Money printing dislocates demand from the real economy, investing in regular production is not profitable.
No wonder that automation and the military are the only growing industries.

>>82382408
Can you come up with a new term? Capitalism died in the early 1900s and there is no political or ideological movement for "capitalists." If you just mean anyone who has capital, that's like 80% of the population because the economy is doing so well in the western world. I do agree that some countries who decided to go socialist were absolutely wrecked but you need to be more specific about the causes, usually dictators.

>>82382449
Money printing doesn't change demand

>>82382471
It does, money is demand in the economy. So those people that have money to spend create the demand.
Do you think you have something that a rich person would want?

>>82382467
I do mean those that have capital and that are furthering their interest as capital owners. 80% of the people in developed nations don't benefit from monetary depreciation. Money has lost 30% of it's worth yearly in the recent years. Every industry is basically dead.

>>82382499
Money is not demand. Demand is demand. You can have demand without money. It doesn't matter what rich people want, most people are not rich. More cans of coca cola get sold than luxury yachts. Coca Cola alone does 47 billion in revenue annually, that's not from rich people.

>>82382534
So who is "us"? If 80% of people are capitalists, are you just saying you're a dumbass communist?

>>82382534
Pretty much everyone in developed nations benefit from money printing. Look at real wages, they constantly trend up.

>>82382538
There will be no demand eventually, finance is going to squeeze everyone out of their surplus and possessions. The economy will cater to the elite, they will develop a new taste which doesn't include Coca-Cola in it.

>>82382581
No demand is impossible unless everyone is dead, you're being nonsensical.

>>82382567
Did they grow ~30% in a year recently? If not, you got shafted.

>>82382593
Inflation is not 30% a year and data on real wages is readily available, just google it.

>>82382588
The economy will largely revolve around the rich. The poors will have nothing to sell because they are in debt to the rich.

>>82382597
Inflation is basically the wage increase, that's why central banks are obsessed with keeping inflation down. Meanwhile money has lost 30% of it's value in a year.

>>82382602
That makes no sense. The poor sell their labor. If their labor isn't needed then no one will loan them money. In that kind of scenario we either get UBI or all the poors get culled or we get some shitty revolution.

>>82382620
Inflation is not the wage increase. Inflation is an increase in the price level. Wages typically go up more than inflation. Money has not lost 30% of its value in a year.

>>82382620
Money has no inherent value. Inflation is only bad because it propagates through the economy unevenly. Often when you print money you are spending it on specific industries to help them grow faster relative to other industries, which can get out of control when inflation rates are too high. People with fixed income for example get left behind.

But as a general rule in modern economics, inflation around 2% is good because it indicates the economy is growing in general, including wages.

>>82382633
Yes and the rich have only so many needs for human labor. What happens to those they don't need?

>>82382653
Humans need each others labor, and there is an infinite number of problems that labor can solve.

>>82382653
The poor also need the labor of the poor. Even if the rich were fully disconnected from the economy the poor would still labor for the poor.

>>82382408
By capitalists you mean jews right?

Taxes are too damn high. Im not a slave for women.

>>82382666
Why would they tolerate the presence of the poor? They are on their land after all.

>>82382686
In your scenario we would either have UBI or the poor would not exist. Either way the problem is solved and I don't care past that.

>>82382692
You don't care about your progeny?

>>82382699
It has nothing to do with me, why would I care?

>>82382467

>If you just mean anyone who has capital

That's exactly what they mean. Same reason why they go after the Kulaks/Petit Bourgeoisie when they take power, rather than auditing their own behavior. The strong take from the weak no matter how you want to gussy it up with with slogans.

>>82382773
Petit Bourgeoisie aren't a protected class in a capitalist society, they get eaten.

>>82382798

There are no protected classes. You only own what you can defend. Same as always since the dawn of time.

Do Americans understand that the system is propped up by their people going into debt and people coming across the border to work for pennies for the American working class to keep up appearances only for a few moments more?

You guys realize if rich were the only people, they wouldn't be rich anymore?

Rich only exist because poor exist lol
That's literally how supply&demand works.

If everybody had 1 billion dollars, a simple steak would cost millions. So yeah, poor people aren't going anywhere.

>>82382849
A rich person only eats so much steak, he could have a killer drone that would herd a human to herd the cattle.

