3 ms·

USD has lost more than 90% value in just 50 years. Savings is a prerequisite for investment.

arcticbull 6y ago
The whole point is that it's supposed to lose 90% of its value in 50 years, Alex. It says so right on the tin. The fed targets a 2% rate of inflation. (0.955**50 = 0.1). The minute you invest it in anything inflation no longer applies - instead inflation-adjusted ROI is your marker. That's part of why we have inflation - the productive allocation of capital. Money only has value when it moves, it has no value stuffed under your mattress. Inflation is part of the pressure that ensures money doesn't spend time in your mattress. Repeat after me the ECON-101 mantra: Nobody is supposed to save dollars. Nobody. It's an intentionally lossy, temporary store of value and medium of exchange. You're supposed to save value. And you do that through investment. USD is not an investment. Currencies aren't an asset class! Rainy day fund? Sure. Otherwise? NO! Savings is a prerequisite to investment in a very limited sense, but at 2% per annum if it takes you 1 year to scrape together the cash to buy an SPY share you still have ninety eight percent of that value. If it takes you 50 years, ok, yeah, less. But it doesn't take most people 50 years to scrape together checks notes $395 dollars - 2021 dollars! 50 years ago that would be $39.50. And that of course avoids the use of fractional shares. It's so frustrating seeing this lack of basic understanding of economics here on HN from a group trying to overhaul it at the same time! At least understand before you tear up. Wages kept pace with inflation, real estate kept pace with inflation (or exceeded in major metros), stocks vastly outperformed inflation. Interest rates fell. Just who do you think missed out in the last 50 years exactly?
- ur-whale 6y ago
  > Wages kept pace with inflation Yeah, well ... not so sure about this one. Most of the folks around me would also disagree, based on personal experience (their purchasing power took a serious nosedive in the last 20 years or so). I'll grant you this is circumstantial, so I ask: source for the claim? [EDIT]: and there are folks who strongly disagree with you: https://dailyreckoning.com/revealing-real-rate-inflation-crash-system/ https://dailyreckoning.com/revealing-real-rate-inflation-cra... Also: >It says so right on the tin. I'd also disagree with this. Many folks I know who are essentially either clueless or simply uninterested in finance are entirely oblivious to the fact that they're being slowly but surely being bled dry via inflation. You can claim they should pay attention and if they don't too bad, but I'd retort that the system is being disingenuous, especially towards the lower strata of the economic system who are the less likely to understand these things.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > Most of the folks around me would also disagree, based on personal experience (their purchasing power took a serious nosedive in the last 20 years or so). Anecdotes are not evidence - a lot has changed in 20 years. Your friends work may no longer be valued as highly by the market, or other social policies like not tying minimum wage to inflation, may have taken a toll. The BLS tracks this. [1] The fact they haven’t gone up more, however, is a social issue and not a monetary policy issue. > Many folks I know who are essentially either clueless or simply uninterested in finance are entirely oblivious to the fact that they're being slowly but surely being bled dry via inflation. You claim ... the fed isn’t telling people inflation is designed to track a 2% target? I’m sorry that folks are ignorant of how something so important works, but it does so for a reason. When I hop into a car and smash it against a wall, I don’t get to claim “many people are ignorant of how the accelerator works.” Tons of people go to prison for crimes they're ignorant of - that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws. This is just an argument for high school home-ec and econ 101 to be mandatory. The lower strata is the least affected because as I’ve shown wages kept pace with inflation and they’re not saving so there’s nothing to inflate away except their debts. Between the record low interest and debts denominated in dollars of the year of issue, in aggregate they likely stand to gain. > ... and there are folks who strongly disagree with you: There are folks who disagree with the curvature of the earth, the efficacy of vaccinations and the existence of birds. The article you linked suggests based on a taco truck the rate of inflation is 30%, and has trivially sensationalized quotes like: Between 2010 and now, the Burrito Index has logged a 30% increase, more than *triple* the officially registered 10% drop in purchasing power over the same time. Well, without bothering to check anything about this claim, the article was written in 2016 so to obtain a 30% drop in the 7 years the inflation rate would be 2.5% (1.025**7). That's not triple, thats 25%, and the 2% target is a long-term rough goal. 2.5% is within that range. The man's burrito calculator doesn't take into account changes in taxes, in minimum wage, and other trivially recognizable things like how popular the burrito truck is. Zero inflation doesn't mean the price of a burrito will never change. Sheesh. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...
