[HN Gopher] The money I saved as a child would buy one picogram ... ___________________________________________________________________ The money I saved as a child would buy one picogram of gold today Author : diego Score : 255 points Date : 2022-04-17 17:20 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | cat_plus_plus wrote: | Cash should be seen as medium of exchange rather than store of | value. If you saved for a bike, the bike was probably worth much | more to you than a picogram of gold. Even if you ended up | forgetting about your penny jar and finding it in the attic as an | adult, the act of saving itself gave your valuable lessons about | planning and delayed gratification. | | On the other hand, if you made even a conservative investment | like a thin silver chain or a popular book with author autograph, | I bet you will get more than your money's worth for that today. | If you bought a share of Apple stock - woah, but I guess we | couldn't have all known back then. | | As adults, yeah we should know better than to keep our wealth | essentially in the pockets of politicians. Invest in something | that will be useful to your or someone else even many years | later, or profit-generating businesses. But there is nothing | wrong with children play-learning a simplified version of life | rather than immediately having to know the difference between | mutual funds and ETFs. | [deleted] | MarkusWandel wrote: | The point missed in most save/invest vs. spend arguments is this: | | If you've been raised to be a saver, you are well trained at | living cheaper/less frivolously. Note that this presupposes that | you make enough money to live reasonably and save; I'm not | talking about the extreme poverty cases where immediately | spending the rare windfall actually makes sense. | | By cheaper, I mean one car instead of two, simpler vacations, | less eating out, less fancy house, "using up" quality consumer | goods instead of constantly replacing them with the latest | fashionable stuff (e.g. second complete kitchen makeover in 15 | years). | | Suppose person A makes X and spends X and saves nothing. Person B | makes the same, but spends 0.5X and saves 0.5X. Now suppose an | economic disaster where all those savings are wiped out and A and | B additionally end up taking a 50% pay cut. Who will continue to | live in comfort, albeit with misgivings about not being able to | save up again? | ip26 wrote: | It's protective against downside, but can constrain your | upside. I was raised a saver, and it's been very hard to hire | out simple tasks & let go of trifles, which in turn constrains | how much time & energy you have to focus on increasing your | earnings. As a low earner, it's better to focus on efficiency & | DIY, but as a high earner it's irrational to spend an hour | getting bent out of shape over a few dollars. | MarkusWandel wrote: | Absolutely agree, which is why, for example, I don't do my | own car repairs any more. But you can still have a less fancy | car and keep it longer. And I don't _want_ to focus on | increasing my earnings. I 'd much rather be fixing something | around the house. | paganel wrote: | When Ceausescu's regime fell in late 1989 a piece of bread was | costing 3.75 lei. About 10 years later, late '90s-early 2000s, a | piece of bread was costing 3,000 lei. Hight inflation is a bitch. | bombcar wrote: | An, but it wasn't the same piece of bread. :) | | I've always wondered what happened to mortgages and loans | during those periods. Did borrowers effectively get free | houses? Did borrowers not exist? | ronyfadel wrote: | That has happened in many countries, like Argentina and | Lebanon. Borrow before crash, and your house would | practically cost you as much as a car. | oblio wrote: | 1. Scams. Romania had a lot of banks defaulting. | | 2. Yes, the number of loans and mortgages was minuscule. | | 3. Do you think anyone gave out fixed interest loans? :-))) | nabla9 wrote: | The work one did decades ago would not be worth of the same today | due to increased total factor productivity. | | When people think the money they earned in past should be worth | same today assume that value of money should grow. | clamprecht wrote: | I'm from the US but I lived in Argentina for about 5 years | (2013-2018). It was a great lesson, and I'm seeing things in the | US now that I used to see in Argentina. At the bank recently, | they had a sign about the national shortage of coins. That was | common in Argentina. Sizes of products getting smaller in order | to keep the price the same - "inflacion escondido" (hidden | inflation). | once_inc wrote: | Shrinkflation is such a visible invisible sign. | gpgn wrote: | "inflacion escondidA" | clamprecht wrote: | Gracias.. mejor comentario hasta ahora ;) | robocat wrote: | la inflacion escondida. "Shrinkflation". | ghaff wrote: | The ostensible reason for the coin shortage was COVID-related | supply chains. Stores were also trying to minimize handling of | cash especially early-on in the pandemic. | | This is overlaid with the fact that, in the US: | | 1. A lot of people (though certainly not everyone) don't use a | lot of cash these days | | 2. Coin denominations have basically been unchanged since I was | born--which was... not recently. So you have lower denomination | coins that cost more to make than they're worth. | MerelyMortal wrote: | On reddit, I'm seeing people hoard coins because they believe | the metal it is made of is more valueable than the currency | it represents. | ghaff wrote: | In some cases, that may be technically true but I suspect | that the costs of turning bags of pennies into cash that is | > than the face value of the pennies is iffy at best. | Sebguer wrote: | It's also illegal to melt down pennies or nickels, which | are the coins where the margins are closest: https://www. | federalregister.gov/documents/2007/04/16/E7-7088... | raunak wrote: | Shrinkflation | shadowgovt wrote: | The single greatest difference between the United States and | Argentina is the world's debts, as tracked by the IMF, aren't | denominated in any of the pesos or peso variants Argentina has | used over the past several decades. | | Were the us to try and trade out dollars for NuDollars, they | would find the dollar won't go away because the world will | still be using it to trade and pay down its debts. | | The dollar being the world's international trade currency has a | significant anchoring effect that makes it extremely difficult | to extrapolate from lessons learned in other countries to the | United States. | gus_massa wrote: | If the US decides to replace 10 Dollars with 1 NuDollars, | then the IMF and everyone else will just search and replace | and fix all the paperwork. It's not hard at all. | | The problem may be if there is for many years a high | unpredictable inflation that is higher than most developed | countries. In that case other countries may decide to use | Euros, Swiss Franc, Yuanes, Yens or whatever has a more | stable value. | shadowgovt wrote: | There's nothing in international law that makes that | automatic. | | It would create an interesting open question how the IMF | would respond. In practice, it won't happen because raising | the question would (as you noted) bea colossally stupid | move for the US for global influence reasons. They have a | lot of leverage from being the printer of the world's | currency-of-record. | Capira wrote: | bitcoin fixes this | narrator wrote: | A friend of mine lives in Argentina. He pays his living | expenses in Bitcoin to other Argentinians. They are very happy | to take it, even without legal tender laws because it doesn't | rapidly regularly devalue like the Argentinian currency. | UncleMeat wrote: | That would be true if the only way to create a failed currency | was to print it to death. But we've observed cryptocurrencies | with mining caps collapse to $0 in the same way as a fiat | currency. | datadata wrote: | Fair to say bitcoin fixes this particular large and important | class of currency failure, by taking away the power to print | it to death? | albntomat0 wrote: | That it does, but I understand that Bitcoin's deflationary | by default nature has also been criticized. | | Bitcoin also adds new failure cases such as irreparably | losing money through address typos and lost/failed hard | drives, not to mention the numerous & exciting failures in | DeFi. | UncleMeat wrote: | Yes, while introducing a host of other very serious | problems. | [deleted] | dukeofdoom wrote: | Saving and buying collector edition video games might be a good | purchase for a kid that might pay off later. A corvette might be | a good investment too, if they stop making gasoline cars in the | near future. | quantumcrypt wrote: | Corvettes are mass produced. German ICE import like Porsche is | far more likely to hold value. | oblio wrote: | Porsches are mass produced, too. | teddyh wrote: | Ah, the magic of interest: | http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/at-the-bank | imtringued wrote: | Why exactly do we want to reward already rich people at the | expense of poorer people? Somehow, people convinced themselves | that giving money to those who don't need it is efficient. | FabHK wrote: | If everyone puts their money in the bank and gets 5% (say), | then the proportion of wealth will remain unchanged. (FWIW, a | similar argument against Proof of Stake (that it will | inevitably lead to greater and greater inequality) is | similarly flawed. (This doesn't mean that PoS is a good | idea.)) | randyrand wrote: | It's not that we want to. Its not our choice. It's decided by | the people, or the foreign countries, that have the money to | lend. It's the rate they are willing to lend at. Most don't | lend it for free. | dlivingston wrote: | Do you understand why the system is set up the way it is? By | which I mean the actual financial mechanisms. | lottin wrote: | You don't have to reward anyone. Just don't borrow. But if | you want to borrow the lender will expect a reward. Simples. | MisterSandman wrote: | It's a lot easier for the rich to "just not borrow" that it | is for the poor. Capitalism was _designed_ so people HAVE | to borrow money to do things, so saying that you can just | avoid things by not borrowing is elitist at best. | | University, Medical Bills, Housing - all are things that | many people (in NA at least) need to borrow money for. | Borrowing money is an integral part to move up the social | and economic ladder for most people alive today. | infamouscow wrote: | Because economists without even an undergraduate | understanding of mathematics say the right things to those in | power. | renewiltord wrote: | Zeihan in tears. I really enjoy his description of geopolitics, | but the man definitely overestimates Argentina repeatedly for no | bloody reason. | | When I was a child, I saved a little of my allowance to start | with, but then rapidly