No trickle...
-
When the nixon administration abandoned the gold standard, stock prices rose, too. It's the same mechanism: avoid having cash as the currency devalues.
Is it atypical to learn this in school?
In American schools?
Normal public schools?
Economics is an elective, only available at fairly good schools, usually only taken by overachievers.
Most US Public schools don't even teach the basics of taxes or finances as it applies to an average person who is going to like, work a job that is taxed, buy a car with a loan.
Our education system has been intentionally destroyed by Republican
s for decades, the result is that roughly within +/- 2 years of when I graduated college... US average adult literacy rate has been plummeting.The average US adult now reads at a 6th grade level, average math skills are also terrible.
Uneducated people are easier to lie to and trick.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Daily reminder that "higher GDP is good for the economy" is now a wildly disproven myth from the days before economics was a science, by a guy who said we'd get a 15 hour work week.
Monetary inflation is bad. The nitwits who jump in saying "ackchually velocity" are suckers who paid to learn the lie, whose jobs may depend on the lie, and would be very embarrassed to be wrong. Bailouts weren't the exception - they're the rule.
We've been robbed by the 0.1% and don't need to take it anymore.
-
Oh, sorry. I'm definitely not trying to argue against the idea that the economy is shit or that the ever widening chasm between the "classes" is a massive fucking problem.
I'm fairly outspoken online about how I feel like the social justice movement (while critically important) that rose out of the ashes of Occupy Wallstreet was a ploy to get everyone below the 1% fighting each other. Won't go as far to say the only war is class war, but it's for sure the most inportant one.
I was specifically focused on the headline's claim of 60% using BNPL for groceries. We shouldn't need "alternative facts" to make our point.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I didn't think you were arguing that, no worries m8.
I was just trying to throw in some relevant numbers to attempt a more realistic estimate of the situation.
I agree with you that the 60% figure for BNPL is not actually evidenced, and is likely an exageration, so I tried to do the author's work better than they did and come up with a more defensible figure.
I used to be a copy editor for a while, and oh man, yeah, it absolutely annoys me to no end when a person tries to argue in a direction I generally agree with, but they do so sloppily, with bad citations, logical leaps, lack of approoriate levels of knowledge leading to them making inferences and deductions that do not actually follow.
-
In exchange for you being able to buy things before you can afford them, they’re priced so it would take decades to save up.
To some degree, you're probably right. However, no matter how you look at it, building an apartment complex or even a single house, costs much more resources than what most people have saved up at any given time. So no. It's not just a matter of "competing" or that things are over-priced. Large infrastructure is just expensive to build, because it costs a bunch of man hours and materials to build it.
I totally agree. But no individual should be building an apartment complex, should they? Who should build it? The city, the community, the future occupants... People should get together and put their money in a pile
This should not be an investment to extract rent and profit, it should be an investment today into the future, not through debt, but to plant trees for the future
Houses are too expensive to build as an individual? Then we're doing something wrong. Maybe we don't run electricity to every corner. Maybe we build them out of stone, so they last forever. Maybe we make them out of wood and plaster so they can last centuries. Maybe we make them out of glorified paper, so they're easy to build. Maybe we don't have central air, but use passive cooling and run an AC to certain rooms. Maybe they should be smaller and easier to build
There are other ways of doing things, better ways that will mean slower progress but stability
You shouldn't be able to leverage the future, we should always be investing into tomorrow today
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's like Robin Hood in reverse.
-
Idk about you, but while I was getting my free engineering degree in Norway I still had to pay for rent and food.
In principle, I could have studied part-time instead of full time, while working some job that doesn't require a degree, but I don't see how that would benefit anyone. Regardless, even if you have housing and food covered while studying, you still need money for books, paper, a computer, etc. so either you need a job (which, for a lot of degrees, means you'll be studying part-time), or you need a loan.
