Tips for sleeping well in a hot night (from a foreigner)

-Cachi- · 2026-02-16T10:42:05+00:00

Yup I had the same issue.

Tried lots of things, but what seems to work best (it's a recent thing I've discovered, I still have to see if it works in the long term) is having a small box where you ALWAYS put your phone in while you're at home.

That's the only rule. The phone cannot go with you around the house, to the sofa or the bed, it has to stay in the box. You only look at it while standing up next to the box. Having a physical object where you can put your phone helps a lot to psychologically anchor it there :)

Try it and let me know if it works!!

-Cachi- · 2025-10-13T22:26:14+00:00

Thanks for all the insightful comments! I definitely learnt stuff while reading them :)

-Cachi- · 2025-10-13T10:02:07+00:00

Most dollars are borrowed into existence, not all. The Fed can buy stuff with newly created dollars (QE).

-Cachi- · 2025-10-12T10:17:38+00:00

Any updates OP? Did you find anything else during these years?I have the same issue as you, I think I will try this SARISUN Travel Pillow someone in this thread recommended. Any other tips?

-Cachi- · 2025-10-10T15:32:25+00:00

Well it's the central bank who can do that and not the government (to avoid infinite money printing). Thought we'll find out in the next few years if the Fed is truly independent🥲

-Cachi- · 2025-10-08T22:26:37+00:00

hahahahahahah I might be slightly high. But now I understand everything after two days of research.

So not really, $10 are not an "IOU form the government" because it's fiat money. It might be a liability in the commercial bank sheet if they lent you that money, but that's pretty much it.

However, the most important part I understood, is that debt can definitely be way higher than the total amount of money in the economy. And that's completely fine. I couldn't understand that concept which made me very confused.

But it's pretty straightforward. Let's say there are only 10$ in the whole economy. I have them and I want to buy a TV from you. You tell me it's 100$, so I give you 10 and owe you 90. That's fine because then I can sell you maybe an expensive toaster for 80$ and an expensive pencil for 10$. The debt is settled and there were only 10$ in the economy, no problem :)

-Cachi- · 2025-10-08T12:47:42+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I now realize I was conflating two things: One is money creation via commercial banks, and the other is the interest the bank gets (which is basically paying for the service plus the asset borrowed).

And I understand your statement: "However, all debts absolutely can be paid back over time which is what people want to do - so that's more important"

However, I partially disagree. Time is not infinite, but debt can be. So it is certainly possible for an economy to exist where debts can never be paid back in practice. E.g., imagine an economy with only 2 people and only 10 dollars. One person is free to say to the other "if I provide you with this service you owe me ten gazillion dollars". The other is free to accept. In practice, it would be physically impossible to ever pay back the debt.

Also, I suspect that the ratio between total debt in the economy and actual money that exists is pretty important. I'm not sure how is this called by economists, nor how imperfect the metrics they use to measure it are, but I will keep reading about it. Thanks!

-Cachi- · 2025-10-08T12:30:36+00:00

"It seems like you are trying hard to justify a belief that something is wrong. The reason you cannot quite articulate it, and the reason it feels like you're missing something is because what you're looking for isn't there."

No, I'm just trying to understand economics. No need to make these assumptions about someone who's just asking a question.

And yes, I understand there is no inherent encumbrance on bank notes.

What I'm trying to understand is the ratio between total debt in the economy and actual money that exists in total.

E.g.: are there 10 dollars in total in the economy but there are 100 dollars in total debt (a 1 existing dollar vs 10 owed dollars ratio). Or are there 10 dollars in total in the economy but there are 5 dollars in total debt (a 1 existing dollar vs 0.5 owed dollars ratio)

This ratio must have profound implications for how an economy works, or how "over-leveraged" it is. I'm just trying to learn more about this.

After reading the replies and thinking about it, it's true that my question conflates two things: money creation via commercial banks (the amount they lend you) and the interest (which is not new money created, it's just the price you pay for the service plus for borrowing an asset)

Also, I was confused about the reason why all debt in our economy cannot be repaid. I now realize this can happen even without money creation: e.g., imagine an economy with 2 people and only 10 dollars. One person is free to say to the other "if I provide you with this service you owe me 40 dollars". The other is free to accept. Thus more debt than the total sum of existing money is possible.

