Me: A good economy is one in which people don't horde money but rather invest it.

You: That's why our economy is screwed, people are investing money!

Wat

Property and stocks help fuel a functioning economy. Investing in those things generates (hopefully) a rate of return to beat inflation for the investor and the means of growing a business for thing being invested in.

Investing in a company or developing some land is pretty far away from stashing cash under your mattress.

The problem is that half of all Americans are not reaping equal benefits from the shared prosperity of the economy to, as you say, beat inflation- because they haven't the savings to afford asset ownership.

Widening wealth inequality and a growing perception among the poor of unfair socioeconomic treatment a recipe for political disaster. The right seems disinterested in acknowledging the problem even exists (examples are evident in this thread alone), and the left is proposing dangerous solutions.

The World Has Gone Mad and the System Is Broken Imo, definitely worth a read from the founder of Bridgewater.

This just isn't true, especially in the age of RobinHood. Plenty of stocks cost a few dollars. Apple costs a mere $260. The lending system means that anyone responsible can borrow to buy a house, and the current low rates make it easier than ever for the poor to get into asset ownership at almost no cost.

Poor people are poor because they're irresponsible with money - wasting it in various ways - or have made horrible, expensive life choices, like having kids out of wedlock. There is no reason anyone able-bodied should be poor in America except for horrible life choices, and lack of hard work.

The poor actually have a massive advantage over the rich in terms of growing their wealth, in that they can compound an income while getting the same rate of return as the rich. America is amazing in that regard. Anyone willing to work moderately hard gets to the middle class without even trying.

The problem is that the US has been very effective at having the cream rise to the top - anyone with even moderate talent gets wealthy in America, and anyone with self control and an even moderate work ethic makes it to the middle class. This is great for the prosperity of all, but it comes with genetic based stratification, unfortunately. Those left behind are largely the genetic refuse - stupid, disorganized, undisciplined, mental problems. They are economically worthless in any system, and they do far better in the US than elsewhere. Should we subsidize them more than they already are (the poor already receive massive government subsidies and pay no tax)? I don't know the answer to that, it's a moral question. California has tried, putting up the minimum wage much higher than the rest of the US, having a high level of welfare compared to elsewhere, and it's a disaster, with very high rates of poverty and homelessness in California.

How does bitcoin make any of this better? To enter the bitcoin system, the poor need to pay the current holders of bitcoin to get in. The gain of those already in comes from the losses of later buyers (that's what makes it ponzi), since bitcoin is a zero sum, in fact negative sum, game. The HODL gains that you guys dream of if bitcoin mainstreams come straight from the poor.

I'm interested in hearing where this thought of yours leads to in an - by your estimation - utopian world. Does everybody just spend all their assets as soon as they acquire them so as not to be a "hoarder"?

Tell that to the people in my town trying to raise a family off two $7.25/hr wages. Maybe if you're lucky you can make $8 or $9 to get that salary closer to the 20k/year range. If you're stuck in the service industry here increasing your standard of living is almost impossible. There aren't many other options wrt job choices. You'll often even see college graduates working these jobs.

That's why I argue against the narrative that everything wrt the economy is better than ever. I get that it is certainly true for the average global citizen, but I would not consider a system where wealth inequality continues to increase secure or sustainable. It should be obvious that there's only one way such a system can end. When you combine this with threats to democracy and climate change, maybe you'll start to understand why not everyone can sit back and jerk it to their stock portfolio while laughing at the peons who simply don't work hard enough.

as someone who grew up in a blue collar environment yet attended prep school and went to the college that is ranked as having the wealthiest student body in the world... i can wholly vouch that while what TS said can't be applied indiscriminantly as a blanket statement, lower class culture and acceptance "that this is how life just is" is a major factor in poverty

there are obviously edge cases and even if everyone moved in the right direction together then there would still be those left behind but poverty is very much a cultural lifestyle and as someone who's been on the extremes of both, i feel uniquely qualified to be one of the few people here who isn't just guessing what it's like on the other side

Just want to remind everyone this is coming from an Australian living in Eastern Europe. You know nothing about poverty in America or California, total ignorance and silly generalizations but what a surprise TS just posts because he's got nothing else to do. "Poor people have it coming" dur ka dur.

