• ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    The US has such a huge pool of people using the dollar that when they do seigniorage they’re essentially taxing the world instead of only their citizens. It’s kind of obscene and why the imperialists are very hostile to BRICs.

  • SabinStargem@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I started turning my American Dollars into Euros. Here’s hoping that mitigates the economic damage that will come from Elon’s stupidity.

    Honestly, I don’t like messing around with money since I don’t really understand it…but if I don’t, I fear that I won’t be able to get onto a lifeboat. It also makes me feel silly being proactive. Here’s hoping my Blue State would either vindicate or placate my fears.

  • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    She’s not totally wrong

    If we gave every American 1 billion dollars the current billionaires would lose massive amounts of power and it would help fix wealth inequality.

    • djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      It would do nothing to wealth inequality. The assets the current billionaires own would just become valued at a trillion dollars, or even a quadrillion depending on how badly devalued the dollar became.

    • Batman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      If they had their money scrooge mcduck style. But the assets they own will explode in value almost proportionally to the value of the dollar

    • MuskyMelon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

      Do that and get ready for 100,000 dollars for a dozen eggs cause the market will charge what it knows the customer can pay.

      • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days ago

        That’s the point.

        The poorer groups will pay the same amount of their wealth proportionally for things, but the proportional wealth of the rich will be dimished.

    • Aqarius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      That wouldn’t work because the bilionaires don’t have money, they have assets, AKA capital.

  • Carl@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Humans do make the rules, unfortunately only some of them get the chance to so they made the rules favor themselves.

  • Panamalt@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    The funny irony is that because money is mostly made up bullshit anyway, we kinda could just decide to print more money and keep its value. Granted, it would take the unanimous agreement of basically everyone on this silly little planet, so the chances of this ever occurring are effectively absolute zero, but still, there is no actual rule that says we cant except for the ones we ourselves created

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    are we still in the “the state should just go further into debt to pay for infrastructure” or already in the “fuck, that was a big mistake, what do we do with all that debt now?” stage? i can’t tell anymore.

    • konki@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      The government “debt” is not a problem whatsoever. It cannot be a problem. The so called debt is simply the difference between the amount of money created and the amount taxed. If there was no “debt” there couldn’t be any saving in an economy. If the government wanted to, it could simply “print” the money to pay off all its debt tomorrow. It souldn’t necessarily be a smart thing to do, but there wouldn’t be any financial constraints stopping them from doing it.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    So here is how it works (in the USA):

    Prices of goods on a market are set by Supply:Demand Equilibrium

    If a business knows they can charge more for a good or service and still sell enough to get more profit than selling them all quickly and cheaply, then they have to calculate what to sell at to optimize profits.

    You can chart out the supply and the demand as a function of price with inverse correlation at varying strengths, *implying that supply will change to meet market demand so long as enough capable workforce exists to accomplish it.

    Now apply this concept to Money.

    If Money is plentiful and people are more willing to spend money on goods and services, then the providers of those goods and services will raise the prices to maximize the gains. In this example the regulatory bodies might use Bonds to reclaim and retire money and/or use a variety of techniques targeting loan interest rates in various ways to limit the *creation of money.

    If Money is Scarce, then the prices will lower until they reach a threshold at which A) it cannot be produced for cheaper or B) somebody somewhere needs it and therefor will pay the price no matter how comparatively steep. Since these two scenarios are generally quite bad in the context of unnecessary human suffering, unprofitable goods and service industries generally receive subsidies so that regulatory bodies can keep a steady calculated amount of necessary supplies available to citizens far into the future, examples give: food, medicine, hygiene, or housing.

    This also has an effect on exchange rates for trade partners. You can set a price on money. If your money is more valuable than another country’s money as a result of their willingness to purchase that money as an investment, then it makes sense to trade and buy up their cheap goods. The USA’s financial system is built around this concept of lending to struggling economies and providing data-heavy telecommunications services, built on the back of their decades of leading the pack for telecommunications technology and their leadership roles in many trade organizations including World Bank headquartered in Washington DC. Basically, the value of USD is dependent on investors in the EU and China owning US Treasury Bonds.

    So it becomes obvious to most of us that creation of money can oftentimes be beneficial, but it also devalues savings and bonds, so it’s often thought a delicate balance is needed to maintain value.


    • *implying - it’s not always true that supply reflects demand in the same way that demand relies on supply, many modern economic theories revolve around the idea that Supply has much more power and therefor regulatory actions which focus on supply are more effective fiscal policies.

    • *creation of money - Loans create money. If you lend 100 dollars at 5% interest then you get back 105 dollars. While the debt is yet to be repaid, that 5 dollars exists. Debts can be traded as well. At first it doesn’t seem like it would add up to much, but in fact Bonds act as Debts and also large Loans are very very very common for the USA, and this all sort of stacks year after year until it’s reached the current point where the majority of USD is non-M1 M2 which is to say money that doesn’t physically exist: digital money and promissory notes.


    Theres a lot more but I can’t be asked to teach economics.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        I think I lose most people around the graph.

        Might be easier to just show the really slow ones a clip of the black and white footage of Germans setting wheelbarrows of their own worthless money on fire after the war.

  • A_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    just declare the leaf to be the official currency … from one of the books in “The hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy” … which is, you should know, the only trilogy in five books.

  • daw@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Have you peeps never heard of modern monetary theory (mmt)? Macroeconomics is not so simple! Most people talking about have the knowledge of a minor in business econ though

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      So let me ask you this. If the U.S. “printed” 20T dollars (really just say it exists in an account). Then they start investing that in the market… The value of the money in theory would decay by 14% (rough math) but the market would thrive from the increase in buying.

      That said. It would “hurt” the lower classes purchasing power at first. But the interest made off that 20T is enough to build every person in the U.S. a new house every 30 years assuming the average household is 2.5 people. At first you would be building new ones and repurposing old ones. But after 15 years or so, you would have the country all sans rent/mortgage payments, which frees up their money to be spent on things like resteraunts, movies, plays, sports, whatever it is people do. So the economy would be growing, while homelessness would be gone foreve and everyone would have a $250,000 equivalent house built/renovated every 30 years. Which because of the mass building projects and it all being purchased from one group… would likely be like getting a $400,000 in todays market. This doesn’t mean people can’t save and invest money to have a larger dwelling and size up, just that everyone would have the base $400,000 equivalent house in a restabilized economy where everyone is less stressed and free-er to spend money at ease not worrying about becoming homeless if something goes wrong.

      Does this mean some people will choose to work less, maybe. But with automation growing the way it is, we really have less work and more people already. It would also give us the opportunity to build some new cities/towns built around more walking and less car dependency, which would promote public health and people not being as reclusive if they don’t want.

      Idk, it would never happen, but I’m just saying it could probably happen and we choose not to because people think helping everyone is bad.

      Edit: the number of stress based mental issues alleviated by this would be huge. Less reasons to murder and rob people as well, so crime would likely drop