Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 123 posts

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#101

Post by dehrmann »

HPsquared wrote: post #67
HervalFreire wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between an illusion that is a name and the illusion that I have all your money in a safe place that you can always access. A name is a imaginary representation, this is different from a factual claim about reality.

The money itself is also imaginary. It's just numbers on a ledger that people have agreed on.

One thing crypto has been good for is it made us think critically about why money actually is. It's all a matter of faith and believing someone else will value it in the future...or a military will tell you to value it. Gold has the same issue; its intrinsic value is somewhere around silver or copper.

Once you think about currencies this way, you realize that while crypto could be used as a currency, it isn't; its a speculative investment, like a digital beanie baby.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#102

Post by dehrmann »

lettergram wrote: post #24
HervalFreire wrote: post #22

Sort of reminds me of the claim made by FDIC that they can back up all accounts in SVB. Maybe they can, but it's mainly the illusion that maintains the economy.

Better question on that front is how it’s legal. It’s not what congress passed or the FDICs charter / mission statement. So it’s kinda just “we’re doing it, even if it’s illegal” Kinda like how they gave everyone a year or more where they could live in a place without paying rent via some BS CDC power that didn’t exist.

The explanation I heard was congress gave FDIC some vague exceptions to its charter because congress knew these sort of actions are politically toxic, but economically necessary(ish).

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#104

Post by HervalFreire »

HPsquared wrote: post #95
HervalFreire wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, money is suppose to exist as solid green paper. The value is imaginary but its existence is physical. The bank and government claim that if I want my money they can give me my money in green physical paper bills because it exists in the bank. Problem is that it's a lie. That's why bank runs are possible. And the current bank runs ends with another institution taking over and articulating the same lie.

There are a lot more bank deposits than green paper. It's similar to how banknotes originally were 1:1 correlated with physical gold (or whatever) in the vault, then banks realized they could lend out more notes than they have gold in the vault. Very similar situation with electronic vs paper dollars. Most bank deposits are created out of thin air by commercial banks when they make loans. There isn't enough paper mon…

>There are a lot more bank deposits than green paper.

That's what I am saying am I not? The bank makes a business claim that they can redeem ALL of the green paper back to everyone at the same time.

But I said it's a lie. It's illusion.

>Most bank deposits are created out of thin air by commercial banks when they make loans. There isn't enough paper money to cover all those deposits.

woosh.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#105

Post by HervalFreire »

lukas099 wrote: post #100
HervalFreire wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, money is suppose to exist as solid green paper. The value is imaginary but its existence is physical. The bank and government claim that if I want my money they can give me my money in green physical paper bills because it exists in the bank. Problem is that it's a lie. That's why bank runs are possible. And the current bank runs ends with another institution taking over and articulating the same lie.

All money has value for one reason: because people think it's valuable. It doesn't matter if it's cigarettes in prison, giant stone discs in Micronesia, or bits on a server owned by your bank.

Isn't this just a different way of saying "the value of money is imaginary"? So why repeat what I said?

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#106

Post by swores »

adastra22 wrote: post #96
swores wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not paying fees.

Call it what you will, I care not. It is an opportunity cost you pay in the end.

By that logic a law requiring banks to hire security experts who can keep their systems safe from hackers is also a tax, do you object to that too?

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#107

Post by lukas099 »

HervalFreire wrote: post #105
lukas099 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All money has value for one reason: because people think it's valuable. It doesn't matter if it's cigarettes in prison, giant stone discs in Micronesia, or bits on a server owned by your bank.

Isn't this just a different way of saying "the value of money is imaginary"? So why repeat what I said?

My point is that the value is no more 'imaginary' as a balance in a bank account as it is as green pieces of paper.

I'm not sure 'imaginary' is the right word. Value is real whether or not it's a social construction.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#108

Post by lukas099 »

HervalFreire wrote: post #104
HPsquared wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot more bank deposits than green paper. It's similar to how banknotes originally were 1:1 correlated with physical gold (or whatever) in the vault, then banks realized they could lend out more notes than they have gold in the vault. Very similar situation with electronic vs paper dollars. Most bank deposits are created out of thin air by commercial banks when they make loans. There isn't enough paper mon…

>There are a lot more bank deposits than green paper. That's what I am saying am I not? The bank makes a business claim that they can redeem ALL of the green paper back to everyone at the same time. But I said it's a lie. It's illusion. >Most bank deposits are created out of thin air by commercial banks when they make loans. There isn't enough paper money to cover all those deposits. woosh.

> The bank makes a business claim that they can redeem ALL of the green paper back to everyone at the same time.

They never claimed this. Everyone has known about bank runs, fractional reserve banking, etc. for a long time.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#109

Post by FeepingCreature »

lukas099 wrote: post #97
FeepingCreature wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Lancet isn't saying that the inference was wrong but that the conclusion of the inference is wrong. There's not really a better way to say that; "some readers may have inferred, wrongly" is synonymous, and "may have inferred that the Lancet, wrongly" implies that the Lancet failed to recognize these achievements, which it did not (it merely failed to mention them).

Leave the whole part about readers out of it. "The Lancet failed to recognise..."

Well, that's specifically what they're saying they didn't do.

Re: 'Financial Times' Issues 103-Year-Old Correction (2017)

#110

Post by HPsquared »

lukas099 wrote: post #100
HervalFreire wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, money is suppose to exist as solid green paper. The value is imaginary but its existence is physical. The bank and government claim that if I want my money they can give me my money in green physical paper bills because it exists in the bank. Problem is that it's a lie. That's why bank runs are possible. And the current bank runs ends with another institution taking over and articulating the same lie.

All money has value for one reason: because people think it's valuable. It doesn't matter if it's cigarettes in prison, giant stone discs in Micronesia, or bits on a server owned by your bank.

I suppose the value comes first, then people come to think of the valuable thing as "money".
Post reply on HN