realized that every year I was blowing | away (in earnings) my savings from the previous year. Soon my | porn and bootleg music high-school business was beating all the | savings of the previous year. Then my ad fraud "business" plus my | fake reviews "business" was beating that. | | I dropped all of that stuff, went to uni for other things and | then eventually started engineering later in life than most | people and the pattern repeated in earnings. Through sheer luck I | happened to make choices that aimed at growth rather than | savings. | | Pure savings are over-rated. You should hold nearly everything in | inflation-protected assets. And loads of these are crazy liquid. | Plus, I have friends with whom I have a de-facto liquidity pool. | It's sort of a liquidity insurance mechanism: we'll just help | each other over temporary liquidity humps. | | One of my friends had to leave the US temporarily because of a | green card processing delay due to COVID and he knew that I'd | cover his mortgage if he needed me to. Helps you sail closer to | the wind knowing that only broad-based economic failure can hurt. | nanomonkey wrote: | What are some examples of these crazy liquid assets? | | In the past I've spent extra money on tools, a house and some | gold and silver (as I have a goldsmithing hobby). The house is | difficult to unload, at least mentally, pretty good market. The | tools have kept their value, but finding a buyer is difficult. | The gold and silver are a similar story, but tend to fluctuate | in value rapidly. | reducesuffering wrote: | Global stock and precious metals ETF's are inflation- | resistant and quite liquid. You'll pay only 0.02% spread to | liquidate them and have the cash in your bank account within | a few days. As opposed to a house which is generally 6% | spreads and a couple months to liquidate. Only in exceptional | liquidity crises (August 2008 - March 2009, and March 2020) | are you at risk of cashing out for 30-50% losses. 80% of the | time it's at value or higher. So you just need a small | percentage of assets that are deflation-resistant (cash & | bonds) for the small periods of time deflation happens, to | pay your expenses. | mensetmanusman wrote: | That's still 3 billion atoms: | | https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=one+picogram+of+gold+in... | marcodiego wrote: | Brazil had its own share of problems with hyperinflation during | the 80's and early 90's. I remember the behavior it conditioned | people. | | Once people got their paychecks, they would rush to the | supermarket to buy as much as they could, by the end of the month | they wouldn't be able to buy that much with the same amount of | money. | | People ran ahead supermarket staff which updated prices so they | could buy the same product at a previous price. | | Gas stations had long queues during the night when there were | news about about gas prices rising. | | My father developed and interesting habit: whatever he bought, he | would write in the box how much it cost in gasoline liters. That | way we could have a good idea of how much each thing really cost. | It was somewhat funny many years later finding old boxes written | "Custou dez litros de gasolina". | [deleted] | me_me_mu_mu wrote: | Thinking about money and its hypothetical worth in X years is a | waste of mind resources, at least for me. Instead, I'm going to | just save 20-25% and spend the rest on being happy. If things go | south, so what? I've got an expiry date and one day these things | won't be a problem. | cko wrote: | That's a pretty decent savings rate. When you say save, though, | do you mean putting it in the bank or a diversified portfolio | of factor tilted global index funds? | me_me_mu_mu wrote: | Index fund | [deleted] | rkuester wrote: | "May the sign of the exponential be ever in your favor." -- | @dbasch, a great tweet concluding that thread | dredmorbius wrote: | https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1515737443395383299.html | tehlike wrote: | As a grateful person with sufficient income, we are contributing | IRS gift limit of 15-16k per parent to kids account. Eventually | when the time is right we will get her practice investing also | with the hope that she will see how much her account has grown by | the virtue of compounding. Before then we are planning to get her | do chores for neighbors and learn to earn money and get her save. | t43562 wrote: | I remember my dad encouraging me to save my dollars and not spend | them on choc-99 double ice-creams ($2.13). These were soft whip | ice-creams with 2 cadbury's flake chocolates stuck in the side | and they seemed like the closest thing to heaven on earth to me. | What my dad said seemed logical though and I saved. When I was 16 | I had a holiday job that earned me many ice-cream-worths but I | kept it - didn't buy a bicycle or anything. "Save your money." | | These were Zimbabwe dollars, however, and in the late 1990s it | all inflated away to nothing. So much for conscientious saving. | supersync wrote: | Thanks for sharing. A book "The Psychology of Money" talks | about this. How people handle money (successful or not) is very | different depending on whether or not they experienced | inflation as a child. | Bolkan wrote: | throwawaybsd wrote: | anonporridge wrote: | Never store your long term savings in a thing that someone who | isn't you and never will be you can theoretically print an | infinite amount of. | | Even if you completely trust the people in charge today, you | just can't ever be certain that they'll be in charge forever or | that the environment won't change in a way such that they break | your trust. | magicalhippo wrote: | My parents encouraged me to save money, but for my birthdays so | I could buy a new cool Lego kit. My parents and relatives would | chip in on the day, but I would keep count during the year to | make sure I was close enough. | | Looking back I think that was a good middle ground. At least as | a 5-10 year old it was a quite concrete target yet also showed | me the benefits of saving money. | kingcharles wrote: | Funny side note: the State of Illinois spent a decent amount of | public funds trying to decide whether to charge me with $100 | trillion in currency fraud. The state crime lab said the | currency I owned was the "most sophisticated piece of currency | forgery" they had ever encountered. | | It was a single (real) $100 trillion bill from Zimbabwe that I | carried in my wallet for fun. I assume they thought for some | reason it was US dollars? | | https://www.banknoteworld.com/zimbabwe-currency/100-trillion... | MerelyMortal wrote: | Did they at least give it back to you? | | I don't know how much they sell for now, but I was lucky to | get one for $20 when they were normally going for $40 on | eBay. | | I forgot the exact result, but I once calculated the value of | a 100 trillion Zimbabwe dollar bill when it was printed, and | it came to something like 0.06 USD (6 cents). | Jiro wrote: | I just checked ebay. Real ones sell for $100-200 US. | | There are also fakes, most of which admit in the | description that they are fakes, and include extremely | large numbers like 10^33. | | The highest number that you can get cheaply and that is not | fake seems to be the 50 billion. They sell for about five | dollars, which given the economics of ebay is probably as | low as you can expect. | bombcar wrote: | The one trillion ones are more rare, as Germany if I | recall correctly stopped printing them for Zimbabwe soon | afterwards. | | At one point I had a hundred stack of them somewhere. | jjeaff wrote: | That sounds insane. Did no one just do a quick Google search | and see that you can buy them all day long all over the | internet? I think we need some more details on why they were | going through your wallet and how and why they even | considered a charge in this case. | chiph wrote: | I bought a couple of those and got them framed as a gift. The | owner of the frame shop was concerned about me leaving them | with him, until I pointed out that I was going to pay him | more for the frame than they were worth. | vmception wrote: | Should taught you how to dollar cost average on assets instead | of just hoard the currency | | Maybe next gen parents will | xiphias2 wrote: | I did the same thing for many years, until in 2013 the Cyprus | bailouts woke me up...at that point I went all in on Bitcoin | out of anger of the banking system, and haven't changed | anything since. | shadowgovt wrote: | I hope this works out for you in the long term; BTC isn't the | most stable platform, but it could certainly be more stable | than some national currencies. | WanderPanda wrote: | In fact it is ,,more stable than some national currencies" | xiphias2 wrote: | If you don't look at the price, it's the most stable and | predictable service and protocol in the existence of the | internet (maybe after the internet / IPv4). It's uptime is | 99.987%, last time it was down in 2013, and the cool thing | is that even if it gets down, it has self healing property | in the case of network separation / sybil attack. | | https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/bitcoin-uptime/ | | I dare you to find another internet service (or even | banking service) with the same stability. | | Also the same software that I downloaded in 2013 still | works (although I'm not using it, I have the option to not | upgrade). | | There was a bail in last month in my country (Hungary) as | well: all people who stored their money in Russian banks | lost their money over $100000, just like in Cyprus in 2013. | They did't even know that their bank was Russian owned. I'm | not playing the game of russian roulette with my money | anymore. | FabHK wrote: | Well, I've had BTC transactions drop out of the mempool | (so, they were not executed, but you don't know that | immediately, you only know days later), and transactions | that worked took between a few minutes and more than half | a day. The fees ranged from virtually nothing to around | 50 USD. I certainly would not call that predictable and | stable. I mean, you don't even know when the next block | will arrive. | xiphias2 wrote: | I would be suprised if a valid normal transaction with 50 | USD would drop out of a mempool. What was the transaction | weight? If you send the transaction data, I would be | interested to look at it. | | I'm usually overpaying (20 satoshis/byte, usually under | $1 for a $2000 transaction), and I always get into the | first block, but I never pay $50 fee. | [deleted] | SahAssar wrote: | > If you don't look at the price, it's the most stable | and predictable service and protocol in the existence of | the internet | | Well, when you put it like that you just convinced me to | put my savings into SMTP. Obviously you've identified the | key features of a store of value. | kkdaemas wrote: | The problem is Bitcoin Core