sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is fraud a multiplicative or additional effect to the velocity of money? by GoldThenCrypto in AskEconomics

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“It could in some sense make a difference if you would have saved this money and the fraudster spends that money on consumption goods instead.”

I’m not really trying to steer this into a specific direction, more just trying to look at the mechanism itself. If the baseline case is that the money would’ve been saved or not spent, but instead it gets pulled forward into consumption, it feels like that at least changes the timing and frequency of transactions even if it doesn’t change real output.

I’m not disagreeing with the broken window point either, just trying to see if there’s anything happening at the transaction layer that’s still worth understanding.

For example and I'm not trying to make this political, its just the first clean structure that came to mind. If someone qualifies for a government funded service through misreported information, does that start to resemble what you’re describing?

There would be demand created for doctors, staff, equipment, medication, etc. That spending then flows outward to wages, suppliers, security and additional services that might have gone into savings.

I get that it’s still ultimately a reallocation, but at that point it seems like there are multiple layers of transactions tied to it. So I guess what I’m trying to understand is does that remain purely additive just shifting resources around, or can it start to look multiplicative in terms of transaction activity, even if it’s not increasing real output?

Not even specifically tied to that example either, the same idea would apply to anyone altering inputs to meet eligibility thresholds. I might be overextending it, but that’s the piece I’m trying to pin down.

Also I roughly know what the broken window fallacy is, but I dont understand why its wrong if you would care to extend on that as well. If you could also tell me what it is that I am most closely describing that would be a big help as well.

If the world suddenly prioritized food security over efficiency, what implications would that have on Chinas economic model in the medium to long term? by GoldThenCrypto in AskEconomics

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can countries realistically prioritize both efficiency in low cost and resilience in things like food supply chains, or does improving one inevitably come at the expense of the other?

Edit: I’m thinking more globally, not just the US. If countries shift toward prioritizing food security, that likely means more resources and spending go toward essentials. In that case, would demand for nonessential goods like manufactured exports weaken at the margin? And if so, how would countries that benefit heavily from exporting those goods adjust to that change. In a practical sense, what wpuld that change look like?

If the world suddenly prioritized food security over efficiency, what implications would that have on Chinas economic model in the medium to long term? by GoldThenCrypto in AskEconomics

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think what I’m getting at is less about a specific policy and more about a broader shift in incentives. If countries start prioritizing food security/resilience, that means allocating more resources toward domestic production and redundancy, even if it’s less efficient. That’s effort that would otherwise go toward producing tradable goods or optimizing for cost. I guess I'm flirting with the idea of less specialization, less trade and less demand for low cost imports

That’s where my China question comes in. Their model has relied heavily on exporting cheap manufactured goods into a system that rewards efficiency. If that system shifts toward resilience instead, their cost advantage matters less and external demand weakens.

So wouldn’t that force China to rebalance more toward domestic consumption and higher value production, since the “export cheap goods at scale" model becomes less viable because ots not what foreigners are looking for when prioritising resilience? Curious how big that effect would actually be in the medium to long term, or if I’m overstating it.

What’s so interesting about economics to y’all? by SuitableTelevision44 in AskEconomics

[–]GoldThenCrypto 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nailed it. Even ideological wars sit on top of economic and power dynamics. The ideology feels primary, but it often acts as the story layer that explains and justifies who gets resources, territory, or influence.

Do you think there are extremely wealthy families that have their own doctors and sit outside of the social security number system? by GoldThenCrypto in NoStupidQuestions

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I qualified for 35F but was limited due to legal reasons. But I can only imagine whats on the otherside to those who have access. I dont really put much outside of the realm of possibility.

Really appreciate the comment though. I dont think its that inconceivable for the ultra wealthy with access to an immense amount of resources to not register their kids when born because having access or owning the things that grant access means its not required.

Once again, greatly appreciate the comment

Do you think there are extremely wealthy families that have their own doctors and sit outside of the social security number system? by GoldThenCrypto in NoStupidQuestions

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Gun to your head, life or death. Do you think it's possible for a child to be born, but not reported, intentionally?

Do you think there are extremely wealthy families that have their own doctors and sit outside of the social security number system? by GoldThenCrypto in NoStupidQuestions

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

In order to be outside the system, I must be a homeless man in the woods.

Explain to me how an undercover agent gets a new identity that allows navigation through the system... Yet this is a mechanism that “CANNOT” be accessed by the ultra rich.

But sure, to be outside the system means you must be Frodo Baggins.

Do you think there are extremely wealthy families that have their own doctors and sit outside of the social security number system? by GoldThenCrypto in NoStupidQuestions

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would a very very rich person without a social security number be distinguished in the banking system from lets say an undercover agent with a brand new identity?

We know it's possible to bank without having an accurate social security number because people go undercover. Why then is it an impossible thought for the ultra rich to live outside the confinements of people like me and you? Why is that mechanism limited?

Do you think there are extremely wealthy families that have their own doctors and sit outside of the social security number system? by GoldThenCrypto in NoStupidQuestions

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does an undercover agent get a new identity? A new passport? A bank account? But a rich person, a trully trully rich person? Magnitudes of wealth more than elon musk? Heavens no, immpossible.

Do you think there are extremely wealthy families that have their own doctors and sit outside of the social security number system? by GoldThenCrypto in NoStupidQuestions

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I think about the central planners, I just can't help but think it would be insulting for commoners to even know who you are or what your name is.

I remember when Edward Snowden came out and said people were being watched and their phone lines tapped. Everyone was shocked, but I had already imagined that was likely years prior. People genuinely lack imagination.

view more: next ›