The American economy is a powerful economic locomotive that works as intended

The tracks it rides on is not stable and, by many metrics, outdated

Corruption prevents the needed measures to remedy that

So people die needlessly or live lives that fall way short of potential

Wealth concentrating to the hands of the few is both a good and bad thing

People seem to talk past each other in that regard

There is a balance...America not only does not have it, it refuses to recalibrate

So we get arguments ITT w diametrically opposing sides looking at each other in disgust

When both are technically correct

I'm sorry but both aren't technically correct and unless you can expand on that then you are as ignorant as TS...

Are we seriously going to blame poor people for their circumstances and play a false equivilance game when the system clearly benefits those who are already successful? As someone who's worked with Habitat for Humanity for years, good luck telling some of the generalizations above to the faces of people we give houses to. I bet neither of you do much with charity period, your total lack of empathy and understanding of the real issues is pathetic. Not one mention of gentrification or price inflation (different from overall/wage inflation) which makes upwards mobility very tough in 2019.

Plus none of this has anything to do with Bitcoin, TS point the future gains come off the backs of the poor and that means it's a ponzi is so comical. How bored are you man? Like 20 posts in here over the past week...

I'm not sure if I'm included in the "neither of you". I don't think so, but since TeflonDawg was quoting to something I wrote, I feel I need to respond. I worked for US charities for more than 25 years for organizations that had local, national, and international programs. My wife has spent 35 years working for an international charity. I am confident I do not have a "total lack of empathy and understanding of the real issues" facing "poor people". If you didn't mean to include me and only meant to continue your regular bashing of TS, then carry on.

You weren't included dude, it was more attacking the "poor people are lazy and careless with money" thing and yeah I'll keep going after teflon/TS when they say stupid things. There is a record inheritance moving from Boomers to millennials, tell me more about how it's easier for poor people compared to the rich to get ahead.

How do you profess to know what I do and don't know? You claim I don't trade, which is bizarre, you claim I wouldn't have $500 to pay Brian when I lost an unescrowed bet (paid same day without so much as a mea culpa from you), now you claim I don't know what poverty is.

We should start a thread on poverty in BFI, would be interesting to see business people's takes. As for me, I grew up way poorer than most. If you had a house to live in, running water, wore anything other than secondhand clothes or shoes, you grew up richer than me. I've lived in many cultures including over a year in the US and seen poverty in most of its forms. I've lived for months to years in $20,000/month French Riviera villas and poor mountain shepherd huts, in countries infected and ruined by socialism, spent months living like a local on islands off the coast of Africa with their hope-free, aimless inhabitants, looked over the slums of Manilla and KL from mansions and hotel rooms. A lot of those people are genuinely screwed over by their poverty and I feel for them. There is not a single able-bodied person that's screwed over by their poverty in the West. Not one. It is purely attitude and culture. My childhood friends from where I grew up who still live there chose drinking and being lazy over applying themselves to becoming economically useful. They are still poor and I am not, despite me starting off poorer than them. Is that the fault of inflation? Would bitcoin solve that problem?

The Western world has far more capital than it has hard-working people or talent. People will throw money and opportunities at you if you're competent and hard working. There is a massive shortage of engineers and programmers for example in the US, the US is short by the millions and getting worse:
Manufacturing alone is short 2 million STEM grads; programming, accounting, finance, etc are short many millions more. These are all well-paying and highly economically useful jobs that any poor person can learn to do and there are more than 10 million of them going begging.

In response to that powerful economic and national security need, the poor either choose to drop out of school or go and study social justice courses rather than engineering or programming. Is that their fault or society's? Google et al are screaming out for black programmers, going to extreme lengths to try and hire them and give them $100K+ starting salaries - to no avail.

Is it the fault of the poor they choose paths in life that are not economically useful, in a place where school for the poor is fully paid for 18 years is paid for by the rich? Where college places are also paid for by the rich? Where there is a rich vibrant economy and a skilled labor shortage? Where Asian immigrants manage to go from poor to above middle class in one generation through hard work? I contend that it is their fault. Brainwashing by left wing scum that they're "victims" certainly doesn't help (it shifts the locus of control, and an external locus of control is death to self-catalyzed-improvement), but in the end a person has 30+ years to get themselves sorted out and decide what life philosophy they want to take on, to decide whether they want to be economic creators or economic parasites, and ultimately it's on the individual for the mistakes they make in a place like the US. In genuinely poor places with weaker economies, like Manilla or Africa or caste-system India, it is far more the fault of the system/lack of opportunities. I genuinely feel for these people.
Why do you assume I lack empathy? Saying that a poor person's lot in life is theirs to fix is the most empathetic thing you can possibly do. Saying that a poor person is kept down by the system - in a place like the US - is the least empathetic thing you can do. It is highly destructive to the poor.

