What are your thoughts on BitCoin?

[Zardnaar]

Seems a real world reference might be in order here.

View attachment 554003

Prime example why you can't print unlimited money.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Seems a real world reference might be in order here.

View attachment 554003

there's nothing out of the ordinary to see here, I remember German Reichsmark in equally ridiculous numbers, after all hyperinflation is a logical consequence of capitalism, which always must come with ups and downs

 

[Lexicus]

there's nothing out of the ordinary to see here, I remember German Reichsmark in equally ridiculous numbers, after all hyperinflation is a logical consequence of capitalism, which always must come with ups and downs

Hyperinflation isn't exactly a logical consequence of capitalism, but it has never in all the history of floating exchange-rate fiat currencies resulted simply from "printing too much money." The German Reichsmark hyperinflated as a result of the drastic drop in real output in Germany associated with WW1, the political dislocation of the German Revolution, and the Versailles obligations.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Hyperinflation isn't exactly a logical consequence of capitalism

how is inflation not a logical consequence of presumed infinite growth? yes, you can keep inflation at bay with various tweaks, but that only strengthens my argument in that it needs to be there in the first place in order to be counteracted, it manifests always, just like stockmarkets always will have ups and downs irregardless of, detached from the empirical realities of production

 

[Cutlass]

how is inflation not a logical consequence of presumed infinite growth?

Why would it be?

 

[Birdjaguar]

how is inflation not a logical consequence of presumed infinite growth?

Infinite growth? How measured?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Why would it be?

more growth requires more production, but human needs, especially biological functions, stay exactly the same. more things being produced without more needs however means oversaturation. you get inflationary amounts of goods, for example milk in the US, where the dairy industry was often kept alive by a government constantly buying up inflationary amounts of milk. a currency may becomes inflationary because it is not regulated, a slogan may become inflationary because it's overused and it works well in advertising, the phenomenon is always there. that which sells, spreads, and will continue to be reproduced until you get oversaturation, and sometimes past that.

Infinite growth? How measured?

infinite growth, if applied to the concept of markets, is oxymoronic, it does not work, for reasons stated above, hence "presumed".

yet capitalism needs growth to function, without growth capitalism cannot live. growth, production and ressource extraction are its neccessities

 

[Zardnaar]

Hyperinflation isn't exactly a logical consequence of capitalism, but it has never in all the history of floating exchange-rate fiat currencies resulted simply from "printing too much money." The German Reichsmark hyperinflated as a result of the drastic drop in real output in Germany associated with WW1, the political dislocation of the German Revolution, and the Versailles obligations.

Versailles was affordable, Germans didn't want to pay.

Hitler spent more on armaments.

It's a myth people bought into via Nazi propaganda.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/last...i-its-time-to-dispel-the-myths-surrounding-it

Wages of Destruction also has the same conclusion.

Hyperinflation is what happens when people don't understand basic economics or is deliberate in Germany's case. It cleared domestic war debt and the treaty obligations.

 

[Birdjaguar]

more growth requires more production, but human needs, especially biological functions, stay exactly the same. more things being produced without more needs however means oversaturation. you get inflationary amounts of goods, for example milk in the US, where the dairy industry is only kept alive by a government constantly buying up inflationary amounts of milk. a currency may becomes inflationary because it is not regulated, a slogan may become inflationary because it's overused and it works well in advertising, the phenomenon is always there.



infinite growth, if applied to the concept of markets, is oxymoronic, it does not work, for reasons stated above, hence "presumed".

yet capitalism needs growth to function, without growth capitalism cannot live. growth, production and ressource extraction are its neccessities

Growing populations suck. Capitalism does like growth, but it certainly isn't infinite or even continuous. It fails completely at distribution.

 

[Lexicus]

how is inflation not a logical consequence of presumed infinite growth? yes, you can keep inflation at bay with various tweaks, but that only strengthens my argument in that it needs to be there in the first place in order to be counteracted, it manifests always, just like stockmarkets always will have ups and downs irregardless of, detached from the empirical realities of production

Well, you said (and I was talking about) hyperinflation, not inflation.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The German Reichsmark hyperinflated as a result of the drastic drop in real output in Germany associated with WW1, the political dislocation of the German Revolution, and the Versailles obligations.

and abolishing the gold standard, and being hugely in debt even before the war, and unemployment, and failed policy, and the dollar getting stronger, and buying foreign corrency for no god damn reason. there are many things you can pinpoint to.

