5 ms·

No, because there were other variables with the banking crises that occurred in the gold era (which, incidentally, was nonetheless the greatest era of economic

by javert 5y ago

No, because there were other variables with the banking crises that occurred in the gold era (which, incidentally, was nonetheless the greatest era of economic growth in human history). You cannot simply extrapolate directly from that era to today in the way you are trying to. The situation is different. Anyway, why do you want to defend dishonest money that funds generational theft and international unjust war? Like, the banking crises of the gold era are MUCH better than the massive evils perpetrated by the modern US federal government. Why are you defending that? What solution do you propose to ending US money hegemony over the world? Or do you support that? I mean, are you like, F those children in the middle east, let's send more of our boys to be cannon fodder, etc.? Do you LIKE letting the big banks steal the country's wealth?

arcticbull 5y ago
> Anyway, why do you want to defend dishonest money that funds generational theft and international unjust war? Like, the banking crises of the gold era are MUCH better than the massive evils perpetrated by the modern US federal government. Why are you defending that? What solution do you propose if not hard money? Uh because it doesn't. That's tinfoil hat conspiracy talk. > What solution do you propose if not hard money? There really isn't anything wrong with fiat lol. You obtain it, you spend it on necessities, you invest the excess. Inflation is an incentive to productively allocate capital. The variable supply allows an expansion and contraction of the supply to retain stability. It's backed fully by demand. The system works just fine lol.
- javert 5y ago
  You haven't intellectually engaged with anything I said, you've just called it a "conspiracy" and tried to laugh at it. That's says a lot. You totally ignored the essential point of my post which is that many things have changed since the gold money era and you can't extrapolate directly from that era to this. In particular, we have instant communication and much better ways to verify institutional financials. (I'm leaving the conversation now. I know you'll do your best to make it look like I'm wrong, but I'm going to ignore it.)
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    I actually responded to, I think, each of your points. (1) I don't support ending US hegemony because it's the least worst option. (2) US hegemony doesn't depend on the dollar. (3) All major historical wars were fought on hard money so there's no reason to think reverting to hard money would somehow end war. In fact we live in roughly speaking the most peaceful time in recorded history. (4) Fiat works fine. (5) Variable supply is ideal because it creates stability and separates long-term store of value (volatile) from short-term store of value and medium of exchange (predictable). (6) Inflation is useful because it incentives productive allocation of capital. (7) Banks aren't stealing huge quantities of money from Americans, they make a 1% annualized return on assets on deposit, which is returned to bank shareholders. Money circulates. (8) Honestly its up to you to explain what changed and why you think there would be a different outcome. Quantifiably.
arcticbull 5y ago
> What solution do you propose to ending US money hegemony over the world? I don't, it's the least-worst option. The US hegemonic order is better than a Russian hegemonic order, which is in turn better than a PRC hegemonic order. But make no mistake, the currency alone isn't the reason for US hegemony. > Or do you support that? I mean, are you like, F those children in the middle east, let's send more of our boys to be cannon fodder, etc.? Hey remember that there World War? That was fought on hard money. Napoleonic Wars? Hard money. Boer War? Hard money. Basically any war in any history book covering pre-mid-century 1900s was fought on hard money. All of colonialism happened on hard money. There will always be sufficient lending resources available to fight a war. That's not a function of monetary policy that's a function of social policy - a matter for congress, not the Fed. > Do you LIKE letting the big banks steal the country's wealth? Surely you have some citation. Retail banks serve the Fed in that they expand and contract the money supply via lending. They make very little actual profit for their role. Return on assets on deposit for major US retail banks is roughly 1% annually. That's their fee for managing the money supply on behalf of the federal reserve, which exists at the whim of congress.
- javert 5y ago
  > Hey remember that there World War? Wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan could not be financed or prosecuted under a hard money regime. The wars you name as examples were "real" wars, i.e. they required real sacrifices of the nations involved, political buy-in, and were financially limited in a way that modern US fakewars are not. (Aside: Of course, our fakewars do require limited sacrifices---of our young "grunts" that are recruited from high schools and haven't received a good enough education to know that signing up for Iraq makes you a sacrificial victim, not a war hero; and that sacrificing yourself in the Middle East hurts our country and is anti-patriotic, rather than the reverse.) > Surely you have some citation The rich are getting richer by buying assets (like equities, US homes en masse turning us into a nation of renters, farmland, etc.) while borrowing for nearly nothing. The Fed is what allows the rich to borrow at near zero interest. It isn't literally the banks as corporate institutions that are getting rich; I was referring to "banking" in a more general sense. If you're serious in asking for a citation, you'll know that in modern scientific and semi-scientific literature works in such a way that there are dozens of "citations" for any position anyone wants to take. "Citations" are not the way to go. Understanding fundamentals is what is needed. That's why we have these conversations. The answer does not lie "in the literature." I'm leaving the conversation now.
colinmhayes 5y ago
Please just read a macro textbook before pouting nonsense.
- javert 5y ago
  You can't find a real criticism of anything I said? You don't have a real argument? Mockery in a place where an intellectual response goes says a lot. Learn how to have an adult conversation. Why are you even on this site? P.S. I've taken econ classes. Can you think, or do you just accept whatever any particular book tells you as truth?
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    I can, it's just not worth my time. Suffice to say macro policy is the reason the US didn't have decades of stagnation like japan did and it requires fiat currency. If you want to disagree with every economist you can go ahead and write a peer reviewed paper that I'd be happy to check out.
    - Geee 5y ago
      Monetary expansion and fiscal stimulus are exactly the policies that Japan has been doing. These policies have caused Japan's stagnation. Japan is a very good example why mainstream economists are wrong. Stimulating a zombie economy will just keep it alive longer. Economy must be allowed to die and regenerate.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Nah Japan is an example that monetary policy isn’t the be all and end all. The productivity and culture of the country matter.
jollybean 5y ago
We don't need to extrapolate. There's a 100% chance of some kind of crisis in our future. The first crisis in a system with no monetary policy will knock everything down. Hard monetary policy is like nailing a board between the dock and the boat - it's great for stability ... until the tide goes out, or, a big wave comes. That's why we use ropes, not boards. Currencies can only exist within an economic zone and they're a useful tool wit price stability etc.. BTC provides none of that so it's not very useful. It's a neat idea. Also, the US definitely does not have 'Monetary Hegemony' in the world. Just an outside influence, that's waning a bit. The 'Big Banks' are not stealing your wealth because of monetary policy, for the most part. They will steal your wealth just as well with BTC.

