I've never seen this on the ""National"" Debt Clock.... I wonder what it means, or signifies.... - The Great Awakening

I've never seen this on the ""National"" Debt Clock.... I wonder what it means, or signifies.... (media.greatawakening.win) 🔍 Notable

posted 1 year ago by HOSEQ 1 year ago by HOSEQ +169 / -1

39 comments download

39 comments share download save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (39)

sorted by:

▲ 1 ▼

– Qanaut 1 point 1 year ago +3 / -2

Well . . . Chat GPT could be totally off on all of this.

I asked it a follow up question about your statement:

Is the following true?

"If year on year increase of m2 is <0, then that divided by anything will be zero."

The output was:

"No, the statement is false. If the year-on-year increase of M2 (a measure of the money supply) is negative, then dividing it by anything will not necessarily be zero. It would depend on the value being divided by. For example, if the year-on-year increase of M2 is -5 and it is divided by 2, the result would be -2.5, not zero."

This didn't really give me a relevant answer, so I asked the following:

What would cause the value to be zero?

The output was:

The value being zero could occur if the year-on-year increase of M2 is zero. For example, if the increase in the money supply from one year to the next is exactly zero, then dividing that value by any number (including itself) would result in zero. In this case, the year-on-year increase of M2 would not be negative, but rather remain unchanged from one year to the next.

This seems to align with your explanation of the happening.

I inquired further though:

Could this indicate an economic crisis?

The last reply was:

No, a year-on-year increase of M2 of zero does not necessarily indicate an economic crisis. A flat growth rate in the money supply can have several causes, including changes in monetary policy or shifts in demand for money. However, in some cases, a persistent decline in the rate of growth of the money supply can be a sign of an economic slowdown or a decrease in economic activity. In this context, it could potentially be a warning sign of an impending crisis, but it is not a reliable indicator by itself. Other economic indicators, such as employment, inflation, and gross domestic product, would also need to be considered.

So I'm getting conflicting explanations from the GPT, unless I am not understanding the right terminology to specify to GPT, and therefor receiving inadequate or inaccurate feedback.

I think you might be right in your assessment after all, but it would still be worth keeping an eye on this situation. It also could be the case that GPT has algorithms in place to deliberately obfuscate certain subject matter, thereby producing inconclusive search results.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 4 ▼

– JonathanE 4 points 1 year ago +4 / -0

I did say 'effectively' zero :)

I'm pretty sure the coders of the debt clock have just put something in there that says 'if {value} < 0 then {value} = 0'

Perhaps ask it what the m2 supply being less this year than last year means?

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 3 ▼

– Qanaut 3 points 1 year ago +3 / -0

The reply came back:

If the M2 money supply is lower this year than last year, it means that the total amount of money in circulation has decreased over the past year. M2 is a measure of the money supply that includes cash, checking deposits, and near money (short-term deposits that are highly liquid and can be quickly converted to cash). A decrease in the M2 money supply could indicate several things, including a decrease in the demand for money, changes in monetary policy by the central bank, or a contraction in the economy. However, it is important to consider other economic indicators and factors in order to fully understand the implications of a decrease in the M2 money supply.

I also asked for other possible explanations for this phenomenon.

There could be several other explanations for the M2 money supply being lower this year than last year, including:

Increased saving: If households and businesses are saving more and spending less, the demand for money will decrease, causing the M2 money supply to decline.

Decreased lending: If banks are lending less, there will be less money in circulation, causing the M2 money supply to decline.

Shifts in foreign exchange: If there is a significant shift in foreign exchange rates, it could affect the M2 money supply by altering the demand for a currency.

Changes in monetary policy: Central banks can influence the M2 money supply through various monetary policy tools, such as open market operations or reserve requirements.

Repaying debt: If households and businesses are paying off debt, they may be reducing the amount of money they have in checking deposits or near money, causing the M2 money supply to decline.

It is important to consider all relevant economic indicators and factors in order to fully understand the implications of a decrease in the M2 money supply.

The last follow up question I asked for specificity was regarding if the M2 money supply being less this year than last year could indicate an economic crisis, recession, or depression event.

The final reply came back:

A decrease in the M2 money supply can be a warning sign of an economic slowdown or a potential crisis, but it is not a reliable indicator by itself. A decrease in the M2 money supply could indicate several things, including decreased lending, increased saving, shifts in foreign exchange, changes in monetary policy, or a contraction in the economy. However, the presence of other indicators and factors, such as a decrease in employment, a decline in gross domestic product, or a sustained period of low inflation, would be necessary to confirm that an economic crisis, recession, or depression event is taking place. In other words, a decrease in the M2 money supply should be considered in the context of other economic indicators and factors in order to fully understand its implications.

It seems like this is a rather complicated issue, with a variety of variables to consider. We need an economist anon to chime in with their own explanation.

Still, this has been an educating dig if nothing else!

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 5 ▼

– deleted 5 points 1 year ago +5 / -0