>>82382849
That's not how supply and demand works

>>82382886
Or raising cattle could become a vocation for rich people.

>>82382886
You don't understand. Economy would inflate insanely highly. If there's only "rich people" (let's say by current reality people worth 1 billion +) then only billionaires would sell to other billionaires.

Money has relative value because it by itself has no real value. A steak would cost millions! Drones or not.
Why sell it for less if it will sell for a million? Billionaires can afford that.

Again, being rich is not based on anything "objective". It's a way to exploit poorer and less educated than you.

>>82382915
You're defining your system in a retarded way. People aren't rich because they have billions of dollars, they're rich because they have the ability to consume massive amounts of goods. If everyone were rich, everyone would be able to consume massive amounts of goods. That implies that supply would be drastically higher than where it is today. You're creating a system where everyone is poor and then saying they're rich despite them not being able to consume much of anything.

>>82382898
You know why a price of something is what it is?
Because somebody's willing to pay for it. There's nothing more to it. And billionaires will have to buy steaks for millions because nobody (other billionaires) will not sell it for less. Why would they? They want money and they know other rich suckers can afford it.

If billionaires started actually spending their money en masse, price of everything would go up exponentially.

>>82382915
Why wouldn't the steak cost millions? It would be a decent vocation.

>>82382932
>You know why a price of something is what it is?
Supply and demand
>somebody's willing to pay for it
That is half of the equation
>If billionaires started actually spending their money en masse
They have no reason or desire to do that. A billionaire can't consume a million pounds of steak.

>>82382928
Everyone can't be rich. Who are you paying to labor if everyone is rich?

>>82382963
Everyone can be rich in a post scarcity economy

>>82382932
1. gorillianaires don't actually have a lot of money, that's a common misconception. many are stingy and not generous, especially with food.

2. if it costs less than a million dollars to just produce your own steak, the gap is simply normal supply and demand. in your hypothetical scenario steak would become free, not more expensive. if everyone has the same level of wealth and money becomes irrelevant, then you don't need to worry about coincidence of wants. but yes, if we just add a zero to everyones incomes, steak prices would increase proportionally, all else being equal.

>>82382408
>Government does economically dumb shit and inflates the currency to near the breaking point while drastically increasing debt
>Most governments around the world have massive socialist inspired programs that they can't actually afford including the US
>constant interference with the market
>reduction of property rights across the world
>Reduction of privacy around the world in a simultaneously from several attack vectors at once
>capitalists did us in

God fucking damn are you fucking retarded.
Capitalist didn't do shit to you.
It's the government stupid.

>>82382973
Post scarcity is a utopian unreality.

>>82383027
So is everyone having the same amount of money

>>82382947
>Supply and demand
Not really, it's not a fundamental principle, more like a clearly observable macro-stat. Think of it like of probability:
The reason you get 50/50 in a coin flip is only because you don't know every small variable that goes into flipping a coin. There's machines made by people who can flick coins in a way as to be predictable and get you heads or tails every time!

Probability(supply and demand) is just a statistic you get if you do something *a lot of times* giving you a general trend for a lot of flips (transactions). It's not *why* things actually sell or have the price they do. Setting price has nothing to do, fundamentally, with any supply or demand. Just what a person decides to price it. Whether it sells, depends on whether a person is willing to buy it. There's literally nothing more to economy *fundamentally*. There's much more to this, such as brainwashing to add value to things or people thinking their money has value whatsoever (it can be literally zeroed within seconds through oversupply of money/printing if a government decides, fiat money lol)

>>82382973
>Everyone can be rich in a post scarcity economy
Somewhat yes. For basic needs, for sure it's possible; but if people like weird and rare trinkets you'd need an economy of sorts to "distribute it".

>>82382981
>gorillianaires don't actually have a lot of money, that's a common misconception. many are stingy and not generous, especially with food.
They can exchange all of their assets for money. Liquidity of those is variable but that's irrelevant. They do have this money in principle.
If I have 5 porsche cars and $0 I do have money, I can sell them and get money. Are you retarded?

You realize if there's only billionaires a cost of a steak is arbitrary and they can charge as much as they want? How do you think production costs are established?
The only reason things (ALL OF THEM) aren't more expensive is because nobody's willing to buy it for more in reasonable time.

