normalperson's recent activity
-
Comment on What happened in 1971? (various graphs of U.S. economic data, showing turning points in or around 1971) in ~finance
-
Comment on What happened in 1971? (various graphs of U.S. economic data, showing turning points in or around 1971) in ~finance
normalperson Link ParentI would refer you to this other reply I made: here To summarize, my point wasn't that fiat currency is necessarily better or worse than a standards based currency. The point is that a well...I would refer you to this other reply I made: here
To summarize, my point wasn't that fiat currency is necessarily better or worse than a standards based currency. The point is that a well designed fiscal policy package is what ultimately determines the performance of a currency, and whether that currency is standards based or fiat is largely irrelevant. Crediting the success or failure of the modern financial system to fiat currency alone is naive and too narrow-minded. You do make good points and for the most part I agree with you, broadly speaking. But I feel almost as if you are arguing against someone else.
-
Comment on What happened in 1971? (various graphs of U.S. economic data, showing turning points in or around 1971) in ~finance
normalperson Link ParentI guess I argued a little too strongly or didn't make it clear, but my point wasn't that a gold standard is necessarily better than fiat currency. I'm just arguing against the idea that fiat...I guess I argued a little too strongly or didn't make it clear, but my point wasn't that a gold standard is necessarily better than fiat currency. I'm just arguing against the idea that fiat currency has all that much to do with the current economic situation, good or bad. Whether it's backed by gold or petroleum or nothing, the value of a currency has more to do with the faith stakeholders have in the body responsible for it. So one good counterargument I would make in regards to your point is that fiat currency being dependent on the fiscal policy of the present administration applies a lot of faith to a governing body that's prone to making poor financial decisions. America has been fortunate in maintaining its position as an international leader in the global monetary system, and this is due in large part to the policy decisions, international investments, and protection of domestic vital interests by the various administrations we've had over the last 5 decades. But there is no guarantee this situation will continue, and as we saw with the previous administration it doesn't take much to wreck our international reputation. So one could make the argument that it might be better to have a currency backed by something physical, yet that argument also has the same caveat that the value of that standards based currency will ultimately depend upon the wisdom of those entrusted with making fiscal policy decisions. Thus my penultimate argument that whether currency is fiat or not is largely irrelevant, it's the fiscal policy decisions of the administration among other critical factors (one of them being luck) which determine its value.
Perhaps to frame it another way, the flexibility that comes with adopting a fiat currency is not necessarily a good thing. Its performance depends entirely on the rest of the fiscal policy package, and in that regard it is no different than a standards based currency. -
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~tildes
normalperson LinkCurrently there is no official support as others stated but you can achieve similar behavior using Google with modifiers like this: site:tildes.net before:2023-01-01 after:2020-02-01 dog Should...Currently there is no official support as others stated but you can achieve similar behavior using Google with modifiers like this:
site:tildes.net before:2023-01-01 after:2020-02-01 dogShould yield results between Feb 1 2020 and Jan 1 2023 relating to "dog". However it seems that a lot of entries have incorrect timestamps, specifically it seems to pull up the front page and docs also, so the search may not be exhaustive. Hopefully it is good enough to help you out if you want to find something specific, but seeing what the front page was at any point might not be possible.
-
Comment on What happened in 1971? (various graphs of U.S. economic data, showing turning points in or around 1971) in ~finance
normalperson Link ParentI would argue that decoupling currency from hard reserves has had little to no direct effect on the economy. However, to claim the effect has been positive is something you'll have to try harder...I would argue that decoupling currency from hard reserves has had little to no direct effect on the economy. However, to claim the effect has been positive is something you'll have to try harder to convince me of. At the very least you lose the ability to rebase your currency if, say, you experience a period of severe hyperinflation. Just let me take this dollar that's worth a dollar and say it's now worth... what? If I can say it's worth an ounce of this rare metal rather than that other rare metal, well that's not super great but it's better than nothing. But you can only do that if your currency is backed by something- "turn this note in for $1 worth of silver" means a lot more than "this note is worth $1 and $1 is worth whatever the money market says it is." Do you see the disadvantage this puts you at? Yes, it's always arbitrary. But it's less arbitrary when it's based on something, and less arbitrary means more trustworthy. People lose trust in fiat currencies because they aren't actually related to any tangible asset. Thus fiat currencies are more susceptible to hyperinflation and have less resilience to rapid changes. If the value of gold plunges you can count on it to recover eventually, because gold is gold. You can therefore trust any currency tied to it will also recover. No such faith exists for fiat currency.
