memes

hideshow 35 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (34 children)

That's not what that proves lol, but it does prove that the gold standard does not work and is not sustainable.

You should probably read up a little bit on history, the facts disagree with you. The US government had to use regulations and policies to influence the supply of gold: grants for gold mining, setting the reserve rates, hoarding gold to keep out of circulation. Until the gold standard dropped, there was even a limit on the amount of gold one could legally own. On top of this, other gold producing nations had the power to directly influence US monetary value and undermine US sovereignty.

Throw in implications and challenges of being a global reserve currency (Triffin dilemma), and you end up having a really bad time with an unhealthy economy.

Foolish people that don't know history want to pretend that the gold standard magically creates some kind of natural currency free of "government meddling", but the reality is that even more meddling and government control was required under the gold standard than compared to fiat currency.

hideshow 34 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (33 children)

That's not what that proves lol, but it does prove that the gold standard does not work and is not sustainable.

If the economy grew at the rate of mining pre1976 and had no relationship post1976 then your hypothesis would be proven. Data shows this is false.

Yes the FED wanted full control over the US money supply, which is impossible under the gold standard. This desire was unrelated to inflation or deflation.

hideshow 33 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (32 children)

If the economy grew at the rate of mining pre1976 and had no relationship post1976 then your hypothesis would be proven.

Ahhh! I understand what you are misunderstanding, now. You think that I said that the change in size of the pool of currency IS the change in the size of the economy itself. Here's what I said:

The total pool of currency needs to be able to grow with the economy.

The pool of currency and the economy are two separate things that can grow at two separate rates. It just creates serious economic problems when they are not aligned with each other. Homework assignment: read up on the Great Depression.

hideshow 32 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (31 children)

If it is true that total pool of currency needs to be able to grow with the economy then the rate one variable grows must be linked to the rate the other grows. If there is no link then there is no relationship.

The great depression was caused by a stock market over inflated with leverage. This has nothing to do with the gold standard.

And notice how we have deviated from the topic of deflation. It's a topic built on myth and misunderstanding that easily slips out of focus.

There is absolutely no evidence that deflation itself is bad. The great depression occurred because there was too much debt. Japan suffered in the 90s because it had too much debt. Deflation/inflation just measures who gains more over time, debtors or lenders.

hideshow 31 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (30 children)

If it is true that total pool of currency needs to be able to grow with the economy then the rate one variable grows must be linked to the rate the other grows.

You're just repeating the same mistake. We both agree this is not true, as in the economy can grow while the currency pool stays constant. They change independent from each other. It's just really bad when they both don't grow on a similar scale. They only need to grow at the same rate in order to maintain a healthy growing economy. The relationship/link between them is that when they get too out of sync, there will be a correction.

The great depression was caused by a stock market over inflated with leverage. This has nothing to do with the gold standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Attempts_to_return_to_the_Gold_Standard Again, facts and history disagrees with you. It's literally the very first on the list of causes lol

And notice how we have deviated from the topic of deflation.

You're certainly trying to, but I have not.

The great depression occurred because there was too much debt.

LOL. YES!!! DING DING DING! And how does deflation impact debt? Does it increase or decrease debt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_deflation 😊

Kind of wild that you can admit that the worst economic downturn of all history was caused by debt, that deflation and inflation impact the way debt works, and in the very same paragraph say that "There is absolutely no evidence that deflation itself is bad." without a shred of self-reflection or irony. So, you understand that debt causes depressions, but simultaneously think an economic force that amplifies debt is totally harmless?? Make it make sense!!

hideshow 30 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (29 children)

During World War I, many countries suspended their gold standard in varying ways

It's in the first line. The cause here is WWI, not the great depression. These are countries going broke and abandoning the gold standard because of war, not because they are experiencing deflation.

A state of over-indebtedness exists, this will tend to lead to liquidation, through the alarm either of debtors or creditors or both.

Exactly. The quantity of debt relative to GDP is what is of concern. You are linking to the right things. Go back, reread them and then take a long walk and have a good think.

hideshow 29 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (28 children)

The cause here is WWI, not the great depression.

Huh? Your reading comprehension needs some work. This is a list of causes of the Great Depression. Of course the Great Depression is not a cause of the Great Depression. The first cause of the Great Depression in the list is... (drum roll, please): the effects of the gold standard!!!

abandoning the gold standard because of war

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm what about war causes deflationary currency to be unsuitable? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 And are those conditions exclusive to war? Checkmate. That was easy!

hideshow 28 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (27 children)

The conditions mean that debts cannot be repaid. Thats the fear. Not because the gradual increasing purchasing power of the underlying currency that actually benefits the bondholders.