The point of my thread was to point out that money printing dislocates money from the regular economy of meeting people's everyday needs, even those of the rich.
If they would like to see a new movie, sorry those will not be made at some point because there will be no mass production.

>>82383046
>such as brainwashing to add value
That's just adding to demand.
Supply and demand is a fundamental thing. The more supply in relation to demand the lower the price will be. It's not an equation to determine the absolute right value of something. You cannot have a good increase in supply while not increasing in demand while also increasing in price. I have no idea what your thing about probability is supposed to mean, that has nothing to do with anything. At the most granular level anything is worth whatever the mutually agreed upon price for it is at each transaction. There's no probability involved.

>>82382408
it's the ruling class and retarded libs and faggots running interference for them, not the concept of owning property you retard

Actually yes. We printed more money in 2020 and 2021 than the rest of US history combined

>>82383045
I personally never made such a silly claim.

>>82383080
Movies are cheaper than ever to watch. You used to have to go to the theater to see one. Then you had to go to Blockbuster to see one. Now you can stream any movie you want whenever you want for essentially free. Making movies is easier and cheaper than ever too, low budget movies of today are vastly superior in quality to the low budget movies of the 80s or 90s.

>>82383080
And you thought blaiming capitalist for overprinting money was a good way to get this point across?

>>82383007
How are the capitalists hurting from all this? I'm pretty sure they own the S&P 500, which has gone up in the same ratio of money that was printed.

>>82383092
Are you not the person who was talking about everyone being rich while ignoring that "rich" and "poor" refer to ability to consume and not the number of dollars in their bank account? Because that's even sillier than post scarcity.

>>82383112
Pretty sure the largest holders of the S&P500 are pension funds and mutual funds

>>82383119
Nah, I am a different dude.

>>82383027
If you can produce food and basic necessity with extremely low amount of labor (like: check if a farming drone functions once a month) then it's basically free for everyone. If manual labor gets automated, and hard necessities provided for, why would anybody care about money anymore?

Everybody could just do what they want. Become and help society in a way you find most interesting.
No need for money here, you could get a volunteer for everything.


However, I am afraid many people are not quite up there mentally for a change like that. It requires finesse, discipline, ability to think beyond the now. People would see science, education, betterment of oneself spiritually and mentally to be important. Most people with current level of thinking are literal niggers and animals who see no further than the next week. We'd have to deal with bydlo running in the streets doing retarded shit and drugs.
Look up shows such as star trek where there's no need to "fight to survive" anymore. It's interesting how they manage "economy" in such worlds.

In such a world, money becomes quite useless. People are still not developed mentally enough to live in such a world however. Now given how many niggers and jeets are overflowing everywhere, maybe in thousand years we'll have a chance. Maybe.

>>82383128
Oh nevermind, carry on then

>>82383046
>exchange all of their assets for money.
then they wouldn't be gorillianaires.
>If I have 5 porsche cars and $0 I do have money, I can sell them and get money.
if you're selling a porche in order to afford a steak, you could just not do that instead.
>cost of a steak is arbitrary and they can charge as much as they want?
No because steak is not an example of inelastic demand. You are mentally retarded actshually. The price of steak is initially just the cost to produce that steak. Then if you're talking about selling it to a distributor, retailer, or consumer, you just operate within supply and demand. If everyone is rich (implying that wealth is independent of labor or time), then you don't need to worry about coincidence of wants anymore, so food would just become free. The premise of "everyone is a billionaire" is effectively just "everyone is taken care of." you don't need money, you just produce things based on demand.

>>82383085
>Supply and demand is a fundamental thing.
It's really not. It's just a statistic. A fact you don't understand this despite me providing a baby tier explanation means we cannot engage in discussion anymore. You're too low IQ.

>>82383130
>fantasy utopia land could totally happen
>we just have to get rid of all the people I don't like first

I do hope you are just making a high effort joke and I just got the tone wrong when I read it.

>>82383143
>It's really not. It's just a statistic
You're arguing that there is some possibility that supply can increase with static demand and still see a higher price level.

>>82383107
Capitalists have assets, if they were smart capitalists they would have bought into the index.

