Nostr Web Client

I don't support letting people get hurt to make a point about fractional reserve banking or bitcoin.

"burn it all down" is the wrong analogy. It's not about bringing destruction to an otherwise fine situation.

It's one destruction vs. another destruction. It's like the trolley dilemma with the trolley about to run over 1 person and you can flip the switch to run over 2 but later. Do you really bring destruction by flipping the switch?

Also it's about all the people all the time suffering from fiat money! Fiat money is the culprit why we are working more hours than our fathers and can afford less than they could. Technological progress is supposed to work the other way around!

Yes, if bank runs rip through society suddenly, it will be really bad for many people and I don't cheer for that neither but I do hope there will be more banks failing in the near future.

Let there be a slightly bigger financial crisis than the last one so more people prepare for what's coming.

People losing their life savings is tragic but as long as it's not all the banks all at once, I have no doubt there will be ways to avoid the worst.

Yes, some will get hit harder than others and FDIC insurance at least in theory should protect the poorest account holders.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Mike Brock 2y ago

It’s not true that we are working more hours to afford the same things as our parents, though. When you look at people’s buying power from the perspective of prices of things, at the average industrial wage, the average person only works about 20 minutes per day to pay for the daily food intake. In the 1950s, it was about 3 hours.

Some things are more expensive, like real estate. But I would strongly argue that land-use policy and anti-development policies at the local level have artificially restricted the ability to build housing and play an outsized role.

Here’s a video by a libertarian, Austrian economist, who disagrees with you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8SLIt7xZxU

Leo Wandersleb 2y ago

For poor people, housing, education and health care are very significant items on their shopping list. To skip those is to cut corners.

Education and health care certainly got more expensive because of political decisions that are not directly related to inflation but housing getting more expensive is a direct result of fiat not being a good store of wealth. Real estate has a speculative premium it wouldn't otherwise have.

So the car is better than 100 years ago? Yeah, but the industrial processes to produce cars are 1000 times more efficient than 100 years ago. It's ridiculous to pretend that a car costing about as much as 100 years ago is ok.

Even the chicken example: How many people were involved raising 1000 chicken 100 years ago compared to today? The author of your video celebrates an x11 improvement where it should be x100.

Mike Brock 2y ago

That’s not what you said though. You said people were working more hours to get less. And it’s not clear to me it’s believable that the whole world could be literally 100 times wealthier than we are right now.

Leo Wandersleb 2y ago

It's hard to compare if we get less for our work or not as you can't compare a smartphone or a cure for a disease with not having those back then but I find the question very valid how can it be that 120 years after the very invention of automation (conveyor belt) most of us still have to labor most of our waking hours in order to support a family?

Mike Brock 2y ago

Average hours worked is also not up. Where are you getting your information from when you say things?

Leo Wandersleb 2y ago

Maybe that's women entering the work force? While the prior generation mostly had single providers, more and more women entering the work force often part time resulted in statistical work hour reductions as in your chart.

https://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_07072004/

Mike Brock 2y ago

I would just suggest you're working really hard to engage in narrative-fitting, here.

Leo Wandersleb 2y ago

Well, I did ask myself this question since early in school: If GDP grows some percent per year since 100 years, why is it most of us still have to spend most of our time working? Are we really 100 times better off today? Why can't I just work 5h/week and be 20 times better off than back then?