by javert 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

> Anyway, why do you want to defend dishonest money that funds generational theft and international unjust war? Like, the banking crises of the gold era are MUCH better than the massive evils perpetrated by the modern US federal government. Why are you defending that? What solution do you propose if not hard money? Uh because it doesn't. That's tinfoil hat conspiracy talk. > What solution do you propose if not hard money? There really isn't anything wrong with fiat lol. You obtain it, you spend it on necessities, you invest the excess. Inflation is an incentive to productively allocate capital. The variable supply allows an expansion and contraction of the supply to retain stability. It's backed fully by demand. The system works just fine lol.

javert 5y ago
You haven't intellectually engaged with anything I said, you've just called it a "conspiracy" and tried to laugh at it. That's says a lot. You totally ignored the essential point of my post which is that many things have changed since the gold money era and you can't extrapolate directly from that era to this. In particular, we have instant communication and much better ways to verify institutional financials. (I'm leaving the conversation now. I know you'll do your best to make it look like I'm wrong, but I'm going to ignore it.)
- arcticbull 5y ago
  I actually responded to, I think, each of your points. (1) I don't support ending US hegemony because it's the least worst option. (2) US hegemony doesn't depend on the dollar. (3) All major historical wars were fought on hard money so there's no reason to think reverting to hard money would somehow end war. In fact we live in roughly speaking the most peaceful time in recorded history. (4) Fiat works fine. (5) Variable supply is ideal because it creates stability and separates long-term store of value (volatile) from short-term store of value and medium of exchange (predictable). (6) Inflation is useful because it incentives productive allocation of capital. (7) Banks aren't stealing huge quantities of money from Americans, they make a 1% annualized return on assets on deposit, which is returned to bank shareholders. Money circulates. (8) Honestly its up to you to explain what changed and why you think there would be a different outcome. Quantifiably.

