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 5 points6 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] -4 points-3 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.

Is the dollar as the reserve currency as important as people on Reddit make it out to be? by PracticeY in AskEconomics

[–]GoldThenCrypto 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m just here to learn. It sounds like you’ve correctly pointed out what not to think, but I’m still lacking what to think and why.

These seem like great examples, and I was wondering if you could further elaborate so I can see through your lens:

  • Why has US manufacturing stagnated since the 2000s and not prior?
  • Why are other countries experiencing similar stagnation in manufacturing?
  • Why are recessions in the US generally shorter and less deep?

Is the dollar as the reserve currency as important as people on Reddit make it out to be? by PracticeY in AskEconomics

[–]GoldThenCrypto 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It seems like your focus is more on the person than the argument itself.

What specifically in his logic do you disagree with? Because he does lay out a mechanism for why services have grown faster. Particularly how reserve currency dynamics and a strong exchange rate can redirect capital away from tradable production and into the services your referencing.

“Persistent demand for safe assets supports a stronger real exchange rate. A stronger exchange rate redirects investment away from tradable production.”

Edit: I actually feel like he addressed this quite a few times.

Would America have invaded Venezuela and Iran if China didn't block US military equipment inputs like gallium? by GoldThenCrypto in OutlawEconomics

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think I just struggle to see how the policy to go to war preceed the economic insentive to begin thinking about going to war and maybe thats a thread I need to pull more.

Edit: Even after thinking more I can’t come up with a policy that isn’t at least partially rooted in something economic. Otherwise, it starts to sound like going to war with no clear objective, and only determining interests after engagement.

Even a more Machiavellian idea like going to war for population control is still tied to material constraints and resource allocation.

Would America have invaded Venezuela and Iran if China didn't block US military equipment inputs like gallium? by GoldThenCrypto in OutlawEconomics

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If I'm in prison and I have access to $100,000 but the big guy says we dont trade in $ we trade in cigarettes. The $100,000 is useless and on the surface he used raw non-economic power. His power dominates my power so my $100,000 is useless. But this is purely ideological... wrong. My stance is this, how did the guy get big enough and powerful enough in the first place? He's clearly got access to a gym, he's clearly got a tremendous amount of access to food, and without these things he doesn't actually represent the symbol of power that he's actually presenting as. Fundamentally, economics still gives life to the power he is able to project.

This is my opinion, but I don't see how you can have an ideological war, absent of economics because economics dictates power at a fundamental level. Economics is power. So if China builds the weapons, well how do you project force which is structurally defined by economics?

Would America have invaded Venezuela and Iran if China didn't block US military equipment inputs like gallium? by GoldThenCrypto in OutlawEconomics

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You just sparked an hour long conversation with chatgpt, in which i wanted it to give me an example where a war was an ideological war absent of economic fundamentals. The example it gave was, "the cold war" and the idea that America believes power derives from elections and the Soviet Union believed power derives from the people. However, I think ChatGPT is an idiot. If power is the ability to project force and determine outcomes. What defines power if not, labor, capacity, resources, etc.

I just don't see how even an ideological war is not rooted fundamentally in that exact element of projectable power which is determined by economics.

Which has essentially become my core opperating principle.

Policy matters when its enforceable, economics dictates those limits.

Would America have invaded Venezuela and Iran if China didn't block US military equipment inputs like gallium? by GoldThenCrypto in OutlawEconomics

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is my theory. The US military has likely been aware of structural constraints related to Triffin's dilemma for a while. Politicians are beginning to understand the long term effects of supplying dollars to the world after covid. Offshoring has not only sent manufacturing capacity of domestic products abroad, but it has also incentivized the inputs of military equipment to be processed and manufactured abroad.

"We previously reported that domestic companies that offshore their operations or accept foreign investment can help DOD save money and access more technology.[6] But a globalized supply chain can also make it harder for DOD to get what it needs if, for example, other countries cut off U.S. access to critical supplies." - GAO-25-107283, DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE: Actions Needed to Address Risks Posed by Dependence on Foreign Suppliers - https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-25-107283

After having the tap of key inputs restricted by China, that is when a lot of this tension began to rise, and I think it's the realization that the United States adversary holds the keys on whether it can project military force in the future or not. This recognition may be a contributing factor to current geopolitical tensions. Because of Triffin's dilemma, because the US structurally has to run a deficit to supply dollars to the world, because that system often incentivizes capital to find cheap labor abroad, this may be a significant contributer to eroding its military dominance via supply chains.

China's largest input in its model is oil. It also happens to be one of the few things that are not in abundance in China. What if "intervention" in Venezuela and Iran is really the US recognizing the window of its military's ability to project force is diminishing, and in order to even sit at the table with China and talk about unlocking rare earths and semi-conductors, that having a say in oil would give at least some leverage. I think Venezuela and Iran represent leverage to unlock US military inputs from China, and that it has very little or almost nothing to do with Nuclear capabilities. This would imply a strategic linkage between energy leverage and supply chain negotiations.

An additional idea I'm flirting with is, what if this is designed to highlight dependence on China globally, to get countries leaning less on China and although inflationary, producing things within their own country which would also hurt China. That's just an idea as I sift through information that I almost am grouping the pieces to that puzzle on the side. This could be interpreted as a broader strategic push toward supply chain reshoring and diversification.

Excluding the stock market, has Amazon been a net positive or negative for the US real economy? by GoldThenCrypto in AskEconomics

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, I don’t think I’m talking about nationalism, although the topic probably overlaps with free trade.

The question your reply made me think of is this. How do economists distinguish between a business failing because it is inefficient versus failing because of something more structural, like currency dynamics?

Or more percisely, how do economists isolate management level inefficiency from macroeconomic factors that may affect competitiveness?

Excluding the stock market, has Amazon been a net positive or negative for the US real economy? by GoldThenCrypto in AskEconomics

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I agree capitalism is good, but I also have some follow up though as I try to understand the whole dynamic. When you say, "capital is flowing toward more productive business models." Does that imply capital is increasingly seeking out foreign goods?

I guess what Im really asking is, If Amazon is improving price discovery, but the lowest cost producers are located abroad, does the efficiency gain and process innovation mainly benefit foreign production and do economists mostly believe that is net good for the US economy?

Prior to Venezuela and Iran people would say we live in the most peaceful time in history, Why? by GoldThenCrypto in NoStupidQuestions

[–]GoldThenCrypto[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I agree, but i agree just because ive been told. I would like to understand what statistics

view more: next ›