>>82383141
You missed the point of what I posted so hard I wonder if it's because you got so tunnel-focused or because you're just really fucking stupid and just respond to troll. Probably both.

>>82383158
There was an anon who claimed that the price of steak would increase if everyone was rich. It's actually the opposite.

>>82382408
Yes. This is why we need socialism. My life is dedicated to implementing socialism in Australia.

>>82383155
You are all over the place dude.
Your position is incoherent.

>>82383174
Australia's biggest problem is that it's a socialist shithole. They need to start implementing capitalist policies for once.

>>82383175
It may seem incoherent but capital accumulates, eventually you will have a few big capitalists and your capital won't measure to befit the title of a capitalist.

>>82383198
Most billionaires are first generation and most fortunes wither away after a few generations.

>>82383154
I will try to use another analogy:

Let's say you are a billionaire and buy all diamond mines. You can set the price of diamonds at whatever you want because you control the entire supply of diamonds now. Now you can market diamonds as super exclusive super duper stones to show you love your future wife! A good husband would buy diamonds.

You set the price at whatever you wanted.
You made the demand by brainwashing people.

This happened in 1950s.

It's not the supply that mattered; supply of diamond is quite huge. Supply could be infinite, it's irrelevant because you control the price. Anybody who buys it off you will not want to sell it for less either. It's a fact you could set the price however much you want -> they only needed to find suckers willing to pay it. Demand is what is created by having a lot of those suckers.

Supply & Demand explains nothing here, how come?

>>82383148
It's not about like or dislike: it's about their level of thinking.
I'd hardly call them people by my standards, I think they hardly qualify is a human.
Would you invite a wild animal, such as a bear, to your home? And then blame the people inside the house for not wanting it due to its inability to behave civilized? Although that also does disservice to bears, I've seen them behave better than niggers personally.

>>82383208
Their numbers are still few, it doesn't matter that there is rotation. And the valuations are always bigger and bigger.

>>82383227
>whatever you want
So you genuinely believe that the people who work in diamond mines don't want (infinite) dollars? If they have no upper limit on what the price is, they could just get (infinity) money.

>>82383227
You are just artificially limiting the supply there, silly. Good marketing ofc.

>>82383246
People would not be willing to pay (infinity) money.
You really need something this obvious to be spelled out?
You could get the price quite high however.

And people who work at diamond mines are basically slaves.

>>82383249
>You are just artificially limiting the supply there
Not really; you can buy however many diamonds you want at my high price.
Supply is not limited.

Again, supply and demand is extremely useful but it's not fundamental.

>>82383255
>not be willing to pay
Why does this matter? You said someone can set the price to whatever they want
>You could get the price quite high
How high?
>people who work at diamond mines are basically slaves.
Why is that, do you think? If they can just get their hands on one (1) diamond, and set the price "quite high" then they don't need to work again for the rest of they lives. You have a low IQ.

>>82383227
Ah, I see you are either trolling or deeply mentally ill.

Good day sir.

>>82383198
You seem under some weird missunderstanding that capitalist is a weird rank or class.
It's not.

>>82383227
>You set the price at whatever you wanted.
If you have a monopoly and you set the price to x then you are essentially artificially reducing supply to that point. That's not the normal mode for a functioning market.
>You made the demand by brainwashing people.
That's just demand.
>It's not the supply that mattered; supply of diamond is quite huge
Supply not on the market is not supply
>Supply & Demand explains nothing here, how come?
Because you did not describe a functioning market. Supply and demand requires a market for price discovery. In your example the supply on the market can not actually change if the price is preset. If the billionaire wants to sell a trillion diamonds for 1000 a piece, he can't if the demand at 1000 is only 500. To move a trillion diamonds he needs to decrease price until demand hits 1 trillion. You're just locking variables and claiming it doesn't work lmao.

>>82383266
>Why does this matter? You said someone can set the price to whatever they want
Doesn't mean they will buy it...?
Bad faith argument and a troll.


>>82383267
>Ah, I see you are either trolling or deeply mentally ill.
Ah yes, the classic "I have no willingness to discuss it as my opinion is the only correct one. You're a bigot and mentally ill" redditor. Good day to you too sir

>>82383264
>you want
This would be demand. If there was more supply than demand, the price would just go down. The supply doesn't come from your prison pocket, you either spent money or time digging it up and you want to exchange diamonds for money. If people don't want what you have at the current price, then the diamonds are effectively worthless until price go down.