- alexmingoia 6y ago
  Theoretically, all else being equal, money should not lose or even gain purchasing power as technology advancements increase productivity. I (and many others) have to stick my wealth in scarce assets or investments to avoid inflationary monetary policy. Bitcoin serves this purpose well, in ways that real estate, gold, and equities don’t. Everything but cryptocurrency is highly regulated, taxed, and custodial. Bitcoin is just the beginning. With private transactions (ring signatures, stealth addresses, shielded amounts), and proof of stake or voting consensus, there will soon be no way for governments to know who is transacting what, who owns what, or restrict the movement of capital. I’ll give you an example. I moved overseas, and all major brokers (Ameritrade, Vangaurd, Schwab, etc.) refused to serve me because of regulatory burdens. So what should I do? Everything but Bitcoin is illiquid or custodial. The future of cryptocurrency is my capital not being beholden to the whim of custodians and governments.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > Theoretically, all else being equal, money should not lose or even gain purchasing power as technology advancements increase productivity. It, first of all, really doesn't matter so long as it's slow and predictable. I would argue that it should decrease in purchasing power to incentivize investing, and also to account for addition or removal of market participants (population changes) and also to react to shocks. > Bitcoin serves this purpose well, in ways that real estate, gold, and equities don’t. Respectfully disagree. 20% daily swings are normal. That's not serving the purpose well. That's utterly un-investable. Is it good for gambling? Totally. Investing? Absolutely not. > Everything but cryptocurrency is highly regulated, taxed, and custodial. Yes, this is a bad thing that Bitcoin isn't. It leads to scams, schemes and all sorts of shady garbage that completely distort the market. You've actually no idea whether the price is going up because of demand or because Tethers are being printed. I don't either. Nobody does - well, nobody not named Paolo. Every time printing stops the price goes down dramatically. I believe the DOJ is following up on the scathing NYAG indictment. That's bad, and it shouldn't be contentious to say that. > Bitcoin is just the beginning. With private transactions (ring signatures, stealth addresses, shielded amounts), and proof of stake or voting consensus, there will soon be no way for governments to know who is transacting what, who owns what, or restrict the movement of capital. Also bad because terrorism and crime. > I’ll give you an example. I moved overseas, and all major brokers (Ameritrade, Vangaurd, Schwab, etc.) refused to serve me because of regulatory burdens. So what should I do? Everything but Bitcoin is illiquid or custodial. The future of cryptocurrency is my capital not being beholden to the whim of custodians and governments. I'm not sure why American SEC regulated brokers would refuse to do business with an American citizen wherever located - after all they're the only ones permitted to. If you're not a US citizen and and now live abroad, there's plenty of other options, like IBKR. > Everything but Bitcoin is illiquid or custodial. I'm not sure why you think that's true. > The future of cryptocurrency is my capital not being beholden to the whim of custodians and governments. Again, I don't think that's a good thing.

The whole point is that it's supposed to lose 90% of its value in 50 years, Alex. It says so right on the tin. The fed targets a 2% rate of inflation. (0.955**50 = 0.1). The minute you invest it in anything inflation no longer applies - instead inflation-adjusted ROI is your marker. That's part of why we have inflation - the productive allocation of capital. Money only has value when it moves, it has no value stuffed under your mattress. Inflation is part of the pressure that ensures money doesn't spend time in your mattress. Repeat after me the ECON-101 mantra: Nobody is supposed to save dollars. Nobody. It's an intentionally lossy, temporary store of value and medium of exchange. You're supposed to save value. And you do that through investment. USD is not an investment. Currencies aren't an asset class! Rainy day fund? Sure. Otherwise? NO! Savings is a prerequisite to investment in a very limited sense, but at 2% per annum if it takes you 1 year to scrape together the cash to buy an SPY share you still have ninety eight percent of that value. If it takes you 50 years, ok, yeah, less. But it doesn't take most people 50 years to scrape together checks notes $395 dollars - 2021 dollars! 50 years ago that would be $39.50. And that of course avoids the use of fractional shares. It's so frustrating seeing this lack of basic understanding of economics here on HN from a group trying to overhaul it at the same time! At least understand before you tear up. Wages kept pace with inflation, real estate kept pace with inflation (or exceeded in major metros), stocks vastly outperformed inflation. Interest rates fell. Just who do you think missed out in the last 50 years exactly?

