4 ms·

If wealthy people want to live in a minimalist world they should become monks instead of trying to push others to live like they themselves can’t. The demand f

If wealthy people want to live in a minimalist world they should become monks instead of trying to push others to live like they themselves can’t. The demand for austerity is a fetish of power abuse and discharge of guilt by claiming only the best motives. Disgusting.

haolez 6y ago
I think it's not about austerity. It's probably about money printing and the quality of a currency.
- ianai 6y ago
  That’s their bad faith argument. They probably see anything causing the tide to rise all boats as erosion of their socioeconomic position. Austerity is part of the recipe for turning a country into a failed state-see Greece.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    >They probably see anything causing the tide to rise all boats as erosion of their socioeconomic position. How on Earth does inflation rise all boats when it's literally a wealth transfer from all currency holders to the money issuers and first spenders (banks and financial institutions)?
    - protoman3000 6y ago
      Can you please explain how in your economic model value creation gets financed?
  - ilaksh 6y ago
    Personally I think both sides are totally right and also totally wrong. Because we absolutely do need to print money to avoid millions of people living in the streets at this point. But we also ARE going to be bankrupt by it. And I think the way out is to recognize that the monetary system is dated and inadequate and create a new one. Unlikely they will do that, but I feel better mentioning it even though it will be ignored. The new system would be digital and incorporate more real-world information and finer-grained control.
logicchains 6y ago
> If wealthy people want to live in a minimalist world they should become monks instead of trying to push others to live like they themselves can’t. The people cheering on continuously increasing government debt are cheering on impoverishing their children and their children's children to temporarily bolster their own living standards. To me that seems disgusting, robbing the future to pay for excess in the present.
- scotty79 6y ago
  Only if the debt is going to be paid back. And I don't think it ever will. Money is just a way of keeping track of how much of future output of civilization given entity deserves. If we decide that people who borrowed the money now don't deserve it then, puff, there's no debt, nothing to pay back, no burden on future taxpayers. On the other hand the resources that we dig up now, burn, pollute... those are real theft robbing the future.
  - voodootrucker 6y ago
    > that people who borrowed the money now don't deserve it then Do you mean "people who loaned that money"? That is a lot of foreign governments who will refuse to keep loaning us more money which would mean we'd need to balance our budget pretty quickly, or face inflation. Also, please realize that it is also lots of pensioners and also anyone expecting social security in the future [1]. What you're talking about isn't even Keynesian economics, it sounds like a form of monetary nihilism. We've been down that road before, and hyper-inflation is a real thing proven by history before [2]. [1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds#:~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%202019,2.2%20percent%20during%20that%20year https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation
    - scotty79 6y ago
      > people who loaned that money Yes. Thank you for the correction. Countries have whole net of iou-s between them and debts are not always expected to be paid back in full. Some money borrowed comes from private market that you can disregard completely if you decide it was a bad idea and don't intend to repeat it in the future. Yes. Hyperinflation is a thing but I wonder how high (stable) inflation you could have by just printing new money and using it to finance budget directly while preventing banks from inflating money supply with credit. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think assuming that because there's some monetary debt now it will all have to be paid back in the future is wrong because that's not what eventually is going to happen.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

haolez 6y ago

I think it's not about austerity. It's probably about money printing and the quality of a currency.

ianai 6y ago
That’s their bad faith argument. They probably see anything causing the tide to rise all boats as erosion of their socioeconomic position. Austerity is part of the recipe for turning a country into a failed state-see Greece.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >They probably see anything causing the tide to rise all boats as erosion of their socioeconomic position. How on Earth does inflation rise all boats when it's literally a wealth transfer from all currency holders to the money issuers and first spenders (banks and financial institutions)?
  - protoman3000 6y ago
    Can you please explain how in your economic model value creation gets financed?
- ilaksh 6y ago
  Personally I think both sides are totally right and also totally wrong. Because we absolutely do need to print money to avoid millions of people living in the streets at this point. But we also ARE going to be bankrupt by it. And I think the way out is to recognize that the monetary system is dated and inadequate and create a new one. Unlikely they will do that, but I feel better mentioning it even though it will be ignored. The new system would be digital and incorporate more real-world information and finer-grained control.

logicchains 6y ago

> If wealthy people want to live in a minimalist world they should become monks instead of trying to push others to live like they themselves can’t. The people cheering on continuously increasing government debt are cheering on impoverishing their children and their children's children to temporarily bolster their own living standards. To me that seems disgusting, robbing the future to pay for excess in the present.

scotty79 6y ago
Only if the debt is going to be paid back. And I don't think it ever will. Money is just a way of keeping track of how much of future output of civilization given entity deserves. If we decide that people who borrowed the money now don't deserve it then, puff, there's no debt, nothing to pay back, no burden on future taxpayers. On the other hand the resources that we dig up now, burn, pollute... those are real theft robbing the future.
- voodootrucker 6y ago
  > that people who borrowed the money now don't deserve it then Do you mean "people who loaned that money"? That is a lot of foreign governments who will refuse to keep loaning us more money which would mean we'd need to balance our budget pretty quickly, or face inflation. Also, please realize that it is also lots of pensioners and also anyone expecting social security in the future [1]. What you're talking about isn't even Keynesian economics, it sounds like a form of monetary nihilism. We've been down that road before, and hyper-inflation is a real thing proven by history before [2]. [1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds#:~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%202019,2.2%20percent%20during%20that%20year https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation
  - scotty79 6y ago
    > people who loaned that money Yes. Thank you for the correction. Countries have whole net of iou-s between them and debts are not always expected to be paid back in full. Some money borrowed comes from private market that you can disregard completely if you decide it was a bad idea and don't intend to repeat it in the future. Yes. Hyperinflation is a thing but I wonder how high (stable) inflation you could have by just printing new money and using it to finance budget directly while preventing banks from inflating money supply with credit. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think assuming that because there's some monetary debt now it will all have to be paid back in the future is wrong because that's not what eventually is going to happen.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]