6 ms·

> How long are we going to keep inflating stocks and houses 2x in a year? Totally agree, there are things about modern fiscal policy that seem scary and weird!

> How long are we going to keep inflating stocks and houses 2x in a year? Totally agree, there are things about modern fiscal policy that seem scary and weird! But that is pretty much unrelated to... > We are forced to play that pointless game, when really that is what a simple bank savings account should do. I don't think is true. Granted, savings accounts used to have higher returns, but inflation was higher then. It has never been possible to preserve money (i.e. beat inflation) with no risk, nor to grow money without more risk; it's just that the specific investments look different nowadays. Anyway, to put it bluntly, the goal of central bank planners is not to preserve your savings, it's to grow the economy. And what happens if mid-to-upper people get spooked by a recession, and move assets in to cash? That's deflationary, which prolongs the recession! So if low interest rates make you think, "Gah, I'd like to pile up cash in a savings account, but these bankers are forcing me to go invest it", well, guilty as charged, yes that's exactly what they're trying to do. But I don't think it follows that they're mean jerks, or that they're doing their jobs wrong.

zaptheimpaler 5y ago
Yes one of the central banks mandates is maximum employment. But I don't believe people prefer sitting around not working to good jobs. The problem is the majority of jobs pay bad wages, provide little meaning and no agency. Central banks want to bully people into working anyways, but some of us have had enough of that bullshit. If they want more employment then employers should provide jobs worth doing rather than forcing it on people via inflation. Besides the fact that we've had 100 years of incredible technological progress and increasing productivity but somehow that doesn't translate to fewer jobs or lower working hours or better safety nets or anything? You say the banks want us to invest our money, but buying a house or stock just to store wealth is not an investment in any meaningful sense. Yet, people do that because they have no alternative to store wealth and no clarity on when the banks will decide to double the amount of money overnight. So at best they have implemented a policy without considering the most basic second order effects. True investment is making something better, faster, cheaper, new etc. and their tactic of just making saving more and more difficult and making people's lives more precarious is not going to achieve that. That would take education, messaging, community, and perhaps weaning off a growth addicted policy/society.
- ineptech 5y ago
  I don't really know what you're on about here, man. You don't want to work, but you don't want to invest your capital either? You want to keep your money in cash and not lose it, but you also don't want the low interest rates that minimize inflation? This is a mish-mash of non-sequiters. I'm not sure why you want hoarding cash to be viable, other than the vague general idea that that's how the world ought to work. Well, you're right, it's not viable - but there is no villain responsible, that's just a feature of healthy economies. If you imagine a world in which it were, and then imagine what would happen when everyone did it, it may become clear why.
  - zaptheimpaler 5y ago
    Fair enough, thanks for engaging. I like work and get why hoarding is a problem, but it's just a little scary to think about what happens 30-40 years down the line when it's my turn to retire. Hoarding is bad but with no social safety nets it's also necessary in a sense to secure your future. Investment is necessary but I feel there are very few real investments or they are very time consuming to find - AAPL did not suddenly become worth 2x in a year, that's only a result of people rushing into AAPL. True investment is a full time job, that very few people are good at, and I don't have the time to take on another full time job in addition to my current job just to maintain a sense of safety that i won't be homeless when I'm old or incapable for whatever reason.
    - ineptech 5y ago
      I don't know what you mean by "real investments" - it sounds like you're saying that since you don't know how to do it perfectly (e.g. buy a stock because you have some insight or have done some research that convinces you it will go up tomorrow), you won't do it at all. Finding an investment that outperforms other investments, yeah, that's hard. But you don't need to do that, you just need to beat inflation. Just put a little away in something relatively safe (your employer's 401k or an index fund perhaps) every month and ignore it. That's what 95% of the middle class does. If that's odious to you, if "relatively low risk" is too risky, you might consider some kind of annuity. One popular type is called Whole Life Insurance. Basically, you pay a set amount in each year for X years while you're working, and then when you retire they pay you back a set amount every month until you die. Some people consider them a ripoff, because you could (probably) make more by investing in the market yourself, but if you are adamantly opposed to the market, it's an option. But, be aware that some Whole Life policies are much worse than others, and all of them are sold by pushy salespeople with slick suits and fancy cars who will happily goad you into signing something that's not right for you. There is absolutely no scenario where you get a safe, assured retirement without doing some work for it. But in practice that means few hours of research every few years, not a full time job. Good luck.

zaptheimpaler 5y ago

Yes one of the central banks mandates is maximum employment. But I don't believe people prefer sitting around not working to good jobs. The problem is the majority of jobs pay bad wages, provide little meaning and no agency. Central banks want to bully people into working anyways, but some of us have had enough of that bullshit. If they want more employment then employers should provide jobs worth doing rather than forcing it on people via inflation. Besides the fact that we've had 100 years of incredible technological progress and increasing productivity but somehow that doesn't translate to fewer jobs or lower working hours or better safety nets or anything? You say the banks want us to invest our money, but buying a house or stock just to store wealth is not an investment in any meaningful sense. Yet, people do that because they have no alternative to store wealth and no clarity on when the banks will decide to double the amount of money overnight. So at best they have implemented a policy without considering the most basic second order effects. True investment is making something better, faster, cheaper, new etc. and their tactic of just making saving more and more difficult and making people's lives more precarious is not going to achieve that. That would take education, messaging, community, and perhaps weaning off a growth addicted policy/society.

ineptech 5y ago
I don't really know what you're on about here, man. You don't want to work, but you don't want to invest your capital either? You want to keep your money in cash and not lose it, but you also don't want the low interest rates that minimize inflation? This is a mish-mash of non-sequiters. I'm not sure why you want hoarding cash to be viable, other than the vague general idea that that's how the world ought to work. Well, you're right, it's not viable - but there is no villain responsible, that's just a feature of healthy economies. If you imagine a world in which it were, and then imagine what would happen when everyone did it, it may become clear why.
- zaptheimpaler 5y ago
  Fair enough, thanks for engaging. I like work and get why hoarding is a problem, but it's just a little scary to think about what happens 30-40 years down the line when it's my turn to retire. Hoarding is bad but with no social safety nets it's also necessary in a sense to secure your future. Investment is necessary but I feel there are very few real investments or they are very time consuming to find - AAPL did not suddenly become worth 2x in a year, that's only a result of people rushing into AAPL. True investment is a full time job, that very few people are good at, and I don't have the time to take on another full time job in addition to my current job just to maintain a sense of safety that i won't be homeless when I'm old or incapable for whatever reason.
  - ineptech 5y ago
    I don't know what you mean by "real investments" - it sounds like you're saying that since you don't know how to do it perfectly (e.g. buy a stock because you have some insight or have done some research that convinces you it will go up tomorrow), you won't do it at all. Finding an investment that outperforms other investments, yeah, that's hard. But you don't need to do that, you just need to beat inflation. Just put a little away in something relatively safe (your employer's 401k or an index fund perhaps) every month and ignore it. That's what 95% of the middle class does. If that's odious to you, if "relatively low risk" is too risky, you might consider some kind of annuity. One popular type is called Whole Life Insurance. Basically, you pay a set amount in each year for X years while you're working, and then when you retire they pay you back a set amount every month until you die. Some people consider them a ripoff, because you could (probably) make more by investing in the market yourself, but if you are adamantly opposed to the market, it's an option. But, be aware that some Whole Life policies are much worse than others, and all of them are sold by pushy salespeople with slick suits and fancy cars who will happily goad you into signing something that's not right for you. There is absolutely no scenario where you get a safe, assured retirement without doing some work for it. But in practice that means few hours of research every few years, not a full time job. Good luck.