True, the US is not Zimbabwe, or Venezuela, but is a bright person like himself not aware that a dollar or pound is worth a small fraction of itself decades to a century ago?
Can't argue with that, but for example the U.S. dollar has been off the gold standard for decades. And I would point out that wages have been increasing for at least as long as we've been off the gold standard. The inflation therefore hasn't been nearly as bad as some would suggest.
On the other hand I fear for future generations if the money printing continues unabated. This kind of thing cannot go on indefinitely, and the U.S. cannot maintain its dominancy if the federal reserve keeps churning out the money. They're extremely short sighted and I have a feeling they just don't care about future generations having to clean up their economic mess.
Christ this country is fucked. (United States, that is).
That has been the case because the dollar is the world reserve currency. It gave the Fed a free ticket to print as much as it wants. Can this be sustained with China and Russia moving away from the existing status quo? If this is not sustained inflation will go up the roof in most developed countries and gold and bitcoin will become the safe heaven to store your money. One can be confiscated the other not.
Post
Topic
BoardEconomics
Re: Money Is Political, Not Technical
by
julien hawari
on 07/10/2019, 05:14:22 UTC
What are your thoughts on Financial Capitalism vs Industrial Capitalism? In in those different approach the use of money and the impact of Crypto.
Money has always been a tool of politics first, and then the economy. So the invited elite of society always went into politics primarily in order to strengthen their economic, that is, financial position. On the whole, the issue of issuing money has always been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. Who controlled the issue of issuing money, he had real political power. Therefore, one should not be surprised if states continue to tighten the rules for cryptocurrency circulation and try to control it.
Yes, it's true. Politics and money have always been and will be inextricably linked. The meaning of political decisions is usually almost always aimed at strengthening the economic condition of society or its individual groups. There is nothing surprising here. After all, we live in our rough physical world, where the economy determines politics, and not vice versa
I tend to disagree with this view
If anything, it is politicians who determine the economic policy of a country and ultimately its fate, not economists. Politics has the upper hand in the economic matters, and to prove that is in fact pretty easy. Most wars turn out an economic disaster for the belligerent countries (it has been so for millenia), while the questions of peace and war are in the hands of a few people who may not have a damn clue about economics and how the economy works. In other words, it remains to be seen whether political decisions are actually aimed at strengthening the economic conditions of a country as it may well be to the contrary
Could those people actually end up having economic benefits from wars? Direct of indirect benefits? Centralization of power and situation where economic operators are dependent on government to operate creates situations of monopolies, corruption, etc...