Take a walk. Have a think.

hideshow 27 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (26 children)

The conditions mean that debts cannot be repaid

Does deflation make debt easier or harder to repay? 🤔🤔🤔🤔

Again, an econ 101 class would really help you

hideshow 26 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (25 children)

Deflation makes debt harder to repay and it rewards the debt owners with greater purchasing power.

This means deflation is actually a good thing for half of the economy (the bond holders). Not the monster it is always made out as being.

Again. The amount of debt is the worry, not the gradual change in value of the denomination.

hideshow 25 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (24 children)

Again. The amount of debt is the worry

Does deflation increase or decrease the amount of debt? 🤔🤔🤔🤔

I could literally do this all day lol its effortless to just be correct. It must be exhausting to need to constantly spin the argument and futily reconcile the inconsistencies and mental gymnastics of your position.

hideshow 24 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (23 children)

Does deflation increase or decrease the amount of debt? 🤔🤔🤔🤔

Neither. If you currently owe $100 (interest free) then next year you still owe $100.

I could literally do this all day lol its effortless to just be correct.

Of course it's effortless. You are asking questions and not thinking for yourself. I'm the only one giving explanations and providing the correct responses.

hideshow 23 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (22 children)

Wrong, good try though. Yes, you owe $100, but each dollar is worth more, meaning you owe a greater "real value" (that's an econ 101 term you should look up), or in otherwords, the debt increased.

and providing the correct responses

😂

hideshow 22 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (21 children)

Nope. The debt is still $100. There is no increase.

Being slightly harder to pay back is irrelevant if there are now only $50 of assets in the economy.

The inability to repay debt caused the great depression, not deflation.

hideshow 21 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (20 children)

Nope nope! You're just denying deflation exists, now?? 😂 That'll work. This is where mental gymnastics gets you. Sad!

Well, looks like I've won.

hideshow 20 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (19 children)

Why is deflation bad?

hideshow 19 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (18 children)

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/030915/why-deflation-bad-economy.asp

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_deflation

hideshow 18 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (17 children)

Dude. Read what you post.

A little bit of deflation is a product of, and good for, economic growth. But, in the case of an economy-wide, central bank-fueled debt bubble followed by debt deflation when the bubble bursts, rapidly falling prices can go hand-in-hand with a financial crisis and recession.

Deflation isn't bad. It is a symptom that occurs after an economy-wide, central bank-fueled debt bubble. That's the bad part. The debt that's not being repaid.

This takes us right back to the start of the discussion. In a crypto economy a central bank doesn't even exist, so crypto deflation is never bad.

hideshow 17 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (16 children)

The debt that's not being repaid.

Does deflation make debt easier or harder to repay? 🤔🤔🤔🤔

In a crypto economy a central bank doesn't even exist, so crypto deflation is never bad.

😂😂😂😂

hideshow 16 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (15 children)

If you are expecting $100 and are only going to get back $50, are you happy that your purchasing power has increased and you are really getting $51 back, or are you angry that you've actually lost $49.

The crisis is the default, not the deflation.

hideshow 15 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)

That's not an economy.

Also LOL at the change in value being $1. Bitcoin is finite, permanently, forever. 100 years from now, 1000 years from now, bitcoin will continue to deflate year after year. At least gold can be mined, although at some point we will have extracted it all. The 2% deflation in your example is an absurd underestimation. Percentages in the hundreds to thousands is more realistic.

Deflationary currency is a great way to kill an economy, there's no motivation to invest and accept any risk when all you have to do to increase your wealth dramatically is wait, risk free. Economic activity comes to a grinding halt.

hideshow 14 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (13 children)

bitcoin will continue to deflate year after year. At least gold can be mined.

You know bitcoiners will still be mining for over 100 more years.

there's no motivation to invest and accept any risk when all you have to do to increase your wealth dramatically is wait, risk free.

Another lazy myth regurgitated. You were obviously an exam crammer, not a thinker.

People choose more over less. They will still invest in risk free bonds paying an interest rate because they will end up with more money. They will still invest in risky assets for the same reason if there were no deflation. More money.

hideshow 13 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

You know bitcoiners will still be mining for over 100 more years.

Technically "mining" does not end because there will always need to be more blocks if there are new transactions. Minting new coins that get awarded to miners is what ends in a bit over 100 years. And then what happens? My point stands.

Another lazy myth regurgitated. You were obviously an exam crammer, not a thinker.

It's fact. You can't even refute it besides desperate name calling and just stating the opposite. 😂 Sorry that reality isn't fun for you.

