The key consideration everyone misses is: "Compared to what?"
The 'dollar demise' has been talked about for decades. BRICS has been around for 20+ years, with plenty of incentive to replace it, yet it's still here. Which major currency hasn't been inflated away in recent times especially, that also can replace it?
Eurodollar network is stronger than than the vast majority want to admit, or even understand.
I've always heard that the "greenback" was a currency that Abe Lincoln put out there right before he was assassinated. Then, they were pulled back out of circulation.
After 2008 did QE not have a large effect on inflation because the created money was only circulating between banks and not in circulation in the public space?
It's not a concept that is usually considered, when discussing the pitfalls of money creation. The reason I guess, that very few people manage to hold on to ($20k) in today's currency for 112 years, is that most people (who aren't wealthy) need that money to buy food, spend on education, and otherwise participate in the economy. To answer your direct question: the dollar has devalued in very rough numbers to the corresponding proliferation of the amount of dollars that circulate. That is the prevailing wisdom.
So someone, in theory who lived 112 years, would have way more money in their pocket to compensate for their 3% purchasing power. Maybe 33 times more money for instance. It seems that the main motivating factor for having zero inflation, is to reward savers. Who in essence want their money to 'grow', without the actual circulating pool of currency growing as well. Interest payments or 'growth' of money can't come out of nowhere, it has to come out of an ever increasing pool of money. Our problem really, is that the money is created as a temporary debt, with essentially unaffordable interest. Perpetual musical chairs. Permanent debt for temporary credit.
Thanks for your detailled reply, I like your different view. In essence, without a growing money supply, the savers profit maybe too much, if I got your right. Well, this won't make all the gold bugs here happy, but I think you are right. This insight might be helpful, if it was our wish to create a new money system, however, it seems others do this for us ;-), and we need to think, how to counteract. Thank you and have a nice evening!
It would be great if Doug had a $20 a month level with investment advice. Can’t afford $50 a month. Would like to take advantage of his stock picks! 🙏🏼
The key consideration everyone misses is: "Compared to what?"
The 'dollar demise' has been talked about for decades. BRICS has been around for 20+ years, with plenty of incentive to replace it, yet it's still here. Which major currency hasn't been inflated away in recent times especially, that also can replace it?
Eurodollar network is stronger than than the vast majority want to admit, or even understand.
compared to gold.
so has BTC - even more so.
All fiats are declining against gold. Yet USD has fared better than other fiats. That's the point.
Stablecoins are extending its influence globally, too. I've seen it extensively in Argentina and other countries the past few years.
For how long, who knows. Long-term it'll be replaced by something - but nobody really knows 'what.'
bigger, maybe. Stronger? I’m not so sure.
I've always heard that the "greenback" was a currency that Abe Lincoln put out there right before he was assassinated. Then, they were pulled back out of circulation.
Then more recently, the dollar is called that
After 2008 did QE not have a large effect on inflation because the created money was only circulating between banks and not in circulation in the public space?
Just my 2 cents about the oft cited 97% reduction in the US dollar purchasing power since 1913:
$100 in 1913 presumably bought 5 ounces of gold, which today is ~ $20,000, a 200:1 devaluation
$100 stored since 1913 one dollar bills, possibly pristine, could have a considerable numismatic value
$100 dollars stored in a savings account at 4.75% annual interest, compounded monthly for 112 years is ~ $20,000
interesting. And what you want to say with that? --- that taking into account the interest, its value stayed the same?
It's not a concept that is usually considered, when discussing the pitfalls of money creation. The reason I guess, that very few people manage to hold on to ($20k) in today's currency for 112 years, is that most people (who aren't wealthy) need that money to buy food, spend on education, and otherwise participate in the economy. To answer your direct question: the dollar has devalued in very rough numbers to the corresponding proliferation of the amount of dollars that circulate. That is the prevailing wisdom.
So someone, in theory who lived 112 years, would have way more money in their pocket to compensate for their 3% purchasing power. Maybe 33 times more money for instance. It seems that the main motivating factor for having zero inflation, is to reward savers. Who in essence want their money to 'grow', without the actual circulating pool of currency growing as well. Interest payments or 'growth' of money can't come out of nowhere, it has to come out of an ever increasing pool of money. Our problem really, is that the money is created as a temporary debt, with essentially unaffordable interest. Perpetual musical chairs. Permanent debt for temporary credit.
Thanks for your detailled reply, I like your different view. In essence, without a growing money supply, the savers profit maybe too much, if I got your right. Well, this won't make all the gold bugs here happy, but I think you are right. This insight might be helpful, if it was our wish to create a new money system, however, it seems others do this for us ;-), and we need to think, how to counteract. Thank you and have a nice evening!
It would be great if Doug had a $20 a month level with investment advice. Can’t afford $50 a month. Would like to take advantage of his stock picks! 🙏🏼
good stuff needs to be costly ;)
Chaos coming our way...why are so many not seeing the "
whites of their eyes"?