4 ms·

Edit: Massive brain fart here. I can't do msth today. Leaving this comment here for posterity, but please move along. I can't do math here. Its sad that $450M

Edit: Massive brain fart here. I can't do msth today. Leaving this comment here for posterity, but please move along. I can't do math here. Its sad that $450M seems like a drop in the bucket when it comes to government spending today. When I was born in 1988 the US had $2.6T in total debt. That number is already insane, but in this case $450M would be around 17% of the total debt accrued over 212 years. Today we spend a few trillion more than we have every year. When do we collectively wake up and realize it's either or scam or a joke? Note: I'm ignoring inflation adjusted values here because I'm literally talking about inflation (I.E. money printing). The comparison would be meaningless if I first adjusted for how much debt and money has been created since 1988.

r2_pilot 2y ago
If you want to ignore inflation, you might as well ignore the population delta (335.8 million in 2024 vs 244.5 million in 1988) too. If you want to maintain quality of life, more people definitely implies more need for dollars.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Our money supply hasn't increased at the same rate as ourpopulation though. $1 in 1988 would now cost $2.66 8! 2024. The population increased by 37.3% while the dollar devalued by 166%.
  - r2_pilot 2y ago
    You're also neglecting the macroeconomics of being the world's reserve currency, and the population growth of the countries that hold US debt, and a lot of other factors, but I'm not an economist and also prefer alternative solutions to currency/money as an idea wherever possible.
stephen_g 2y ago
Your maths is wrong by three orders of magnitude (unless you meant 2.6 billion, not trillion?) - 450M is 0.017% of $2.6T. Anyway, it's not a scam or a joke - money is an abstract concept (the value is always mostly in what you can buy with it, not really in the thing itself). It always has been that way and always will be. Trying to compare nominal dollar values without any correction for anything (population, size of the economy, wage growth, inflation, whatever) is totally meaningless. You can literally draw no valid conclusions from doing so.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  I don't know how I lodt an entire order of magnitude there, thank you for correcting me there. Anyone coming by - please ignore my massive brain fart here.

r2_pilot 2y ago

If you want to ignore inflation, you might as well ignore the population delta (335.8 million in 2024 vs 244.5 million in 1988) too. If you want to maintain quality of life, more people definitely implies more need for dollars.

_heimdall 2y ago
Our money supply hasn't increased at the same rate as ourpopulation though. $1 in 1988 would now cost $2.66 8! 2024. The population increased by 37.3% while the dollar devalued by 166%.
- r2_pilot 2y ago
  You're also neglecting the macroeconomics of being the world's reserve currency, and the population growth of the countries that hold US debt, and a lot of other factors, but I'm not an economist and also prefer alternative solutions to currency/money as an idea wherever possible.

stephen_g 2y ago

Your maths is wrong by three orders of magnitude (unless you meant 2.6 billion, not trillion?) - 450M is 0.017% of $2.6T. Anyway, it's not a scam or a joke - money is an abstract concept (the value is always mostly in what you can buy with it, not really in the thing itself). It always has been that way and always will be. Trying to compare nominal dollar values without any correction for anything (population, size of the economy, wage growth, inflation, whatever) is totally meaningless. You can literally draw no valid conclusions from doing so.

_heimdall 2y ago
I don't know how I lodt an entire order of magnitude there, thank you for correcting me there. Anyone coming by - please ignore my massive brain fart here.