ur-whale 6y ago
> Wages kept pace with inflation Yeah, well ... not so sure about this one. Most of the folks around me would also disagree, based on personal experience (their purchasing power took a serious nosedive in the last 20 years or so). I'll grant you this is circumstantial, so I ask: source for the claim? [EDIT]: and there are folks who strongly disagree with you: https://dailyreckoning.com/revealing-real-rate-inflation-crash-system/ https://dailyreckoning.com/revealing-real-rate-inflation-cra... Also: >It says so right on the tin. I'd also disagree with this. Many folks I know who are essentially either clueless or simply uninterested in finance are entirely oblivious to the fact that they're being slowly but surely being bled dry via inflation. You can claim they should pay attention and if they don't too bad, but I'd retort that the system is being disingenuous, especially towards the lower strata of the economic system who are the less likely to understand these things.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > Most of the folks around me would also disagree, based on personal experience (their purchasing power took a serious nosedive in the last 20 years or so). Anecdotes are not evidence - a lot has changed in 20 years. Your friends work may no longer be valued as highly by the market, or other social policies like not tying minimum wage to inflation, may have taken a toll. The BLS tracks this. [1] The fact they haven’t gone up more, however, is a social issue and not a monetary policy issue. > Many folks I know who are essentially either clueless or simply uninterested in finance are entirely oblivious to the fact that they're being slowly but surely being bled dry via inflation. You claim ... the fed isn’t telling people inflation is designed to track a 2% target? I’m sorry that folks are ignorant of how something so important works, but it does so for a reason. When I hop into a car and smash it against a wall, I don’t get to claim “many people are ignorant of how the accelerator works.” Tons of people go to prison for crimes they're ignorant of - that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws. This is just an argument for high school home-ec and econ 101 to be mandatory. The lower strata is the least affected because as I’ve shown wages kept pace with inflation and they’re not saving so there’s nothing to inflate away except their debts. Between the record low interest and debts denominated in dollars of the year of issue, in aggregate they likely stand to gain. > ... and there are folks who strongly disagree with you: There are folks who disagree with the curvature of the earth, the efficacy of vaccinations and the existence of birds. The article you linked suggests based on a taco truck the rate of inflation is 30%, and has trivially sensationalized quotes like: Between 2010 and now, the Burrito Index has logged a 30% increase, more than *triple* the officially registered 10% drop in purchasing power over the same time. Well, without bothering to check anything about this claim, the article was written in 2016 so to obtain a 30% drop in the 7 years the inflation rate would be 2.5% (1.025**7). That's not triple, thats 25%, and the 2% target is a long-term rough goal. 2.5% is within that range. The man's burrito calculator doesn't take into account changes in taxes, in minimum wage, and other trivially recognizable things like how popular the burrito truck is. Zero inflation doesn't mean the price of a burrito will never change. Sheesh. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...
alexmingoia 6y ago
Theoretically, all else being equal, money should not lose or even gain purchasing power as technology advancements increase productivity. I (and many others) have to stick my wealth in scarce assets or investments to avoid inflationary monetary policy. Bitcoin serves this purpose well, in ways that real estate, gold, and equities don’t. Everything but cryptocurrency is highly regulated, taxed, and custodial. Bitcoin is just the beginning. With private transactions (ring signatures, stealth addresses, shielded amounts), and proof of stake or voting consensus, there will soon be no way for governments to know who is transacting what, who owns what, or restrict the movement of capital. I’ll give you an example. I moved overseas, and all major brokers (Ameritrade, Vangaurd, Schwab, etc.) refused to serve me because of regulatory burdens. So what should I do? Everything but Bitcoin is illiquid or custodial. The future of cryptocurrency is my capital not being beholden to the whim of custodians and governments.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > Theoretically, all else being equal, money should not lose or even gain purchasing power as technology advancements increase productivity. It, first of all, really doesn't matter so long as it's slow and predictable. I would argue that it should decrease in purchasing power to incentivize investing, and also to account for addition or removal of market participants (population changes) and also to react to shocks. > Bitcoin serves this purpose well, in ways that real estate, gold, and equities don’t. Respectfully disagree. 20% daily swings are normal. That's not serving the purpose well. That's utterly un-investable. Is it good for gambling? Totally. Investing? Absolutely not. > Everything but cryptocurrency is highly regulated, taxed, and custodial. Yes, this is a bad thing that Bitcoin isn't. It leads to scams, schemes and all sorts of shady garbage that completely distort the market. You've actually no idea whether the price is going up because of demand or because Tethers are being printed. I don't either. Nobody does - well, nobody not named Paolo. Every time printing stops the price goes down dramatically. I believe the DOJ is following up on the scathing NYAG indictment. That's bad, and it shouldn't be contentious to say that. > Bitcoin is just the beginning. With private transactions (ring signatures, stealth addresses, shielded amounts), and proof of stake or voting consensus, there will soon be no way for governments to know who is transacting what, who owns what, or restrict the movement of capital. Also bad because terrorism and crime. > I’ll give you an example. I moved overseas, and all major brokers (Ameritrade, Vangaurd, Schwab, etc.) refused to serve me because of regulatory burdens. So what should I do? Everything but Bitcoin is illiquid or custodial. The future of cryptocurrency is my capital not being beholden to the whim of custodians and governments. I'm not sure why American SEC regulated brokers would refuse to do business with an American citizen wherever located - after all they're the only ones permitted to. If you're not a US citizen and and now live abroad, there's plenty of other options, like IBKR. > Everything but Bitcoin is illiquid or custodial. I'm not sure why you think that's true. > The future of cryptocurrency is my capital not being beholden to the whim of custodians and governments. Again, I don't think that's a good thing.