Needed: Counterpart to 'Woke'

[Bronzeage]

If the citizens in those countries prefer to use our dollars to trade in their countries, then basically we are getting their goods and services for the paper we printed out money.

Point of information: Money is mostly not printed on anything. The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.

This is a very short sided view and it is better for the billionaire class, I will give you that. But this arrangement is far worse for the labor class (far outnumbering the billionaire class) whose subsistence depends on their labor. Because their ability to support themselves directly depends on what they actually accomplish and produce. That class no longer has any local production infrastructure so they are left in the cold.

But far worse is that the rest of the world will not indefinitely produce goods for nothing. The free ride for the billionaire class will not last forever. One can see the free ride ending simply by looking at interest expense of the federal debt becoming higher to the point it outdoes federal tax receipts. That is when the rest of the world finally wakes up to the dollar only being pure fiat and nothing more. This consequence will be devastating and dire for the US. The cost of imported goods will sky rocket with no local means of production making the US instantly a 3rd world economy. In the final analysis, it is only real assets and ability to produce goods and services that matters to sustained well being of everyone.

As my economics professor said, "Anyone who is worried their fiat currency is worthless is welcome to leave it with me."

We could use some kind of rock as a store of wealth. It needs to be fairly rare and easy to identify. It's rarity means your economy can't exceed the number of available rocks. Anyone without a rock has to go back to some kind of barter system for goods and services in order to survive. This is quite inefficient, especially when long distances are involved. If I need lumber, I might be able to trade potatoes for it, but only if the guy who has a desirable tree lives somewhere close. Maybe he doesn't like potatoes and I'll have to find a tree somewhere farther away. I have to act quickly because potatoes don't last forever. The time it takes to carry the potatoes to the tree and then drag the tree back is time I could spend planting potatoes. This is all because I'm digging potatoes, not gold.

In a really dire economic crisis, my sack of potatoes would be worth more than a sack of gold because I can eat the potatoes and the other guy can't eat his tree, any more than he can eat gold.

 

[Elixir]

We could use some kind of rock as a store of wealth.

Like those clear pure compressed carbon rocks?

It needs to be fairly rare and easy to identify.

Or just go with granite so everyone can be wealthy.

 

[bilby]

We could use some kind of rock as a store of wealth.

Like those clear pure compressed carbon rocks?

It needs to be fairly rare and easy to identify.

Or just go with granite so everyone can be wealthy.

But then people would just take their riches for granite.

 

[Elixir]

We could use some kind of rock as a store of wealth.

Like those clear pure compressed carbon rocks?

It needs to be fairly rare and easy to identify.

Or just go with granite so everyone can be wealthy.

But then people would just take their riches for granite.

But it would keep inflation down.

 

[Gospel]

We could use some kind of rock as a store of wealth.

Like those clear pure compressed carbon rocks?

It needs to be fairly rare and easy to identify.

Or just go with granite so everyone can be wealthy.

But then people would just take their riches for granite.

But it would keep inflation down.

True & if we do hit rock bottom, at least we can say we had a stone-cold plan.

 

[RVonse]

If the citizens in those countries prefer to use our dollars to trade in their countries, then basically we are getting their goods and services for the paper we printed out money.

Point of information: Money is mostly not printed on anything. The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.

This is a very short sided view and it is better for the billionaire class, I will give you that. But this arrangement is far worse for the labor class (far outnumbering the billionaire class) whose subsistence depends on their labor. Because their ability to support themselves directly depends on what they actually accomplish and produce. That class no longer has any local production infrastructure so they are left in the cold.

But far worse is that the rest of the world will not indefinitely produce goods for nothing. The free ride for the billionaire class will not last forever. One can see the free ride ending simply by looking at interest expense of the federal debt becoming higher to the point it outdoes federal tax receipts. That is when the rest of the world finally wakes up to the dollar only being pure fiat and nothing more. This consequence will be devastating and dire for the US. The cost of imported goods will sky rocket with no local means of production making the US instantly a 3rd world economy. In the final analysis, it is only real assets and ability to produce goods and services that matters to sustained well being of everyone.

As my economics professor said, "Anyone who is worried their fiat currency is worthless is welcome to leave it with me."