When your system entirely hinges on people not considering risk... 🤣 denying that risk is a factor in risk-reward calculus because "PeOpLe WaNt MoRe" is totally convincing, big winner of an argument. They want more, and they can get more... by doing absolutely nothing... so that's exactly what they'll do to get the more they want. They could get more by robbing a bank or selling their kidney!!!! Oh wait, that's right, risk... 🤦

hideshow 12 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)

desperate name calling

I'm not calling you names. I'm saying you have demonstrated no ability to think independently. I don't think you are a LLM but likely you are copy pasting from one.

You can't even refute it

I did. You seem unable to process the responses I write or even the links you post.

When your system entirely hinges on people not considering risk.

I wrote the opposite. That under deflation people will still make risky investments because it will make them money. Yet again you demonstrate an inability to comprehend.

They want more, and they can get more... by doing absolutely nothing...

Money under the mattress earns deflation
Money invested earns deflation + interest.

The second is more than the first.

I think we've reached your limits in this topic.

hideshow 11 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

Ah yes, accusing one of using an LLM, a sure sign of winning the argument 🤣

Money invested earns deflation + interest.

That's incorrect, money LOANED earns deflation + interest, not money invested. Money invested loses out on the deflation.

You have 1BTC. You exchange the 1BTC for 1 unit of an investment. As BTC deflates, it's buying power increases. When you go to sell your investment, you find that 1BTC still buys 1 unit of the investment, even though your investment grew in value during the same period of time. You could have done nothing to get the same result, without risking the volatile investment losing value instead of gaining. The higher the return needed to outpace deflation, the riskier the investment needs to be. Deflation worked against the investment, not with it.

Inflationary currency motivates investment and consumption. When your money is going to lose some value anyway, you might as well take a risk and invest it for a potential reward. You might as well make that large purchase today, because your money will buy a little less tomorrow. This is healthy for the economy.

You are correct that deflation adds on top of interest, which makes loans more expensive. This stifles an economy by decreasing demand/consumption and the flow of money through the economy. When loans are more expensive to pay back, people are discouraged from taking a business loan and starting a new business or taking out a loan and investing it or using it to make a large purchase.

I think we've reached your limits in this topic.

Lol I'm literally giving you a free education. You should be paying me for this. It's something that you're still responding after your argument has been torn to shreds with my every reply, without fail. The name calling and LLM accusations creep in as you start to realize you're wrong and desperately cling to denial. The cracks are already showing lol. Getting tired of trying to spin inconsistencies? Like I said, it's effortless to just be correct.

hideshow 10 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

In order to loan out money and charge interest, someone needs to agree to the terms on the other side of the exchange.

Agreed.

When there is inflation a higher amount of interest is accepted by the lender to compensate this loss.
When there is deflation a lower amount of interest is accepted by the lender.

The economy doesn't grind to a halt. People don't horde cash. Consumption still occurs. Services are still performed.

Even if deflation means the value of money increases every year, people will still lend out their money because they would like to have more than money than if they did nothing.

find that 1BTC still buys 1 unit of the investment instrument, even though your investment grew in value during the same period of time.

So you made a bad investment in something that wasn't needed. Invest more wisely. This is basic economics.

It's impressive that you're still responding after your argument has been torn to shreds

It's good practice and helps hone my ideas.

Deflation is the answer to the infinite growth required by capitalism. It should be embraced, not avoided.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

The economy doesn't grind to a halt. People don't horde cash. Consumption still occurs. Services are still performed.

Again, facts and history disagree with you. See the great depression and other economic downturns.

people will still lend out their money because they would like to have more than money than if they did nothing

Again, risk exists and is half of the risk-reward calculation. When your system entirely hinges on risk not existing... big sign that you're wrong lol.

So you made a bad investment in something that wasn't needed. Invest more wisely. This is basic economics.

It's a demonstration of the relationship between deflation and investment. And yes, it is basic economics. 😂

Invest more wisely

Invest with less risk? More risk? Or you're saying "just predict the future correctly" 🤔 I wonder if you'd learn something about this in an econ 101 class.

Deflation is the answer to the infinite growth required by capitalism. It should be embraced, not avoided.

Gee, you're literally dead wrong, and the experts agree with me. It's inflation, not deflation, that is required for growth. There's a reason the government targets a rate of 2% inflation per year.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

Again, facts and history disagree with you. See the great depression and other economic downturns.

Read the links you posted. Debt default was the crisis. Deflation was a symptom.

When your system entirely hinges on risk not existing... big sign that you're wrong lol.

I have no idea why you claim my "system" has nothing risk. Reread this thread to correct your misunderstanding.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I have no idea why you claim my "system" has nothing risk. Reread this thread to correct your misunderstanding.