may have (will have) unknown | vulnerabilities and those might not get patched correctly | once discovered. | xiphias2 wrote: | Yes, this is true, I'm mostly worried about the elliptic | curve signature part, as everything else could be fixed | with an emergency hard fork (except SHA256). | | Sadly OP_CAT operation is disabled (or substring equality | operation), which would make lamport signatures available | again for high value transactions. I would love it if | lamport signatures would be enabled again (it would be | quite easy to do), but I'm afraid that there isn't enough | concensus to do it at this point, because some people | would think that it's wasteful, and also lamport | signatures are dangerous, as they can be used only once. | anonporridge wrote: | Bitcoin is an unbelievably stable platform with an uptime | of 99.98% with only 13 years to draw from. It's been | sticking with it's algorithmically defined inflation rate | with perfect predictability, unlike any other currency or | scarce asset like gold, which depends heavily on incentives | to mine and accessible reserves. | | Don't mistake the volatility of the USD price of bitcoin | (which is based on the erratic, unpredictability of human | emotions and massively distrusted market decision making) | with the complete and utter lack of volatility of the | actual underlying system. | SahAssar wrote: | Inflation (at least in it's common usage) tracks the | price of goods, not the supply of currency. While those | traditionally affect each other strongly you cannot say | that bitcoin has a stable or well defined | inflation/deflation curve because the price of goods | denoted in bitcoin are extremely volatile. | | You can say that the monetary supply is very predictable, | but that doesn't do much good if the price of goods | fluctuate. | anonporridge wrote: | The word is 'inflation' is overloaded to mean both | depending on the context. | | It can mean inflation of the price of things, which may | be driven by supply constraints OR demand changes OR | currency debasement. This is notoriously difficult to | calculate a single value for, because all goods and | services can oscillate wildly in prices in both | direction. Electronics and mass produced things are a | strongly deflationary good because they're constantly | becoming less scarce while food, education, health care, | and housing are significantly inflationary in price, | because they're not getting less scarce at faster than | demand. | | It's impossible to give single CPI style inflation number | that isn't deceptive in some way, because to do so, you | have to put every person in a box and declare a | "standard" basket of goods that everyone is expected to | consume. But reality is messy, so my basket of good is | likely going to be quite different from yours. Everything | from diets, the types of education and housing we choose, | the transportation choices available to us, our | reproductive choices, and the hobbies we pursue can be | radically different, which can mean that your "true price | inflation" can be radically different from my "true price | inflation" and both radically different from official and | heavily manipulated government CPI numbers. | | Inflation can also mean the inflation of the currency | supply. This is the more traditional definition, and it | gives a simpler way to understand whether prices for | goods and services are rising because of changes to | supply and demand, or if the prices of goods are rising | because there's suddenly a lot more units of currency | available to chase those scare real things. And of | course, when it becomes clear that it's the currency | getting rapidly debased, people start hoarding the | actually scarce goods and resources, because the money is | becoming toilet paper, and that's bad for all of us, | because hoarding scarce real world resources that we | don't need right now is bad for all of civilization. | SahAssar wrote: | > This is the more traditional definition | | In this sentence traditional can either mean "old" or | "common". If you meant "old", then I agree, but currently | it is not the more common one. | | For the sake of clarity, if you only meant the more | narrow definition of currency supply inflation in you | parent comment then it's probably good to say so. | UncleMeat wrote: | The mathematical certainty of the issuance of BTC won't | really mean much if nobody wants to trade it for goods. | BTC's volatility is not just volatility w.r.t. USD. | anonporridge wrote: | The value of anything as a medium of exchange and store | of value always depends entirely on whether or not a | critical mass of people want to use it as such. Once you | establish that a thing satisfies all the properties of | money, or close enough, then the only question is network | effect. Even if minor theoretical improvements could be | made, it has to be 10-100x better to overcome runaway | network effect. | | Sea shells and bags of salt were drastically better money | than mentally keeping track of favors owed in a small | tribe, because we could expand our exchange of favors | beyond dunbar's number to cooperate with people we don't | intimately know. Gold was much better than sea shells and | salt because it's globally scarce and durable. Paper | backed by gold was much better than raw gold, namely | because it is drastically easier to trade, transport, and | fractionalized. | | The technical nature of bitcoin isn't special and it can | be trivially forked, modified, and a new network started | for near zero cost. That's exactly what coins like | litecoin and dogecoin did. Copy paste bitcoin code, | change the name and some constants, and boom, new money. | What makes bitcoin special, and why there can only be one | dominant cryptocurrency long term, is network effect. I | don't care about litecoin and dogecoin, because barely | anyone uses them relative bitcoin. Barely anyone is | developing and building on them as a foundational layer. | The only reason anyone cares about dogecoin these days is | because one eccentric billionaire has a hard on for it, | and that's way too small of a bus number to store a | significant amount of my wealth in. | | The same holds true for any network protocol. I can copy | paste libraries for TCP and make modifications that I | think will make it far superior to the current form and | release it to the world! And nobody except hobbyists will | use it because standard TCP has an unassailable network | effect. You have to have an extraordinarily compelling | reason to change, and even then it will take decades (see | IPv4 to v6 transition for example). | | The thing about bitcoin, is that it is the first truly | digital money. Fiat currencies like the USD have been | trying for decades to pretend to be digital, and they'll | probably try harder to use blockchains to make it better, | but ultimately it's still fundamentally stuck with an | analog foundation defended by guns and tight cliques of | trusted human gangs, which makes it globally weak | relative to bitcoin. That's why bitcoin has a 10-100x | advantage over dollars long term. It's natively digital, | open, and permissionless from day one. | seoaeu wrote: | Saying that bitcoin has a stable algorithmically defined | inflation rate is a hilarious redefinition of terms. Over | the last year, one Bitcoin lost approximately 40% of its | purchasing power relative to a basket of consumer goods | and services. The year before, the opposite happened with | bitcoin increasing in purchasing power by a factor of | 5-10x. | xiphias2 wrote: | ,,A historical look at the origin and uses of the word | inflation, arguing that although the term has become | nearly synonymous with "price increase," its original | meaning - a rise in the general price level caused by an | imbalance between the quantity of money and trade needs - | is the definition driving many of those who advocate an | anti-inflation policy for the Federal Reserve.'' | | Austrian economics still uses the original meaning of | inflation (increase in monetary supply), while Keynsian | economics uses the change in consumer price index, or | more broadly the change in prices. | | I prefer to always distinguish the two by writing | monetary supply inflation and price inflation instead of | just writing inflation, as this conflict between | definitions always comes up. | m0llusk wrote: | According to legendary quant Nassim Nicholas Taleb so | called cryptocurrencies are so fundamentally volatile that | they cannot be considered currencies: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.14204 | ttoinou wrote: | Parents didnt call it a currency.. | throwawaybsd wrote: | Pff tell me about it. I made the choice of buying real estate | instead. My tenant has everything serviced for them. They | lost half on the stock market, but fortunately own crypto. | Also lost a bit on crypto but they earn plenty. My estate | doubled in 10 years and the rent they pay paid for two more | properties, but i have to deal with the hassle of fixing | pipes and such - all in all i pay in maintenance a month | worth of rent, but the stress of calling contractors is too | much - sometimes i need to get my arse out of the pool to | dial people. Also have to spent few hours total a year. I | just cant. Should sell everything and invest in crypto. My | Porsche is too boring - need a lambo so it loses value | sooner. After all what else can you do other than keep money | in the bank. Buy estates and turn highly paid tech serfs into | tenants? Hah. Best chase nfts. | throwuxiytayq wrote: | Certhas wrote: | I looked up the definitions: | | Theft: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of | property. | | Inflation: a continuing rise in the general price level | usually attributed to an increase in the volume of money and | credit relative to available goods and services. | | There you go, proved you wrong. | ehejdud wrote: | spawarotti wrote: | I think they meant that "a continuing rise in the general | price level usually attributed to an increase in the volume | of money and credit relative to available goods and | services." is theft. | zmgsabst wrote: | In definition 1: | | > as by embezzlement | | In definition 2: | | > attributed to ... volume of money and credit | | We'd be able to conclude that "inflation is theft" from | noting that inflation is driven by "printing money", | whether paper or credit, and that the benefits illicitly go | to those in control of the financial system to the | detriment of others -- which the other poster would likely | characterize as "embezzlement". | | So you proved that person right -- at least to people who | view the Federal Reserve and large banks as in a self | interested cabal. | | By embezzling the funds they print, eg giving special | access to friends, they engage in theft towards society at | large. | ajross wrote: | > from noting