4 ms·

What's the worst that could happen, one way or the other?

by dr_dshiv 6y ago

pstrateman 6y ago
Hyperinflation which makes money not only worthless but useless.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Unlikely to happen with an aging and declining population across first worlds, if you fix healthcare and education systems. Housing will need some regulation too to prevent a rush of capital pushing up prices (more). Supply is sufficient in most other goods and service sectors.
  - pstrateman 6y ago
    More money, less people, would seem to make money worthless than it would be with more money, more people. Am I missing something obvious?
    - gremlinsinc 6y ago
      Money is already worthless. It's paper. It only has value that we as a society set on it. If the shit really hit the fan, governments of the world could decide to scrap all currencies give everyone an 'equivalency' of their old lifestyle in a 'new currency' and reboot the virtual monopoly game. Why do you think billionaires horde money? It's the same reason debears hordes diamonds, if all the diamonds that exist actually were available on the markets they wouldn't be worth shit. By hording all the diamonds mined, they get to set the prices. Sure if you spread more money out to more people, some prices may adjust up a bit, but you're not going to get runaway price gouging across everything like many who are against UBI claim.
    - betterunix2 6y ago
      It is not quite that simple. Money does eventually get removed from the system when loans are canceled without being fully repaid. When people die with an estate that is too small to repay their debts that is exactly what happens; it also often happens when businesses go bankrupt, which would likely happen when the population shrinks. Obviously this is a bit oversimplified, but the point is that the money supply is not static thing where money is "printed" by some central authority and then stays in circulation forever.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jariel 6y ago
See: Greece and Argentina over the ages, Venezuela, Weimar Republic. It's different for the US than for others due to seignorage (others need the currency) but for basically everyone else, it's dangerous. Also for countries that don't need to borrow heavily internationally like China or Japan. For for everyone else it's very scary game. The Canadian government is about to embark on a major spending spree after the biggest spending spree in history, including possibly permanent UBI. Of course without mandate, and from a PM who has absolutely no experience in anything, and a well educated and smart Finance Minister who specializes in History and Journalism - it's very bad.
dr_dshiv 6y ago
No one commented on the worst that could happen if we don't spend the money. I guess I should have asked also what is the best that could happen, one way or the other.

What's the worst that could happen, one way or the other?

pstrateman 6y ago

Hyperinflation which makes money not only worthless but useless.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 6y ago
Unlikely to happen with an aging and declining population across first worlds, if you fix healthcare and education systems. Housing will need some regulation too to prevent a rush of capital pushing up prices (more). Supply is sufficient in most other goods and service sectors.
- pstrateman 6y ago
  More money, less people, would seem to make money worthless than it would be with more money, more people. Am I missing something obvious?
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    Money is already worthless. It's paper. It only has value that we as a society set on it. If the shit really hit the fan, governments of the world could decide to scrap all currencies give everyone an 'equivalency' of their old lifestyle in a 'new currency' and reboot the virtual monopoly game. Why do you think billionaires horde money? It's the same reason debears hordes diamonds, if all the diamonds that exist actually were available on the markets they wouldn't be worth shit. By hording all the diamonds mined, they get to set the prices. Sure if you spread more money out to more people, some prices may adjust up a bit, but you're not going to get runaway price gouging across everything like many who are against UBI claim.
  - betterunix2 6y ago
    It is not quite that simple. Money does eventually get removed from the system when loans are canceled without being fully repaid. When people die with an estate that is too small to repay their debts that is exactly what happens; it also often happens when businesses go bankrupt, which would likely happen when the population shrinks. Obviously this is a bit oversimplified, but the point is that the money supply is not static thing where money is "printed" by some central authority and then stays in circulation forever.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jariel 6y ago

See: Greece and Argentina over the ages, Venezuela, Weimar Republic. It's different for the US than for others due to seignorage (others need the currency) but for basically everyone else, it's dangerous. Also for countries that don't need to borrow heavily internationally like China or Japan. For for everyone else it's very scary game. The Canadian government is about to embark on a major spending spree after the biggest spending spree in history, including possibly permanent UBI. Of course without mandate, and from a PM who has absolutely no experience in anything, and a well educated and smart Finance Minister who specializes in History and Journalism - it's very bad.

dr_dshiv 6y ago

No one commented on the worst that could happen if we don't spend the money. I guess I should have asked also what is the best that could happen, one way or the other.