Yeah it looks like national average in the US is 0.08% for checking accounts and 0.10% for savings according to Bankrate.com and the FDIC. Average yield on a CD (which is of course not liquid) is 0.88%. Obviously that's not even close to beating inflation.

Admittedly though it seems like Australia is an aberration and seems to legitimately have decent interest rates. So Toothsayer is wrong, but he has a valid excuse in that he's being viewing things from his personal bubble.

FDIC insurance means your money is covered by the government up to $250K. Including interest owed.

The index graph assumes you buy a company when it enters the index and sell it (losing everything in the case of bankruptcy) when it leaves the index. That's how it works in real life too.

No, it's you who's wrong. Just because banks rape idiots who don't know better doesn't mean much. There are dozens of >2% at-call savings accounts including major banks. We're also in a rising rates world, and there's inertia/low competition for capital. On the way down or in a lender's market it works the other way.

We're in a low interest rate period right now. All you can do is look at long term rates of return. In the long run the average risk free rate of return on fiat is around 4.5%, and the liquid fiat money market has return 15,000x more than gold (which is inflation free) in 200 years. It's how the world works. Hodling fiat is good for your wealth.

I had a crazy Uncle once that didn't trust banks.

Wait, just so I'm clear, have the last 50+ posts really been from half of the people not understanding that there are a bunch of investment instruments designed to fight inflation?

Did this thread just discover how investing in inflationary economies works?

He would have loved bitcoin.

Vanguard's prime money market fund is paying 2.33% right now. You can get 2.05% with FDIC protection at various online bank accounts.

But yes there are a lot of people who don't realize how and why we have an inflationary currency and how you should invest accordingly. It's easy to go on r/gold or r/bitcoin and look at that graph where the USD has lost 99.9999% of purchasing power since the Federal reserve was created and say "See? The system is broken!"

To be fair, infinite asymptotes are contrary to common experience, so people don't really understand them intuitively. Intuitively, something that was 100 off zero and is now 0.1 off zero is a huge favorite to go to absolute zero and blow up. This is of course completely wrong but you can forgive people for thinking like that.

There's no excuse for not understanding how money is actually used though.

How its actually used is the point though, that's why I'm using compiled averages from the FDIC instead of just vaguely looking at banner ads seeing that some high (high as in at best a wash with inflation) interest rates exist therefore my argument is proven.

Why would there be a difference? For wealth growth simply investing > not investing. Investing isn't a particular feature of FIAT. In a world where Bitcoin takes over you could just buy stocks and bonds with bitcoin.

You could even argue that a quasi-banking system would still exist since there would still be demand for a system to issue loans, so arguably, you could not lose value from inflation but still gain interest from some sort of pseudo-savings account.

Lots of dumb **** in this thread from morons who understand nothing while I was sleeping, but there was one good idea. Musk Melon and spaceX should definitely sell a crypto backed by a proportionally sized section of future property they conquer on Mars.

You're compiling a snapshot instead of the long term. And the argument is proven. Fiat in a savings account has returned 15,000x the value of gold in the last 200 years. Do you have any comprehension of what that says? Hodling fiat has crushed hodling gold, such that gold has 0.006% of its residual value measured in fiat in a savings account.
You get the interest without investing - your AT CALL money is available with zero friction to use as a currency while return 4.5% on average. That's reality.
You could theoretically do the same for gold, yet it doesn't happen, mainly because gold is an unstable asset.

Fiat can be risk free and hence provide risk-free interest because it is a managed currency tied to the unforgeable taxing and military power of the government and is 100% stable within that particular country provided it doesn't totally collapse economically.

Well, unlike BTC dollars actually have a very large number of uses, including a wide variety of investment options. They're how millions of people have built wealth over the years.

Its not a snapshot. Interest rates, on average, have been terrible for at least a decade and look to be terrible for at least the next few decades. Your graph has nothing about savings accounts which is especially difficult and irrelevant to define when we're going back to 1800 and I haven't discussed gold in any way and don't really care to.

So we're up to 4.5% I see now, k.

Are you a millenial or something? It's like you know nothing about the history of the last century.

Rates have been low after great depressions (the GFC was the last one) and always recovered. If you think they're going to be terrible for "at least a few decades", well, that's some amazing predicting ability.

Banks have typically paid savings account rates very close to the money market/risk free rate.
Yes, that's the long term rate of return for the last 100 years. Going back further it's more.



Anyway, this whole discussion started when someone claimed that hodling fiat long term was bad, when actually the opposite is true. Hodling static, inflation beating assets like gold is bad and holding fiat is very, very good for your wealth.

Your counter to me saying interest has been bad for a decade is posting a graph that stops at 2011.

And yeah interest rates have varied wildly across 200 years but so has inflation.

We got us a seer on our hands here. What else can you tell us about the next few decades?

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is a US government vehicle for insuring each FDIC-covered bank account for up to a quarter million dollars.

If you can't beat the rate of inflation investing in a portfolio of stocks, bonds, commodities, and other hard assets over a multi-decade time period, then you really suck at investing.

Crazy. You could get 1.5% here if you commit to a longer time and about 0% if you don't. You can get slightly above 2% for government bonds (2.1% and 2.2% at the moment for 3-years and 5-years). All those are subject to capital gain tax as well (19%). It's still better than Switzerland where my friend lives. There I am not sure if you can get a saving account paying more than 0% (the interests rates are -0.75% there at the moment).

uhh?

I do bank with redneck bank and I've been ticked to death with them.

2.33%, as someone already pointed out in an earlier post:

https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual.../profile/VMMXX

Or you could stuff your dollars inside a mattress, which seems to be what you think mostly happens to them.

Then there's Berkshire Hathaway, for example. A $7,000 investment in 1990 in the holding company is worth $300,000 today. BRK won't give one that kind of return going forward, but should still handily beat the rate of inflation.

Amazing interview

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...y?srnd=premium

Highlights:

-Implies he loaded *back* into ETH at $400

-Thought 6k would hold while the market flashed the most powerful crash signal of the year

-teh fed1!! level understanding of gold

-Says it's all ok because the next bubble will more than make up for everything


This guy is the alpha clown of crypto, and hilariously shows how suckers ascribed value to people not because they had any idea of how to model reality, but because they started with more money.

Novo
Awice
..
Redditor buying $1400 of ETH

Those at the top got in earlier, come from a more successful background and bring a lot more effort and intelligence, but ultimately appear to have totally missed the point in the same ways.

Interesting that he thinks a ****coin fork was a major catalyst for btc's recent decline

Missed quoting that. I would guess that is where he would be most likely to lie however, in order to avoid stating the underlying reality of the market.

Honestly, it does "feel" like a big player(s) is unloading a lot of BTC. I don't think top buyer Joe's have the funds to sustain this sell pressure for so long.