24 ms·
Removing the boundary doesn't really make sense -- if you allow people to go into negative dollars but still be able to give a dollar each tick, then there's no
by Rotten194 9y ago
Removing the boundary doesn't really make sense -- if you allow people to go into negative dollars but still be able to give a dollar each tick, then there's no longer a finite amount of money in the system.
- AaronFriel 9y agoSure there is, it's just effectively a zero interest debt instrument. Imagine that everyone is exchanging IOUs, instead of physical dollars.
- nazgul17 9y agoYou misunderstand. The parent meant that the amount is infinite, so the property that eventually every state will happen is no longer there.
- meric 9y agoWow, a mathematical explanation of how uncapped debt reduces wealth mobility.
- nandemo 9y agoYou're kidding, right? No way a generic observation about a markov chain (which doesn't even model interest) implies that "uncapped debt reduces wealth mobility".
- e12e 9y agoSo, with typical debt, interest rates are higher for debt than for savings. Does seem that a) removing the cap, and b) introducing interest on savings < debt would trap some people in poverty?
- barrkel 9y agoIOUs are money, in a model this simple.