Avatar
nerd2ninja; ©️📺
834c0b53c8b33e0ad50fc4524e11f0506ac64fed2be7629e69512c9d2da74369
Nerd, ruby dev, systems theory adversarial thinker/arm chair general, Bitcoin enthusiast, toki pona 🗣👍 and other language barrier breaking methods advocate relays = [ relayable.org, nostr.wine, nostr.milou.lol, paid.spore.ws, nostr.uselessshit.co, nostr-pub.wellorder.net ]

Well actually, that's why I hesitated to say it confidently. However, now that I'm looking at the equation again, it seems to account for what I had initial reservations with (price)

V = P*T/M

In hard money I think we would expect some increase in velocity when prices go down. Its like a homeostasis mechanism for the market. What wasn't accounted for though was supply. Sure, price is influenced by supply, but here let's simplify my reservations.

Big power outage. Huge surge in demand for toilet paper, food, non electrical heating, etc. The velocity of money has to increase here because if it didn't that inherently means people weren't demanding these things (or that they weren't available for purchase)

Now the other side of that would be, is the supply of these items to meet the response of a community dealing with a power outage available? If not, the prices need to temporarily go up until production can ramp up hence the inflationary effect.

ON THE OTHER HAND if you print a bunch of money now people be looking at those prices like a kid in a candy store gobble it ALL up and then the price rises and freaking stays there lol.

Oddly enough money supply is accounted for in this equation, but goods and services supplies which can fluctuate to meet changing velocity

An increase to the velocity of money is supposed to have an inflationary effect, at least any Keynesian would say that. Though I suspect that's just a backwards justification for how people act when more money is suddenly available.

You can only help. You can not make someone do what they don't want to do. It has to start there. The elephant has to first decide that it wants to move.

I speak the way I do in order to offend them into taking action. Causing inconvenience for people who don't want to move because its too convenient to stay still.

"I bet you can't even think for yourself" I'm saying to them.

"Can too!" Says the impulsive person who reacts intensively to emotional stimulus. Then they begin their struggle and they're on their way.

And I speak this way because, this is how I think in order to improve myself. The reasons I outline are my motivation for making the change. I move away from algorithmically suggested content targeted at influencing emotion why? Because "fuck you for trying that on me!" In this way, by deciding how I chose to feel about it, I use my emotions to direct me where I need to go.

So because it works on me, I thought it might work for others as well.

Do people who allow circumstances to decide who they are, and act on impulses and emotions, who never decide to make things be different in spite of what would feel good to do, do those people have free will, or would you just say they havent learned to excersize it yet?

In the same way, do people who's worldview has been algorithmically shaped by a megacorperation, who trust and never verify, who don't even know how to verify, do those people have free will, or is it just that they haven't learned to use it yet?

I say this, and yet I was like this. Even now I can see ways to improve my ability to exercise free will.

"If you copy my answers, you have to put my name on it too" -BSD

"If you copy my answers, you have to share your answers too" -GPL

Relatable nostr:note1ahmc3pjvyga5vmjd3k6pn3e23qvg2afcdlrgdd9gwdzdejqngppsc86fw7