3 ms·

>. The economies of scale of the software industry allows excess central bank printed money to flow predominantly towards software companies and VC backed mega

>. The economies of scale of the software industry allows excess central bank printed money to flow predominantly towards software companies and VC backed mega startups. I don't know why people keep saying this. The central bank doesn't do this. It doesn't hand over money to investors. I don't like saying it but this sounds too much like a conspiracy theory to me. I mean, the pathway for why exactly this is supposed to happen is not explained at all. In reality commercial banks create the money and they don't give a damn about small or medium sized companies. The central bank is just there to make sure the money system doesn't collapse in either direction. This means they do tend to support commercial banks with excess reserves but those banks make the decisions based on the expectation of getting that money back, which is in stark contrast to the free money rethoric. If someone is doing something it's not the central banks. Have you tried working with hardware by the way? Anything related to hardware has a huge capital intensitivity and this means more of the money is going into paying interest or capital returns to investors instead of employees. If the earning potential of a software and hardware developer are the same but each hardware job requires $400k in capital then just the usual 8% return expectation would cut the hardware developer's salary by $32k. Meanwhile the software guy needs a laptop and monitors on a desk in an office. None of this has anything to do with central banks. If anything cheap central bank money would disproportionately benefit the hardware guy.

hnfong 3y ago
> I don't know why people keep saying this. Does it occur to you that maybe people keep saying this because that's the truth? I think it suffices to say that at least for the COVID round in the US, the "money printing" was in the form of the Fed buying US treasuries and the US government paying out trillions of dollars to normal people in the form of COVID stimulus checks. Yes, a significant part of it directly went to normal people, and it wasn't in the form of commercial banks lending money out. You're advised to look at the Fed balance sheet, covid stimulus checks, the market cap of big tech, and the flow of speculative money (VC capital [or startup valuations], BTC, GME, etc.), especially with respect to the dates and timings. If you think you learned everything you need to know about economics from some 10+ year old textbook, let me give you an update: in the US there's no "fractional reserve banking" system any more, unless the "fraction" is zero. Basically it's QE all the way now. ( https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm )
- whatisthiseven 3y ago
  Software salaries have been higher than hardware salaries since well before covid. So that part of your theory is bunk. Had it occurred to you some people repeat stuff because they just want other people to believe the things they think? That's kind of how discussion works. It isn't a measure of truth to see the same line repeated at all. That's a fallacy.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    The COVID part I was replying to GGP's claim that the central bank doesn't print money. Generally QE has started since 2008. > Had it occurred to you some people repeat stuff because they just want other people to believe the things they think? Yes, that's a possibility, not a definite. Why did you think that hasn't occurred to me? I'm not the one saying "I don't know why people keep saying this." I specifically offered an explanation that involves the GGP possibly being wrong: "Does it occur to you that maybe people keep saying this because that's the truth?" Note the "maybe". It's not rhetoric. I meant what I wrote. Of course there are other explanations but I'm pretty sure their view on what central banks are wrong or at least out of date. And I explained and gave pointers. I still wrote the "maybe". Anyway, given your definite claim that people just repeat stuff because they just want other people to think the same, I guess discussion with you becomes meaningless at this point. Finally I'll just note that quoting my counter example to explain what central banks do as evidence that I got my original claims wrong isn't really a argument either way. Have a nice day.

hnfong 3y ago

> I don't know why people keep saying this. Does it occur to you that maybe people keep saying this because that's the truth? I think it suffices to say that at least for the COVID round in the US, the "money printing" was in the form of the Fed buying US treasuries and the US government paying out trillions of dollars to normal people in the form of COVID stimulus checks. Yes, a significant part of it directly went to normal people, and it wasn't in the form of commercial banks lending money out. You're advised to look at the Fed balance sheet, covid stimulus checks, the market cap of big tech, and the flow of speculative money (VC capital [or startup valuations], BTC, GME, etc.), especially with respect to the dates and timings. If you think you learned everything you need to know about economics from some 10+ year old textbook, let me give you an update: in the US there's no "fractional reserve banking" system any more, unless the "fraction" is zero. Basically it's QE all the way now. ( https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm )

whatisthiseven 3y ago
Software salaries have been higher than hardware salaries since well before covid. So that part of your theory is bunk. Had it occurred to you some people repeat stuff because they just want other people to believe the things they think? That's kind of how discussion works. It isn't a measure of truth to see the same line repeated at all. That's a fallacy.
- hnfong 3y ago
  The COVID part I was replying to GGP's claim that the central bank doesn't print money. Generally QE has started since 2008. > Had it occurred to you some people repeat stuff because they just want other people to believe the things they think? Yes, that's a possibility, not a definite. Why did you think that hasn't occurred to me? I'm not the one saying "I don't know why people keep saying this." I specifically offered an explanation that involves the GGP possibly being wrong: "Does it occur to you that maybe people keep saying this because that's the truth?" Note the "maybe". It's not rhetoric. I meant what I wrote. Of course there are other explanations but I'm pretty sure their view on what central banks are wrong or at least out of date. And I explained and gave pointers. I still wrote the "maybe". Anyway, given your definite claim that people just repeat stuff because they just want other people to think the same, I guess discussion with you becomes meaningless at this point. Finally I'll just note that quoting my counter example to explain what central banks do as evidence that I got my original claims wrong isn't really a argument either way. Have a nice day.