>>82383232
>And the valuations are always bigger and bigger
Nominally
>>82383264
>Supply is not limited
You have no idea what you're talking about lol

>>82383294
>Doesn't mean they will buy it...?
Congratulations, you just described the fundamental aspect of supply and demand. Is this your first time?

>>82383282
I'm not misunderstanding anything. Can you call me a capitalist if I own just one share and would that mean anything really?

>>82383311
Yes you have capital and you're deploying it, you're a capitalist.

>>82383313
The word loses it's meaning if a guy with one measly share can be a capitalist. Capitalism is a mode of being, you live off capital, you grow capital, you eat and smell capital.

>>82383347
You have capital and you're using it to create profit for yourself, you're a capitalist. That's definitional. Capitalists don't need to be rich.

File: 1752242976378942.jpg (19 KB, 519x519)

19 KB JPG

>>82382408
>capitalism is when fiat currency

>>82383303
>>82383307
Really low level thinking, you really don't understand that supply and demand is a result of choices and psychological processes humans engage in?
The analogies provided aren't quite useful, but the idea is solid. Psychological functioning of humans is far more fundamental than economic descriptions which are the result of those functions. Market forces like this only ever are relevant on large scales. You'd know this if you weren't underages who learn about supply and demand in school recently and sold something on your own one day. There's never a set in stone "price" of anything. You will always find a sucker who wants to sell fast and will sell for far less than "market value" and vice versa, a guy who will sit on his product until some sucker buys his "overpriced" product.

Supply and demand is a result of this happening with thousands of people all the time, giving you a descriptive statistic and a predictive tool.

>>82383359
Who do you think has all the money? A wealthy capital conglomerate, that's who.

>>82383363
>you really don't understand that supply and demand is a result of choices and psychological processes humans engage in?
That has nothing to do with anything. Price comes from supply and demand, it doesn't matter if a human is artificially controlling one aspect of it.
>The analogies provided aren't quite useful
So you can't argue your point but you refuse to back down? What?
>Market forces like this only ever are relevant on large scales
They work on an individual transaction level
>There's never a set in stone "price" of anything
Because supply and demand change constantly
> who wants to sell fast
So supply going up
>vice versa
Or supply going down

You really don't know what you're talking about

>>82383403
You're a fucking retard, genuinely. You are seething over that low IQ comment so hard. Seems I was right given how little you have control over your emotions.

Your "arguments" make zero coherent, logical sense. Get help nigger.

>>82383429
I don't even know what comment you're talking about. If anyone is seething here it's you man.

The most wise of the capitalist hold debt instruments, they just let everyone else play the money game and if they can't pay back they take everything off of them.

>>82383437
Your argument basically boils down to completely ignoring reality calling it "it has nothing to do with it" and then going on a supply and demand schizo rant.
I think you need help for sure, you can't handle being wrong which is pretty funny.

You sound like 10s of other redditors I've argued in the past: you deny then plug your ears and scream lalala mentally while sounding like a broken record.

>>82383447
There are virtually 0 capitalists who want liquidation instead of debt repayment not to mention you can't get more in a liquidation than the borrower owes

>>82383453
Dude you're arguing that clamping price at a certain level disproves supply and demand despite that just meaning that you've clamped supply at such a point that demand allows you to sell at your preferred price level. It's a fundamental market force that's not controversial.

File: ac1.png (51 KB, 861x664)

51 KB PNG

>>82383469
I've never argued that which also shows how fucking stupid you are to not get the point of what I was talking about.
If you think I am lying, quote where I claimed that. You're so stupid you cannot get the hint of what I am actually talking about, hence I called you low IQ.

I've argued about this with multiple professors and either outright agreed or conceded. I highly doubt there's anything I am missing.
You, on the other hand, have school tomorrow, kid. Pack up the book bag or you'll be late for classes.

>>82383459
Yeah but that money was never real in the first place, it's just credit.

>>82383503
>AI slop
You did argue that with your diamond mine example.
"Let's say you are a billionaire and buy all diamond mines. You can set the price of diamonds at whatever you want because you control the entire supply of diamonds now. Now you can market diamonds as super exclusive super duper stones to show you love your future wife! A good husband would buy diamonds.

