3 ms·

This shows you fundamentally don't understand how money works in the economy. Lets say you give that money to Bezos. What does he do with it? Unless he liter

This shows you fundamentally don't understand how money works in the economy. Lets say you give that money to Bezos. What does he do with it? Unless he literally builds an Uncle Scrooge money bin and hoards physical $100 bills, having the money allocated to Bezos in no way prevents it from being injected directly into the economy. Lets say we hand Bezos $1B today, what does he do with it? Puts it in a bank: Banks want deposits so they can loan more money out at a higher interest rate than they pay to the depositor. Bezos putting money into a bank will cause interests rates to go down slightly and an extra $1B in loans to be issued, and people borrow money to buy things immediately. Buys stocks: For Bezos to buy a stock, that means someone else sold a stock. Now the cash is in someones hands and they have to do something with it. Buy treasuries: Treasuries are used to finance the federal debt, which is money the government is already spending now. Most of it goes to salaries of government employees or direct payments such as social security, both of which are spent by regular people for necessities. The rest of the budget is used to purchase things or to pay interest on the debt, and interest payments put cash in hands of people who then have to do something with it.

ItsMonkk 5y ago
This matches my take. Note your 4 options is what will happen to prices. If he chooses to buy consumption goods, those things will rise in price by some amount. If he chooses stocks, the person that sold that stock to him will want a higher price than before that $1B was handed to Bezos and he increased the demand for stocks by $1B. Likewise for the other two. These are just supply and demand curves. Basic macroeconomics 101. So we can see that when new money is created in an economy, it must necessarily be split within all the asset classes according to the decisions made by the person given the money. The person given that money proceeds to do the same thing in a chain of purchases. So now when we zoom back and look at the Federal Reserves mandate we can see it much more clearly. "We need to ensure that when we print more money than goods are created, that money is chosen to be put into stocks and not consumption goods.". They do so by directly affecting the prices of stocks by buying company bonds, which then is directly used to buyback stocks. In effect, the Federal Mandate is wealth inequality. The big problem with that is its a house of cards. Once you start supporting inequality, the greater inequality means that you have even less room to mess up and smaller and smaller hedges will have larger and larger impacts. And if the wealthy choose to go against their overall utility and cashout today, the entire system collapses. If the wealthy work out that someone else can cashout and they become the bagholder (like BOA margin-calling Archegos Capital), then that will trigger themselves to do so to save risk. So we can see that the Federal Reserve's plan does not in fact deal with the risk, it pushes it forward as a bigger risk. The Federal Reserve is just a Martingale. It might be possible for this system to last for hundreds of years, it's already worked for 50. I have no idea how close we are to some limit.

ItsMonkk 5y ago

This matches my take. Note your 4 options is what will happen to prices. If he chooses to buy consumption goods, those things will rise in price by some amount. If he chooses stocks, the person that sold that stock to him will want a higher price than before that $1B was handed to Bezos and he increased the demand for stocks by $1B. Likewise for the other two. These are just supply and demand curves. Basic macroeconomics 101. So we can see that when new money is created in an economy, it must necessarily be split within all the asset classes according to the decisions made by the person given the money. The person given that money proceeds to do the same thing in a chain of purchases. So now when we zoom back and look at the Federal Reserves mandate we can see it much more clearly. "We need to ensure that when we print more money than goods are created, that money is chosen to be put into stocks and not consumption goods.". They do so by directly affecting the prices of stocks by buying company bonds, which then is directly used to buyback stocks. In effect, the Federal Mandate is wealth inequality. The big problem with that is its a house of cards. Once you start supporting inequality, the greater inequality means that you have even less room to mess up and smaller and smaller hedges will have larger and larger impacts. And if the wealthy choose to go against their overall utility and cashout today, the entire system collapses. If the wealthy work out that someone else can cashout and they become the bagholder (like BOA margin-calling Archegos Capital), then that will trigger themselves to do so to save risk. So we can see that the Federal Reserve's plan does not in fact deal with the risk, it pushes it forward as a bigger risk. The Federal Reserve is just a Martingale. It might be possible for this system to last for hundreds of years, it's already worked for 50. I have no idea how close we are to some limit.