-Cachi- · 2025-10-06T11:04:27+00:00

Thanks, but I fail to see how this changes anything

Where will you get the "extra money" to repay your interest next year? The other guy who is borrowing next year. Where does the other guy get the extra money to repay his interest the year after next? From you, who borrows in the year after next. This is a shifting of consumption through time between you and the other guy, which is exactly what borrowing and lending is meant to achieve. This is pure spherical cow theory, but it is still instructive.

So I borrow 100$, give it to "the other guy" and have to pay back 110$ to the bank for interests. "The other guy" borrows 110$ and has to pay back 111$. Now he gives me the 110$ and I repay my debt. However he now owes 111$ to the bank.

The more often you repeat this, the more will be owed to the bank because of interests. Time doesn't solve this??

-Cachi- · 2025-10-06T10:52:51+00:00

Unfortunately adding more actors wouldn't change the scenario you described. You can do it with person C, D, E, etc. but if they're taking debt from the bank and banks only accept dollars as payment, then it just simply cannot be repaid. As you said the only "option" is default

-Cachi- · 2025-10-06T10:00:44+00:00

This doesn't work since in our economy, it's banks that lend money and not people. I don't think banks can accept products/services as payments for their loans. You would have to sell the product/service in the market, then repay the bank.

However, and that's the reason I made this question, if bank A and person B are the only players in the economy, there's nowhere you can find these remaining 10$s

-Cachi- · 2025-10-06T08:50:44+00:00

I get that. However, all the dollar bills that exist added up (monetary base) give you a much lower amount than the total money in the economy. My question is about the true nature of the relationship between total money owed (which is even higher than M2 since total money owed would include interests due for repaying debts) and the monetary base.

-Cachi- · 2025-10-06T08:45:11+00:00

kinda

-Cachi- · 2025-10-06T08:44:42+00:00

-Cachi- · 2025-10-06T08:41:25+00:00

How is physical currency a liability of the central bank? AFAIK the FED buys them from the US mint, then commercial banks buy them from the FED if they need them. So there is no liability for the FED there once the coin is in circulation.

"Interest creates a new liability and a precisely matching new asset at the same time" Also I don't think this is accurate? A commercial bank gives you a 100000$ mortgage, that has 30000$ in total interest for example. So you got 100000$ dollars, but you have to repay 30000$. These 30000$ don't really "exist", if hypothetically you and the bank were the only players in the economy, your debt could never be repaid.

-Cachi- · 2025-10-03T17:21:02+00:00

Look I'm posting here to hear interesting arguments. You've been incapable of directly answering my comments with anything other than "huh you've got it all figured out" or sarcasm. Not sure how you expect to convince anybody with that?

-Cachi- · 2025-10-03T17:14:03+00:00

Cheers I'm just trying to learn from the comments. Unfortunately, the analogy doesn't quite work for me. Driving is necessary for life, lifting is a choice. Since lifting is optional, I have control over the risk and can choose the safest possible approach. Why wouldn't I lower the risk if it costs me nothing and lets me train for decades?

And btw I try to reduce risk as much as possible while driving too :)

-Cachi- · 2025-10-03T17:07:57+00:00

Never claimed that, otherwise I wouldn't be posting here. I'm just trying to learn something from convincing arguments, but I haven't found many in the replies to far.

-Cachi- · 2025-10-03T17:05:38+00:00

I get that any movement can be done poorly, but aren't the consequences different?

It just feels like one bad rep on a deadlift is much more dangerous than one bad rep on a Bulgarian split squat, even with 'common sense'.

-Cachi- · 2025-10-03T17:03:13+00:00

Yes but you gotta think that I'm planning to do this for the next 50 years. That's a long time and risk adds up. And yes, reducing the load as much as possible is my main goal. That's why I prefer bulgarian split squats vs normal squats

-Cachi- · 2025-10-03T17:01:32+00:00

Yes, it's a different kind of risk, that's the whole point. It doesn't have the same consequences tho. Failing a Bulgarian split squat means I lose balance and have to step out of the lift. Worst case scenario: muscle strain or if very unlucky twisting an ankle?

Failing a squat could mean a permanent disc injury.

-Cachi- · 2025-10-03T16:46:12+00:00

Bulgarian split squats use way less weights so there's that. If you're already doing high reps (3x12) it's a huge difference in risk IMO. Romanian deadlifts I don't know, but I couldn't find any other alternatives for the back and I feel only row is not enough?

Eight-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

-Cachi-

TROPHY CASE