You need a higher return on investment in order to outpace deflation and make investing worth your while. Do assets with a higher potential return have more risk or do they have less risk?

Also I'm just going to keep posting these 2 paragraphs every comment until you actually address them lol:

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

You need a higher return on investment in order to outpace deflation

No, in an inflationary environment you demand a higher return on investment in order to outpace inflation. Look at Argentina if you are confused.

Deflation is the opposite of inflation. Keep up.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Nope, you literally have it backwards. No wonder you've got this all wrong.

If your money increases in value at a 5% rate (deflating), and a share of stock also increases in value at a 5% rate, then there's no reason to exchange your money for the stock. The stock needs to increase in value at a higher rate in order to make it worthwhile to give up the currency and possess the stock instead.

Inflation is opposite. For example, if your money is decreasing in value at a 2% rate (inflating), the stock doesn't even need to increase in value for it to be better. It would be worthwhile to exchange the money for the stock even if it was just holding a stable constant value.

Which is riskier, a stock that has a potential return of +5% or a stock that holds a stable value?

Rate of return needs to beat/outpace deflation. Technically you're half right, because rate of return ALSO needs to beat inflation, it's just easier to do because inflation is negative, so even investments that don't grow and just hold a stable value beat inflation. Which is why inflation encourages investment and stimulates and grows the economy.

As promised:

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

When your money is going to gain some value, you might as well take a risk and invest it for an even greater potential reward.

People always want more money.

Deflation does encourage delayed consumption of none staples and big ticket items. This is a feature not a bug.

You are correct that deflation adds on top of interest, which makes loans more expensive.

No. There is less interest charged on loans in a deflationary environment. Loans are cheaper. Remember the Argentinian counterexample ? Inflation high, interest rates high.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If you're an individual investor, given the choice between the 2 scenarios, would you rather exist in a world with 2% deflation, where you have to make more than a 2% return on investment in order for it to have been worthwhile, or a world with 2% inflation, where you don't even need to correctly pick a growing investment, and even an investment that just holds a stable value is worthwhile.

The choice is obvious, of course the individual would rather have the deflation scenario, because then they don't even need to invest or take any risk to grow their wealth. They can literally just sit around and do nothing, and their wealth grows for free without any risk.

But this is naive and childish to think that an environment where you just get free wealth for no reason by doing nothing is healthy for an economy as a whole.

Argentina had very high inflation, and I agree that's bad. The amount of inflation is key. What dictates the amount of inflation that is healthy? Hint: you'll have to scroll all the way to the beginning of this lesson in order to know. (jk I'll just tell you here, it relates to the growth rate of the economy). Argentina's inflation was out of sync with its economic growth.

Technically, deflation isn't always theoretically bad and inflation isn't always theoretically good, but we live in a reality of moderate economic growth, so therefore moderate inflation is required to maintain it.

And now we've circled back to the start and my position has remained entirely self-consistent, while yours has been easy to poke full of holes and point out the inconsistencies.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

If you're an individual investor, given the choice between the 2 scenarios, would you rather exist in a world with 2% deflation, where you have to make more than a 2% return on investment in order for it to have been worthwhile, or a world with 2% inflation, where you don't even need to correctly pick a growing investment, and even an investment that just holds a stable value is worthwhile.

Deflation world. Invest $100 in a 2% risk free bond for a year. End up with $102 nominal ($104 real)

Inflation world. Invest $100 in a 2% risk free bond for a year. End up with $102 nominal ($100 real)

As an investor, the deflation world looks better to me.

But this is naive and childish to think that an environment where you just get free wealth for no reason by doing nothing is healthy for an economy as a whole.

You are literally describing the current world of investment. You have to go full communist to live in your "healthy" world.

I suspect this is not at all what you meant to write, but it's hilarious that came out like this.

we live in a reality of moderate economic growth, so therefore moderate inflation is required to maintain it.

This is not true. But you may be referring to the money supply rather than price inflation so I'll let it pass.

Technically, deflation isn't always theoretically bad and inflation isn't always theoretically good.

Agreed. We could leave the discussion here and part amicably.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago

You are literally describing the current world of investment. You have to go full communist to live in your "healthy" world.

The current world of investment involves returns without risk? 😂

Given you're demonstrated lack of understanding of even the most basic fundamentals of economics, I can already tell you can't actually correctly describe communism. Seems like at this point you're just typing words that you think sound smart. There wasn't really any coming back from when you mixed up loans and investments, and got deflation and inflation entirely backwards lol.

This is not true.

But it is true, and expert economists agree with me. Sorry! You're wrong again.

you may be referring to the money supply rather than price inflation

Duh. I can't believe you're only getting this at this point in the conversation, but at least you're starting to figure it out?