You set the price at whatever you wanted."

This is clamping supply artificially.
>I've argued about this with multiple professors and either outright agreed or conceded
lol

>>82383504
It is real and banks do lose actual money when the borrower goes bankrupt. Go look at any bank's reports, they always have loan loss reserves. If they lose too much money they get shut down.

>>82383542
And where did I claim that disproves supply & demand?
You even understand what supply part is?
Again, you're missing the entire point of my (bad) analogy, which I had to pull out of my ass because you didn't understand my first analogy, because you are too fucking retarded.

>>82383562
>And where did I claim that disproves supply & demand?
You're arguing that supply and demand isn't "real" because it's just an abstraction and that more fundamental forces are at play. This is not true. Supply and demand is present in physics, other organisms, etc. If there's an excess of energy in one system it will migrate to another, if an organism has ample food but not enough water it discounts food and pursues water, etc. Supply and demand is not unique to humans and doesn't require psychology.
>You even understand what supply part is?
You seemed to think that goods not present on the market were part of supply so I'm not sure if you understand it desu.

>>82383552
The point is that the borrower's whole life is on the line, that shit is evil. Everyone has to borrow these days to love.

>>82383605
Then don't borrow. No one has to borrow. What's the alternative anyway? Not allowing anyone to borrow? Access to debt markets is incredibly important, leveraging yourself into a house is a great and low risk way of gaining wealth.

File: spenser-rapone.jpg (269 KB, 1200x1200)

269 KB JPG

Capitalism is cancer. Embrace socialism.

>>82382471
Money printing changes demand as it disrupts supply.
What the fuck are you on about?
If suddenly your shit costs double but only a few individuals closer to the printer will afford and buy that, how do you think demand adjusted?
Sometimes i wonder how you retards even breathe

>>82383659
Money printing doesn't do anything except move the price level up. Demand and supply are unchanged unless the money printing impacts one industry more excessively than others.
>f suddenly your shit costs double
Wages go up as well. Go look at real wages.

>>82383638
i honestly would if it wasn't for their hatred of white people

>>82383593
>You're arguing that supply and demand isn't "real"
Another strawman. Where did I claim that?

You're just making a made-up version of what I said that's vaguely connected to what I said, and arguing that version. Are you literally retarded?

> it's just an abstraction and that more fundamental forces are at play.
Correct; it's factual.

>Supply and demand is present in physics, other organisms, etc. If there's an excess of energy in one system it will migrate to another,
You're talking to a literal physicist my man. You're fucking retarded. Thermodynamic equilibrium has nothing to do with excess of energy; migration of particles from hotter regions to colder is a descriptive statistic. All of thermodynamics is actually like supply & demand - not fundamental. There's a reason why Statistical Physics is a field and why it has Statistical in names. It's because the systems get so complex people come up with tools to approximate millions of particles behaving in certain way

"Excess energy" does not migrate anywhere and it's highly dependent on what system we are talking about. Isolated systems have constant energy, period, although even that is variable depending on the spacetime description, as GR doesn't have conversation of energy per se.

Bad example and obviously you have zero knowledge of physics, just like you have zero knowledge of actual economics.
You have also really bad understand of evolutionary mechanisms.

You are so fucking retarded genuinely and try to argue in bad faith as much as possible to tickle your ego, but no matter I'll be here to prove to everybody how low IQ you are.

>>82383363
>result of choices and psychological processes
i.e. supply, and demand.

>>82383709
>You're talking to a literal physicist my man
lol
>migration of particles from hotter regions to colder is a descriptive statistic
Does energy typically move from cold to hot? I go back to what I said previously: Do you really think that with decreasing demand and static supply the price level can move up?
>Isolated systems have constant energy, period
The economy is not an isolated system so obviously not what I'm talking about
>You have also really bad understand of evolutionary mechanisms
Did I bring up evolution?

>>82383593
the printed money mostly ends up in the hands of banks so it essentially leads to even more inflation. they're not distributing the money to every industry and person equally everywhere. theres no federal reserve gibs for example.

>>82383739
"Arguments" ended I see eh? Time to go baaaack to reddit because you stopped making any sense whatsoever now.
2/10 not even entertaining, your physics knowledge is so bad you didn't even try going for that avenue

>>82383759
I don't know anything about physics why would I try? You didn't answer my question.

