3 ms·

Apparently in 1971 the Bretton-Woods agreement[1] was "suspended" and America went off the gold standard. Because the US dollar became both a fiat currency[2] a

Apparently in 1971 the Bretton-Woods agreement[1] was "suspended" and America went off the gold standard. Because the US dollar became both a fiat currency[2] and a reserve currency[3], it meant that we could print as much money as we like. Printing money directly fuels corruption and income inequality. Rather than reconciling bad decisions and balancing a budget, you just print more money. Financialization[4], a force which frequently gets referenced in Boeing threads, is just another consequence of poor monetary policy, as is decline of Rule of Law[5]. Ray Dalio's Principles for a Changing World Order is the best explanation I've seen for the general state of America and its clear decline (45m): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8 [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization [5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

tpm 3y ago
There is plenty of corruption and income inequality regardless of money printing velocity. What would be the causal link between them? There was huge corruption in former Eastern/Soviet Block countries where prices were more or less stable. There was huge inequality in gold-standard feudalism.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  Ray Dalio's video explicitly explains the causal link between printing money and corruption. Printing money (as a fiat reserve currency) implies the decline of rule of law and therefore corruption, but corruption does not imply that money was printed, nor does the lack of printing money imply low corruption.
  - tpm 3y ago
    > "corruption does not imply that money was printed, nor does the lack of printing money imply low corruption." If corruption is independent of money printing, "Printing money directly fuels corruption" is not a true statement.
    - hayst4ck 3y ago
      I think if you draw out the logical statements I've made one implication correctly. I claimed A implies B is a true statement and that if A implies B is true, that doesn't mean B implies A or ~A implies ~B. (although ~B does imply ~A if A implies B). True: A implies B: Printed money implies a rise of corruption ~B implies ~A: Low corruption implies money wasn't printed False: B implies A: A rise in corruption implies printed money ~A implies B: Not printing money implies low corruption I did not say A and B are independent, I said A implies B, not A IFF B.
wazoox 3y ago
Exactly. Emmanuel Todd says it in his own way : in the US your best bet is always to work in or around finance, because printing money became the main business in the country. That's also why the US must import engineers massively, for instance. That's why the military industry is under such pressure, because it can't rely upon huge numbers of Indians, Chinese or Russians to conceive and build its airplanes, missiles and nuclear submarines.

tpm 3y ago

There is plenty of corruption and income inequality regardless of money printing velocity. What would be the causal link between them? There was huge corruption in former Eastern/Soviet Block countries where prices were more or less stable. There was huge inequality in gold-standard feudalism.

hayst4ck 3y ago
Ray Dalio's video explicitly explains the causal link between printing money and corruption. Printing money (as a fiat reserve currency) implies the decline of rule of law and therefore corruption, but corruption does not imply that money was printed, nor does the lack of printing money imply low corruption.
- tpm 3y ago
  > "corruption does not imply that money was printed, nor does the lack of printing money imply low corruption." If corruption is independent of money printing, "Printing money directly fuels corruption" is not a true statement.
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    I think if you draw out the logical statements I've made one implication correctly. I claimed A implies B is a true statement and that if A implies B is true, that doesn't mean B implies A or ~A implies ~B. (although ~B does imply ~A if A implies B). True: A implies B: Printed money implies a rise of corruption ~B implies ~A: Low corruption implies money wasn't printed False: B implies A: A rise in corruption implies printed money ~A implies B: Not printing money implies low corruption I did not say A and B are independent, I said A implies B, not A IFF B.

wazoox 3y ago

Exactly. Emmanuel Todd says it in his own way : in the US your best bet is always to work in or around finance, because printing money became the main business in the country. That's also why the US must import engineers massively, for instance. That's why the military industry is under such pressure, because it can't rely upon huge numbers of Indians, Chinese or Russians to conceive and build its airplanes, missiles and nuclear submarines.