that inflation is driven by "printing | money" | | It's not. Or it can be, in the case of the linked article | referencing Argentine hyperinflation. But what we're | seeing right now isn't. The US government does not, as a | rule, "print money" to create funds. That happens in the | banking system. Like for example the government can sell | a bond; existing holders of statically invested dollars | (foreign governments who sold stuff here, say) give the | federal government a bunch of cash in exchange for the | promise of interest paid over time. Now the government | spends that money (on a pandemic relief bill, say), | putting it into circulation among a different demographic | (poorer people and not money market investors) who do | different things with it (buy consumer goods). Well, now | demand for those consumer goods is higher than it would | have been. If you're in a pandemic trying to keep the | economy afloat, that's a good thing. But if you overshoot | by a bit, then there's too much money for the goods | available. Inflation! Despite no money having been | created; it just changed hands. | | Now do the same thing for a supply shock: if | manufacturers scale back production (due to a pandemic) | and then can't scale it back up fast enough (chip | shortage!) then prices... go up! Inflation again! | | Likewise trade goods can create supply shocks too. Maybe | some product (Russian petroleum) can't be obtained | anymore. Less fuel to go around, but all the existing | consumers have the same requirements and start bidding | against each other for it. Yup, inflation! | | People who repeat this "bitcoin can't inflate because | mining" idea are selling you a line, basically. And the | proof is, in fact, that crypto has been _basically flat_ | vs. traditional currencies at this very moment where we | 're seeing global inflation. If you could _ever_ see this | effect, this would be the time to measure it. And it 's | not there. | [deleted] | jonhohle wrote: | I don't disagree that it's not, by definition, theft. It | is, however, an obscured tax on savers, a transfer of | wealth from lender to debtor. At least in the US inflation | is the result of decoupling dollars from gold and the | direct theft of gold and silver from the citizens by the | government. | jhgb wrote: | > a transfer of wealth from borrowers to debtors | | What's the difference between a borrower and a debtor? | jonhohle wrote: | Sorry, s/borrower/lender | Retric wrote: | It's a tax on people holding the currency not all savers. | Hold stock, a different currency, copper, paintings etc | and you avoid losing out to US inflation. | jonhohle wrote: | I'd consider equities and real property separate from | savings. | imtringued wrote: | Let's assume 50% of the population is retired and has | saved money. The other 50% is working full time. A deadly | virus wiped out 50% of the working population. All | products are now twice as expensive. | | >. At least in the US inflation is the result of | decoupling dollars from gold and the direct theft of gold | and silver from the citizens by the government. | | No, it is caused by ignoring the fact that labor cannot | be stored. Gold is just a token, it is like an entry in a | balance sheet but harder to forge. It doesn't actually | store anything other than itself. You can't store labor | by turning it into gold. Gold was already in the ground | and was dug out by labor. There is no way to get that | labor back. People age. They can't be stored like gold. | The inherent mismatch between gold and people is what | causes inflation. The only difference is that due to its | limited supply gold then swings back to deflation and | then inflation again but simply introducing a gold | standard doesn't solve the inflation problem, it is the | origin of the inflation problem. Fiat currency is just a | stretched gold standard. They are still tokens, they are | easier to forge and more importantly fiat money doesn't | age either. So inflation must still happen as a | consequence. | | > It is, however, an obscured tax on savers, a transfer | of wealth from borrowers to debtors. | | By this logic aging is a tax on savers. Defaulting on | debt is also a tax on savers. Savers deceiving themselves | is a tax on savers. | slv77 wrote: | High inflation usually goes hand-in-hand with some degree | of corruption that immensely benefits the connected and | powerful. | | In Venezuela the government implemented exchange rates | controls which were much more favorable then market based | rates. Those with privilege and connections could purchase | dollars at the official rate and then sell them at market | rates at 10x what they paid for them. By this method an | immense measure of the nations wealth could be | expropriated. | | Commodities can be siphoned from producers with price | controls and then liquidated at market rates. Eventually | asset owners can be forced to sell when they can't produce | what is demanded at below market prices. | | Those that are close to decision makers can front run | markets as the everything degenerates into a command | economy. | | While not all inflation is theft inflation can facilitate | theft on an epic scale. At some point all economic and | political power shifts to those that benefit from inflation | and it becomes politically impossible to "fix" inflation as | power derived from it. | Retric wrote: | There are two ways of looking at money. In the case of | physical tokens you have just as many before and after | inflation so that's not theft. | | The other way is to consider it as an abstraction of value | independent of these tokens. But who then pays to maintain | the system, prevent counterfeits, and issue replacements for | used tokens etc? It's the government that issues these tokens | and as such the loss of value over time is simply a payment | for use of the system. You might disagree with how large the | fee is, but it's a medium of exchange so you can trade your | tokens for something else. | imtringued wrote: | >The other way is to consider it as an abstraction of value | independent of these tokens. | | What I honestly can't comprehend is that people somehow | want this but then they twist their brain somehow into | wanting something even more contradictory. Humans are loss | averse, so the first thing they do when they hear of a loss | is to shoot the messenger. In economics that messenger is | the interest rate. The price signal known as the interest | rate isn't allowed to fall into negative territory. The | price signal that tells everyone in the economy that there | is too much financial capital is now gone. People will now | accumulate financial capital i.e. money and money like | assets (bonds) above and beyond what debtors actually want | because the debtors have been silenced. Their opinion | doesn't matter. Only the opinion of the saver who wants to | shove the losses and risks onto someone else is being | listened to. At the end, people are surprised to hear that | they have accumulated way too much financial capital than | the economy can handle and that their financial capital is | actually worth much less than they thought. | | Why didn't anyone warn them that this is occurring? Oh | right, they shot the messenger. An interest rate below zero | means that there is too much financial capital, nobody | wants your bloody money rich guy, and that the biggest | savers should reduce the amount they are saving, yes, that | means the rich must spend off a greater portion of their | savings than the poor which decentralizes money into the | hands of those who need it the most. | | I am honestly tired of this. Conservatives and hardcore | capitalists shout "central planning!?!" or "price | controls!?!" at everything but the moment you point out | that a 0% interest rate is an artificial price control they | will fall silent or think they are genuinely owed the | enslavement of the young. | staticautomatic wrote: | FYI I down-voted you because making a bare assertion and then | saying "prove me wrong" is hostile and intellectually lazy. | UncleMeat wrote: | An important question is "what is inflation?" | | A ton of the discussion of inflation ties it in a 1:1 way to | money printing. Like the government says "I'd like some more | money please", prints money, and this evenly inflates the | price of every good and "steals" from people's bank accounts. | While this can be a component of inflation, the truth is much | more complex. | | Looking at the published CPI numbers it becomes extremely | clear that inflation is extremely varied. Natural gas way way | up. Medical commodities up only a small amount. Prices can | rise for an absolutely enormous number of different reasons | and the price of a good going up obviously cannot be | considered "theft" in the abstract. The people who insist | that governments are unjust if they allow any inflation above | 0% are being unreasonable, in my opinion. | | That said, it is _also_ the case that public policy, | especially public policy in authoritarian or failed states, | can cause a currency to collapse and wipe out any wealth | their citizens hold in that currency. But I 'm not even sure | I'd call this "theft". It is a different sort of abuse | entirely and it comes in many more forms than just devalued | currency. | [deleted] | renewiltord wrote: | MMT-caused inflation just an effect of an alternative to | taxation and is an effective means to keep spending moving. | Like any other outcome of monetary policy it has winners and | losers | tengbretson wrote: | I don't believe it can be considered theft if your | participation in the US dollar system is consensual, which it | is. | imtringued wrote: | >Inflation is theft. Prove me wrong. | | Money is a claim on people's time and we haven't invented | cryogenic chambers and demanded that the unemployed enter | those cryogenic chambers during their time of unemployment to | prevent them from aging, ahem, I mean stealing the value of | your money. | | As it stands right now, labor cannot be stored. Your money | must age at the rate people age if nobody is hiring the | unemployed for investments. What I personally find | particularly amusing is that there are so many branches of | economics (I could Marxism as one) that postulate that money | is just a medium of exchange and thus can't be harmful. | | Yet internet forums are filled with angry savers that want to | use their money for anything other than a medium of exchange. | | > Right now I'm looking at Turkey - I honestly can't tell | whether Erdogan is just a trickster, or actually fucking | retarded. Likely both. | | If he introduces a debt brake then lowering interest rate for | government bonds is the right strategy. The interest that you | don't have to pay can be used to pay down the principal and | reduce debt faster than paying interest could ever achieve. | The problem is that he isn't doing a debt brake at all. | memish wrote: | It's a hidden, regressive tax. | Certhas wrote: | As a childhood lesson you don't need crazy inflation for this | to hold true though. Anything that takes more than a few of | months to save up to just doesn't make sense as a kid. Your | disposable income goes up by factors of ten every few years. | You have 2$ to spend at 5, 20$ at 10, 200$ at 15. Then it slows | down but you might still get to 2000$ at 25. | | Saving as a kid really never seemed worth it to me. | Consultant32452 wrote: | Time preference is a big component in life success. There's | not a lot of practical ways to discuss this with a small | child, so "save up for the bigger/better toy" is what you | get. If you have better ways to teach this lesson to your | kids, I highly recommend doing it. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | As an adult, 'wait a year' is quite reasonable, but kids | live in dog years, when i was a kid 'wait a month' felt | like i have to wait untill i grow old and get reincarnated | Consultant32452 wrote: | Start with shorter time horizons. Do your kids earn an | allowance? Pay them interest. Every dollar they still | have at the end of the week, give them a dime. Be | creative. | Swizec wrote: | Wow I wish I had $200 to spend at 15 | | The rest of your comment makes sense. I didn't really start | saving until my late 20's. It just made waaaay more sense to | invest any disposable income in myself. | | So far so good. Thanks to those early investments in myself | I've been able to save more in the past ~5 years of my career | than my cumulative earnings of the first 10 years. | Taek wrote: | It's about the lesson more than anything else. I really want | my kids to learn how to save and be well practiced at it, | even though the utility function doesn't make a ton of sense. | nobrains wrote: | We put our children's savings (money for good school | results, birthday money, eid money, etc.) into 3 separate | envelops, equally: SPEND, SAVE, CHARITY. | | SPEND: They are encouraged to spend 1/3rd of the money. | Whatever they want to buy. They have become online discount | shopping experts, whether getting rubiks cubes, roller | blades or harry potter merchandise. | | SAVE: 1/3rd goes into savings, which we will let them tap | once they need it. Not sure when: once they are 17/18 | perhaps? In all cases, it will be a big payout compared to | the amounts they are used to "spend". | | CHARITY: And 1/3rd goes to charity envelop. So whenever an | opportunity comes up, they can use that towards any charity | event. Good thing is that they usually spend it all in one | go. Great! | scarface74 wrote: | I hope by "charity event" you mean "an opportunity to | give" and not an actual "event". | | https://www.socialvelocity.net/the-problem-with- | nonprofit-ev... | xivzgrev wrote: | My mom had a similar system. She had also split savings | into long term and short term. So | | LT - 40% ST - 30% Spend - 20% Charity - 10% | | I don't recall what the term was for short term, maybe a | few months. | | Something about it worked. Today I follow a similar | system, tho percentages are different (spend obviously | higher) and no charity. | judge2020 wrote: | I guess this is the type of modelling CNBC used for | millenial spending in their infamous tweet[0]; I don't | know many people that actually donate >10% of their | income to charity. | | 0: https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1076173906455810050?s= | 20&t=Z... | photochemsyn wrote: | What you want to do is set up a charity in a Third World | country and give them a steady stream of money that goes | to the governmental leaders for their own personal | projects, like a school or something. Do this for a few | years and then you're positioned to get control of the | country's natural resources at well-below market prices | due to, ah, corrupt local leaders willing to sell out | their country's interests in exchange for more 'charity'. | | See: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. | oblio wrote: | I get the first part of your plan, but do you have some | sources for the second part? | | How is that foundation exploiting the first step, in | practice? | gcheong wrote: | Nice given the time frame do you plan on further dividing | save into save/invest at some point? In other words is | the big payout coming only by the total amount saved + | interest or by potentially greater returns through | something like an index fund? | foobarian wrote: | I like that this balances out the usual puritanical "must | save at all costs" attitude. I feel my family was way in | that direction due to circumstances (own a place to live | with zero property tax, but very little pension/income). | But now even though I do well for myself, I end up doing | illogical things like never using an unopened set of oil | paints. I feel that teaching to spend money/resources is | also important (I could have used it at the very least!). | jasonhansel wrote: | IMHO the saving you do as an adult is a very different kind | of activity from the saving you learn to do as a child. | Saving as a child is more about delaying gratification by | not acting on one's desires; saving well as an adult is | more about taking action by making prudent financial | decisions. I'm not sure if learning the former really helps | you much with learning the latter, though it is a useful | lesson in its own right. | nitrogen wrote: | Even among people who seem financially stable, I've been | surprised how many of my peers spend money as soon as | they see it and have never had more than $X000 at the | same time ever. The lesson of delayed gratification is | actually a pretty big factor in being able to save up | money as an adult. | krastanov wrote: | I feel most of my saving habits came from RPG games, not | from my parents (although they did try to teach me that | too). | Spivakov wrote: | Your comment reminds me of this interesting article: | https://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2010/06/game- | economies.html?... | | In many rpgs as you progress through the game the need | for expenditure diminishes to zero. Different case if it | is mmo or designed around grinding though. | ItsMonkk wrote: | Feel like you would like this[0] article that goes | extremely into MMO economies. | | [0]: https://www.desogames.com/virtual-labor-and-lessons- | from-eco... | bee_rider wrote: | Spending all your money on health potions and in | preparation to fight (the|your) boss, accidentally over- | leveling, and not needing them at all? | foobarian wrote: | Perhaps we're getting a lot of that lesson from games like | Royale High in Roblox. I was amazed at what a detailed | budget/spending plan the kid wrote up in her journal for | all the things she was hoping to buy for the in-game | currency. And how many days it would take her to save up | for it. Oh well, at least the inflation or opportunity loss | from not investing is not as much of a factor there. | drbojingle wrote: | If the utility isn't there why teach it? Feels like it | won't connect. Better to teach them to have self | disciplined and minimalistic isn't it? | Jiro wrote: | Learning to manage money includes making correct decisions | about whether a course of action is worth it. Forcing a | child to save when he'd be better off not saving teaches | the right lesson about what saving is, and the wrong lesson | about when you should save. | jjeaff wrote: | Not saving comes natural to most people. Learning to save | is the hard part. Most children don't ever make enough | money that saving would make financial sense. The reality | is, teaching kids to save their money is more a lesson in | delayed gratification than it is a financial lesson. | epgui wrote: | I don't understand why so many people "save money" but then | just keep cash under a mattress or in a savings or checking | account. | | If you want to win at life, you "save money" by purchasing | non-cash assets like stocks. | klyrs wrote: | Sure, saving money isn't the best strategy, but it sure | beats "spend every dime the minute you get it" which is | what children are naturally inclined to do. Teaching kids | to save money is the first step towards financial | literacy. | sidlls wrote: | It _is_ a bad step as it is usually taught, though (that | is, as and end goal itself rather than, for example, as a | means to better investments). Any astute kid is going to | look at the "compound interest" argument as laughable. It | only works if there is sustained, substantial additional | contributions over a lifetime. This is especially true | for people in lower income brackets. Try convincing a kid | with even modest arithmetic skills that saving $2 (or | $20, or even $200) and letting it compound is "smart." | andai wrote: | But $2 of BTC... ;) | klyrs wrote: | > It only works if there is sustained, substantial | additional contributions over a lifetime. | | That's literally how I was taught about compound | interest: saving money means making weekly/monthly/annual | contributions. And that was a regular (non-honors) class | in an inner-city middle school. | | > Try convincing a kid with even modest arithmetic skills | that saving $2 and letting it compound is "smart." | | No, that's idiotic. I think you're beating on a straw | man. | capableweb wrote: | > If you want to win at life, you "save money" by | purchasing non-cash assets like stocks. | | "Win at life" == "save money" == "owning stocks" ??? | | Winning at life is about everything that is not about | money. Winning at life is being able to be happy no | matter how much or how little money you have. Sure, up | until one point, more money can help you get happier, but | if you don't have the baseline happiness, you will never | become happy and "win at life" no matter what. And up | until a certain point, not even more money can make you | happier if you're already miserable. | epgui wrote: | I believe you're doing what is called an equivocation? | (edit: not sure exactly what it's called, but you're | arguing against something I did not say or mean) | | We're talking about money, in a thread about money, on a | post about money. At no point did I suggest that money | makes unhappy people happy. | mjochim wrote: | It's called a strawman argument. | | And I think you did not mean "win at life" in as broad a | sense as the other person interpreted it. Either that or | you two have very different ideas of what "winning at | life" could mean. | mc4ndr3 wrote: | Banks can fail. Stocks can fail. Currencies can fail. I'm | not saying it makes sense on the whole to bury your worth | in cash. But there is an amount of paranoia that confuses | things. | | The interest in my savings account is laughable. It's | _marginally_ better than keeping in a mattress. | | The mattress doesn't charge bullshit fees. The mattress | doesn't arrest you for being the wrong color. | skinnymuch wrote: | If you're in the west. A major bank failing and Govt + | insurance not covering the losses for customers means | something we have not encountered as a modern society. | That's as close to a break down of modern society as you | can get. Sure it's possible. Cash will def be great then. | However this is such an extreme situation that there's no | way to know what will be good in that situation. | | I would think in a situation like that, we would have | something similar to what happened to job losses and the | stock market cratering like in March and April 2020. | Except that cratering and job losses would continue while | riots and protests all across would get bigger and | bigger. Crime presumably would go up a lot too. | | It slips out that your family has $20K in cash at your | home...who knows what'll happen in this dystopian | situation. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | 'you're in the west. A major bank failing and Govt + | insurance not covering the losses for customers means | something we have not encountered as a modern society.' | | It's a common occurence u developing countries, people | hedge against it by holding foreign currencies and | tangiable assets like land. Its not that rare for people | to live through multiple devaluations and currency | collapses. Ofcourse you don't go around telling people | about tour wealth | plandis wrote: | > If you want to win at life, you "save money" by | purchasing non-cash assets like stocks | | Just be born wealthy enough to have free money to invest | as a child! | epgui wrote: | I hope I did not come across as _that_ out of touch. | | The reality is, most people barely can meet their basic | needs. If you hate that as much as I do, then vote for | politicians that care about wealth inequality. | nurettin wrote: | While generally true, there's the problem of what to buy | and when. Then there's the problem of hindsight and the | problem of that one stock everyone thought was going to | the moon crashing and burning away your life savings. | Then there are strategies and strategies that decide | which strategy to apply and when, then you realize it | isn't as easy as "just buy stonks". | UncleMeat wrote: | It is more complicated, but the rule of "if you are more | than 10 years from retirement, buy VTI when you have | available money" works well for an absolutely huge number | of people. You can optimize things, but there are | effective strategies that fit on note cards. | epgui wrote: | The fact that it's more complicated, or difficult, than | the treatment I gave the subject in a passing comment | doesn't change the fact that it's true generally | speaking. | cat_plus_plus wrote: | Depends how much money and for how long. Saving dollar | bills for a coffee maker rather than buying a cup of | Starbucks is a good start if that's your current station | in life. If the market takes a dive and you don't have | cash equivalents, you have to sell at a loss to cover | your living expenses and can't buy more stock to | capitalize on eventual recovery. Maybe a credit union | checking account that pays a little interest is not so | bad for someone with limited time / knowledge to manage | too many types of assets? | saagarjha wrote: | Because investing is non-trivial and nobody tells you how | to do it. | ozim wrote: | There is a lot of people that really want to tell others | how to do it. | | Bad part they are mostly scammers or charlatans that are | looking how to get that money for themselves. | epgui wrote: | I recommend "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" for a | safe/conservative, no-bs and simple introduction. | kevinmchugh wrote: | There's lots of advice out there and it is almost all as | useful as it is expensive | logifail wrote: | > If you want to win at life, you "save money" by | purchasing non-cash assets like stocks. | | Except when you don't. | | Between 1995 and 2000 I lived in a student house in the | UK and one of my housemates (who was also a student, and | from my recollection almost as broke as I was back then) | was really into investing into the stock market during | the dot-com boom. | | He bought both Lastminute.com (IPO March 2000 @ | 380p/share[1], sold to Travelocity in 2005 @ | 165p/share[2]) and Railtrack (IPO 1996[3], went bankrupt | 2001[4]) | | [1] https://money.cnn.com/2000/03/14/europe/lastminute/ | [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2005/may/13/bu | siness.... [3] https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsumma | ry.php?docID=740 [4] | https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home- | news/railtrack-go... | epgui wrote: | I'd suggest that for most people, buying diversified | index funds are a more appropriate strategy. | | Nothing you do in life is risk free, even keeping cash | under your mattress: the fact that there is risk involved | does not change that this is how you make money. When you | know that you're guaranteed a loss of ~2%, at best, on | cash, and that your expected real return on stocks is | positive, well... That's the point. | logifail wrote: | > I'd suggest that for most people, buying diversified | index funds are a more appropriate strategy | | At least in the UK, buying into index funds was | substantially more expensive back then. I held shares in | a retail bank for a time not long after that, for which I | had an actual paper certificate! No wonder trading was | expensive.... | kache_ wrote: | Well, you don't buy individual stocks; you buy slices of | slices of everything to dissipate your risk towards | variance. And you definitely don't hold cash. Holding | cash has a lot of risk as well | logifail wrote: | > And you definitely don't hold cash. Holding cash has a | lot of risk as well | | (Sorry, genuine questions) risk of what and compared to | what? | epgui wrote: | Risk of loss, theft or physical degradation. Then there's | the costs of holding cash, which are known to give you a | negative yield due to inflation (nevermind bank fees or | insurance costs, etc) | tmn wrote: | You hold cash for short or mid term optionality. If you | want long term stable store of value buy gold or treasury | bills | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Most people who want to secure family wealth and have the | option of trickle incompe buy real estate | ghaff wrote: | I assume cash was being used in the normal financial | accounting sense of the word as opposed to dollar bills | in the mattress. | | Yes, there's inflation negative yield. But especially in | the low interest and inflation rate environment that has | been the case until possibly recently, the difference | between "cash" (i.e. default investment at a brokerage) | and other very low-risk investments (e.g. high quality | corporate bonds) has been pretty minimal. | lostlogin wrote: | The strategy you suggest is clearly good, but the | percentage of people who can afford to think beyond 'if | the car breaks down I need some money' and imagine a | retirement is probably smaller than we both think. | ozim wrote: | Because most of people can only do that. So saving small | amounts of money to build up some buffer. | | When you have a buffer only then you can start buying | assets. | | Until web brokers started I did not even know how to buy | stocks. I think most people still don't know how to buy | stocks unless they are from really well-off family. | | My parents were also not "financially literate" so I had | to figure out all kind of stuff on my own. | | Downside was for example that I got supper shitty | "investment product" so I did not loos much money but if | I knew better I would put my money in a better place. | | Fortunately I did not get outright scammed but for a lot | of people that have to learn as they go it is a real risk | so "just saving" and losing some value to inflation might | be best option for many. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > Until web brokers started I did not even know how to | buy stocks. My parents were also not "financially | literate" so I had to figure out all kind of stuff on my | own. | | Same | markdestouches wrote: | Well, if you are not a professional investor, you'd | better stick to savings accounts or invest in a index but | not in individual assets. Investing as a non-professional | is akin to doing surgery on you own body while not being | a surgeon. | epgui wrote: | I think a particularly determined and curious non- | professional can reasonably expect to be successful at | stock picking, but yes, for the vast majority of folks, I | agree. | dijit wrote: | I mean, liquid asset vs variable and tied up asset? | | I'll be the first to admit to being fiscally | conservative: money I can't spend and that is sunk into | something else does not guarantee that I get my money | back. | | I'm losing money on the savings I have every year, which | is why I put nearly all my savings into a fund, but then | that fund dropped in value almost immediately by 30%, if | I had done nothing with my money and bought a top of the | line MacBook Pro with 64G of ram, I would have more | "money" than I have today; but it all depends on what the | value is when I sell out of the fund, there's no | guarantee that I'll even get what it currently says I | "have" back either. | | Savings and investments are different things. | ALittleLight wrote: | I don't understand the mindset that losses aren't real | until you convert them back into cash. If you had turned | your money into casino chips and were sitting at a poker | table, and had just lost 30% of your chips, would you | consider that your losses weren't real until you cashed | out your chips? Of course, you might win your money back, | and if you were a good poker player who usually came up | net-positive from situations like this, you'd be well | advised to keep playing. | | I'm not giving you financial advice - I don't know | anything about you or your investment. It just seems | fundamentally wrong to me to consider different forms of | money (cash, shares of an investment fund, casino chips, | etc) as being distinct. Changing forms may have tax | implications but it's not like the form protects you from | loses in some way. If you keep your money in an | underperforming investment it should be because you | expect it to go up in the future, not because you are | afraid of realizing a loss (which you have already | suffered). | gillytech wrote: | Money is a representation of energy. If you used it like | you would electricity you would be better off. Sure, | store some in batteries but know that they dissipate over | time. Stocks should only be purchased when you want to | literally invest in a company or industry because you | think it has major growth potential, not for speculation. | Non-cash assets could also mean precious metals as they | have conversion power over any fiat currency. As we're | watching the neo-liberal global world order collapse with | the war in Russia I think gold and silver will win out | over any other non-cash asset. However it still doesn't | make any money. The way to make money with money is to | buy things that appreciate in value over time. Real | estate is one of the most available things that fit this | category. My parents bought a house in Florida last year | at the "top of the market" and their property is now | worth about 20% more. And if they rented it out they | could recuperate some of the capital outlay that they | invested. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _you "save money" by purchasing non-cash assets like | stocks_ | | Bonds aren't great for building wealth. But they're fine | for preserving it. Saving money via a mix of inflation- | indexed and fixed-yield debt will generally preserve your | purchasing power over long time intervals. | markvdb wrote: | While that has been true for the US the past ~250 years, | the US are to some extent an anomaly. | | Most of the world has seen bond owners get eaten almost | completely really. Almost all of Africa, large swathes of | Asia, much of Europe including Germany and Russia, most | of South America... | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _all of Africa, large swathes of Asia, much of Europe | including Germany and Russia, most of South America_ | | Were any of these seen, contemporaneously, as low-risk? | | The backfire sovereigns in the last 100 years were | limited to Austria-Hungary and the Dutch, trading | economies derailed by war. The others aren't trading | nations, or were well-established basket cases when they | issued their debt. | rileymat2 wrote: | There should be a giant disclaimer, this somewhat true | for inflation indexed bonds, if you can hold bonds to the | maturity date. If not, all bets are off. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | Or real estate. But in times when interest rates were | higher, saving in the bank made more sense. | PheonixPharts wrote: | > even though the utility function doesn't make a ton of | sense. | | What if it never makes sense? | | One thing I didn't realize until embarrassingly too late in | life is that savings should only function as a buffer for | emergencies. Anything else is just burning your money since | there haven't been savings accounts that consistently beat | inflation even in the US. | | I was fed these same myths as a kid, and earnestly believed | that part of success in life was to have a huge savings | account one day. I remember well all those "power of | compound interest" talks in grade school, about how working | hard and saving was the path to wealth. But that's all a | complete myth. | | The real irony is that anyone who has built themselves | serious amounts of wealth typically does so by making high | risk/high reward choices. Teaching kids to play it safe and | building saves, different desires to the future etc. | doesn't make any sense in the world we live in. It's | ultimately _bad_ advice. No one I know who ended up very | successful did so by living conservatively and within they | 're means. They're people who aggressively pursued | improving their conditions, often times because they were | forced too precisely because they didn't have a savings. | | The lesson of "save money, life within your means and make | conservative choices" sounds nice, but in the world we live | in today this is a recipe for short terms austerity and | long term decline. | sacrosancty wrote: | > that anyone who has built themselves serious amounts of | wealth typically does so by making high risk/high reward | choices. | | You have the logic backward. If it was "typically, anyone | who made high risk/high reward choices has built | themselves serious amounts of wealth", it would be good | advice, but what if most of those people failed terribly? | An example is pursuing a career as an artist/sportsman | which are common high risk/high reward aspirations of | children which most people fail at. | | I also had that same late lesson in saving being useless. | Luckily, I learnt it by buying a house which appreciated | fast and showed what a disaster savings would have been. | grog454 wrote: | > Luckily, I learnt it by buying a house which | appreciated fast and showed what a disaster savings would | have been. | | The better way to learn this is to be able to look at a | graph like this: https://inflationchart.com/spx-in-m3 | understand it, and make an informed decision taking in to | account your personal risk tolerance. | sacrosancty wrote: | Probably, but that's why it's luck, not sat down and | planned life. | endless1234 wrote: | I don't think people really mean savings accounts when | talking about saving money consistently instead of | spending it as an adult. Same goes for compound interest. | Regardless, even just putting it in a savings account | surely is not "burning your money" if the alternative, | spending it directly, brings little utility. | grog454 wrote: | > No one I know who ended up very successful did so by | living conservatively and within they're means. They're | people who aggressively pursued improving their | conditions, often times because they were forced too | precisely because they didn't have a savings. | | This also seems like bad advice. You can aggressively | pursue higher earnings and simultaneously spend | conservatively (on anything that does not contribute | directly to higher earnings). You seem to be setting up a | false dichotomy. | | That said, I agree that at least in free market | economies, high risk / high reward + tremendous luck is a | requirement for extreme wealth generation. | luckydata wrote: | yeah, it's a bad lesson. We should teach kids to be smart | with money, not doing something just because. | shadowgovt wrote: | But it's a lesson in the same category as "You'd better | learn how to do equations on paper and long form because | you won't always have a calculator with you." If the | underpinning is obvious bunk, it does nothing to reinforce | the desired behavior and can in fact be counterproductive. | | The reason to do long form math on paper is to get a | feeling for the mechanics of math so that you can | extrapolate it to more complicated math. The reason to save | is that there are minimum barriers to cost for investiture | in capital, and capital pays dividends and grows in a way | consumables don't (unless it doesn't! Nobody wins in a | civil war). | Nasrudith wrote: | Really saving makes sense then in a contextual way of | keeping some in case there is something you want. It gets | across ideas of opportunity cost. | moonchrome wrote: | >Saving as a kid really never seemed worth it to me. | | Also saving during 20s for this reason - if you're just | starting out in a career and expecting your income to rise | rapidly the money you save on interest is going to be | irrelevant. | Nasrudith wrote: | Depending upon a rapid rise of income is a very good way to | wind up buried in debt at the slightest complication makes | it not come when expected. There are a few times when it | can work like say medical school's debt stack. | | Saving in my twenties gave me good returns despite issues | starting my career but that involved some exceptional | circumstances from getting in on Tesla relatively early. | NoLinkToMe wrote: | It's pretty universal as a kid, as someone in their 20s? | Much less so. Sure, if you're getting a degree in CS and | will land a 150k a year job soon, saving anything | significant from your $14 an hour parttime job as a student | makes little sense. But I was making $50k in my late | twenties and was not going to jump in income significantly, | I saved quite a bit and was able to buy a house and later | stocks which have appreciated a few hundred thousand since | then. Now starting my 30s with around $80k salary. Saving | is a lot easier now, but the housing market got a lot | harder, too. Inflation-adjusted I don't even make that much | more. But with the few hundred thousand equity, at a 7% | annual return my retirement at age 65 could be reasonably | locked in at >$3 million, even without saving an extra | penny. Saving in my 20s made a big difference. Outside of a | few fields like tech, most people don't see crazy income | growth to not have to bother with saving/investing in their | 20s. | mlyle wrote: | One of the biggest factors for success in life is the ability | to cope with delayed gratification and to show restraint. | | Yes, opportunity cost is huge for kids, and they might | rationally spend all money immediately. But that's still not | what we encourage... | | So we'll put our finger on the scale and adjust situations to | make saving beneficial. | Spooky23 wrote: | Childhood savings is about encouraging discipline and | responsible thinking about money. | | My kid saved about $200 in savings in elementary school. He | parlayed that into a diversified stock portfolio, now around | $4k several years later. | bombingwinger wrote: | It'd make more sense if your parents directed your savings to | the stock market or in some other asset. Saving by itself is | worthless if you can't put the money to work. | wmanley wrote: | The lesson isn't how to invest, it's how to not spend. | WanderPanda wrote: | As a first order approximation they should maybe offer you | a bond with 5-10% yield per week, month or year (depending | on your age) | [deleted] | jjice wrote: | Wish I had this logic when I was 16 and working my awful | minimum wage jobs. Sure, that money ended up in an IRA | eventually, but $1k gets made much faster as a software | engineer than it does frying chicken wings for minimum wage, | to the point where the trade off from having a bit of fun in | high school or college would vastly outweigh the small gains | I made. | | I remember thinking my friends and peers were wasteful for | spending their earned money on a new graphics card or even | buying a $2 drink when they stopped at the gas station | instead of saving what was required for necessary expenses, | setting aside a little bit for fun, and saving everything | else. Turns out I was the fool. | | I am happy for that habit of saving, but I wish I had more | perspective and reduced my savings rate to focus on having a | buffer instead of saving for retirement at 16. I guess that's | what growing up is for. | lr4444lr wrote: | It's not about maximizing utility or ROI: it's about learning | delayed gratification. | aqsalose wrote: | Isn't the "go up by a factor of ten" pattern you describe | more of your parents spending behaviors (until you are old | enough to get odd jobs by yourself) than anything else? | | The concept of "save money and put your loose change coins | into a piggy bank" could be much older than how much | disposable income kids[1] today have. My hypothesis: Maybe | the intended lesson was more