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

72% of the dollar's purchasing power was destroyed in just four episodes

eco3min.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 277 posts

Re: 72% of the dollar's purchasing power was destroyed in just four episodes

#231

Post by roncesvalles »

wat10000 wrote: post #189
roncesvalles wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1: US military war spending concerns are largely overblown. It's expending what it already has. The spending is mostly on its own internal industry i.e. the US economy (with due respect to broken window fallacy). It arguably makes it all back from the increase in oil prices. It's a very different thing to fire a $5m missile that you imported vs one that you made domestically with all-domestic components and labor.

Why is it different? If it’s foreign made then you need to export $5 million of stuff to pay for it, so the economic effect should be similar. Expending what it already has is true but doesn’t really help. It’s not like we’re going to sit here with a reduced stockpile forever. Those munitions will be replaced. The fact that the spending comes after using them rather than before doesn’t change the equation much.

They will be replaced, but most likely with something better. Which we would have done for modernization purposes eventually anyway, while disposing of the old stock.

Our wars are pre-paid for. America spends $900B/year on the military. Use it or lose it.

Re: 72% of the dollar's purchasing power was destroyed in just four episodes

#232

Post by roncesvalles »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #62
tharmas wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ironically, if yuan becomes new petroleum currency, it might hurt Chinese long term. Agreed. Which is why the Chinese do NOT want their currency to become the Petrodollar or world's reserve currency. They know that that is what destroyed US Manufacturing. China wants to maintain their manufacturing dominance. They've seen what de-industrialization has done to the US.

https://www.ft.com/content/c948b978-c22b-44b7-ba3d-4798e641e...

>Xi Jinping calls for China’s renminbi to attain global reserve currency status

"Kill all the sparrows"

Re: 72% of the dollar's purchasing power was destroyed in just four episodes

#233

Post by roncesvalles »

culi wrote: post #169
raincole wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should check your hunch against the reality, at least periodically. The US dollar has strengthened since the current US-Iran conflict started.

Yes it tends to strengthen during times of conflict as countries buy more dollars in response. That's kinda the whole gimmick with the petrodollar. War is good for the US But if Iran does successfully force countries to stop using the petrodollar by only allowing countries trading in yuan through the strait, then we could actually see that reverse. IMO destroying the petrodollar is the primary clear "victory" Iran co…

Reserve currency status entirely depends on how effective the issuer is at dropping a precision-guided munition over anyone who dares to counterfeit it.

China is actually the second-best contender now due to its growing military prowess. But it still might not be at the level where it can carry out the aforementioned task anywhere in the world without exception, like the US can. Hence the dollar will most likely stay.

Re: 72% of the dollar's purchasing power was destroyed in just four episodes

#234

Post by bobthepanda »

triceratops wrote: post #155
kasey_junk wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that plan is that no one wants to trade hard commodities for a currency that can’t be spent. One part of the dollars appeal is that it spends the world over. The sanctioned countries frequently have more liberal access to dollars than to unsanctioned yuan. So no one is going to take up a lot of yuan trade unless that changes or they are forced to. But that puts China in a bind. Liberalizing their cur…

> a currency that can’t be spent You can spend it in China, right?

If they let you when you want to.

One big thing that has prevented CNY from becoming a reserve currency is that China has explicitly said it wants to preserve its ability to heavily and suddenly restrict capital flows in and out of China. If all of a sudden you can't redeem CNY outside of China inside it that makes it a very poor storage of value.

Re: 72% of the dollar's purchasing power was destroyed in just four episodes

#235

Post by krsw »

anal_reactor wrote: post #133
prox wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the internet use is usually “reverse uno (card)” which means the tables are being turned, aka what you tried is being reflected back at you.

I really don't think that HN would ace a card game knowledge test.

don't be a joker

Re: 72% of the dollar's purchasing power was destroyed in just four episodes

#236

Post by roncesvalles »

znnajdla wrote: post #196
roncesvalles wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the Big Mac index is flawed because it's not quite the same burger, since it's not made in the same regulatory environment, or by people compensated equally fairly.

All measures are flawed but can you do better?

No, my point is that there is no such thing as purchasing power. An iPhone doesn't cost less in China or India even though their "purchasing power" is much higher on paper.

Having "high purchasing power" just means that you have access to low quality options that people in "low purchasing power" countries don't because there isn't a market for it.

Re: 72% of the dollar's purchasing power was destroyed in just four episodes

#238

Post by marcosdumay »

fmbb wrote: post #216
marcosdumay wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the optimal course for most billionaires either. Maybe it is for a few of them.

I mean ”optimal” is not well defined. It is not great for the economy or societal stability and if wealth is more and more unevenly distributed. But the wealthy benefit in the short term by gaining power in society.

Ok, "optimal" may be the wrong word.

Most billionaires will lose both money and power on the timeframe of a couple of years due to the destruction of the value of the dollar. Even internally to the US.

Some may gain both. Someone will probably gain both, and the odds are good some billionaires are included.

Re: 72% of the dollar's purchasing power was destroyed in just four episodes

#239

Post by roncesvalles »

runako wrote: post #208
roncesvalles wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if not quite true, it doesn't change my argument since it was more about the rate of change. You can construct the definition of white collar in a way that makes it seem like it's mostly white people, but among high paying job titles within a company, absolutely I would say there are fewer than 50% non-Jewish whites.

> Even if not quite true, it doesn't change my argument This is one of the main points of bigotry. The facts don't matter. So when a person says something obviously ridiculous like > among high paying job titles within a company, absolutely I would say there are fewer than 50% non-Jewish whites the proper way to interpret is "I feel like there are too many unworthy people working there," where "too many" is entirely…

>"I feel like there are too many unworthy people working there"

Not at all. That was not my implication even slightly. I'm non-white btw.

Re: 72% of the dollar's purchasing power was destroyed in just four episodes

#240

Post by d3ckard »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #205
d3ckard wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not advantage, it makes for artificial demand for your currency, which completely screws up all the relevant metrics and makes you unable to actually inflate the currency when getting less competitive. It's resource curse on steroids.

We are assuming a resource curse on steroids, the ability to sell the ‘resource’ is used to distort the economy and pay for the cost of running an empire. The US chooses to do this because it is controlled by those who benefit from this not for the long term benefit of the country. Saying it’s not an advantage is to assume those in control want to have manufacturing in the US, while such noises are made there is very…

They very much want to have manufacturing, since it’s a requirement for war. They just don’t realize it. Plus, it is a conflict between all the extra money to spend and long term state welfare.
Post reply on HN