We could use some kind of rock as a store of wealth. It needs to be fairly rare and easy to identify. It's rarity means your economy can't exceed the number of available rocks. Anyone without a rock has to go back to some kind of barter system for goods and services in order to survive. This is quite inefficient, especially when long distances are involved. If I need lumber, I might be able to trade potatoes for it, but only if the guy who has a desirable tree lives somewhere close. Maybe he doesn't like potatoes and I'll have to find a tree somewhere farther away. I have to act quickly because potatoes don't last forever. The time it takes to carry the potatoes to the tree and then drag the tree back is time I could spend planting potatoes. This is all because I'm digging potatoes, not gold.

In a really dire economic crisis, my sack of potatoes would be worth more than a sack of gold because I can eat the potatoes and the other guy can't eat his tree, any more than he can eat gold.

Would your economics professor pick up a penny off the sidewalk if he was in a hurry? He would if he lived back in the early 1900's. Even in my lifetime I have seen it possible to buy a coke for 5 cents.

The dollar was in fact based on gold until 1971. We did just fine. In fact probably better in the 50s and 60s. Were it not for LBJ spending and the fed printing press, we might still be on the gold standard and be able to buy 5 cent cokes and 40 cent/gallon gas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the citizens in those countries prefer to use our dollars to trade in their countries, then basically we are getting their goods and services for the paper we printed out money.

Point of information: Money is mostly not printed on anything. The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.

This is a very short sided view and it is better for the billionaire class, I will give you that. But this arrangement is far worse for the labor class (far outnumbering the billionaire class) whose subsistence depends on their labor. Because their ability to support themselves directly depends on what they actually accomplish and produce. That class no longer has any local production infrastructure so they are left in the cold.

But far worse is that the rest of the world will not indefinitely produce goods for nothing. The free ride for the billionaire class will not last forever. One can see the free ride ending simply by looking at interest expense of the federal debt becoming higher to the point it outdoes federal tax receipts. That is when the rest of the world finally wakes up to the dollar only being pure fiat and nothing more. This consequence will be devastating and dire for the US. The cost of imported goods will sky rocket with no local means of production making the US instantly a 3rd world economy. In the final analysis, it is only real assets and ability to produce goods and services that matters to sustained well being of everyone.

As my economics professor said, "Anyone who is worried their fiat currency is worthless is welcome to leave it with me."

We could use some kind of rock as a store of wealth. It needs to be fairly rare and easy to identify. It's rarity means your economy can't exceed the number of available rocks. Anyone without a rock has to go back to some kind of barter system for goods and services in order to survive. This is quite inefficient, especially when long distances are involved. If I need lumber, I might be able to trade potatoes for it, but only if the guy who has a desirable tree lives somewhere close. Maybe he doesn't like potatoes and I'll have to find a tree somewhere farther away. I have to act quickly because potatoes don't last forever. The time it takes to carry the potatoes to the tree and then drag the tree back is time I could spend planting potatoes. This is all because I'm digging potatoes, not gold.

In a really dire economic crisis, my sack of potatoes would be worth more than a sack of gold because I can eat the potatoes and the other guy can't eat his tree, any more than he can eat gold.

Would your economics professor pick up a penny off the sidewalk if he was in a hurry? He would if he lived back in the early 1900's. Even in my lifetime I have seen it possible to buy a coke for 5 cents.

The dollar was in fact based on gold until 1971. We did just fine.

Your political views are founded on incredibly large amount of misrecollections of history. Such as the US did just fine as gold being the basis of the dollar. Inflation, access to capitol, lengths and depths of recession/depressions/panics are all much much MUCH better today than they were when gold was the basis of the dollar. It isn't perfect. Nothing is going to be perfect.

In fact probably better in the 50s and 60s.

America's best economic times were the 1990s.

Were it not for LBJ spending and the fed printing press, we might still be on the gold standard and be able to buy 5 cent cokes and 40 cent/gallon gas.

And we'd be making $1,000 a year. Fuck, you make it sound like in the 1910s, everyone was a millionaire. Just because products cost less didn't mean access to it was any easier. For a person complaining about inflation, you don't seem to understand it at a basic level.

 

[RVonse]

For a person complaining about inflation, you don't seem to understand it at a basic level.

Thankfully the voting public does. They knew during the last election that their was a huge disconnect between the real economy and the data.

See time stamp 2:12-8:33 here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For a person complaining about inflation, you don't seem to understand it at a basic level.

Thankfully the voting public does. They knew during the last election that their was a huge disconnect between the real economy and the data.

Like I said, you don't understand inflation when you say things like 'maybe we'd still be paying 5 cents for a coke'. You might be better off learning about economics from a text book instead of YouTube.

 

[RVonse]

For a person complaining about inflation, you don't seem to understand it at a basic level.

