231–240 of 265 posts
> $430 billion and add 20,000 new jobs So it takes $22 million investment to add just 1 job? Something seems off.
i.e. Say I invest $10M to make a precision machine shop and I employing 5 machinists, as a crude example. Here my goal was to make a machine shop capable of producing precision parts, not to spend $2M/job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is economic growth trickle down for the society? It is not. Strong economic growth is the best thing to level up a society. What is really trickle down for the society? The dead loop between more taxes and economic stagnation.
Do you not see the similarities between "give rich people low taxes and they will create economies around them," and "give rich corporations low taxes and they will create economies around them?" Companies will seek the lowest taxes in an area that suits them. If they're building in America, it's because it behooves them to build in America. There are lots of places they can go to lower taxes, but they're not competi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reduces money velocity and investment Yes, this is because of the interchangeability of the value of an asset declining and the fact that no one is buying it. No different than a stock price in free fall. Why is it in free fall? Because no one wants it. Artificial infinite inflation takes away from the buying power of especially younger generations (but average people in general). It inflates the supposed price of…
I'm not really sure what you're arguing, I didn't say "infinite inflation" is good lol. Monetary appreciation only helps the buying power of people who already have money. A deflationary environment explicitly benefits creditors. It would be very difficult for a newcomer to get buying power, leveraged or otherwise, in your proposed monetary environment. Much like it's difficult for newcomers to buy large amounts of b…
> Monetary appreciation only helps
Appreciation of an asset only helps the holders of said asset. But "appreciation" is always an exchange rate. Appreciated relative to what?
> A deflationary environment explicitly benefits creditors.
And this is where my contention lies. This dogmatic condemnation of deflation ever being allowed to happen. Temporary deflation or even deflation for some extended period of time is not a bad thing.
Economic velocity runs on volatility and not what one currency or asset is doing relative to another. Inflating and deflating exchange rates only increase volatility. But, truly, only if both types of relationships are allowed and are not artificially snuffed out by government and/or central bank intervention.
And you assume that creditors are the only ones holding an asset? Credit is only one kind of exchange. Spending is another. Stock trading is another. They all depend on volatility.
Thus, I am not arguing for inflation or deflation. I am arguing for the greatest amount of allowance for natural volatility.
> in your proposed monetary environment.
I see that you assumed that I was arguing for constant monetary appreciation. I was arguing that there is nothing wrong with monetary appreciation.
It seem that you and others are deadset on arguing that all deflation is immoral.
My above comment mentions the common root of such views.
> Much like it's difficult for newcomers to buy large amounts of bitcoin.
Yes, I should clarify my bitcoin comments. Bitcoin is deflationary relative to USD (where most "newcomers" are coming from).
BUT, to add substance to my point it should also be noted that there are coins that outperform Bitcoin and are thus deflationary in their relationship to Bitcoin. A newcomer holding these would actually have more purchasing power.
I clarify this to stress that at the end of the day: consumer spending, loans, credit, etc. are all trading. And trading is what makes the economy go around. Volatility is good.
It's surprising to me that $430B doesn't include plans for Apple's own fab(s).
Owning your own fabs is a great way to end up being stuck on a node, like intel.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/23/22347250/intel-new-factor...
If this is true, I'm bullish on real estate in Elk Grove, California. Elk Grove is a suburb of Sacramento that is about 1.5 hours from San Francisco. Apple used to have a major manufacturing presence here before they expanded their manufacturing in China. After Apple moved their manufacturing overseas, Elk Grove became a sleepy suburb where engineers from the Bay Area moved their families to get affordable homes and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My money SHOULD be worth more tomorrow than it is today. Tomorrow the economy is just a tad bit more productive, so my dollar should go further... Why is deflation a curse word nowadays? I feel one of governments only role is to ensure that the dollar is not being debased and slowly losing value of time or atleast at a rate that is known. When the FED prints an unlimited supply of money, it breaks down the social con…
If you need a concrete example of why deflation is crushingly terrible for an economy look no further than Japan after the asset bubble burst in the 90s. Deflationary thinking meant everyone expects prices to be lower tomorrow, so no one spent money on needed items and simply waited to make purchases to save money. This slowed down the economy into a death spiral that they still are climbing out of. Mortgages became…
The way inflation is calculated is quite flawed from my understanding (they don't include rent/mortgage payments or college tuition - prices of which have exploded in the past two decades).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes - we do and are seeing rapid inflation. We see rapid asset inflation across the board. Check recent commodity prices across copper, lumber, food, water etc. Everything has been rising dramatically during the period that the world has been practicing what you call 'Quantitative easing'. Inflation isn't just related to Forex if all the worlds currency's are inflating, albet just maybe faster than the USD. And the o…
> Yes - we do and are seeing rapid inflation. No, we aren’t. > We see rapid asset inflation across the board. “Inflation”, without modifiers, refers to consumer price inflation (final goods and services). Asset inflation is a different thing, as is monetary inflation. Monetary inflation can contribute to both asset inflation and consumer price inflation, but those two outcomes are somewhat in tension; asset inflation…
Any time there is price dispersion within the goods and services of the market basket, it's likely that the basket composition itself is changing too. CPI has no way of responding quickly to this change.