>>82383676
No way have wages matched money depreciation, that's laughable.

>>82383771
Why would I answer senseless questions you desperately need to prove a made up strawman in your head?
You are genuinely so fucking retarded it's hilarious.

>>82383758
Most of the COVID era money printing was doled out to ordinary people and small business owners. The money doesn't get handed out to the banks and even if it was they tend to loan out as much as they can so the money does end up in the hands of non-bank entities. The recent industrial policy handouts were given to high tech industries and not banks. I can't think of any time when banks were just given cash. Even during the GFC the government was buying ownership in the banks so it was hardly a handout.

>>82383709
>approximate
You are proving his point. If you can understand temperature and pressure, then you can understand supply and demand. They describe the fundamental forces. You're just trying to use the leftist tactic of reframing supply as an indefinite concept, meanwhile you accept that the concept of temperature is a very useful approximation. If someone told you that particles can choose however hot they want to be, you'd call them a retard.

>>82383775
Looks like it has
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

>>82383782
>Why would I answer senseless questions
It's one question and it seems fairly relevant

>>82383803
Stop trying to samefag. You didn't even change your posting style.

Temperature and pressure is a description that useful but not fundamental: what particles are actually doing (speed, their direction at any given moment, collisions, intermolecular forces etc) is far more fundamental but thermodynamics doesn't treat it. Just like supply & demand. It can be a useful tool but is not fundamental which is the whole point of my first post.

> They describe the fundamental forces
Temperature and pressure describe fundamental forces? Delusional.

> reframing supply as an indefinite concept,
Wrong; never done that. I am framing supply&demand as a concept like temperature and pressure: a result of more fundamental interactions between particles.
Neither have I claimed that supply & demand is not useful: that's just retarded. In fact I've stated that supply & demand is extremely useful.

Again, you're also retarded for not being able to discern that from the post, you only see what you want to see and not the point I am making.

>>82383794
it ends up in regional reserves and goes to commercial banks after. covid was an exception. i believe if they have excess money banks have to return their money to the regional reserve accounts but i doubt most follow up. even if they did it still allows them to lend more money in general. also typically people with more money get more money from banks so i would maybe see exponential growth for the havers and more losses for the average person, as well as more money in general for banks. im talking out of my ass now but just theorizing.

>>82383805
Since the 80s median wages have grown by 12% and the money supply has grown by 1200%, nice troll.

>>82383865
>Temperature and pressure is a description that useful
Low IQ post overall but you are still proving his point. You were talking about a price. That price is, at the scale of an exchange of money for a good or service, fundamentally determined by supply and demand. Price itself is an abstraction. You're also still talking about particles moving at some speed in space and time, but that has no weight or relevance to why we use supply and demand to frame how prices change.

>result of more
You didn't do anything like that. You started using retarded examples where someone has an infinite supply of a product they could sell at "any price" and assume infinite demand. Nothing about this example is more fundamental or interesting. If they have too much supply, they would be incurring opportunity costs by not decreasing price. If they don't have enough demand, they would be wasting money accumulating more supply. You are describing supply and demand, not anything more fundamental like muh particles.

>>82383897
>i believe if they have excess money banks have to return their money to the regional reserve accounts
Banks don't need to do this, I'm not really sure what you mean. If you're talking about reserve requirements they've been replaced by the capital equity tier system.
>even if they did it still allows them to lend more money in general
But the lending is what allows people to do things. If you want to buy a house, start a business, expand a business, etc., that lending is what allows you to do it more easily than waiting until you acquire enough funds to do so without debt.
>also typically people with more money get more money from banks
This is probably true in dollar terms but as a percentage of assets I doubt it. Poor people having cheap access to debt markets allows them to invest in themselves. Homeownership, education, small businesses and the like.
>as well as more money in general for banks
All of the big banks are public, you can read their statements to see how much they make and where it comes from. Banks hate when loans go delinquent, it's one of the big things they report every quarter and they get punished by shareholders pretty severely when those metrics start ticking up. I used to invest really heavily in banking stocks and I have never seen a conference call where management was happy about increased delinquency rates.
>>82383910
>comparing a stock to a flow
lol

>>82383910
You were talking about money depreciation. Not money supply. USD has not depreciated much since the 80s.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1404145/us-dollar-index-historical-chart/

>>82383939
You completely ignored what I said and made something up. Congratulations! You're officially retarded.