Thankfully the voting public does. They knew during the last election that their was a huge disconnect between the real economy and the data.

Like I said, you don't understand inflation when you say things like 'maybe we'd still be paying 5 cents for a coke'. You might be better off learning about economics from a text book instead of YouTube.

Trump won because of inflation. It was the number 2 issue on their minds. The economy was number 1.

 

[laughing dog]

For a person complaining about inflation, you don't seem to understand it at a basic level.

Thankfully the voting public does. They knew during the last election that their was a huge disconnect between the real economy and the data.

Like I said, you don't understand inflation when you say things like 'maybe we'd still be paying 5 cents for a coke'. You might be better off learning about economics from a text book instead of YouTube.

Trump won because of inflation. It was the number 2 issue on their minds. The economy was number 1.

IF the economy was number 1, Trump would have lost. The real economy, by every measure, is better.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For a person complaining about inflation, you don't seem to understand it at a basic level.

Thankfully the voting public does. They knew during the last election that their was a huge disconnect between the real economy and the data.

Like I said, you don't understand inflation when you say things like 'maybe we'd still be paying 5 cents for a coke'. You might be better off learning about economics from a text book instead of YouTube.

Trump won because of inflation. It was the number 2 issue on their minds. The economy was number 1.

Inflation certainly had an impact. That doesn't mean you have indicated you understand what inflation is.

 

[laughing dog]

If the citizens in those countries prefer to use our dollars to trade in their countries, then basically we are getting their goods and services for the paper we printed out money.

Point of information: Money is mostly not printed on anything. The vast majority of money today exists as numbers in a computer, and the marginal cost of producing more money is therefore zero.

So you are getting those goods and/or sevices for nothing.

Complaining that getting stuff for nothing makes you "feel bad" seems to me rather churlish, not to mention foolish.

This is a very short sided view and it is better for the billionaire class, I will give you that. But this arrangement is far worse for the labor class (far outnumbering the billionaire class) whose subsistence depends on their labor. Because their ability to support themselves directly depends on what they actually accomplish and produce. That class no longer has any local production infrastructure so they are left in the cold.

But far worse is that the rest of the world will not indefinitely produce goods for nothing. The free ride for the billionaire class will not last forever. One can see the free ride ending simply by looking at interest expense of the federal debt becoming higher to the point it outdoes federal tax receipts. That is when the rest of the world finally wakes up to the dollar only being pure fiat and nothing more. This consequence will be devastating and dire for the US. The cost of imported goods will sky rocket with no local means of production making the US instantly a 3rd world economy. In the final analysis, it is only real assets and ability to produce goods and services that matters to sustained well being of everyone.

As my economics professor said, "Anyone who is worried their fiat currency is worthless is welcome to leave it with me."

We could use some kind of rock as a store of wealth. It needs to be fairly rare and easy to identify. It's rarity means your economy can't exceed the number of available rocks. Anyone without a rock has to go back to some kind of barter system for goods and services in order to survive. This is quite inefficient, especially when long distances are involved. If I need lumber, I might be able to trade potatoes for it, but only if the guy who has a desirable tree lives somewhere close. Maybe he doesn't like potatoes and I'll have to find a tree somewhere farther away. I have to act quickly because potatoes don't last forever. The time it takes to carry the potatoes to the tree and then drag the tree back is time I could spend planting potatoes. This is all because I'm digging potatoes, not gold.

In a really dire economic crisis, my sack of potatoes would be worth more than a sack of gold because I can eat the potatoes and the other guy can't eat his tree, any more than he can eat gold.

Would your economics professor pick up a penny off the sidewalk if he was in a hurry? He would if he lived back in the early 1900's. Even in my lifetime I have seen it possible to buy a coke for 5 cents.

The dollar was in fact based on gold until 1971. We did just fine. In fact probably better in the 50s and 60s. Were it not for LBJ spending and the fed printing press, we might still be on the gold standard and be able to buy 5 cent cokes and 40 cent/gallon gas.

Anything is possible, but your scenario is not probable. The issue with gold standard is two fold. First, it neuters domestic monetary policy. Second, when the world economy grows, unless there is an equivalent growth in gold world wide, there is deflation. For borrowers on fixed interest loans, deflation is harmful. Historically, deflation has harmed sectors that depend in lending - agriculture, housing and some manufacturing.

The US was on the gold standard during the Great Depression, and it was one of the major reasons for the length and breadth of the depression worldwide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Would your economics professor pick up a penny off the sidewalk if he was in a hurry? He would if he lived back in the early 1900's. Even in my lifetime I have seen it possible to buy a coke for 5 cents.