Let’s run through the possible reasons Apple announced this, with various degrees of cynicism. 1. Getting some good press before Congress decides to do something in regards to the app store model. 2. Apple is reading the winds, seeing that Chinese supply chains may be politically constrained, and preparing for that future. 3. Apple is reading the winds, seeing that Chinese supply chains may be politically constrained…
4. Apple was planning to do these things anyway as part of normal operations, and is just spinning them as "investment in the country"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing, I didn't say "infinite inflation" is good lol. Monetary appreciation only helps the buying power of people who already have money. A deflationary environment explicitly benefits creditors. It would be very difficult for a newcomer to get buying power, leveraged or otherwise, in your proposed monetary environment. Much like it's difficult for newcomers to buy large amounts of b…
Not that my above comment was perfect, but let me attempt to be more succint. > Monetary appreciation only helps Appreciation of an asset only helps the holders of said asset. But "appreciation" is always an exchange rate. Appreciated relative to what? > A deflationary environment explicitly benefits creditors. And this is where my contention lies. This dogmatic condemnation of deflation ever being allowed to happen.…
Aggregate demand and supply is very much affected by currency and commodity appreciation, contrary to what you're saying. Additionally there is volatility, and there is price discovery. Today, right now. Things are already how you want them to be. The dollar depreciates and appreciates against commodities and other currencies all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that my above comment was perfect, but let me attempt to be more succint. > Monetary appreciation only helps Appreciation of an asset only helps the holders of said asset. But "appreciation" is always an exchange rate. Appreciated relative to what? > A deflationary environment explicitly benefits creditors. And this is where my contention lies. This dogmatic condemnation of deflation ever being allowed to happen.…
Appreciation due to contracting supply. In a fractional reserve system, if monetary velocity is low enough the total supply naturally shrinks. This is the "pro-savings, deflation-allowable" economy I am responding to. Money can appreciate in the sense that there is literally less of it to be spent on things, in aggregate. It's a pretty basic econ 101 supply and demand problem. Aggregate demand and supply is very much…
Bingo! But, I do not see anyone complaining about this "only benefiting the creditors".
> econ 101
To be fair, I find a reference to very weakly approximating models of reality, taught to ignorant and naïve students for the sake of starting them off somewhere, to be slightly disingenuous.
> Appreciation due to contracting supply.
Contracting supply is not the only reason for appreciation. If we take that fact into consideration then your causality arrow of 'low monetary velocity' -> 'supply shrinks' -> 'appreciation' is one of many possible paths. Therefore, deflation is not what causes appreciation, it is in of itself a description of that very appreciation. Again, appreciation RELATIVE to something. You seem to be ignoring this very important fact.
You also created circular thinking. In a prior comment you said the deflation causes monetary velocity to fall, and then you say monetary velocity causes appreciation. Appreciation is where the deflation comes from. So, which is it? Deflation pops into existence and causes monetary velocity to fall? Or a magical appreciation occurs from a slowing monetary velocity and causes deflation to occur?
> In a fractional reserve system
Yes, in a central banking system the 'monetary velocity' is artificially controlled. Almost completely. You can push money into parts of the economy to inflate things at a whims notice. Then everyone loves that the "values" of investment vehicles are bigger than they were yesterday.
So, you are effectively only arguing for the status quo. But the status quo is not working. Is this really your best argument?
> volatility, and there is price discovery
Ah, word games. Even if someone might provide definitional differences, there is no objective real-world difference between the two things.
---
Here is what I argue for:
Not allowing natural (not managed) volatility (or 'monetary velocity') -- MOVEMENT -- is a fool's game. You cannot beat basic game theory that is dependent on the biology of humans. You just can't. There is no fancy economic jargon that can allow you to. There is no monetary policy that will enable you to. You can pitch and sell artificial manipulation of the economy (via economic theories or political ideologies) but you are only pitching bubbles.
Allowing natural periods of deflation in the economy allows for volatility, trade, flux, interest, investment, wins, ... and here is the most important word: losses.
Loss. It allows for someone to actually lose.
These hippie boomers have never had to lose anything in their lives. The artificial manipulation of the markets and the economy reflects this mindset and attitude.
There is more than one currency and that fact alone negates any possible argument against allowing deflation to occur naturally in the economy. If it occurs because of temporary "contracting supply" (of one currency) then so be it.