[late]

I agree with this guy. If you hang in there a while, he predicts bitcoin will take a beating. In any case, worth a watch..

[Puffer Fish]

I agree with this guy. If you hang in there a while, he predicts bitcoin will take a beating.

I can agree that bitcoin will take a beating. But not because inflation is not like it was in the 70s.

[late]

I can agree that bitcoin will take a beating. But not because inflation is not like it was in the 70s.

You didn't watch the video.

[ckaihatsu]

You didn't watch the video.

(Translation: Why hasn't your mind melted yet? You didn't watch the video. You're not *supposed* to be informed of economic history.)


It's *getting to be* like the '70s, and if not strictly by the numbers, then by the political *dynamics* certainly. (The-U.S.-would-rather-spend-on-distracting-deadly-imperialist-wars-abroad-than-to-address-unresolved-burning-domestic-issues.)

Where's the crowd that would normally say 'History repeats itself', or some variation thereof -- ?

[late]

(Translation: Why hasn't your mind melted yet? You didn't watch the video. You're not *supposed* to be informed of economic history.)


It's *getting to be* like the '70s, and if not strictly by the numbers, then by the political *dynamics* certainly. (The-U.S.-would-rather-spend-on-distracting-deadly-imperialist-wars-abroad-than-to-address-unresolved-burning-domestic-issues.)

Where's the crowd that would normally say 'History repeats itself', or some variation thereof -- ?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=182335

[ckaihatsu]

In the video there's a contradiction -- people won't be helped from a suggested recommended *easing* of (economic) fiscal policy, because that's not what's actually *happening*. The Fed is *raising* the cost of capital / loans in order to *tighten* economic fiscal policy, reminiscent of what *Volcker* did in the '70s. (See the WSWS on this one.)

Also -- '70s:

The 400 ‘advisers’ when Kennedy took over the presidency had risen to 18,000 by the time of his assassination. In 1965 marines landed at Danang naval base, and there were 33,500 US troops in the country within a month, with 210,000 by the end of the year. Meanwhile the US air force waged the biggest bombing campaign in history, pounding away at both the North and South, day after day, week after week, year after year, in the belief that it could force the liberation forces to abandon the struggle.

The Vietnam War was not like the war in Korea, a struggle waged by regular armies which the rulers of the North could call off at any time. It had grown out of spontaneous struggles against a repressive regime, and the leaders of North Vietnam could not turn their back on these without doing enormous damage to their prestige as the pioneers of the struggle for national independence.

The US was trapped in a war of attrition from which there was no easy way out. It could establish a forward base at Khe Sanh near the partition line with the North and, at great cost, stop the liberation forces taking it. But it could not use the base to subdue the surrounding countryside, and eventually had to abandon it. It could maintain control of the towns, but it could not avoid being almost overrun by a sudden offensive by the liberation forces at Tet, the Vietnamese new year, early in 1968. It could not stop the escalating cost of the Vietnam War increasing its total military outlay by 30 percent and causing US big business to protest. Finally, it could not prevent the war causing huge fissures to open in US society as young people rebelled against the horror of war and being conscripted to fight.

Harman, _People's History of the World_, pp. 572-572

[ckaihatsu]

(Dude was having an oh-shit moment, right at the very end of the video. Just *how high* are inflation rates going to *go*, does one think....)

[ckaihatsu]

I can agree that bitcoin will take a beating. But not because inflation is not like it was in the 70s.

You didn't watch the video.

I saw a kind of *sneering* and realized that the guy was saying that savers (Bitcoin / rentier capital) are about to get *punished* (because of the rebound of *finance*, with rising interest rates and inflation). It's a sea change.

[late]

In the video there's a contradiction -- people won't be helped from a suggested recommended *easing* of (economic) fiscal policy, because that's not what's actually *happening*. The Fed is *raising* the cost of capital / loans in order to *tighten* economic fiscal policy, reminiscent of what *Volcker* did in the '70s.

Could you at least try to make sense?

We aren't talking about easing. The article was talking about the flawed rationale behind tightening.

You didn't read the article, did you?

[ckaihatsu]

Could you at least try to make sense?

We aren't talking about easing. The article was talking about the flawed rationale behind tightening.

You didn't read the article, did you?