You don't need a loan, you need somewhere to live and food
Maybe students just get free dorms and a meal plan by default, and we work that into the cost of education and pay for it as a society
-
There are many examples of this being essentially the status quo in many places and historical eras and essentially it just makes housing availability worse since only the ultra wealthy can afford to build expensive structures and they just accumulate more wealth and power. Think about in the middle ages when a local lord would have to foot the bill to build townhouses completely up front but he and his descendants would retain ownership of them and demand payment to live in them for hundreds of years to come. There are places where access to credit is poor today where people basically live in makeshift shacks if they don't rent because they can't afford to buy houses otherwise. There are a lot of ways to fix land ownership and exploitation by landlords, but historically speaking, this was not it. I know nobody likes living in debt and debt can be used for exploitation, but completely abolishing credit simply will not have good outcomes as a whole.
Feudalism had a lot of good points structurally, replace the lord with public servants and I don't see the problem. The city builds the housing, and it becomes part of the tax revenue forever. If the city prices basic housing too high, economic activity falls, tax revenue falls, and the city declines
Shanty towns aren't good, but we haven't fixed the problem, we just have homelessness now
-
Feudalism had a lot of good points structurally, replace the lord with public servants and I don't see the problem. The city builds the housing, and it becomes part of the tax revenue forever. If the city prices basic housing too high, economic activity falls, tax revenue falls, and the city declines
Shanty towns aren't good, but we haven't fixed the problem, we just have homelessness now
Debt is bad, fuedalism is good. Got it lmao.
-
"Debt brained"? Dude, "debt" has existed as long as humanity has existed. You're the one who's "debt brained" for thinking it's a bad thing. That's just society.
In a society people do favours for each-other and what makes it a society is that the person who had a favour done for them acknowledges that as a member of that society, they should try to pay the favour back at some point, otherwise they just seem like a drain on that society. That doesn't mean that you can't also have gifts, it just means that sometimes aid isn't given as a form of gift, it's given with an expectation that at some future point the giftee will become the gifter.
That's just totally incorrect. Most people throughout history didn't even use money, let alone debt. Taxes were paid in grain, livestock, and essentially community service
Debt created money, but money is not as old as humanity. It's not required, it's not coded into our genes
And counting favors is widely accepted to be shitty behavior. It's transactional, it's low trust
You can just do favors, and call the guy who never helps out a lazy asshole. They're unreliable so people eventually don't want to help them, and we have all sorts of fairy tales about it
-
Debt is bad, fuedalism is good. Got it lmao.
Feudalism didn't make us destroy the entire world, did it?
What were doing clearly isn't working, maybe there's something to democratic feudalism. Seriously, it fixes a lot of issues and all I see are engineering problems
-
It's like Robin Hood in reverse.
Robin Socks
-
That's just totally incorrect. Most people throughout history didn't even use money, let alone debt. Taxes were paid in grain, livestock, and essentially community service
Debt created money, but money is not as old as humanity. It's not required, it's not coded into our genes
And counting favors is widely accepted to be shitty behavior. It's transactional, it's low trust
You can just do favors, and call the guy who never helps out a lazy asshole. They're unreliable so people eventually don't want to help them, and we have all sorts of fairy tales about it
That's just totally incorrect. Most people throughout history didn't even use money, let alone debt.
You need to read "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" by David Graeber. Debt goes back a lot longer than money, and has been part of human existence for as long as that existence has been recorded.
There is no human civilization without debt.
-
That's by design, the money flows from the average American to the companies. Then slowly trickles into the pockets of the ceo's.
"Slowly"
-
Canadian here, what's "AfterPay"? and PLEASE don't tell me it's like layaway or a payday loan or something.
Yeah, basically a payday loan you can do from your phone. I'm sure this won't crash the economy.
-
This is not debt, and I maintain my point. Debt is wrong
If you lend out your pen and they break or lose it, a little bit of trust between you dies. And this is something inevitable over time. If you give your pen to them and they give it back once they get their own pen, trust is built. If they don't, that's fine too... Because you gave it to them
You can't count favors, and you shouldn't have debts. Debts ruin relationships, it feels bad from both sides. It feels bad to know they owe you, it feels bad to owe a debt. It feels like a relief to have it paid back, but it doesn't feel good
You should help people, but when you give someone money to start their business you should never expect it back. You can spread ideas like honor and gratitude, but if the business fails you shouldn't feel like you lost something
If you take care of your parents because they raised you like a child, you're asking for elder abuse. In these cultures, the parents try to chip in however they can... In hard times historically they'd wander out into the wilderness to avoid burdening the family.
