Redefinitions From The Left

[Fife]

What's "fixed money?"

[Speaker to Animals]

LOL

You two are all over the place.

The money supply by itself is irrelevant. It only exists to lubricate trade, and talking about it unrelated to purchasing power is meaningless. The only way to make its value consistent would be to fix prices.

This is why they locked almost all of the QE money away. It existed, on paper, only to cover banks expenses, but was to be kept out of the flow of currency until it could be paid back. That was the whole point. The value of currency only really exists when it is moving. They didn't actually print a shitload of bills and just toss them into the economy.

This is wrong. Every sentence is wrong.

[Martin Hash]

Here's some brain food:

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

LOL

You two are all over the place.

The money supply by itself is irrelevant. It only exists to lubricate trade, and talking about it unrelated to purchasing power is meaningless. The only way to make its value consistent would be to fix prices.

This is why they locked almost all of the QE money away. It existed, on paper, only to cover banks expenses, but was to be kept out of the flow of currency until it could be paid back. That was the whole point. The value of currency only really exists when it is moving. They didn't actually print a shitload of bills and just toss them into the economy.

This is wrong. Every sentence is wrong.

Do you really not understand this, or are you just being a pain in the ass?

Capitalism 101: You can print money all day, every day, and if you just bury it, it will have no effect on the money in your pocket. It isn't about currency supply, it is about currency movement.

This is the whole point of the FED: to secure currency and keep value relatively stable for consumer/investor confidence in order to keep trade active and markets dynamic. This is how Capitalism beats command economies, but it doesn't work if everyone hoards currency, which they are bound to do in an economic downturn if the value of currency is static.

This is the problem with you metal fetishists, you want to have your cake and eat it. You want all the benefits of dynamic markets, but you want your own personal hoard not to be subject to dynamic purchasing power.

You keep saying I am wrong, but have utterly failed to define the 'intrinsic value' of precious metals uncoupled from USD, which isn't 'intrinsically valuable,' or how they could operate as tokens of exchange without being subject to variations in purchasing power relative to other commodities.

The video in question features someone who has, maybe, taken one intro to econ course at a community college attempting to 'explain' something he clearly doesn't understand.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Red herring fallacy.

Fixing the value of money to a commodity is not the same thing as fixing the size of the money supply.

They are not even the same sense of the word fix.


Lame.

The money supply by itself is irrelevant. It only exists to lubricate trade, and talking about it unrelated to purchasing power is meaningless. The only way to make its value consistent would be to fix prices.

This is why they locked almost all of the QE money away. It existed, on paper, only to cover banks expenses, but was to be kept out of the flow of currency until it could be paid back. That was the whole point. The value of currency only really exists when it is moving. They didn't actually print a shitload of bills and just toss them into the economy.

Unless you have the value of money tied to something else, then the money supply is the ONLY determinant of its value. It's the same as any other resource.

If I can get 100 'fed reserve notes' for an hour of work, then those notes are worth less than if I can only get 10 of them. The numbers may get bigger or smaller, but the purchasing power, or "wealth" is the same. I'm still trading an hour of work for an hour's work worth of goods/service.
If money was raining from the sky, it would have zero value. Same as every other good/service of any kind - scarcity determines value. If you print off a billion of those notes, then all notes have less value.

If you tie the value to a set amount of gold/silver/conch shells, then it cannot inflate/deflate unless the amount of gold/silver/conch shells changes. I can't print off more notes unless I have more gold. The original dollar was literally an IOU for a nugget of gold, redeemable (at least in theory) for a set amount of metal placed into your hand.

Now, it's simply "whatever, here's some paper" and you hope that people always will take it for stuff. And, unless this is the Final Currency Of Humanity, they won't. Someday, dollars will be completely worthless, and we'll trade for stuff with yuan, marks, or who-knows-what. The only assets that ALWAYS retain value are gold and land. Maybe artwork, if it's valuable already.

[DBTrek]

We've achieved the highest quality of life for the greatest amount of humans ever, and luddites are all like "It's just paper tho".


They're all just mad that people smarter than themselves created more effective systems.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Red herring fallacy.

Fixing the value of money to a commodity is not the same thing as fixing the size of the money supply.

They are not even the same sense of the word fix.


Lame.

The money supply by itself is irrelevant. It only exists to lubricate trade, and talking about it unrelated to purchasing power is meaningless. The only way to make its value consistent would be to fix prices.

This is why they locked almost all of the QE money away. It existed, on paper, only to cover banks expenses, but was to be kept out of the flow of currency until it could be paid back. That was the whole point. The value of currency only really exists when it is moving. They didn't actually print a shitload of bills and just toss them into the economy.

Unless you have the value of money tied to something else, then the money supply is the ONLY determinant of its value. It's the same as any other resource.

If I can get 100 'fed reserve notes' for an hour of work, then those notes are worth less than if I can only get 10 of them. The numbers may get bigger or smaller, but the purchasing power, or "wealth" is the same. I'm still trading an hour of work for an hour's work worth of goods/service.
If money was raining from the sky, it would have zero value. Same as every other good/service of any kind - scarcity determines value. If you print off a billion of those notes, then all notes have less value.

If you tie the value to a set amount of gold/silver/conch shells, then it cannot inflate/deflate unless the amount of gold/silver/conch shells changes. I can't print off more notes unless I have more gold. The original dollar was literally an IOU for a nugget of gold, redeemable (at least in theory) for a set amount of metal placed into your hand.

Now, it's simply "whatever, here's some paper" and you hope that people always will take it for stuff. And, unless this is the Final Currency Of Humanity, they won't. Someday, dollars will be completely worthless, and we'll trade for stuff with yuan, marks, or who-knows-what. The only assets that ALWAYS retain value are gold and land. Maybe artwork, if it's valuable already.

