the best of luck making money, however you choose to do so!