That being said, as I initially stated, I believe this feature of fiat currency has less to do with the current state of affairs than many seem to think. While it certainly isn't helping, what we've been seeing in our economy these last 50 years can't be fully accounted for by us dropping the gold standard. A number of other factors have had a greater impact. International competition alone accounts for far more damage to the domestic economy than fiat currency. Outsourcing probably has a greater toll also.
When we have these discussions it's a good idea not to latch onto one idea or one policy failure as being the sole boogeyman responsible for all our woes. It's also helpful to think in the same terms the framers and policymakers use to craft the policies we're talking about. Even if their actions ultimately prove harmful, many policymakers still act in what they believe to be the best interest of their constituents. For instance, deregulation of the airline industry led to air travel prices falling to a level the median family could afford. It also led to more accidents, increased competition, and has accelerated climate change. Breyer, who worked on the airline deregulation act, said this of it: "Even among business travelers, who wants to pay 'full fare for the briefcase?'" Part of his motivation for helping the act was to reduce costs for the average passenger. He also points out airline companies make less money, comparatively speaking, than they did before the act. He sees this as the industry more efficiently meeting the needs of its customers.
My point is everything is rarely as simple as we wish to believe. Even bad policies sometimes have good effects. We all know this, but it's worth being reminded sometimes. And bearing this in mind, you might see how your comment makes too strong a claim on too shallow a foundation. Saying that fiat currency is definitely better or definitely increased economic stability or prosperity is a strong claim that isn't really borne by the evidence.
-
Comment on Rising rents and diminishing aid fuel a sharp increase in evictions in US cities in ~life
normalperson Link ParentYep, that essentially sums it up. Everyone wants the problem solved and some even want to help everyone regardless of circumstances. But nobody wants to do the actual work, foot the actual bill,...Yep, that essentially sums it up. Everyone wants the problem solved and some even want to help everyone regardless of circumstances. But nobody wants to do the actual work, foot the actual bill, or put up with the actual problems that arise.
-
Comment on Rising rents and diminishing aid fuel a sharp increase in evictions in US cities in ~life
normalperson Link ParentThat's not quite the same thing as what I believe the other user is talking about. Lots of people envision the government using government funds to hire government workers to build...That's not quite the same thing as what I believe the other user is talking about. Lots of people envision the government using government funds to hire government workers to build government-owned housing. No middle man private owners and no volunteer or donation-funded programs. Guaranteed housing. No charities involved because there's no need for them. Whether or not such a thing is possible or practical is another matter and my opinion on it is probably boring and not worth talking about. To clarify I'm just clearing up the semantics here. What you're talking about isn't guaranteed housing, if it were then conceivably you could lose your house tomorrow and be sheltered by that night. Under this hypothetical, landlords like you wouldn't have to worry about anything. In fact, you would have less to worry about since most decent working people would rather live somewhere other than a glorified shed. Those who can't maintain themselves would fall into the government system, keeping them out of your hair. I imagine it would just turn out to be prison lite in practice.
I pretty much agree with you. If you're interested to see what I had to say in regards to the other responses I've received, I'd like you to see this response here and let me know what you think. It seems like we think largely the same on this, but to me it seems where we differ is that I don't necessarily think giving the US government that much control over our currency is always the best idea. So far it's worked out but that's largely because of the fact that the value of our currency is now more or less linked to the floating commodities we have command over. We can lose that command just as easily as the value of gold could plummet. Either way I do recognize the distinction is largely semantic so I don't necessarily expect anyone to agree with me on this.