3 ms·

Genuine question - when 80% of all US dollars in existence were printed very recently (from $4 trillion in January 2020 to $20 trillion in October 2021). [1],

by grecy 4y ago

Genuine question - when 80% of all US dollars in existence were printed very recently (from $4 trillion in January 2020 to $20 trillion in October 2021). [1], how do you not get massive devaluation of the US dollar? [1] https://techstartups.com/2021/12/18/80-us-dollars-existence-printed-january-2020-october-2021/ https://techstartups.com/2021/12/18/80-us-dollars-existence-...

thunderbird120 4y ago
>80% of all US dollars in existence were printed very recently They were not. Minor changes to official definitions can make graphs look funny but doesn't change much else https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-recent-surge-in-the-m1-money-supply/ https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-rec...
ideamotor 4y ago
There’s some underpinning techno-libertarian philosophy and assumptions pertaining to believing that claim. I wouldn’t get your central bank news from a website called techstartups. They didn’t print “US dollars” and it’s far more complicated than that. Research how QE works. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4113280-federal-reserve-never-printed-money-part-i https://seekingalpha.com/article/4113280-federal-reserve-nev.... Note: I found another seekingalpha “article” referencing techstartups.com too hah!
panarky 4y ago
When your model of how things work predicts one thing, and then the exact opposite thing happens, it's a good time to question what might be wrong with your model. (Hint: "printing money" doesn't automatically make money worth less.)
- ghiculescu 4y ago
  > "printing money" doesn't automatically make money worth less.) Why not? Intuition says that it should. So I think that’s what GP is trying to understand. It seems like you’ve substituted their model with yours but haven’t explained how yours works.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Intuition says that it should. So I think that’s what GP is trying to understand. Velocity [1]. Ignoring it is like sticking a water wheel in the ocean and asking why it doesn’t turn given the depth. Quantity doesn’t turn it. Flow does. And that depends on more than how much water is present. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money
    - panarky 4y ago
      Haven't heard the water wheel in the ocean analogy, and I love it! Thank you! There's a very simple mathematical identity: MV=PQ M is money supply, V is velocity, P is price level, and Q is all goods and services. So if the economy produces the same amount of stuff (Q is constant) and if V falls in the inverse ratio as the increase in M, then the price level will not change.
77pt77 4y ago
Military.

by grecy 4y ago

thunderbird120 4y ago

>80% of all US dollars in existence were printed very recently They were not. Minor changes to official definitions can make graphs look funny but doesn't change much else https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-recent-surge-in-the-m1-money-supply/ https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-rec...

ideamotor 4y ago

There’s some underpinning techno-libertarian philosophy and assumptions pertaining to believing that claim. I wouldn’t get your central bank news from a website called techstartups. They didn’t print “US dollars” and it’s far more complicated than that. Research how QE works. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4113280-federal-reserve-never-printed-money-part-i https://seekingalpha.com/article/4113280-federal-reserve-nev.... Note: I found another seekingalpha “article” referencing techstartups.com too hah!

panarky 4y ago

When your model of how things work predicts one thing, and then the exact opposite thing happens, it's a good time to question what might be wrong with your model. (Hint: "printing money" doesn't automatically make money worth less.)

ghiculescu 4y ago
> "printing money" doesn't automatically make money worth less.) Why not? Intuition says that it should. So I think that’s what GP is trying to understand. It seems like you’ve substituted their model with yours but haven’t explained how yours works.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Intuition says that it should. So I think that’s what GP is trying to understand. Velocity [1]. Ignoring it is like sticking a water wheel in the ocean and asking why it doesn’t turn given the depth. Quantity doesn’t turn it. Flow does. And that depends on more than how much water is present. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money
  - panarky 4y ago
    Haven't heard the water wheel in the ocean analogy, and I love it! Thank you! There's a very simple mathematical identity: MV=PQ M is money supply, V is velocity, P is price level, and Q is all goods and services. So if the economy produces the same amount of stuff (Q is constant) and if V falls in the inverse ratio as the increase in M, then the price level will not change.

77pt77 4y ago

Military.