4 ms·
that assumes that currency was ever intended on being a store of wealth, which it really wasn’t.
by selectodude 7y ago
that assumes that currency was ever intended on being a store of wealth, which it really wasn’t.
- NTDF9 7y agoBut it is. Anything that has to be earned and saved over time to make a purchase is a store of wealth. Think saving cash(or putting in bonds) for a down payment.
- selectodude 7y agoBonds are an asset class. Cash is not.
- NTDF9 7y agoI cant tell if you are naive or just ignoring the conveniently that cash is also an asset. In deflation, it is a better asset than stocks. In negative interest rate environment, it is a better asset than bonds. Please end this discussion
- selectodude 7y agoDeflation is an economic failure. NIRP is, in my opinion, an economic failure. If cash is only a good asset class when shit is hitting the fan, that probably implies it’s not a very good store of wealth!
- NTDF9 7y ago> If cash is only a good asset class when shit is hitting the fan, that probably implies it’s not a very good store of wealth! Why do you think the same about any other asset that relies on inflationary monetary system?
- cheeseomlit 7y agoThen why is my employer paying me with it? Why do savings accounts exist at the bank? Are we supposed to go out and buy bonds and gamble on stocks when we receive a paycheck? Maybe the stuff we use for currency shouldn't be printed out of thin air and have no inherent value
- selectodude 7y agoNot all of it, but sitting on cash is not smart. Cash is for very short term spending. It’s not a long term store of wealth. It never has been. Currencies that become a store of wealth inevitably fail. Source: actual real life economist.
- ryacko 7y agoCash is for liquidity. I don’t know what you define as very short term, but emergency funds should be in cash, so should money set aside that is meant to be spent in a few months.