>>82383939
You literally accept, a priorii, that demand can be steered by changing people's mind and then go like
>nah it's supply and demand that is fundamental
You teens are hilarious.

>>82384017
So it's not demand it's...demand? I don't get it.

>>82383974
Compared to other currencies, wow. Compared to gold, the value of the dollar has went down by 600 percent.

>>82384041
Why would you compare money to gold if you are talking about money depreciation? Are you retarded?

>>82384041
Compared to NVDA stock it's down 150,000%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhlhDuOukKs

>>82384023
>so it's not temperature... it's temperature..?!
No retard it's particles. Temperature is a function of the mean of the squared speed of the particles.
Temperature is a descriptive property. Useful, but again, not fundamental, as it arises from other interactions.

>>82384065
Supply and demand is the fundamental process through which price is determined. By your definition nothing is fundamental except whatever the most fundamental process of the universe is.

File: 347ixne9ckkf1.jpg (133 KB, 1487x2000)

133 KB JPG

I think it's over for humanity that some people cannot instinctual understand that just f(x) does not equal x. Or that h(f(x)) exists. Jesus christ.

>>82384017
Come back when you learn what demand means in economics. I already outed you as a leftist retard. Go read why Marx challenged the supply & demand framing, and then go read criticisms of Marx's retardation. So far, you have completely confused your own argument by using demand-side economics as a counterexample of why demand is fundamental. What is your problem?

>>82382408
Trying to recruit people into the church of communism in r9k is not as good of a idea as you think it is.

>>82384055
Nvidia stock was worthless, gold was never worthless.

>>82384099
gold is the most worthless commodity in existence.

>>82384099
So what? You're comparing things that have nothing to do with each other.

>>82384104
It's not, it's a store of value. Always was.

>>82384108
Then use your dollars to buy gold. What is the issue? Currency should depreciate in value at a small, constant rate.

>>82384087
Probably because you're being elitist and not saying "Why don't people understand that an equation being operated on with an input of an x value interposed on the X in the equation isn't the same as equally thex by itself"

>>82384122
I'm paid in dollars, not gold. That's the problem.

>>82384131
Use your dollars to buy gold. Inflation on a daily basis is pretty much 0, you're not losing anything.

>>82384143
I'm not paid any more dollars even if they are worth shit.

>>82384094
>YOU ARE A LEFTIST!!!!!!!!!
You are fucking retarded. I have no idea what you are even talking about, I never read Marx, I use something called, wait for it, logic.
You can only learn from dogmas which is a sign of low IQ.

>>82384084
Reductionism is only useful to a degree, I do agree on that.
I also never said supply&demand is not useful.

What are you trying to prove? That you are retarded and not understand what I say?
I never even argued "supply and demand does not determine price". And again, as proved, it's not a fundamental process because, you yourself in your post, a priorii, assume it isn't. You're like a broken record.

You can steer demand how you want by just changing the mind of people mate. Far more useful as a concept to me than saying "demand is demand, bro" instead of thinking how we can steer demand or supply.

Think of f(d,s) as a function of price with variables being supply and demand.
f(d,s) = g(x,y,z)(1/s) + h(a,b,c)d
g(x,y,z) and h(a,b,c) are functions of some other variables related to human psyche. Their form is not known to me.
Those functions are going to be far more useful to you depending on how easy it to control them instead of having a blackbox supply/demand that is just 1/s+d

>>82384155
I have no idea what you mean. If you don't like inflation and want gold as a hedge then buy gold. You only lose value in the long run if you hold dollars instead of productive assets (or your precious gold). Most of my assets are not USDs.

>>82384124
>you are an eltisit for using simple as fuck to understand notation that you can learn in an hour and saves countless hours
I think you're just retarded.

>>82384165
>You can steer demand how you want by just changing the mind of people mate
Yeah and you can reduce the CO part of CICO through metabolic rate reduction, but it doesn't change that CICO is fundamental to losing weight. You're talking about behavioral economics, supply and demand is a universal concept in economics.