Versailles was affordable, Germans didn't want to pay.

It's a myth people bought into via Nazi propaganda.

However, in April 1921, the Reparations Commission announced the "London payment plan", ordering Germany to pay reparations in gold or foreign currency in annual installments of two billion gold marks plus 26% of the value of Germany's exports; despite German outcry at these demands, they were accepted the following month after an Allied ultimatum to impose economic sanctions that would force Germany to meet payments.

that's hardly an insignificant amount, you'd have to be insane to not think it contributed to the inflation

Growing populations suck. Capitalism does like growth, but it certainly isn't infinite or even continuous. It fails completely at distribution.

we agree on that, on all levels. I did not say that capitalism grows infinitely, that's a misunderstanding, I meant to express that it presupposes growth (not just economic) in order to strive and survive.

Well, you said (and I was talking about) hyperinflation, not inflation.

if we take inflation to not only mean "inflation of currency", but the actual term, then yeah I still stand by what I said. if you're talking only about currency, sure, I'm not the most knowledgeable person on currencies

many markets are completely overinflated with products and the only thing keeping them alive is government subsidies and the illusion of choice.

 

[Zardnaar]

and abolishing the gold standard, and being hugely in debt even before the war, and unemployment, and failed policy, and the dollar getting stronger, and buying foreign corrency for no god damn reason. there are many things you can pinpoint to.





that's hardly an insignificant amount, you'd have to be insane to not think it contributed to the inflation



we agree on that, on all levels. I did not say that capitalism grows infinitely, that's a misunderstanding, I meant to express that it presupposes growth (not just economic) in order to strive and survive.



if we take inflation to not only mean "inflation of currency", but the actual term, then yeah I still stand by what I said. if you're talking only about currency, sure, I'm not the most knowledgeable person on currencies

many markets are completely overinflated with products and the only thing keeping them alive is government subsidies and the illusion of choice.

The hyperinflation was deliberate German government policy.

The economic miracle Germany had in the 60s could have been done in the 40s but they would have had East Germany plus what's now northern Poland to do it with


As I said Hitler spent more rearming than the treaty required.

Big disaster of 20th century wasn't WW2 it was WW1.

Had the Germans had a leader who wasn't the Kaiser and the Russians not the Czar and not fought the war Germany would be stupidly rich by now, and Russia would probably be similar to New Zealand/Spain/ Italy in standards of living assuming the governments were minimally competent.

 

[Cutlass]

more growth requires more production, but human needs, especially biological functions, stay exactly the same. more things being produced without more needs however means oversaturation. you get inflationary amounts of goods, for example milk in the US, where the dairy industry was often kept alive by a government constantly buying up inflationary amounts of milk. a currency may becomes inflationary because it is not regulated, a slogan may become inflationary because it's overused and it works well in advertising, the phenomenon is always there. that which sells, spreads, and will continue to be reproduced until you get oversaturation, and sometimes past that.



infinite growth, if applied to the concept of markets, is oxymoronic, it does not work, for reasons stated above, hence "presumed".

yet capitalism needs growth to function, without growth capitalism cannot live. growth, production and ressource extraction are its neccessities

JM Keynes, back in the 1930s, predicted that labor would work fewer and fewer hours to meet their needs.

This didn't happen. Why?

None of my grandparents grew up with indoor plumbing. None of my grandparents grew up with electricity in the home. None of my grandparents grew up with a telephone. None of my grandparents grew up with a television. None of my grandparents grew up with a radio. None of my grandparents grew up with enough separate pieces of clothing to not wear the same thing more than once a week. None of my grandparents grew up with a microwave oven. None of my grandparents grew up with a washing machine. None of my grandparents grew up with a dishwasher. None of my grandparents grew up with a refrigerator.

All of my grandparents grew up in North America.

They didn't grow up in a less developed nation. They grew up in a couple of the most developed nations in the world. Granted, rural areas of those nations. But still.

