Creative Title
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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:
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. This is bad for the economy.
-
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:
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. This is bad for the economy.
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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:
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. This is bad for the economy.
-
Or what happens when governments ban crypo exchanges?
I think the real answer is for us (the electorate) to start electing officials who aren't puritanical twats. Way way harder to do tough.
Is this a serious question? Crypto is inherently decentralised and anonymous, from the base technology of the blockchain. The existence of crypto exchanges is directly opposed to its entire thesis as a digital currency, and only exist because people now treat it like a speculative asset and not like money.
-
cryptocurrency is absolutely not going to be a substitute. what happens when your client's money drops in value halfway through working on their commission?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Could use a stablecoin that's pegged to USD or EUR.
USDC seems relatively safe given how much traditional investment is tied up in Coinbase and Circle.
-
Is this a serious question? Crypto is inherently decentralised and anonymous, from the base technology of the blockchain. The existence of crypto exchanges is directly opposed to its entire thesis as a digital currency, and only exist because people now treat it like a speculative asset and not like money.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Would make it difficult to on/off-ramp though. Though I guess, theoretically, it wouldn't be necessary if you can use it for payment.
-
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:
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. This is bad for the economy.
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.
-
I don't get it. Will they also ban sex shops, adult cinemas and every other offline adult entertainment thing that exist?
Yeah, that's literally what these people want.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
Not really a meme meme, but i felt like i had to :s
wrote last edited by [email protected]This is why some of us love crypto currencies so much despite the hate it gets from so many who claim there is no intrinsic value, it's a scam, etc.
Stay away from shit coins, no doubt, but the intrinsic value is that you can side step all of the bullshit and spend your money as you choose. No need to get permission first. It's looking to be a much better path forward, and payment processors inserting their own rules will only drive more acceptance of alternative payment methods.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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?
-
Is this a serious question? Crypto is inherently decentralised and anonymous, from the base technology of the blockchain. The existence of crypto exchanges is directly opposed to its entire thesis as a digital currency, and only exist because people now treat it like a speculative asset and not like money.
Yes it's decentralized and very hard to stop to parties from making a crypto transaction. But what about cases where you need to convert your crypto to say euros because the person/business you need to pay doesn't accept crypto? Don't you need an exchange for that?
How easy/ widely accepted is it to pay for things using crypto (gas, rent, mortgage etc.)?
The point I was trying to make is that if paying for stuff in crypto isn't ubiquitous, it's far less practical as a form of currency.
-
what even is the point of this cyberpunk dystopia if there won't even be good porn to wank to?
Thatās my thought exactly. Boring dystopia indeed.
-
Not really a meme meme, but i felt like i had to :s
Now imagine someone who is not the last person in Europe, but the last person in the world lol...
-
Collective Shout happened, an australian organisation decided to wage global war on anything NSFW in games (so far), their key talking points are allegedly being feminist and anti-exploitation of women.
i wonder if they asked the women they're saying they're protecting if they want that "protection", or if they're imagining that women just don't make NSFW art
wrote last edited by [email protected]Why would they ask? They know whatās best for everyone. All people. All around the world.
/s
-
Collective Shout happened, an australian organisation decided to wage global war on anything NSFW in games (so far), their key talking points are allegedly being feminist and anti-exploitation of women.
i wonder if they asked the women they're saying they're protecting if they want that "protection", or if they're imagining that women just don't make NSFW art
Their (collective shout) open letter to these companies has a headline like "you are profiting from exploitation" basically, but worse. I guess the card networks were thinking about their stock price or something when they made the decision.
-
Yes it's decentralized and very hard to stop to parties from making a crypto transaction. But what about cases where you need to convert your crypto to say euros because the person/business you need to pay doesn't accept crypto? Don't you need an exchange for that?
How easy/ widely accepted is it to pay for things using crypto (gas, rent, mortgage etc.)?
The point I was trying to make is that if paying for stuff in crypto isn't ubiquitous, it's far less practical as a form of currency.
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but just a note that the alternstive to exchanges is peer to peer trading of cash/crypto where two individuals agree to swap. Obviously a lot more tedious and hard to do that, but with the right tools and mass adoption it could be feesible.
If the government wants to ban crypto all together though, i doubt any solution could exist.
-
two steps forward ten steps back, eh?
Man. I remember being a kid and dreaming about a world where puritans got laughed out of existence. Then we had the āwokeā era which shocked me sideways. I never dreamed that progressive thinking people would get hung up on regressive shit like policing language, it reminded me of being in church as a kid and hearing about those dreaded, awful, naughty words. But hey, at least their goals were well meaning and driven by empathy and concern for how other people have it in this world.
Who did they piss off though? The fucking puritans. The very people who policed language all of my childhood. It turns out that nothing ever meant anything to them, they just wanted to control people. āDonāt tell me I canāt call a little person a midget! Bad words is fuck and shit! Not me making fun of people!!!ā One group said, āif itās fun itās bad.ā The other group said, āif anyone is hurt by it, itās bad.ā
Now the puritans have gone full fascist because they felt like they were losing some culture war, so they want it all, and they scream loud enough to be heard.
Itās like this tug of war that is just going to end with regular people who donāt raise hell when they get upset being shoved into the dirt by a loud crybaby minority of people.
Before I had any grasp of history, I just assumed that people were always heading toward being more liberal in how they deal with the world.
Nope, this is what we do. We have cycles of enlightenment and cycles of assholes responding to said enlightenment. Somebody always has to be morally superior, fighting some ugly enemy. If we ran out of reasons to fight tomorrow, weād just argue over some other dumb shit.
Iām drunk, so please donāt take me too seriously. Iāll probably wake up tomorrow and argue with myself about deleting this comment haha.
Whatever happens, I really hope we have freedom at the end of the day. I donāt care what it costs. Maybe we arenāt meant to have it. Maybe our nature is just too ugly.
-
Not really a meme meme, but i felt like i had to :s
TupĆ£ bless Brazil's pix.
At least I can still buy porn from local furry artists.