100 notes or 10 notes is totally irrelevant since you can break the 10 notes into 1/10th notes. There value in relation to purchasing power is the same, everything else being equal.

'It is just paper' is no different than 'it is just metal.' The paper is actually more stable than the metal because there is only one source for it, and it is strictly controlled, but the actual material that the token of exchange is made out of is totally meaningless.

And money could rain from the sky and be very valuable indeed if it wasn't effecting prices. It only effects prices if it is being used. Scarcity doesn't determine value in a vacuum. Supply is just one half of the basic equation.

If you tie the value to a set amount of gold/silver/conch shells, then it cannot inflate/deflate unless the amount of gold/silver/conch shells changes. I can't print off more notes unless I have more gold. The original dollar was literally an IOU for a nugget of gold, redeemable (at least in theory) for a set amount of metal placed into your hand.

The point is that gold buried in the ground, while existing, doesn't effect the equation because it isn't circulating. Plus, even if a single note was tied to a certain amount of gold, it wouldn't matter because the purchasing power of that gold can still fluctuate. Now a note is an IOU for any commodity of your choosing, which is a much better lubricant for trade.

[Fife]

it is strictly controlled

A bunch of y'all HAF.

Central planners gonna central plan. Kings gonna king. Venezuela FTW!

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

it is strictly controlled

A bunch of y'all HAF.

Central planners gonna central plan. Kings gonna king. Venezuela FTW!

Controlling the tokens isn't the same as centrally planning the economy. A total lack of token control would be just as much a disaster as Venezuela.

Dynamic markets are good, free markets are anarchic and unreliable. The Ancap fantasy of economic growth and robust trade without a FED is as much of a unicorn rainbow fart as 'getting socialism right this time.'

[SuburbanFarmer]

The money supply by itself is irrelevant. It only exists to lubricate trade, and talking about it unrelated to purchasing power is meaningless. The only way to make its value consistent would be to fix prices.

This is why they locked almost all of the QE money away. It existed, on paper, only to cover banks expenses, but was to be kept out of the flow of currency until it could be paid back. That was the whole point. The value of currency only really exists when it is moving. They didn't actually print a shitload of bills and just toss them into the economy.

Unless you have the value of money tied to something else, then the money supply is the ONLY determinant of its value. It's the same as any other resource.

If I can get 100 'fed reserve notes' for an hour of work, then those notes are worth less than if I can only get 10 of them. The numbers may get bigger or smaller, but the purchasing power, or "wealth" is the same. I'm still trading an hour of work for an hour's work worth of goods/service.
If money was raining from the sky, it would have zero value. Same as every other good/service of any kind - scarcity determines value. If you print off a billion of those notes, then all notes have less value.

If you tie the value to a set amount of gold/silver/conch shells, then it cannot inflate/deflate unless the amount of gold/silver/conch shells changes. I can't print off more notes unless I have more gold. The original dollar was literally an IOU for a nugget of gold, redeemable (at least in theory) for a set amount of metal placed into your hand.

Now, it's simply "whatever, here's some paper" and you hope that people always will take it for stuff. And, unless this is the Final Currency Of Humanity, they won't. Someday, dollars will be completely worthless, and we'll trade for stuff with yuan, marks, or who-knows-what. The only assets that ALWAYS retain value are gold and land. Maybe artwork, if it's valuable already.

100 notes or 10 notes is totally irrelevant since you can break the 10 notes into 1/10th notes. There value in relation to purchasing power is the same, everything else being equal.

Everything else is not equal. That was the point I was making.

'It is just paper' is no different than 'it is just metal.' The paper is actually more stable than the metal because there is only one source for it, and it is strictly controlled, but the actual material that the token of exchange is made out of is totally meaningless.

It's a deeper statement than that. Not saying simply that 'painted wood pulp is less valuable', but that there is nothing making that paper valuable, other than hoodwinks and momentum.
And it's a whole hell of a lot easier to print off a cool trillion in paper (or not even bother, and just add zeros to the treasury), than it would be to dig up another trillion in gold. Which is how we got here.

And money could rain from the sky and be very valuable indeed if it wasn't effecting prices. It only effects prices if it is being used. Scarcity doesn't determine value in a vacuum. Supply is just one half of the basic equation.

It would be valuable for about 3 seconds, until everyone else saw it raining.

If you tie the value to a set amount of gold/silver/conch shells, then it cannot inflate/deflate unless the amount of gold/silver/conch shells changes. I can't print off more notes unless I have more gold. The original dollar was literally an IOU for a nugget of gold, redeemable (at least in theory) for a set amount of metal placed into your hand.

The point is that gold buried in the ground, while existing, doesn't effect the equation because it isn't circulating. Plus, even if a single note was tied to a certain amount of gold, it wouldn't matter because the purchasing power of that gold can still fluctuate. Now a note is an IOU for any commodity of your choosing, which is a much better lubricant for trade.[/quote]

Sure, but the notes for it were circulating just fine. The purchasing power of gold is one of the most stable things around - or was, until it was untied from currency. Now it's subject to massive speculative swings, and moves based on the US currency value - not the other way round.
Prior to that, it was extremely stable, along with land.

Consider the world prior to global currency. Medieval/ancient lords had land and gold. Not "the idea of faith" in value, but rock-hard, true assets. That's what made them lords - the land that they owned, and the gold they dug out of it. If the SHTF, we will quickly revert to exactly that - assets = wealth. Everything "financial" is pure fantasy, that we choose to live by - nothing more. You can build a whole economy around Dollars/Credits/Dingleberries, but the only thing that matters in the end is the actual assets.