3 ms·

I'm aware of this. But again, your original claim was “If it were not for central bankers printing money into existence, a person could work their life, save a

by md_ 5y ago

I'm aware of this. But again, your original claim was “If it were not for central bankers printing money into existence, a person could work their life, save a portion for retirement in a bank account or other fixed income product, while enjoying a positive return on their investment, without taking on market risk of loss of funds.” I've yet to understand where you got that idea from, or what it has to do with all of your nonsensical followup comments.

lowkey 5y ago
> I've yet to understand where you got that idea from, or what it has to do with all of your nonsensical followup comments. Which of my comments do you find non-sensical, specifically? > original claim was “If it were not for central bankers printing money into existence, a person could work their life, save a portion for retirement in a bank account or other fixed income product, while enjoying a positive return on their investment, without taking on market risk of loss of funds.” Let me lay out my logic: - If not for central bankers, artificially printing money and putting it in circulation, there would be no inflation. No printing by central bankers = No dilution of the purchasing power of everyone's money -> therefore no inflation. - In a no inflation environment, any nominal gains are real-gains because there is no inflation to worry about - In a no inflation environment, for a banker to attract deposits from savers, they would have to offer savers a nominal rate of savings in order to attract those deposits - In a no inflation environment, any nominal rate paid on savings is a real return, since there is no inflation - In an FDIC insured savings account savings are insured, therefore not risk - Unfortunately in our current environment where the Fed is printing money at 25-40% increases in M2 y/y, and CPI reaching 6.8% at last reading, and bank savings accounts paying 0.1%, it is hard to appreciate that a bank account could ever pay a real rate on savings, net of inflation. However, in a world without central bank money printers this is exactly what we would enjoy.

by md_ 5y ago

lowkey 5y ago

> I've yet to understand where you got that idea from, or what it has to do with all of your nonsensical followup comments. Which of my comments do you find non-sensical, specifically? > original claim was “If it were not for central bankers printing money into existence, a person could work their life, save a portion for retirement in a bank account or other fixed income product, while enjoying a positive return on their investment, without taking on market risk of loss of funds.” Let me lay out my logic: - If not for central bankers, artificially printing money and putting it in circulation, there would be no inflation. No printing by central bankers = No dilution of the purchasing power of everyone's money -> therefore no inflation. - In a no inflation environment, any nominal gains are real-gains because there is no inflation to worry about - In a no inflation environment, for a banker to attract deposits from savers, they would have to offer savers a nominal rate of savings in order to attract those deposits - In a no inflation environment, any nominal rate paid on savings is a real return, since there is no inflation - In an FDIC insured savings account savings are insured, therefore not risk - Unfortunately in our current environment where the Fed is printing money at 25-40% increases in M2 y/y, and CPI reaching 6.8% at last reading, and bank savings accounts paying 0.1%, it is hard to appreciate that a bank account could ever pay a real rate on savings, net of inflation. However, in a world without central bank money printers this is exactly what we would enjoy.