Oddbean

Yuval is a prime example of how an expert is completeley clueless about anything out of his area of expertise. His anthropological books are interesting enough, but he is a big government statist cuck and nobody should be listening seriously to anything else this malthusian asshole has to say.

Objective data on why it is not a good idea to print money and how during all this time we have lost purchasing power. - Our parents could afford solid wood furniture, production processes have improved, therefore we should be able to buy the same furniture as our parents, and we are not. This applies to many building materials. - By extension, it should be the same with housing, now a house is built faster because the production processes have improved and yet our parents had to spend many fewer years to afford it. - The same applies to vehicles. - Food has been especially sensitive to this. Many foods that were once considered poor people's foods, such as sardines, are now almost luxury delicacies. Many people can only eat cereal by-products, which is real garbage for the body, and cannot afford meat or fish in the necessary quantities. - The only thing that has remained more affordable for a while, and even dropped in price, is electronics, because the deflationary advance of its development has been greater than the loss of purchasing power generated by the printing of currency. Therefore, objectively, the printing of money has only served to impoverish those at the bottom and make those at the top richer, the present concentration of wealth is the greatest ever known from historical series, surpassing the period 1870-1914. One only has to understand how the CPI works to know how evil Harari's words are. Normally wage increases in all countries are associated with the increase in CPI, this metric is manipulated downward, not reflecting the actual level of inflation, is the great swindle of the system, if this metric was associated with the real level, no one would gain anything and no one would lose anything, for someone to win someone else has to lose. This leads to salaries always lagging behind inflation and to the loss of purchasing power over time. If we distribute all the printed coins equally, nobody wins, everything stays the same, the coins have to be distributed only to a few, the Cantillon effect. nostr:note1chrmj8jeapplg0cgmxz4hafd6vvqa730swkdsqz9anx40fhcfqvs9hcz2y

He doesn't like it becaus cause it doesn't required trust.... I feel like as a historian he should go back and look at how often trust in a entity that has the power over money worked out over the long run... (Hint: zero) nostr:nevent1qqsvt3aerev7ssl58uydnp2m75kaxxqwlghc8txcqpz7en2h5muysxgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzvupzpl8hpfzul2qha25p8wd63gm46ufax95lfgnl8h9v84y3zt0k05m7qvzqqqqqqy2qqqg7

Before I began learning about investing, money, the economy, and inflation, I trusted banks and the government and put my savings in a bank account. I lost about 30-40% in purchasing power after COVID. It was a painfully learned lesson. What level of trust should I have in this system after experiencing that?

I wish too we could trust banks and the government, and he is correct that if that was the case, bitcoin would be trash and solve nothing. But the fact of the matter is, we can't trust banks and governments, as we've seen through many examples of history. hiStORiAn.