coherent with the reality a | century ago. | | Here is the first graph I found with a search engine of USD | purchasing power: | https://www.statista.com/statistics/1032048/value-us- | dollar-... . After the Napoleonic wars until WW2 or so the | purchasing power of 1 U.S. dollar spend most of its time | _increasing_ followed by sudden drastic drops in value during | ... the Civil War and WW1. | | [1] Or a random HN user got as a kid. | 01100011 wrote: | We're seeing more and more economic focused posts making it to | the front page lately. We're all thinking about it due to high | inflation and few options to protect our cash savings. That said, | the quality of HN comments regarding economics tend to be, in my | experience, quite low. I'd suggest anyone interested go seek out | more qualified analysis beyond a weekend HN thread full of people | like me regurgitating half understood economics theories we've | absorbed over the last two years. | CamelCaseName wrote: | Where would you suggest? | | I recently purchased a subscription to The Economist and have | been listening to the top stories on a daily basis. That said, | it seems to be more politics than economics. | hnbad wrote: | That paper's misnomer aside, you probably don't want to | listen to economists to learn how economies work. The soft | sciences tend to get a bad rep but economists tend to be the | ones most resembling ideological fan fiction. | seizethecheese wrote: | It's quite the opposite. Economics is generally the most | rigorous of the social sciences. | | Even the "worst" discipline, macroeconomics, tends to yield | high quality predictions. Larry Summers was screaming from | the rooftop about how the Covid stimulus would result in | inflation | routerl wrote: | This is playing out currently, quite openly, as the FTC | investigates whether companies have raised prices more than | costs have risen from inflation. It's becoming increasingly | clear that the academic economic consensus is, simply, | disconnected from how markets actually operate. For | instance, while each day has brought a new study of | consolidated companies engaging in pandemic price gouging, | academic establishment luminaries like Larry Summers | continue to argue that antitrust is unrelated to inflation. | | We're in a true "Emperor's new clothes" moment. | seizethecheese wrote: | Larry Summers was 100% right about impending inflation. | He's been totally vindicated. I'm suspicious of where you | are getting your information and suspect it's politically | motivated. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Inflation topics can be particularly misleading to new | investors who haven't yet realized that nobody actually | "invests" in cash across decades like this example. At least | not if they have basic financial education. | | It can also confuse new investors who might not realize that | USD-denominated assets don't lose value like USD itself. This | may seem obvious to anyone who has studied Econ or investing, | but it's actually a very common misunderstanding among people | who are new to the concept of inflation. Unfortunately, this | misunderstanding is often misused to scare people into thinking | their only options for avoiding inflation are gold or | cryptocurrency, which isn't true at all. | | For 99% of us working our comfortable tech jobs in stable | countries, it's more enlightening to consider how the author | would have done with S&P 500 or gold (hint: Gold loses by a | lot). | dools wrote: | This has nothing to do with gold. He is comparing the exchange | rate of the Argentine peso and the USD. | | That exchange rate is appalling over time because Argentina | relies heavily on USD denominated imports and issues debt | denominated in USD to obtain them. | gus_massa wrote: | For comparison, from | https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Salario_m%C3%ADnimo_en_A... | the monthly minimum salary in September 1976 was AR$11200 ~= | US$45.34. | | So the AR$1228 of the author were like US$4.97 in 1976, that are | like US$25.11 today | https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1976?amount=4.97 . | | Also, the price of gold was like $120/oz | https://sdbullion.com/gold-prices-1976 so it was like 1.2 grams | innagadadavida wrote: | Are there any kids book that explain these money concepts to | elementary school kids? I feel one the big failings of the school | system is that these are not taught early on and instead a lot of | time is spent teaching things that kids will never use in their | lives. | sdk16420 wrote: | I was hoping most people would be familiar with the exponential | chessboard story, of which this is pretty much the inverse. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_and_chessboard_problem | unlog wrote: | Reminds me of this excellent video https://youtu.be/HLIJkmy3vy8 | it's in Spanish, he tells the story of explaining a financial | system crash to his daughter. Probably has subtitles in | English, I recommend it | MrFoof wrote: | A book I read well over 30 years ago, and is still apparently | updated today, is _" The Kids' Money Book"_ by Neale S. | Godfrey, which you can certainly find secondhand for cheap. | There are updated versions authored by Jamie Kyle McGillian, | and so long as they are in the original vein they are probably | excellent. | | However it's not something I would throw at a 6-year old. A | sharp 8-year old should be able to grok all of it though. | orangepurple wrote: | Easily illustrated for children: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4XL8s1BEdk | thenoblesunfish wrote: | So how much was it worth back in the 70s? | [deleted] | [deleted] | zacherates wrote: | 1228 pesos in 1976 was worth about $4.50 in 1976 USD [1]. | | ... and if he'd bought into the S&P 500 (Vanguard launched the | First Index Investment Trust now the Vanguard 500 Index Fund in | 1976 [2]), it would be worth about about $190 in today's USD. | Which you could sell to buy about 2.99g of gold today (3 trillion | times as much as reported). | | While obvious you'd have to be extremely prescient to put your | money in a completely different type of fund that had launched | only just that year and at the time they would not have touched | such small dollar investments. | | ... but today we now know that Bogle's idea was actually pretty | good and you really can make such small dollar investments (eg. | Fidelity's no-fee, large cap fund has no minimum to invest | (FNILX), or you could buy a fractional share of a variety of | large cap ETFs: SPY (SPDR), IVV (iShares), or VOO (Vanguard) from | a variety of brokerages). Of course, a minor wouldn't be able to | own shared directly... so, get your kids a UTMA account [4]. | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_exchange_rates_of_A... | [2] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vanguard_Group#Growth_of_c... | [3] https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual- | funds/summary/31591... [4] | https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utma.asp | mattm wrote: | For comparison if he bought gold directly - $4.50 would have | bought about 1.13g of gold | | [1] https://sdbullion.com/gold-prices-1976 | slg wrote: | Argentina has experienced multiple rounds of hyperinflation due | to failed monetary policy. Saying this story is a "lesson about | the power of inflation" is like saying "the sun is hot". Yes, it | certainly is, but it is so far beyond normal definitions of "hot" | that people will have a hard time understanding it. This is more | a story about the failures of Argentina's governments over the | last 50 years than a story about inflation. | marcodiego wrote: | In 2011, while still at my first job, I spent a few days | touring in Buenos Aires. At the time, 1 Brazilian Real was | worth 2 Argentine Pesos. It was enough to feel like a rich | there. | | About ten years later, 1 Brazilian Real is now worth more than | 24 Argentine Pesos. Of course, during the same period, Brazil | had some crisis too. So, it is much harder for me today to save | enough to spend a few days in Buenos Aires. Sad. | treeman79 wrote: | There are a lot of people that think we can print spend endless | amounts of money without consequences. | | Heck an alarming amount of people don't understand that bonds | need to be paid back. | rmatt2000 wrote: | Not to mention the stunning number of people with college | degrees who don't think loans should be paid back. | OGWhales wrote: | > There are a lot of people that think we can print spend | endless amounts of money without consequences. | | I've seen this said more than I've seen people who actually | think that. Most people have heard horror stories of | hyperinflation and, if anything, are overly weary of | inflation than not. | | The comment above makes a good point. These types of | hyperinflation situations are the result of serious | mismanagement and deeper issues. When considering inflation, | it's important to study real resource constraints and any | debts that need to be paid back in foreign currencies. All | the famous examples of hyperinflation involve issues with | these factors. | [deleted] | UncleMeat wrote: | That's true, but there aren't a lot of these people in | positions of great policy power. | sitkack wrote: | /s naaap! | slg wrote: | I made that comment because I know people are going to use | the linked example of what happened in Argentina as the | predicted fate of what will happen in the US. That seems to | be what you are implying here by drawing parallels between | the two. But I simply want to make it clear that the US is at | 8% inflation for the last year while Argentina spent decades | with the average annual inflation rate measured in the | hundreds. The two aren't close to the same. | koolba wrote: | > But I simply want to make it clear that the US is at 8% | inflation for the last year while Argentina spent decades | with the average annual inflation rate measured in the | hundreds. The two aren't close to the same. | | "How did you go bankrupt?" Bill asked. "Two ways," Mike | said. "Gradually, then suddenly." | 542458 wrote: | With all due respect, I feel the quote is a bit pithy | here. Not all things which are gradual become sudden, and | the quote doesn't give any proof that this is one of | those things. | slg wrote: | Well I guess I shouldn't spend money on food this week as | that is a gradual step towards bankruptcy. | [deleted] | H8crilA wrote: | A lot of countries have experienced serious inflation at one | point or usually multiple points in history - all countries | that are not young (>300 years). It is not perfectly reasonable | to expect that yours will not experience it during your | lifetime, particularly if you're young. Volatility has this | nasty property that it's only bounded from below, but not from | above. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-17 23:00 UTC)