The dollar was in fact based on gold until 1971. We did just fine. In fact probably better in the 50s and 60s. Were it not for LBJ spending and the fed printing press, we might still be on the gold standard and be able to buy 5 cent cokes and 40 cent/gallon gas.

You're talking about good times caused by special circumstances that will not return.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thankfully the voting public does. They knew during the last election that their was a huge disconnect between the real economy and the data.

The data doesn't say what I want it to say so it's wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The dollar was in fact based on gold until 1971. We did just fine. In fact probably better in the 50s and 60s. Were it not for LBJ spending and the fed printing press, we might still be on the gold standard and be able to buy 5 cent cokes and 40 cent/gallon gas.

What's important is what you can buy with your income, not what prices are. A much better scale is how many minutes of work are needed to buy a gallon of gas.

(Scroll to the table near the bottom

Gasoline Prices vs. Wages Over Time

Inflation doesn't affect all prices equally. Let's look at how Gasoline Prices and Wages relate since the 1930s.

inflationdata.com

And that has been going down. And that's what my pocketbook cares about.

 

[RVonse]

The dollar was in fact based on gold until 1971. We did just fine. In fact probably better in the 50s and 60s. Were it not for LBJ spending and the fed printing press, we might still be on the gold standard and be able to buy 5 cent cokes and 40 cent/gallon gas.

What's important is what you can buy with your income, not what prices are. A much better scale is how many minutes of work are needed to buy a gallon of gas.

(Scroll to the table near the bottom

Gasoline Prices vs. Wages Over Time

Inflation doesn't affect all prices equally. Let's look at how Gasoline Prices and Wages relate since the 1930s.

inflationdata.com

And that has been going down. And that's what my pocketbook cares about.

In 1950 a gallon of fuel could be bought with lower wage minutes than today. But that completely misses the point anyway. You want NO inflation at all with the currency. Not because of buying power but because

1) it messes with people saving money for the future. Workers have no secure way to save for retirement.
2) It messes with the efficiency of free market capitalism because real prices are difficult to know. Is your painting worth more today than it was yesterday because peer collectors like it more or is it just price inflation?
3) If history is any guide, inflation and currency debasement always brings down a civilization. It happened before with Rome, Spain, France, Denmark, and the UK. Look at Argentina and Valenzuela today. Is that really the proper goal for the US?

 

[RVonse]

Thankfully the voting public does. They knew during the last election that their was a huge disconnect between the real economy and the data.

The data doesn't say what I want it to say so it's wrong.

The data did not agree with the reality of people who knew if their lives were getting better or not.

None of the government data is believable anymore. In the first place, in order for data to be believed you can not change the metrics of how it is calculated like what has happened with inflation numbers. The government likes to cover up bad data because they know just the numbers can bring on bad sentiment with the economy. But that short sided political advantage is more than offset by the long term damage that has now been done. The government has destroyed their reputation just like main stream legacy media has. Their data has become irrelevant to most people and for good reason.

 

[RVonse]

Would your economics professor pick up a penny off the sidewalk if he was in a hurry? He would if he lived back in the early 1900's. Even in my lifetime I have seen it possible to buy a coke for 5 cents.

The dollar was in fact based on gold until 1971. We did just fine. In fact probably better in the 50s and 60s. Were it not for LBJ spending and the fed printing press, we might still be on the gold standard and be able to buy 5 cent cokes and 40 cent/gallon gas.

You're talking about good times caused by special circumstances that will not return.

No argument. That does not mean we can not use the good times we once experienced as our goal. Do we want stable prosperity or do we want to shoot for shit 2% inflation (which is really more like >8%)?

 

[laughing dog]

Would your economics professor pick up a penny off the sidewalk if he was in a hurry? He would if he lived back in the early 1900's. Even in my lifetime I have seen it possible to buy a coke for 5 cents.

The dollar was in fact based on gold until 1971. We did just fine. In fact probably better in the 50s and 60s. Were it not for LBJ spending and the fed printing press, we might still be on the gold standard and be able to buy 5 cent cokes and 40 cent/gallon gas.

You're talking about good times caused by special circumstances that will not return.

No argument. That does not mean we can not use the good times we once experienced as our goal. Do we want stable prosperity or do we want to shoot for shit 2% inflation (which is really more like >8%)?

Those good times were driven by the destruction of much of Europe’s economy. Maybe we should jump whole hog into defending Ukraine!