GM

Had a great anesthetic nap this morning 👌

My node bricked this morning💀

They just banned all meat from kindergartens in Oslo, Norway. Heralded as a great and important move to fight the climate crisis.

Any concerns regarding how this affects the health of the children is not mentioned.

The marching orders from the globalists apparently matter more than the health of our children.

1) Fair point. This is partly why I leaned more heavily on the tech example, because its a sustained 30 year trend of the same phenomenon. So it works as a counterpoint to anyone taking issue with using a short term example.

2) Why would they take on less debt?:

• Debt will be accurately priced. Interest rates will be high when it's actually accounting for the expected growth, rather than massively manipulated down by money printing and encouraging enormous wasting of resources.

• Savings rates will be high, because money increases in value over time. So there will be large pools of sustainable capital available for truly valuable endeavors.

• Resources will be affordable. The debt loop is a feedback mechanism of:

[debt is issued to pay for things -> things get more expensive -> people with savings can't afford them -> more debt is issued to afford the overly expensive things -> things get even more expensive -> more debt is issued for new buyers -> society concludes that without debt they'd never be able to afford anything]

Rinse and repeat until we've done this dance for half a century and everything feels like the world is collapsing. The simple fact of the matter is with better savings rates and far less debt manipulation, it would be easier to start a business without enormous amounts of (or potentially any) debt.

1. Like you said, the only difference in the Black Friday example is the price decrease is sustained over the long run, versus perceived as temporary. But all this does is slow down the effect, not change it. When the economy is driven by savings, and not debt, people spend when prices fall.

— Again the underlying framing is forgetting that prices ONLY naturally fall for extended periods because of growth. Meaning the idea that it prevents or halts growth & spending is just fundamentally backwards. Our entire capacity to consume is derivative of our capacity to produce. If we produce more, we will consume more. At the end of the day it really is that simple.

— Also we need to understand the difference between savings and debt spending. When prices fall and we have savings, it creates what’s referred to as “The Wealth Effect.” Things we have wanted, but we’re going to cost all of our savings, are now available if we only use 1/3rd of our savings. Which makes it suddenly viable to make the purchase and not put yourself or family at risk. The wealth from the price deflation is exactly what encourage people to spendOn. We evens see an exaggerated version of this in #Bitcoin. When the price shoots up, people who’ve had BTC savings makes tons of purchases at BTC companies. Nobody buys shit during the best markets.

2. I frame it from consumers because that’s what Keynesians argue. I’m countering their nonsense directly.

— Actually the opposite of your concern with producers occurs. The short term mindset and aggressive “sell as fast as possible” mentality is what happens when all production is funded **with debt.** because they are financed, they can’t think further out, they can’t just pause and wait for a higher quality, or longer term production option. They need to sell immediately and in great quantity.

— When savings is what drives the cycles, producers are far more scrutinizing about their investments being high quality. If they aren’t producing long term value goods, that will be worth the cost of a valuable money, then they DONT waste resources on it.

——— understand this is a fundamentally CRUCIAL incentive. Because the normal deflation is the *average* of growth that’s expected from all other producers. Meaning wasting resources on below average goods and services is actually *destructive* to the creation of value. Less value is created than if they did nothing, and left those resources for someone else. It’s a literal miracle that we have this coordinating mechanism that lets us know how productive our resources have to be. This ensures that only the most valuable, longest lasting investments, with the most clear or potentially massive consumer demand & benefit actually use up our scarce resources.

Lastly, there one more extremely fundamental point that negates both concerns. Which brings us back the the “thermometer” understanding of deflation: If any of those concerns play out… prices don’t fall. Again, this is the most important thing to internalize — the prices fall BECAUSE of growth. So ANY concern you have over it stopping growth, is immediately negated by the fact that the price deflation doesn’t occur if those examples ever played out. They don’t as I hope I explained, but even if they did, it wouldn’t matter because the price would reflect exactly that change.

The economy is literally just a giant balancing force against supply and demand, and it works shockingly well if the money is actually stable in supply. It only breaks down when we cheat the accounting system and our absolute to communicate is poisoned by a bunch of counterfeiters.

can someone explain how the entire world economy was barely functioning on ZIRP for a decade and a half and now 5.5% and nothing?

Like this!

Be less idiot everyday and read

Beware: it doesn't work on ArchLinux.

My sister has a "tip jar" that she asks me to put fiat into every time I mention Bitcoin.

I've been thinking a bit about this.

The possibility of backdating could expose #nostr to innumerable possibilities of spam, confusion, astroturfing, etc.

We need to fix this.

nostr:note1qvtvq0jwf45ncpekxx86p2ukwaxjk7yeuk6dmt5wghhxh2d3fdrq6dzhx7