"The world is fair and you suck big fat balls and you need to change how you approach life to be less selfish/make yourself more economically useful to others" is the best thing anyone can say to the poor in the US.
Yeah, I'll start a new thread on poverty to take it out of here. Someone claimed that inflation robs the poor and that therefor deflationary bitcoin is good for them, which is completely backwards in my view. As for the ponzi, pyramid scheme like bitcoin - where all the rewards flow to the early holders who get paid off by the later holders - are absolutely an extra tax on the poor, the stupid and the uninformed. If bitcoin mainstreams then all of the wealth of the new currency is held by the people who hold it now, who the poor have to pay off to enter the system. If you care about fairness to the poor then bitcoin is the least fair of all systems - computer nerds and internet forum aficionados with spare money to gamble on a digital clown coin will be fabulously wealth for no other reason than they were clicking in the right place at the right time and got in at the bottom of the ponzi pyramid.

It's absolutely comical to me that people decry the fiat system and blame it for poverty and then claim that bitcoin is some fairer system. Big fat lol there.

I think this next generation has opportunities, its just the cost to move from low to middle to upper can be difficult if you take the traditional educational route. Student debt is a huge burden for those that dont land a job that will quickly pay back the debt. Women don't want to wait until 35-40 to have a family and that child instantly is a drain on any excess money. Not saying it cant happen with planning and discipline but it is a challenge to many. Best friend is lawyer for 10 years now with his wife who has masters, and they live in a modest apt paying back loans and just now felt comfortable enough to have a kid. Its not good that education sets you back so much instantly. And thats just an example of people that actually found good work after graduating.

First off, you are seriously STILL bragging about paying off a debt on a bet that basically proved you don't trade for a living (one losing trade for -$40 and then you quit) on a forum you can't live without being apart of? Lmao ok pal you got me.

It's the bolded statement where you lose all credibility along with all of these below which are wrong and offensive, I don't agree and I think your various support is basically conjecture without any real stats or evidence we can debate.

"The lending system means that anyone responsible can borrow to buy a house, and the current low rates make it easier than ever for the poor to get into asset ownership at almost no cost."

Lol what?

"Poor people are poor because they're irresponsible with money - wasting it in various ways - or have made horrible, expensive life choices, like having kids out of wedlock. There is no reason anyone able-bodied should be poor in America except for horrible life choices, and lack of hard work.

The poor actually have a massive advantage over the rich in terms of growing their wealth, in that they can compound an income while getting the same rate of return as the rich. America is amazing in that regard. Anyone willing to work moderately hard gets to the middle class without even trying."

Massive advantage to generate alpha because they are starting from a base of zero, doesn't mean it's easier to build wealth period.

"The problem is that the US has been very effective at having the cream rise to the top - anyone with even moderate talent gets wealthy in America, and anyone with self control and an even moderate work ethic makes it to the middle class. This is great for the prosperity of all, but it comes with genetic based stratification, unfortunately. Those left behind are largely the genetic refuse - stupid, disorganized, undisciplined, mental problems. They are economically worthless in any system, and they do far better in the US than elsewhere."

Total nonsense and again showing your ignorance as an outside observer. It is NOT easy to break into the middle class starting from the bottom. Plus calling people genetic refuse, wtf is wrong with you?

"California has tried, putting up the minimum wage much higher than the rest of the US, having a high level of welfare compared to elsewhere, and it's a disaster, with very high rates of poverty and homelessness in California"

Increased minimum wage and welfare isn't causing poverty, it's the simple cost of living and massive wealth disparity where poorer (and even some in your beloved Middle class) individuals are forced from their neighborhoods because they can't afford to live there.

Tooth's bio reads like a 1900's adventure novel! You forgot to mention that you solo backpacked the Andes though.

WOW! All this while building wealth-generating top-calling trading models on TSLA! You my hero champ! Hopefully, that lone $40 dollar trade you made didn't cut into your lifestyle too much. It was one of your only losing trades in years. All of us hope to trade that big one day!

Bigly believe everything tooth says.

Bitcoin does not solve the issue of poverty or is it more favorable to the poor. Bitcoin is for those that recognize a fundamental flaw in the current financial system and are hedging against it, protecting themselves by creating an alternative store of value. Those effected by currency collapses and those poor by our standards have used it to protect themselves against rampant inflation.