arcticbull 5y ago

> What solution do you propose to ending US money hegemony over the world? I don't, it's the least-worst option. The US hegemonic order is better than a Russian hegemonic order, which is in turn better than a PRC hegemonic order. But make no mistake, the currency alone isn't the reason for US hegemony. > Or do you support that? I mean, are you like, F those children in the middle east, let's send more of our boys to be cannon fodder, etc.? Hey remember that there World War? That was fought on hard money. Napoleonic Wars? Hard money. Boer War? Hard money. Basically any war in any history book covering pre-mid-century 1900s was fought on hard money. All of colonialism happened on hard money. There will always be sufficient lending resources available to fight a war. That's not a function of monetary policy that's a function of social policy - a matter for congress, not the Fed. > Do you LIKE letting the big banks steal the country's wealth? Surely you have some citation. Retail banks serve the Fed in that they expand and contract the money supply via lending. They make very little actual profit for their role. Return on assets on deposit for major US retail banks is roughly 1% annually. That's their fee for managing the money supply on behalf of the federal reserve, which exists at the whim of congress.

javert 5y ago
> Hey remember that there World War? Wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan could not be financed or prosecuted under a hard money regime. The wars you name as examples were "real" wars, i.e. they required real sacrifices of the nations involved, political buy-in, and were financially limited in a way that modern US fakewars are not. (Aside: Of course, our fakewars do require limited sacrifices---of our young "grunts" that are recruited from high schools and haven't received a good enough education to know that signing up for Iraq makes you a sacrificial victim, not a war hero; and that sacrificing yourself in the Middle East hurts our country and is anti-patriotic, rather than the reverse.) > Surely you have some citation The rich are getting richer by buying assets (like equities, US homes en masse turning us into a nation of renters, farmland, etc.) while borrowing for nearly nothing. The Fed is what allows the rich to borrow at near zero interest. It isn't literally the banks as corporate institutions that are getting rich; I was referring to "banking" in a more general sense. If you're serious in asking for a citation, you'll know that in modern scientific and semi-scientific literature works in such a way that there are dozens of "citations" for any position anyone wants to take. "Citations" are not the way to go. Understanding fundamentals is what is needed. That's why we have these conversations. The answer does not lie "in the literature." I'm leaving the conversation now.

colinmhayes 5y ago

Please just read a macro textbook before pouting nonsense.

javert 5y ago
You can't find a real criticism of anything I said? You don't have a real argument? Mockery in a place where an intellectual response goes says a lot. Learn how to have an adult conversation. Why are you even on this site? P.S. I've taken econ classes. Can you think, or do you just accept whatever any particular book tells you as truth?
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  I can, it's just not worth my time. Suffice to say macro policy is the reason the US didn't have decades of stagnation like japan did and it requires fiat currency. If you want to disagree with every economist you can go ahead and write a peer reviewed paper that I'd be happy to check out.
  - Geee 5y ago
    Monetary expansion and fiscal stimulus are exactly the policies that Japan has been doing. These policies have caused Japan's stagnation. Japan is a very good example why mainstream economists are wrong. Stimulating a zombie economy will just keep it alive longer. Economy must be allowed to die and regenerate.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Nah Japan is an example that monetary policy isn’t the be all and end all. The productivity and culture of the country matter.

jollybean 5y ago

We don't need to extrapolate. There's a 100% chance of some kind of crisis in our future. The first crisis in a system with no monetary policy will knock everything down. Hard monetary policy is like nailing a board between the dock and the boat - it's great for stability ... until the tide goes out, or, a big wave comes. That's why we use ropes, not boards. Currencies can only exist within an economic zone and they're a useful tool wit price stability etc.. BTC provides none of that so it's not very useful. It's a neat idea. Also, the US definitely does not have 'Monetary Hegemony' in the world. Just an outside influence, that's waning a bit. The 'Big Banks' are not stealing your wealth because of monetary policy, for the most part. They will steal your wealth just as well with BTC.