3 ms·

> So people should be forced to invest their money even if they don't think any of the ventures are worthwhile? And physical cash shouldn't exist either? Phys

> So people should be forced to invest their money even if they don't think any of the ventures are worthwhile? And physical cash shouldn't exist either? Physical cash is also debt (backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, in the case of the US, or the relevant issuer in the case of other fiat currencies).

SilasX 7y ago
Non-central fallacy: Yes, it technically meets one definition of "liability", and is therefore debt; it is not "being invested in a venture" in the sense of this discussion.
- chimeracoder 7y ago
  > Non-central fallacy: Yes, it technically meets one definition of "liability", and is therefore debt; it is not "being invested in a venture" in the sense of this discussion. Except it is being invested. That's a major part of the role that the government plays when interacting with the macroeconomy.
  - SilasX 7y ago
    Then let me try phrasing it a third way: So people should be forced to invest their money beyond the extent to which holding that money inherently counts as an investment, even if they don't think any of the ventures that they directly invest in are worthwhile? The fact that government "is debt backed by full faith and credit etc etc etc" does not answer the substance of the question I was actually asking, and which should have been clear from the context I was asking.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Your job as part of social contract of living in a market-based economy is to allocate capital in the most productive way possible to maximize efficiency of the whole. What this means, is that if you believe no ventures are valuable, you allocate your capital in cash. If you believe ventures will outperform cash, you invest in ventures. So you're "forced" in the same way you're "forced" not to be homeless, have a job, and not hit people. It's a way of life.

3 ms·

> So people should be forced to invest their money even if they don't think any of the ventures are worthwhile? And physical cash shouldn't exist either? Phys

by chimeracoder 7y ago

SilasX 7y ago
Non-central fallacy: Yes, it technically meets one definition of "liability", and is therefore debt; it is not "being invested in a venture" in the sense of this discussion.
- chimeracoder 7y ago
  > Non-central fallacy: Yes, it technically meets one definition of "liability", and is therefore debt; it is not "being invested in a venture" in the sense of this discussion. Except it is being invested. That's a major part of the role that the government plays when interacting with the macroeconomy.
  - SilasX 7y ago
    Then let me try phrasing it a third way: So people should be forced to invest their money beyond the extent to which holding that money inherently counts as an investment, even if they don't think any of the ventures that they directly invest in are worthwhile? The fact that government "is debt backed by full faith and credit etc etc etc" does not answer the substance of the question I was actually asking, and which should have been clear from the context I was asking.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Your job as part of social contract of living in a market-based economy is to allocate capital in the most productive way possible to maximize efficiency of the whole. What this means, is that if you believe no ventures are valuable, you allocate your capital in cash. If you believe ventures will outperform cash, you invest in ventures. So you're "forced" in the same way you're "forced" not to be homeless, have a job, and not hit people. It's a way of life.