🤨
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (18)
sorted by:
This introduces some unforeseen problems, like R&D would practically grind to a half. Using depreciating debt to fund future profits has created a crazy feedback loop of technology.
Consider the relative cost of an iPhone in 1964, it would be billions upon billions of dollars.
You could make a very strong argument that such growth is neither needed nor wanted and fair enough, but it is still a point that needs to be considered.
I don't understand the connection between normalizing and standardizing the worth of $.25 and your comment. Can you explain? How are you calculating the relative cost, for instance?
The devaluation of currency (inflation) causes debt to depreciate.
Isn't that technically manipuIating doIIar worth? And isn't debt primarily how the U.S. doIIar is trying to stay relevant only after moving away from the goIdstandard? I mean, I do admit I'm not exactly knowledgeable about this kinda thing, but is it possible that this is abandaid soIution that only is necessary because the actual probIem has never been addressed?
Yes, if your goal is inflation, you manipulate the currency to inflate in a stable manner.
I don't understand your question about the gold standard. The US dollar is relevant because you need it, on a state level, to buy and sell oil and on a personally level to buy and sell milk or whatever.
Inflation invites growth. It does so by devaluing debt, allowing for people to pull money from the future at a discount, provided they invest it toward the future.
You can argue that endless growth isn't a great goal and fair enough, but to ignore that growth and think that everything would be the same, only we'd all be richer is foolish. If money didn't inflate, we'd be decades behind where we currently are in technological development.
Like a slower run up to our eventual technological destruction?