Sorry, but I saw *nervousness*, because of this long-foreseen culmination of a 'perfect storm' (my wording) -- of needing to 'ease', as has been the monetary regime of late, while also needing to *tighten*, as against the rising (on-paper) cost of *labor*, along with everything else in the real economy, from the uptick in consumer price inflation.

In other words the regular mode of functioning is to have *cheap* government money, for the financial sector (itself a living relic), but the cost of NATO / Ukraine / Russia / Germany is throwing off the national budget and causing U.S. prestige to *slip*, especially with its petrodollar buddies, OPEC, and they're *not* going to release more oil to help the U.S. with its economy. Higher energy prices all around, plus increased international weapons sales, and we have the economic-destructiveness conditions that capitalism inherently calls-for in this situation.

[late]

Sorry, but I saw *nervousness*, because of this long-foreseen culmination of a 'perfect storm' (my wording) -- of needing to 'ease', as has been the monetary regime of late, while also needing to *tighten*, as against the rising (on-paper) cost of *labor*, along with everything else in the real economy, from the uptick in consumer price inflation.

In other words the regular mode of functioning is to have *cheap* government money, for the financial sector (itself a living relic), but the cost of NATO / Ukraine / Russia / Germany is throwing off the national budget and causing U.S. prestige to *slip*, especially with its petrodollar buddies, OPEC, and they're *not* going to release more oil to help the U.S. with its economy. Higher energy prices all around, plus increased international weapons sales, and we have the economic-destructiveness conditions that capitalism inherently calls-for in this situation.

That also didn't make sense.

[ckaihatsu]

That also didn't make sense.

Here -- what doesn't make sense is that the whole *&#$@ *system* is about to close the back cover because the capitalist economy can't even *flow* without continuous cheap / free subsidies for needed liquidity and to make everything nice and tidy on *paper*.

The system can't be sustained *without* government deficit spending, for liquidity (low Federal Funds rate), and it can't be sustained *with* government deficit spending, because as things were there was no further 'down' to even *go* with the interest rate, by the Fed -- the low interest rate meaning full government subsidies for *whatever*, which introduced everyone to *zombie companies* and *zombie banks*.

If *high* interest rates are a wet-blanket, but *low* interest rates can only go so low (like limbo), then *what's left* -- ?

My pet theory is that a sustained low interest rate regime would effectively be the end of central banking itself, and any *higher* interest rate than that would be *even worse*, for obvious reasons.

[late]

The system can't be sustained *without* government deficit spending, for liquidity (low Federal Funds rate), and it can't be sustained *with* government deficit spending, because as things were there was no further 'down' to even *go* with the interest rate, by the Fed -- the low interest rate meaning full government subsidies for *whatever*, which introduced everyone to *zombie companies* and *zombie banks*.

You're conflating the economics of capitalism, that a growing economy needs more money... with the enormous and outrageous political influence of the people that rape the country for fun and profit, the rentiers..

[ckaihatsu]

You're conflating the economics of capitalism, that a growing economy needs more money... with the enormous and outrageous political influence of the people that rape the country for fun and profit, the rentiers..

Isn't that a rather *inappropriate* descriptor to use -- ?

I'm not arguing *against* cheap government debt for the system, but ultimately I'm not *for* the system -- disruptions in the real economy affect real people's *lives*, but on the other hand I don't think that the system *can* be readily bailed-out indefinitely, due to government debt-to-GDP-ratios reaching their palatable limits, as we saw in March 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_stoc ... sh#Crash_2


I'll *call* your bluff and ask you to describe what you find to be so objectionable about rentier capital in particular.

[late]

I'll *call* your bluff and ask you to describe what you find to be so objectionable about rentier capital in particular.

[ckaihatsu]

economic-destructiveness

Artificial scarcity is scarcity of items despite the technology for production or the sufficient capacity for sharing. The most common causes are monopoly pricing structures, such as those enabled by laws that restrict competition or by high fixed costs in a particular marketplace. The inefficiency associated with artificial scarcity is formally known as a deadweight loss.

Background

In a capitalist system, an enterprise is judged to be successful and efficient if it is profitable. To obtain maximum profits, producers may be restricting production rather than ensuring the maximum utilisation of resources. This strategy of restricting production by firms in order to obtain profits in a capitalist system or mixed economy is known as creating artificial scarcity.[1]

Artificial scarcity essentially describes situations where the producers or owners of a good restrict its availability to others beyond what is strictly necessary. Ideas and information are prime examples of unnecessarily scarce products

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity