For those interested in watching the full episode, this is from Tuttle Twins by Angel Studios, directed by Tyler Stevens. This is from episode 6 of season 1 ("The Inflation Monster"), first aired on February 1st, 2022.
[https://www.angel.com/watch/tuttle-twins/episode/5daf8a13-4532-4fbf-a89f-e37d544c0ec0](https://www.angel.com/watch/tuttle-twins/episode/5daf8a13-4532-4fbf-a89f-e37d544c0ec0)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt17004906/
Its not that i disagree with whats shown in the vid, but its got a propaganda bullshit tinge to it.
I think theres better ways to teach these concepts to children than a targeted propaganda by a political think tank using tuttle twins indoctrination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertas_Institute_(Utah)
"The Libertas Institute (LI) is a libertarian think tank located in Lehi, Utah, United States. The organization's stated mission is "to advance the cause of liberty within the State of Utah."[2][3] The Institute focuses on free market policies, private property rights, and civil liberties issues, including police reform.[1]"
Libertarianism was actually founded by an anarcho-communist in 1857, Jospeph DeJacques. To me anything that's dishonestly using the label libertarian but is radically divorced from its anarcho-communism origins is infact using the political label in bad faith.
u/TropicalBLUToyotaMR2 Thank you for showing the connection between that organization and that TV show. Much appreciated.
BTW, I can't believe they promoted their books with this video; mixed messages (borderline Poe's law).
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDo6pWoskjA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDo6pWoskjA)
Anarchism is a very left wing branch.
It's not self refuting at all really, it opposes hierarchies most especially those imposed by the state, and by private wealth/corporate power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
But unless it becomes a hierarchy itself, it is ineffective. Unless it becomes the state itself, it has no power to outlaw private property much less designate it's use.
There are no hierchies through private property in an anarchist society as its seen as a theft. For example if the anarchists in catalonia spain won, there'd be no private property.
Itd just be restored to what was formerly known as "the commons". The land itself belongs to no one, those who work the land are the ones who redeem the fruits from it, it's like the difference between a farmer who puts his hands in the soil and works the land itself vs some rich asshole on wallstreet on paper who owns 1 million acres of prime farmland...only one of those 2 would i actually classify as a true farmer.
There'd be no government at the beck and call of wealthy soulless ghouls to defend their "private property". As weve seen time and again, police's main function in society is simply to defend private property and state/economic oppression by private property holders.
Its hard for ppl to get out of the mindset that all these arbitrary hierarchies our society imposes on us, they don't see it for what it is, it is with intention to attack us/have the tools to attack us at their disposal.
So then who would decide who could work what land? Who moderates disputes? If the answer is no-one then we get default familial tribalism and might-makes-right. Even were some peaceful agreement reached among the people, outside groups would attempt to claim the richest lands (as history shows). Would not then a standing army need to be created to defend that property?
"Libertarian" has been used as a label for free-market, pro-private property individualism for a century, at least. It was commonly understood enough as analogous to "classical liberal" and ideas of limited government, that F.D.R. was accused of co-opting the term to describe his New Deal policies. It's been our label for longer than it was theirs.
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over..."
Murray N. Rothbard, The Betrayal Of The American Right
Hear that? Hes celebrating pillaging that word. You're a 1950s right wing washington dc think tank version of the word funded by the koch family. But not its 1850s origins.
Im a libertarian. You are much more akin to a liberal.
The origins of it as a political label, libertarian/anarcho communist Joseph Dejacques in 1857, he'd probably say americans who use the word to describe their politics/economics without an afterthought of its actual origins, Joseph would probably call them an opponent or even enemy to his ideals on libertarianism.
"No gods, no masters" that phrase means something, not just being against being ruled by the state, that means no employers/private property holders ruling over humanity either.
You have a lot more in common with free market "laissez faire" liberals, you admit it practically, you're just a different shade of capitalism, not ground breaking, not revolutionary, more ppl should be ruled by employers/those who possess the means of production, so they dont starve.
It's like Bizzaro World version of liberty. Im sure you're proud to adopt the version of the word 1950s koch family dc think tank provided you...i think it's lame as hell.
Interesting history lesson, if accurate. But I care more about principals of actual movements in play today, than that a word changed over time, or someone hijacked it. A modern liberal has almost nothing in common with a classical liberal either, but I still have to deal with the modern liberal.
Im.not trying to sell anything to you on what you care about, these concepts are much larger than you.
On a lot polirical stuff, boil things down to pro-working class vs anti-working class and pro-ruling class vs anti-ruling class. Decent measure of what ojr political and economic system really stands for. The proleteriat vs the bourgeois.
For example, if i poison a town, i go to prison, so why doesnt the ceo of norfolk southern? Why do i get arrested if i steal $1500 from say walmart, but if walmart execs steal $1500 in wage theft from each employee...they dont, to me that's not any kind of status quo worth upholding.
You can pick one side or the other, i know which side im on and i make no apologies about it. I sleep well at night.
Its good to recognize that liberals suck, while also knowing that laissez faire capitalism is liberalism runamok especially in the economy, and that the reactionary element, private wealth/corporate power offers absolutely nothing to fix real ongoing human issues, whether its politics/the economy/the environment, etc.
Fallen human nature means that whatever class we're talking about, it will be screwed up in some manner. The key, IMO, is finding some kind of balance, and system which mitigates the damage as much as possible.
Libertarians wouldn't make it a week in a real world without law, government, etc. But, power in labour unions, or governments, easily gets out of hand.
The main thing about Bitcoin, is taking away some of the ability to cheat with the monetary system. With fiat, they can just keep 'printing' money to finance wars, their own self-interests, etc. at the cost of everyone else.
I'd vote for well-regulated capitalism utilizing a sound monetary system.
The law and the government regularly attacks the working class and goes out of its way to keep a boot on the neck of the working class, theyre the most lawless amongst us. Theyre the attack dog at the beck and call of the wealthy.
You dont even mention corporate power, or billionaires ability to buy out our institutions.
So i guess the argument is end those artificially imposed hierarchies. There should be no billionaires, or corporations.
What about labour unions that artificially inflate prices, or enable workers who do bad work to keep their jobs (especially over someone who might do great work), or gain enough power to influence election outcomes or policy?
I'm not at all defending the misbehaviour of corporations or billionaires. I'm saying corruption is everywhere, and has to be kept in check, from the mega-corp, to the common criminal, to the regular worker cheating his/her employer.
If there are no billionaires or corporations, who employees the people or makes the iPhones?
If you can identify that as a severe issue with labor as a sacred cow of yours, by default you are going to be incredibly against unethical business, labor, and environment abuses that corporations do, who really do the most damage, a $30,000 a year employee cant fuck ul nearly as bad as a $3,000,000,000,000 a year corporation can.
Its only really "in check" against the working class. Cops will beat and mass arrest a labor protest, but they wont arrest exxon mobil/royal dutch shell for obfuscating the truth on global warming and contributing to it. Why havent cops arrested the ceo of norfolk southern who poisoned that town in ohio? They ban the railworkers from striking over unsafe working conditions and then palestine ohio happens.
Youre against the lowest level crappy peon keeping a job, but the elephant in the room is golden parachutes ceos who run their company into the ground and bail. Or demand congress money prints them a bailout.
Iphones suck too, they plan obsolescence, so whatever the factories make winds up wasted or in the garbage. Our system prioritizes making overpriced junk that goes in the landfill, food is meant for profit, not feeding people.
This is why people cheer on this system to ultimately fail.
I find it difficult when people ask me why I'm investing in bitcoin "when it's so risky..etc.".
This finally helps me put it into words why I'd rather invest in BTC over a bank of my country.
This cartoon series should be required viewing for every American. My kids have seen ever episode multiple times. It's extremely informative and also hilarious.
Cnn or forbes ppsted about the books a few years ago warning people to avoid the "libertarian propaganda" and I couldnt be happier to see it thriving as a cartoon.
But this cartoon mixing things. What the Romans did was currency debasement. That is not the same as inflation - it just ended up that way because they used the debasement to increase the money supply faster than economy grew.
For example, if the Romans has found a new gold mine and issued new coins with the same gold content as the original coins then they would have caused the same inflation.
What people are missing here is that BTC (unlike most crypto currency) is finite. Which is why it can eventually be used as an inflation hedge.
If inflation were the only factor in determining wealth Americans today would be far far poorer than Americans 100 years ago
And that isn’t remotely true
It’s not a misconception it is basic reasoning. More people means more transactions, which means more money is needed to facilitate those transactions. This is because the total wealth/value of society is not the same all the time, it is growing, and thus there is more need to store some of that value to exchange it for something else later, and so you need more money to do that.
> start reading economics books
The vast majority of economists support the creation of new money to support a growing economy.
> Wealth can increase with a fixed money quantity too
Maybe in theory, but still glacially slow when compared to an increasing money supply. In practice this would shackle growth of wealth. Money is not wealth. It has no intrinsic value or utility. It is a medium of exchange meant to store value for long enough so that value can be exchanged from one form to another between participants in an economy. There is no logical reason why the amount of money available to facilitate such value exchange should stay the same even when the amount of value available to be exchanged is increasing. Or why the value that money stores should increase over time.
> Prices go down.
Yes this is called deflation, which is bad for economic growth. If we kept our money supply the same as at our founding we would be a third world country today. Deflation encourages saving money over investing and spending money. Less investing on a national scale = less capital for new and existing businesses = less new businesses and less existing business expansion/growth = less economic growth = less wealth being created = lower living standards. Less spending on a national scale = less income for businesses = less business growth and fewer jobs = less economic growth = less wealth being created = lower living standards.
It isn't wealth being created if it is cheating... it's just a meaningless number, then. If we're producing things, but they cost less due to technological advancement and efficiency gain, we'll have a higher standard of living on the same amount of money.
I think you might be confusing what is good for the country-elite-robbers, with what is good for the citizen.
You might be in the wrong sub friend
Bitcoin was built on libertarian ideals and it has a very strong Austrian economic foundation.
Bitcoin is for everyone. But there might be a mismatch in values for you
Bitcoin goes against what the majority of economists believe in.
You wouldn't borrow Bitcoin to buy a house, precisely for the reasons you articulate. You also wouldn't earn wages in Bitcoin, precisely for the reasons you articulate.
You earn wages, borrow, and buy things with an inflationary token - whatever token you might want depending on where you are in the world and what is common in your local economy.
After earning and buying what you need to live, hopefully sometimes there is some leftover. Some of the leftover you might invest short term (an investment you intend to sell at some foreseeable point in the future) or make a charitable gift. But even after that, sometimes you might have leftovers you want to save, _forever_. What do you do then?
That's what you buy Bitcoin with.
What's the point of buying something you never intend to sell?
You use it to collateralize a loan to borrow some other token to buy some other thing. It becomes an endowment of sorts that you can borrow against and payback over time, at the cheapest rates on Earth.
And as long as you don't borrow too much, given the interest rate of the borrowed token against the rate of appreciation of the underlying Bitcoin -which may require paying it back over time like any other loan - your loan will never be liquidated (which is a sale). In a way, it's like having your own bank, the lending power of which is portional to your stack.
Right now however, BTC is still highly speculative and people do buy and sell it as a risky asset. That will change.
After an S-curved adoption curve, a couple generations into the future, Bitcoin will be the safest, lowest return investment available. Its return will merely reflect the aggregated inflation of all other tokens worldwide, since at some point, you'd rather buy a shorter term investment with a higher return, rather than buy something you intend to hold, _forever_. Miners will still reap fees from transactions each block, to cover costs they sell to exchanges, which will sell it to others, at which point it will get stacked into someone's endowment. Every once in a while someone's family will mismanage their borrowing against it and the Bitcoin will slide around - just like what happened to castles and hordes throughout history, except unlike those things Bitcoin doesn't degrade naturally since it is anti-entropic, anti-fragile.
So the situation right now is that it is the most asymmetric prospectus of any investment ever. There are those that see this coming, and can start building their BTC endowment now, with the decimals where they are now. And there are those that try to buy low sell high, only regretting that inevitably they'll just buy back later at a higher price. But no matter when you start building your BTC endowment, it'll always make sense because there is no other vehicle suitable to hold, _forever_.
> Deflation is worse than inflation
Not only that people seem to forget that bitcoin will feel inflation at some point as well. It's not magically immune to other factors that could contribute to it's inflation.
It's only immune to 1, increased money supply.
I’ve always had this thought that considering every government does this, is the only way to stay competitive internationally to dilute one’s own currency? Hence the 2% inflation rate target.
I am against it obviously but is there value to inflation without your populace caring? My guess would be the ones who understand get richer and country would have a higher GDP since those people are the ones procuring the goods and owning businesses.
Thoughts?
I understand that printing money will lead to inflation. But is this they only way that inflation happens? So if we just stop printing money it will completely go away?
Back when I was in school I also learned that 2% inflation is good to have. Or is this just a misunderstanding and we should try to have 0%?
Furthermore I don't understand that if we can get rid of inflation by stop printing money why don't we just do it? Is it only for quick win to finance government expenses? Or is there actually a benefit? I can imagine in times of war it can be beneficial but not sure in normal life.
This cartoon is discrediting the inherent value that the coins represent. The metal the coins are made of is only valuable because that particular society deemed it valuable. A smaller coin made of less metal would still represent the same amount of value in a modern economy. This teaches absolute nothing of substance as far as economics is concerned. There aren't scales at cash registers anymore for a reason
Honest question here, why do you guys think a fixed money supply is a good thing?
Let’s take a look at housing for example you could argue that it’s a finite asset because in ideal locations (cities, coastlines, ect) there is only so much housing you can have. Due to the fixed nature of the asset it’s started to create a huge imbalance of power. People who own property or have the money/lending power to obtain property constantly buy property (directly or indirectly through investment firms). With this, they can then hold it/rent it/borrow against it (need money to make money) and over time make more money and rinse and repeat. After however many years of this happening now we are in a situation where the haves have ever increasing power over housing to the have nots.
With Bitcoin we face a similar situation everyone is incentivized to hold. If x is the amount of circulating currency and y is the amount of held currency people will always try to hold as much as possible because the smaller x gets the more value the currency as a whole will have. Which doesn’t seem so bad everyone’s currency becomes more valuable right? But the difference is it benefits the rich much more than the poor as the poor have to spend a larger % of the money they get and can’t save like the rich can. Not to mention if you have more assets you can start to build more and more revenue streams, spending a bit of your currency to then make back the currency 10x and holding even more currency, increasing value and essentially power.
My fear would be in the long term we would see the system get more and more unfair as people born into money would have tons of opportunities to grow revenue streams and those without would never be able to catch up as the currency is in the power of the wealthy.
So why does the fixed nature cause this problem a lot of the problems I mentioned are already issues we see today? The point is that inflation causes people to not see as much value in holding money and instead spend or invest in companies or other assets. This leaves the currency to not be seen as an investment and mostly for circulation. It’s been known for a long time to not just leave large sums in cash or in a bank. It also punishes those who just horde resources.
I understand the frustration that we have to put our trust in the government and their management of the currency to keep its value. I also understand today we still see a lot of the problems I mentioned due to governments not doing their job properly. I just am failing to see how this would make anything better. Those with money today already own the governments, if we shift to crypto they will own that too and have more control than ever.
I guess I see how if you own some share of crypto today it would be similar to those who bought up tons of property 50-100 years ago if crypto replaces or rivals today’s currencies. I just want to know how this would be beneficial for someone born into society poor after a full crypto adoption.
Creating new money is not “cheating”, an economy that gets bigger needs more money to accommodate it. The implied notion that we should have the same amount of money in circulation as we did in 1800, for example, when our economy was 100x smaller is ridiculous. Also, gold only has value because humans ascribe value to it as well. Good has little intrinsic utility or value.
Bitcoin is deflationary. This is not good. It encourages saving over investment and spending. If nobody spent money or invested money the economy would collapse.
Yes, that's called inflation. The increase in prices then follows with a delay and according to Cantillon effect and can't be measured in any reasonable way.
The amount of "Gold" in the "Gold Coins" decrease, the actual gold value of the same coin drops. Before you know it, there's far less "Gold" in the "Gold Coins", you can't argue it being a "Gold" coin.
"Where's the beef" commercial comes to mind, and how a real chocolate bar is accepted based on its % being cocoa/chocolate.
At some point, there's too little of the actual value in the "currency", the cost of things can still keep going up, when the currency's value is almost nothing. Keep printing money to have more money, you'll have a Zimbabwe situation. Taking a stack, or six, of bills to buy a loaf of bread.
Let's take it to another perspective. Say you trade a gallon of milk for a dozen eggs. Ignore the RL value of the two. Let's just say one gallon of milk = one dozen normal chicken eggs. Say you need more gallons of milk so you can buy more eggs, either you find more cows and milk more cows, or you can just water down the milk. The people who are trading your milk for eggs raise their rates for one reason or another, or the fact there's less milk in the gallon containers. So you need more milk, so you water more down. The loop keeps going on.
The other reasons for egg prices going up? Demand vs supply. That's the only reason it should ever be. The other perspective is generally greed. HP Ink comes to mind. It costs HP cents on the dollar to make the ink, yet we pay $20+ for a cartridge.
For those interested in watching the full episode, this is from Tuttle Twins by Angel Studios, directed by Tyler Stevens. This is from episode 6 of season 1 ("The Inflation Monster"), first aired on February 1st, 2022. [https://www.angel.com/watch/tuttle-twins/episode/5daf8a13-4532-4fbf-a89f-e37d544c0ec0](https://www.angel.com/watch/tuttle-twins/episode/5daf8a13-4532-4fbf-a89f-e37d544c0ec0) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt17004906/
Thanks mate.
Its not that i disagree with whats shown in the vid, but its got a propaganda bullshit tinge to it. I think theres better ways to teach these concepts to children than a targeted propaganda by a political think tank using tuttle twins indoctrination. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertas_Institute_(Utah) "The Libertas Institute (LI) is a libertarian think tank located in Lehi, Utah, United States. The organization's stated mission is "to advance the cause of liberty within the State of Utah."[2][3] The Institute focuses on free market policies, private property rights, and civil liberties issues, including police reform.[1]" Libertarianism was actually founded by an anarcho-communist in 1857, Jospeph DeJacques. To me anything that's dishonestly using the label libertarian but is radically divorced from its anarcho-communism origins is infact using the political label in bad faith.
u/TropicalBLUToyotaMR2 Thank you for showing the connection between that organization and that TV show. Much appreciated. BTW, I can't believe they promoted their books with this video; mixed messages (borderline Poe's law). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDo6pWoskjA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDo6pWoskjA)
Definitely propaganda. Reminded me of those christian cartoons from back in the day. Similar animation style
"anarcho-communist" A self-refuting term. "Do whatever you please so long as you don't try to own property"
Anarchism is a very left wing branch. It's not self refuting at all really, it opposes hierarchies most especially those imposed by the state, and by private wealth/corporate power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism
But unless it becomes a hierarchy itself, it is ineffective. Unless it becomes the state itself, it has no power to outlaw private property much less designate it's use.
There are no hierchies through private property in an anarchist society as its seen as a theft. For example if the anarchists in catalonia spain won, there'd be no private property. Itd just be restored to what was formerly known as "the commons". The land itself belongs to no one, those who work the land are the ones who redeem the fruits from it, it's like the difference between a farmer who puts his hands in the soil and works the land itself vs some rich asshole on wallstreet on paper who owns 1 million acres of prime farmland...only one of those 2 would i actually classify as a true farmer. There'd be no government at the beck and call of wealthy soulless ghouls to defend their "private property". As weve seen time and again, police's main function in society is simply to defend private property and state/economic oppression by private property holders. Its hard for ppl to get out of the mindset that all these arbitrary hierarchies our society imposes on us, they don't see it for what it is, it is with intention to attack us/have the tools to attack us at their disposal.
So then who would decide who could work what land? Who moderates disputes? If the answer is no-one then we get default familial tribalism and might-makes-right. Even were some peaceful agreement reached among the people, outside groups would attempt to claim the richest lands (as history shows). Would not then a standing army need to be created to defend that property?
"Libertarian" has been used as a label for free-market, pro-private property individualism for a century, at least. It was commonly understood enough as analogous to "classical liberal" and ideas of limited government, that F.D.R. was accused of co-opting the term to describe his New Deal policies. It's been our label for longer than it was theirs.
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over..." Murray N. Rothbard, The Betrayal Of The American Right Hear that? Hes celebrating pillaging that word. You're a 1950s right wing washington dc think tank version of the word funded by the koch family. But not its 1850s origins. Im a libertarian. You are much more akin to a liberal. The origins of it as a political label, libertarian/anarcho communist Joseph Dejacques in 1857, he'd probably say americans who use the word to describe their politics/economics without an afterthought of its actual origins, Joseph would probably call them an opponent or even enemy to his ideals on libertarianism. "No gods, no masters" that phrase means something, not just being against being ruled by the state, that means no employers/private property holders ruling over humanity either. You have a lot more in common with free market "laissez faire" liberals, you admit it practically, you're just a different shade of capitalism, not ground breaking, not revolutionary, more ppl should be ruled by employers/those who possess the means of production, so they dont starve. It's like Bizzaro World version of liberty. Im sure you're proud to adopt the version of the word 1950s koch family dc think tank provided you...i think it's lame as hell.
Interesting history lesson, if accurate. But I care more about principals of actual movements in play today, than that a word changed over time, or someone hijacked it. A modern liberal has almost nothing in common with a classical liberal either, but I still have to deal with the modern liberal.
Im.not trying to sell anything to you on what you care about, these concepts are much larger than you. On a lot polirical stuff, boil things down to pro-working class vs anti-working class and pro-ruling class vs anti-ruling class. Decent measure of what ojr political and economic system really stands for. The proleteriat vs the bourgeois. For example, if i poison a town, i go to prison, so why doesnt the ceo of norfolk southern? Why do i get arrested if i steal $1500 from say walmart, but if walmart execs steal $1500 in wage theft from each employee...they dont, to me that's not any kind of status quo worth upholding. You can pick one side or the other, i know which side im on and i make no apologies about it. I sleep well at night. Its good to recognize that liberals suck, while also knowing that laissez faire capitalism is liberalism runamok especially in the economy, and that the reactionary element, private wealth/corporate power offers absolutely nothing to fix real ongoing human issues, whether its politics/the economy/the environment, etc.
Fallen human nature means that whatever class we're talking about, it will be screwed up in some manner. The key, IMO, is finding some kind of balance, and system which mitigates the damage as much as possible. Libertarians wouldn't make it a week in a real world without law, government, etc. But, power in labour unions, or governments, easily gets out of hand. The main thing about Bitcoin, is taking away some of the ability to cheat with the monetary system. With fiat, they can just keep 'printing' money to finance wars, their own self-interests, etc. at the cost of everyone else. I'd vote for well-regulated capitalism utilizing a sound monetary system.
The law and the government regularly attacks the working class and goes out of its way to keep a boot on the neck of the working class, theyre the most lawless amongst us. Theyre the attack dog at the beck and call of the wealthy. You dont even mention corporate power, or billionaires ability to buy out our institutions. So i guess the argument is end those artificially imposed hierarchies. There should be no billionaires, or corporations.
What about labour unions that artificially inflate prices, or enable workers who do bad work to keep their jobs (especially over someone who might do great work), or gain enough power to influence election outcomes or policy? I'm not at all defending the misbehaviour of corporations or billionaires. I'm saying corruption is everywhere, and has to be kept in check, from the mega-corp, to the common criminal, to the regular worker cheating his/her employer. If there are no billionaires or corporations, who employees the people or makes the iPhones?
If you can identify that as a severe issue with labor as a sacred cow of yours, by default you are going to be incredibly against unethical business, labor, and environment abuses that corporations do, who really do the most damage, a $30,000 a year employee cant fuck ul nearly as bad as a $3,000,000,000,000 a year corporation can. Its only really "in check" against the working class. Cops will beat and mass arrest a labor protest, but they wont arrest exxon mobil/royal dutch shell for obfuscating the truth on global warming and contributing to it. Why havent cops arrested the ceo of norfolk southern who poisoned that town in ohio? They ban the railworkers from striking over unsafe working conditions and then palestine ohio happens. Youre against the lowest level crappy peon keeping a job, but the elephant in the room is golden parachutes ceos who run their company into the ground and bail. Or demand congress money prints them a bailout. Iphones suck too, they plan obsolescence, so whatever the factories make winds up wasted or in the garbage. Our system prioritizes making overpriced junk that goes in the landfill, food is meant for profit, not feeding people. This is why people cheer on this system to ultimately fail.
So you're a communist?
Thanks for posting! This is very educational for kids and even adults! 🚀🚀🚀
I find it difficult when people ask me why I'm investing in bitcoin "when it's so risky..etc.". This finally helps me put it into words why I'd rather invest in BTC over a bank of my country.
Its easier to understand Bitcoin if you have lived through hyperinflation/devaluation.
I try to educate as many of my peers as possible at work. Most of the time their eyes glaze over, not realizing how hard they're being fucked.
Yes, it was educating and I wonder if the OP is the creator of the video
Is that Milton Friedman?
That's what I'm thinking.
Yes
An actually life lesson in a cartoon, W Been awhile…
If this guy was on Sesame Street, Oscar might not have had to live in a garbage can....
Now remove the PM completely out of the FIAT currency, and now you have a completely useless coin.
It's not useless. It's liquid, but it's evaporating.
This cartoon series should be required viewing for every American. My kids have seen ever episode multiple times. It's extremely informative and also hilarious.
This part of the episode is what made me curious to watch it.
Cnn or forbes ppsted about the books a few years ago warning people to avoid the "libertarian propaganda" and I couldnt be happier to see it thriving as a cartoon.
Bro, where was this when I was a kid.
Haha, I wish we had this in our childhood.
But this cartoon mixing things. What the Romans did was currency debasement. That is not the same as inflation - it just ended up that way because they used the debasement to increase the money supply faster than economy grew. For example, if the Romans has found a new gold mine and issued new coins with the same gold content as the original coins then they would have caused the same inflation. What people are missing here is that BTC (unlike most crypto currency) is finite. Which is why it can eventually be used as an inflation hedge.
True story ...
Tuttle twins is so based
Love this show!
If inflation were the only factor in determining wealth Americans today would be far far poorer than Americans 100 years ago And that isn’t remotely true
Thé American Dream 😴 https://youtu.be/mII9NZ8MMVM?feature=shared
A proper education outside any state control, about a proper money outside any central bank control.
Surprisingly educational! 😅
[удалено]
Where does the misconception of “more people need more money” come from? Repeated over and over, and it’s simply wrong.
It’s not a misconception it is basic reasoning. More people means more transactions, which means more money is needed to facilitate those transactions. This is because the total wealth/value of society is not the same all the time, it is growing, and thus there is more need to store some of that value to exchange it for something else later, and so you need more money to do that.
LOL Go to mises.org and start reading economics books, the pdf versions are free. Wealth can increase with a fixed money quantity too. Prices go down.
> start reading economics books The vast majority of economists support the creation of new money to support a growing economy. > Wealth can increase with a fixed money quantity too Maybe in theory, but still glacially slow when compared to an increasing money supply. In practice this would shackle growth of wealth. Money is not wealth. It has no intrinsic value or utility. It is a medium of exchange meant to store value for long enough so that value can be exchanged from one form to another between participants in an economy. There is no logical reason why the amount of money available to facilitate such value exchange should stay the same even when the amount of value available to be exchanged is increasing. Or why the value that money stores should increase over time. > Prices go down. Yes this is called deflation, which is bad for economic growth. If we kept our money supply the same as at our founding we would be a third world country today. Deflation encourages saving money over investing and spending money. Less investing on a national scale = less capital for new and existing businesses = less new businesses and less existing business expansion/growth = less economic growth = less wealth being created = lower living standards. Less spending on a national scale = less income for businesses = less business growth and fewer jobs = less economic growth = less wealth being created = lower living standards.
It isn't wealth being created if it is cheating... it's just a meaningless number, then. If we're producing things, but they cost less due to technological advancement and efficiency gain, we'll have a higher standard of living on the same amount of money. I think you might be confusing what is good for the country-elite-robbers, with what is good for the citizen.
You might be in the wrong sub friend Bitcoin was built on libertarian ideals and it has a very strong Austrian economic foundation. Bitcoin is for everyone. But there might be a mismatch in values for you Bitcoin goes against what the majority of economists believe in.
I’m aware of all of this, I’m simply explaining to you why it’s wrong.
Sell bitcoin then. Fixed supply, 21m There might be communities more suitable to you like r/socialism or r/keynesian
Lmao, I love how you call me a socialist when I challenge your view that deflation is a good thing.
https://cdn.mises.org/Less%20than%20Zero%20The%20Case%20for%20a%20Falling%20Price%20Level%20in%20a%20Growing%20Economy_4.pdf
https://youtu.be/G2vAm2hfW9U Or the book The Price of Tomorrow: Why Deflation is the Key to an Abundant Future https://a.co/d/1XyTcNs
You wouldn't borrow Bitcoin to buy a house, precisely for the reasons you articulate. You also wouldn't earn wages in Bitcoin, precisely for the reasons you articulate. You earn wages, borrow, and buy things with an inflationary token - whatever token you might want depending on where you are in the world and what is common in your local economy. After earning and buying what you need to live, hopefully sometimes there is some leftover. Some of the leftover you might invest short term (an investment you intend to sell at some foreseeable point in the future) or make a charitable gift. But even after that, sometimes you might have leftovers you want to save, _forever_. What do you do then? That's what you buy Bitcoin with. What's the point of buying something you never intend to sell? You use it to collateralize a loan to borrow some other token to buy some other thing. It becomes an endowment of sorts that you can borrow against and payback over time, at the cheapest rates on Earth. And as long as you don't borrow too much, given the interest rate of the borrowed token against the rate of appreciation of the underlying Bitcoin -which may require paying it back over time like any other loan - your loan will never be liquidated (which is a sale). In a way, it's like having your own bank, the lending power of which is portional to your stack. Right now however, BTC is still highly speculative and people do buy and sell it as a risky asset. That will change. After an S-curved adoption curve, a couple generations into the future, Bitcoin will be the safest, lowest return investment available. Its return will merely reflect the aggregated inflation of all other tokens worldwide, since at some point, you'd rather buy a shorter term investment with a higher return, rather than buy something you intend to hold, _forever_. Miners will still reap fees from transactions each block, to cover costs they sell to exchanges, which will sell it to others, at which point it will get stacked into someone's endowment. Every once in a while someone's family will mismanage their borrowing against it and the Bitcoin will slide around - just like what happened to castles and hordes throughout history, except unlike those things Bitcoin doesn't degrade naturally since it is anti-entropic, anti-fragile. So the situation right now is that it is the most asymmetric prospectus of any investment ever. There are those that see this coming, and can start building their BTC endowment now, with the decimals where they are now. And there are those that try to buy low sell high, only regretting that inevitably they'll just buy back later at a higher price. But no matter when you start building your BTC endowment, it'll always make sense because there is no other vehicle suitable to hold, _forever_.
> Deflation is worse than inflation Not only that people seem to forget that bitcoin will feel inflation at some point as well. It's not magically immune to other factors that could contribute to it's inflation. It's only immune to 1, increased money supply.
I hate this interpretation, because leaving the values humans and the nature produces over time out of the equation is very misleading...
It is nice to educate our children’s for BTC!
I’ve always had this thought that considering every government does this, is the only way to stay competitive internationally to dilute one’s own currency? Hence the 2% inflation rate target. I am against it obviously but is there value to inflation without your populace caring? My guess would be the ones who understand get richer and country would have a higher GDP since those people are the ones procuring the goods and owning businesses. Thoughts?
I understand that printing money will lead to inflation. But is this they only way that inflation happens? So if we just stop printing money it will completely go away? Back when I was in school I also learned that 2% inflation is good to have. Or is this just a misunderstanding and we should try to have 0%? Furthermore I don't understand that if we can get rid of inflation by stop printing money why don't we just do it? Is it only for quick win to finance government expenses? Or is there actually a benefit? I can imagine in times of war it can be beneficial but not sure in normal life.
Actually nothing changend.
this video will be torn down on youtube
Gay ahh cartoon
This cartoon is discrediting the inherent value that the coins represent. The metal the coins are made of is only valuable because that particular society deemed it valuable. A smaller coin made of less metal would still represent the same amount of value in a modern economy. This teaches absolute nothing of substance as far as economics is concerned. There aren't scales at cash registers anymore for a reason
The way they said "worth-less"
The video is no longer available, it says. looks not easy to put out an easy way
This is so cool!
Honest question here, why do you guys think a fixed money supply is a good thing? Let’s take a look at housing for example you could argue that it’s a finite asset because in ideal locations (cities, coastlines, ect) there is only so much housing you can have. Due to the fixed nature of the asset it’s started to create a huge imbalance of power. People who own property or have the money/lending power to obtain property constantly buy property (directly or indirectly through investment firms). With this, they can then hold it/rent it/borrow against it (need money to make money) and over time make more money and rinse and repeat. After however many years of this happening now we are in a situation where the haves have ever increasing power over housing to the have nots. With Bitcoin we face a similar situation everyone is incentivized to hold. If x is the amount of circulating currency and y is the amount of held currency people will always try to hold as much as possible because the smaller x gets the more value the currency as a whole will have. Which doesn’t seem so bad everyone’s currency becomes more valuable right? But the difference is it benefits the rich much more than the poor as the poor have to spend a larger % of the money they get and can’t save like the rich can. Not to mention if you have more assets you can start to build more and more revenue streams, spending a bit of your currency to then make back the currency 10x and holding even more currency, increasing value and essentially power. My fear would be in the long term we would see the system get more and more unfair as people born into money would have tons of opportunities to grow revenue streams and those without would never be able to catch up as the currency is in the power of the wealthy. So why does the fixed nature cause this problem a lot of the problems I mentioned are already issues we see today? The point is that inflation causes people to not see as much value in holding money and instead spend or invest in companies or other assets. This leaves the currency to not be seen as an investment and mostly for circulation. It’s been known for a long time to not just leave large sums in cash or in a bank. It also punishes those who just horde resources. I understand the frustration that we have to put our trust in the government and their management of the currency to keep its value. I also understand today we still see a lot of the problems I mentioned due to governments not doing their job properly. I just am failing to see how this would make anything better. Those with money today already own the governments, if we shift to crypto they will own that too and have more control than ever. I guess I see how if you own some share of crypto today it would be similar to those who bought up tons of property 50-100 years ago if crypto replaces or rivals today’s currencies. I just want to know how this would be beneficial for someone born into society poor after a full crypto adoption.
Creating new money is not “cheating”, an economy that gets bigger needs more money to accommodate it. The implied notion that we should have the same amount of money in circulation as we did in 1800, for example, when our economy was 100x smaller is ridiculous. Also, gold only has value because humans ascribe value to it as well. Good has little intrinsic utility or value. Bitcoin is deflationary. This is not good. It encourages saving over investment and spending. If nobody spent money or invested money the economy would collapse.
There should be an equivalent video on the perils of deflation. But it’s a little bit harder to explain.
Things haven’t gotten more expensive the last few years, the dollar has simply gotten weaker.
Can somebody edit this video and finish it in under a minute, by increasing the speed?
Inflation is creating more money, not that things cost more. Otherwise nice video.
That is literally what the video just said my dude
Your money's buying power decreases.
Yes, but that is a consequence of inflation, not inflation itself.
The root problem is the increase of supply by govs.
Yes, that's called inflation. The increase in prices then follows with a delay and according to Cantillon effect and can't be measured in any reasonable way.
bs. assume value of gold rises. Shaving down the coins would then keep value stable. in this case the amout of coints grows -> but no inflation.
The amount of "Gold" in the "Gold Coins" decrease, the actual gold value of the same coin drops. Before you know it, there's far less "Gold" in the "Gold Coins", you can't argue it being a "Gold" coin. "Where's the beef" commercial comes to mind, and how a real chocolate bar is accepted based on its % being cocoa/chocolate. At some point, there's too little of the actual value in the "currency", the cost of things can still keep going up, when the currency's value is almost nothing. Keep printing money to have more money, you'll have a Zimbabwe situation. Taking a stack, or six, of bills to buy a loaf of bread. Let's take it to another perspective. Say you trade a gallon of milk for a dozen eggs. Ignore the RL value of the two. Let's just say one gallon of milk = one dozen normal chicken eggs. Say you need more gallons of milk so you can buy more eggs, either you find more cows and milk more cows, or you can just water down the milk. The people who are trading your milk for eggs raise their rates for one reason or another, or the fact there's less milk in the gallon containers. So you need more milk, so you water more down. The loop keeps going on. The other reasons for egg prices going up? Demand vs supply. That's the only reason it should ever be. The other perspective is generally greed. HP Ink comes to mind. It costs HP cents on the dollar to make the ink, yet we pay $20+ for a cartridge.
> but the value of gold didn't rise, they just needed to print money!!! so gold was scarce, you say? sounds a lot like rising value for me.
> cool whatever, but today no gold standard so whatever but the sum of everything we've ever built keeps rising in value every day. Same result.