I don't think we'll see wheelbarrows of money in the US but its not bad to hedge against collapse, Even if US economy does not collapse BTC is a good asset to have IMO

Good idea, imo. You'll probably need to incorporate an underlying BFI slant to the OP, otherwise the mods might feel inclined to move the thread to the politics community where it will die a slow death by a thousand cuts. I think sufficient connection exists between the socioeconomic and political impact of growing wealth inequality (and stagnant wages) on business related events to keep the thread here.

I have much to say in regards to your response to me, but I'll wait for the new thread, because here it will just get drowned out.

Edit: Also, if you read my post, I stated that Bitcoin does nothing to solve these problems. In fact, Bitcoin would make them worse. I didn't feel guilty about derailing this thread though because it's already a **** filled cesspool.

No that's not what I said.

They're hoarding property and stocks, not 'investing' in new housing or productive capital.

When the Chinese print infinite money and hand it to their citizens who then promptly buy up half of Vancouvers property market is that productive investing to you?

When the US prints infinite money and half of the S&P spends billions buying back its own shares is that productive investing to you?

Tone down the racism please...

If the Chinese print infinite money then world markets will reflect that and the Yuan won't be worth as much compared to CAD and property in Vancouver will cost more when valued in Yuan. If the Chinese still think that it is a good investment to buy, then, yes, it is productive investment.


If the US prints infinite money money and companies choose to do stock buybacks (this is a non sequitur by the way, but I'll respond to the point you think you are making), yes, it is productive in that it raises the stock price - a benefit to current sellers (obv) and to those holding.

Thought this was a Bitcoin thread? Guess I'll just repost this again since TS had no response and veered off into an economics mega rant.

Who cares what percentage Bitcoin is off from its all time high? So few trades were executed at that level that it is irrelevant to the discussion of success vs. failure. Bitcoin purchased during 96% of its existence would be at a positive return at this point (this number fluctuates obviously). 60-75% of holders are at a profit at this point (number also fluctuates). Everybody that holds for ~4 years is at a profit. That's worst case scenario if you bought the previous market top. How is this a failure again?

Anyone that has done a cursory analysis of Bitcoin already knows the more important number to look at is the yearly low which removes the noise and makes the trend painfully obvious to see. Don't fight the trend. Get on board or get left behind.

I didn't respond because there was little of interest...if a pitcher throws me a soft underarm throw I let it go through to the catcher because there's no point.

The people who use it as a claimed "store of value"? Poor people who buy in with their limited savings? Businesses who need to hold bitcoin to transact in it? My post pointing out its failure was responding to someone who claimed it was "too big to fail", when the reality is that it's lost of most its value and gone 85% of the way to failure without being "too big to lose 85% of its value". That was the sole point of my post, a rebuttal of the "too big to fail" viewpoint.
It's running slightly behind the Madoff ponzi then, which was even better: 100% of Madoff securities purchased during the first 37 years of its existence had a positive return (year 38 was the fun one).

The key point for both the Madoff ponzi in 1970 to 2007 and the Bitcoin ponzi today? Most who bought in haven't tried to cash out yet. That's when the fun happens, and the only time you find out the real value of the thing in question.
A very important distinction here is that they're at a paper profit...liquidity is so thin in this name that if more than a few percent tried to cash out, most would be well underwater. We've seen 10% down moves on much less that 1% of the market cap in volume. HODL memes are important here in keeping the price up.
Past returns aren't future returns. Ask anyone who bought into Madoff after its 37 year history of fantastic reliable returns. More importantly for bitcoin, the dynamics that took it from $1 to $20K (illegal economy growth + large ponzi waves) can't take it to $200K. It needs entirely different dynamics - mainstreaming - and the scaling limitations choke that off.
These exhortations from current holders to "get on board or get left behind" and that it's likely to go up 100% or is "certain" to go $100K by end of 2018 or $1M by 2020 (where a certain current hodler has even promised to eat their dick on live television) are why I call this the world' s first large scale decentralized ponzi - the ones making the "free money" return claims are the current self-interested holders who benefit from selling to those later in the pyramid (and lose a fortune if no bagholders show up).

I don't think you know what productive means.

You're proving my point. All the money printing is leading to asset prices that benefit those that have and screw those that don't.

TS - I'm not putting predictions on anything. But you are beyond reasoning when your only response is akin to "lol but Madoff" and you ignore the most important piece in the post (which was conveniently put into picture form for you), the yearly low. Can't wait to see your retorts in 2021-2022.