But the term for this is not debt, it's duty. A good person is patient with their children and their parents. A good person does what they can for their family, the whole way through
Shitty people take out their anger on their children and resent their parents for every bite of food
It is debt, even if you fail to see that
-
Daily reminder that "higher GDP is good for the economy" is now a wildly disproven myth from the days before economics was a science, by a guy who said we'd get a 15 hour work week.
Monetary inflation is bad. The nitwits who jump in saying "ackchually velocity" are suckers who paid to learn the lie, whose jobs may depend on the lie, and would be very embarrassed to be wrong. Bailouts weren't the exception - they're the rule.
We've been robbed by the 0.1% and don't need to take it anymore.
Adding to this: GDP only measures the amount of money spent on stuff, not the actual value of the things. That's one of the reasons that makes economists think untouched nature is bad, it doesn't contribute to the GDP
-
Sadly, Americans are groomed at a young age to dive deep into debt early in life. It has become normalized for most of the population to carry some form of debt (credit cards and student loans are popular choices).
Most people don't even bother making a budget — a task that only needs to be done once a month, and is easier now than ever, thanks to technology.
It has become normalized for most of the population to carry some form of debt.
Not just normalized, Required. Credit scores aren't based on how likely you are to pay off a loan, but on how likely you are to make the creditor money. If you take out loans and pay them off ahead of schedule, it will fuck with your credit. If you close an old credit card after you pay it off, it will fuck up your credit.
Want a house? You better have 400k cash laying around, or have been paying interest on cards and loans for 10 years to establish a good credit score. Want a decent apartment? They check your credit score too! Did I mention that every single job I've applied for has run a credit check on me?
FYI, Equifax leaked literally everyone's personal info after collecting it and selling it without consent. They still operate as one of the major credit score providers.
-
You don't need a loan, you need somewhere to live and food
Maybe students just get free dorms and a meal plan by default, and we work that into the cost of education and pay for it as a society
wrote last edited by [email protected]I would be all for that. But at that point we're talking about a restricted form of UBI (which would be nice), and a significant restructuring of how parts of society work.
I'm saying that the way society works now you need a loan to finance housing and food while studying. I'm also saying that's not an inherently bad thing, as long as the loans aren't exploitative. That loan lets you use money that you earn back once you get your degree (given that the system works as it should, which in this case it largely does where I'm from).
-
Budget? You pay what bills are most important now, and just buy the cheapest food possible. That's all there is to it
In that case, a monthly budget is even more important – and might be pretty simple
-
I totally agree. But no individual should be building an apartment complex, should they? Who should build it? The city, the community, the future occupants... People should get together and put their money in a pile
This should not be an investment to extract rent and profit, it should be an investment today into the future, not through debt, but to plant trees for the future
Houses are too expensive to build as an individual? Then we're doing something wrong. Maybe we don't run electricity to every corner. Maybe we build them out of stone, so they last forever. Maybe we make them out of wood and plaster so they can last centuries. Maybe we make them out of glorified paper, so they're easy to build. Maybe we don't have central air, but use passive cooling and run an AC to certain rooms. Maybe they should be smaller and easier to build
There are other ways of doing things, better ways that will mean slower progress but stability
You shouldn't be able to leverage the future, we should always be investing into tomorrow today
There is literally no way you will build a decent modern house without thousands of man-hours, only in the construction itself. That's before you count the hours needed for getting the materials you need.
It's unreasonable to posit that we should design our society such that you need to save up enough money to finance something like that up-front in order to build a house. Why not go for the (current) solution, where I can loan money to finance the house, then pay that back once I have stable living conditions (because I now have a house)?