They didn't have cars. They didn't even lay eyes on cars before they were adults.

I bought my first car at 16. I've owned 10 cars in total. I grew up with plumbing, central heat, water, phone and tv. I now have a computer, cell phone, 40inch flat screen TV, cable, Netflix, bluray player. I have drawers full of clothing I haven't worn in years. Shelves full of books I haven't read in years. I am not notably well off in comparison with my contemporaries in my country. But I have a whole lot of material goods that none of my grandparents even lived long enough to see.

Both the quantity, and more importantly the quality, of all the goods that people in modern developed nations is so far in advance of anything ever dreamed of 2 generations ago. I don't recall that my father was ever on an airplane.

Now where's the inflation been in all of this? It's happened, sure. But that's policy mistakes on the part of the government. And really has nothing to do with what the economy itself has been doing. Economic development lowers the prices of most goods, in relation to how much labor it takes to purchase them. And so people simply purchase more goods, and live a more comfortable life.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The economic miracle Germany had in the 60s could have been done in the 40s but they would have had East Germany plus what's now northern Poland to do it with

the "economic miracle" was mostly a result of foreign investment, most of all american. the exact same goes for taiwan, south korea, japan, the chicago boys in latin america, and many others. even a cursory reading of, say, south korean history makes it absolutely clear that much of their economic fate did not only rest on foreign investment, but that the entire country was essentially run for most of its time by Americans, or largely, people acting directly in American interest. Syng-man Rhee was pretty much the most textbook example of a puppet you could find.

I also disagree with most of your other speculations about Germany in your post. at least we can agree on Hitler and that the nazis drove the economy into the ground though.

Both the quantity, and more importantly the quality, of all the goods that people in modern developed nations is so far in advance of anything ever dreamed of 2 generations ago. I don't recall that my father was ever on an airplane.

yes on the first, no on the second.

is that why we get mobile phones, consumer electronics, headphones, clothes, and a sheer infinite list of other products that are deliberately designed to break, fail, fall apart, or require maintenance which for some reason.. is more expensive that the product itself, so that we have to rebuy it again? no, the reason for that is that capitalism needs us to constantly buy things, even when all of our biological needs are met, even when all of our "modern" needs, like access to internet, healthcare, vacation, exotic foods, are met. when we continously produce more goods, we need to artifically create reasons for people to buy things. be that via low quality products, illusion of choice, illusion of prestige, exotism, or in recent years most of all, predatory mechanics, addiction, preying on insecurities: just see the video game industry and it's love for gambling, microtransactions, lootboxes, it's psychologically designed mechanisms to control impulse decisions..

 

[Narz]

It fails completely at distribution.

Only if you don't have capital

 

[Narz]

My friend is convinced Coinbase is a scam

 

[Zardnaar]

the "economic miracle" was mostly a result of foreign investment, most of all american. the exact same goes for taiwan, south korea, japan, the chicago boys in latin america, and many others. even a cursory reading of, say, south korean history makes it absolutely clear that much of their economic fate did not only rest on foreign investment, but that the entire country was essentially run for most of its time by Americans, or largely, people acting directly in American interest. Syng-man Rhee was pretty much the most textbook example of a puppet you could find.

I also disagree with most of your other speculations about Germany in your post. at least we can agree on Hitler and that the nazis drove the economy into the ground though.

The amount of money the Americans threw at Germany wasn't much in the grand scheme if things.

Korea the military troops stationed there was a bigger stimulus.

In Germany there was a large amount of destruction but the amount left over was still higher than what they started the war with.

And the states biggest expense the military was gone. Kaiser and Nazis spent so on the military lol.

Imagine if someone went back in time to 1991. Before when US debt was low.

You disarm the military and don't borrow money. That 22 trilion debt would exist and the government would have an extra 20 trilion dollars to play with.

They're not paying 400 billion each year in servicing debt either. Debt hadn't always been so high.

Germany's defeat in both wars also removed the biggest anvil around their neck. Government spending on the military.

Military spending can stimulate the economy, it's not the most efficient though.

Well any government spending domestically is good.

Hell instead of fighting WW1 here they could have built a house for every man, women, child and baby in the country. Government income 10 million, buy battlecruiser for 2 million from UK, scrap battlecruiser 1920's,
finish paying for battlecruiser right before WW2 starts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_New_Zealand_(1911)

1913 we were one if the richest nation's in the world per capita lol. WW2 still richer than Germany.

Our first, last and only capital ship ever.

 

[Narz]

yes on the first, no on the second.

is that why we get mobile phones, consumer electronics, headphones, clothes, and a sheer infinite list of other products that are deliberately designed to break, fail, fall apart, or require maintenance which for some reason.. is more expensive that the product itself, so that we have to rebuy it again? no, the reason for that is that capitalism needs us to constantly buy things, even when all of our biological needs are met, even when all of our "modern" needs, like access to internet, healthcare, vacation, exotic foods, are met. when we continously produce more goods, we need to artifically create reasons for people to buy things. be that via low quality products, illusion of choice, illusion of prestige, exotism, or in recent years most of all, predatory mechanics, addiction, preying on insecurities: just see the video game industry and it's love for gambling, microtransactions, lootboxes, it's psychologically designed mechanisms to control impulse decisions..

Planned obsolescence is a problem but quality stuff is available, most consumers simply don't demand it.

Consumers have been trained to want new shiny things.

 

[Lexicus]

if we take inflation to not only mean "inflation of currency", but the actual term, then yeah I still stand by what I said. if you're talking only about currency, sure, I'm not the most knowledgeable person on currencies

I don't know exactly what you mean here. "Inflation of currency" is the only meaning of "inflation" I'm familiar with in this context.

and abolishing the gold standard, and being hugely in debt even before the war, and unemployment, and failed policy, and the dollar getting stronger, and buying foreign corrency for no god damn reason. there are many things you can pinpoint to.

The point is hyperinflation doesn't just happen, it is virtually always accompanied by some dramatic real (as opposed to monetary) crisis that drastically reduces real output.

You disarm the military and don't borrow money. That 22 trilion debt would exist and the government would have an extra 20 trilion dollars to play with.

Yeah, no. This is not how this works at all. It is really remarkable how you manage to be so consistently wrong about almost everything you say about economics.

 

[innonimatu]

Hyperinflation isn't exactly a logical consequence of capitalism, but it has never in all the history of floating exchange-rate fiat currencies resulted simply from "printing too much money." The German Reichsmark hyperinflated as a result of the drastic drop in real output in Germany associated with WW1, the political dislocation of the German Revolution, and the Versailles obligations.

Nonono... the german government deliberately engineered the hyperinflation to get rid of much of its debt, a lot of which but not all resulted from the Versailles Treaty. Hyperinflation then wasn't inevitable. It started years after WW2 ended, when Germany had much better "economy" to produce stuff than during the war: its work force demobilized from the army, international trade restarted, and the internal political revolution crushed by the SPD and allies in 1919-20.

Germany had been demeaned to pay 2000 million gold marks per year, for a total of about 50000 million. For comparison France had been forced to pay Prussia 1000 million gold francs per year it was defeated in the 1870 war, for a total 5000 million, and did so with little economic difficulty despite having had a war fought on its land and a revolution afterwards.
The 1870 gold franc was about half the weight in gold of the german gold mark specified for the Versailles Treaty payments. This places the german war tribute to the allies after WW1 at about 4x the tribute it had extracted from France in 1871. But Germany in 1921 was far, far wealthier than France in 1870, a result of technical progress and having most of its industry intact after the war on french and belgian ground. The german government could pay, it just didn't want to. The myth of the onerous peace of Versailles is just that. Foch was right, Keynes was wrong.

Ironically, "smart" politicians in Germany would have just paid the whole treaty sum, seizing the opportunity to become an even bigger industrial powerhouse producing an excess of capital goods for export, much as China did over the past 30 years while accumulating foreign bonds in the process. Bad for the population, who labour without consuming the benefits, but good for great power games the kind of which the german governments of the time (and most governments in any time) engage in. Then the next time they tried to conquer Europe they'd have a bigger industrial advantage. Hey, perhaps the leading german statesmen of the time were genuinely not going for a "revenge war" strategy and just wanted to prosper within Germany, what can I know?

Editer: typo, it was WW1