Red Mosquito

bune wrote:

wait a fucking minute...

I really would have thought that Lars from Metallica would have used a different first name on his 2nd Twitter account. Not very incognito of him. Though the give musicians money because they're hurting was a dead give away.

So if we follow the money...

If money is not being spent (tourism, travel, hospitality, restaurants, etc.) and people can’t work to earn money (teachers, parents have to skip work to stay home with kids) ... where is all the money?

There is the same amount of money in the world so where is it if it’s not being spent.

Is it all just chilling in one of the Koch bothers’ checking account?

Sorry that was a really terribly worded post but I’m exhausted and my back is killing me so I’m gonna leave it as-is.

Bammer wrote:So if we follow the money...

If money is not being spent (tourism, travel, hospitality, restaurants, etc.) and people can’t work to earn money (teachers, parents have to skip work to stay home with kids) ... where is all the money?

There is the same amount of money in the world so where is it if it’s not being spent.

Is it all just chilling in one of the Koch bothers’ checking account?

We are each of us fucked

Bammer wrote:where is all the money?

Charmin has it all.

Bammer wrote:So if we follow the money...

If money is not being spent (tourism, travel, hospitality, restaurants, etc.) and people can’t work to earn money (teachers, parents have to skip work to stay home with kids) ... where is all the money?

There is the same amount of money in the world so where is it if it’s not being spent.

Is it all just chilling in one of the Koch bothers’ checking account?

the gist of my nonexistent post from a few months ago. if there's money that can be spent - let's use a random number like $1.5T - then where does it sit when it's not being spent?

bune wrote:

Bammer wrote:So if we follow the money...

If money is not being spent (tourism, travel, hospitality, restaurants, etc.) and people can’t work to earn money (teachers, parents have to skip work to stay home with kids) ... where is all the money?

There is the same amount of money in the world so where is it if it’s not being spent.

Is it all just chilling in one of the Koch bothers’ checking account?

the gist of my nonexistent post from a few months ago. if there's money that can be spent - let's use a random number like $1.5T - then where does it sit when it's not being spent?

We borrow it from ourselves. What’s confusing about that?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51814481


Italy suspends rent payments.

I don't see how rent/mortgage suspension could be practical or feasible in the US economy on a federal or state level, but how soon until we get into some sort of household economic stimulus package discussion?

tragabigzanda wrote:

bune wrote:

Bammer wrote:So if we follow the money...

If money is not being spent (tourism, travel, hospitality, restaurants, etc.) and people can’t work to earn money (teachers, parents have to skip work to stay home with kids) ... where is all the money?

There is the same amount of money in the world so where is it if it’s not being spent.

Is it all just chilling in one of the Koch bothers’ checking account?

the gist of my nonexistent post from a few months ago. if there's money that can be spent - let's use a random number like $1.5T - then where does it sit when it's not being spent?

Once upon a time, US currency used to be backed by solid gold. Nixon moved us off the gold standard, and onto this fiat money/credit combo system that exists today. "Currency" (fiat money) is still physically tangible and controlled by the Federal Reserve, but everything else is basically a humongous convoluted hornets' nest of make-believe IOUs.

ok, that makes some sense.

Bi_3 wrote:

bune wrote:

Bammer wrote:So if we follow the money...

If money is not being spent (tourism, travel, hospitality, restaurants, etc.) and people can’t work to earn money (teachers, parents have to skip work to stay home with kids) ... where is all the money?

There is the same amount of money in the world so where is it if it’s not being spent.

Is it all just chilling in one of the Koch bothers’ checking account?

the gist of my nonexistent post from a few months ago. if there's money that can be spent - let's use a random number like $1.5T - then where does it sit when it's not being spent?

We borrow it from ourselves. What’s confusing about that?

that doesn't. I assume because of the brevity.

I'm going to answer this mathematically. Hope it isn't too annoying.

This is velocity equation of money:
MV=PY

M = Money supply
V = Velocity of money
P = Price level
Y = Real output

And
N=PY=MV

N = Nominal GDP
Simplifying this, M is how much money there is, V is how many times the typical dollar is spent, P is how much stuff costs, and Y is how much stuff is being transacted. N is total spending.

The important thing for the questions being asked above is that the amount of money DOES NOT equal the amount of total spending.

So if N=MV=PY and N= total spending, that means MV = total spending and PY = total spending. We have two ways we can describe total spending: the amount of money times the number of times that money is spent, or the amount of stuff bought and sold times the price of the stuff.

tl;dr what the above questions are leaving out is that it matters how frequently the money is spent, not just how much money there is.

ok, I'm with you a little bit. so here's a clarifying question: the amount of $ that are available do not equal the number of paper monies available because it's easier to spend $ in great amounts compared to paper, yes/no?

bune wrote:ok, I'm with you a little bit. so here's a clarifying question: the amount of $ that are available do not equal the number of paper monies available because it's easier to spend $ in great amounts compared to paper, yes/no?

"The amount of $ available do not equal the number of paper monies available" This is correct.
"Because it's easier to spend $ in great amounts compared to paper." I'm not totally following this, but I think the answer is no.

First thing I want to point out is that paper money doesn't tell us how much money there is. I know that sounds crazy, but what we define as "money" are two things: currency in circulation (that's the paper money) and checkable bank deposits (money in people's checking accounts).

Tangential, but if you're interested in why you shouldn't focus on paper money:

Spoiler: show

Money creation is an electronic process, not the result of running a printing press. The Fed creates money electronically and the Treasury prints money, but they're really just replacing old paper money that's removed from circulation or printing more when banks need more paper money to satisfy people's withdrawals. But the treasury printing money does NOT "create" money.

The idea is really that money is constantly moving through an economy. So let's say theplatypus pays you $1,000. It doesn't matter whether this is physical or digital, but you now can spend that money. You buy $1,000 worth of stuff from washing machine who then buys $1,000 worth of stuff from Bi_3 who buys $1,000 worth of stuff from me. Total spending = $4,000 but the money supply in this case is only $1,000.

that totally makes sense, thanks.

4/5 wrote:The idea is really that money is constantly moving through an economy. So let's say theplatypus pays you $1,000. It doesn't matter whether this is physical or digital, but you now can spend that money. You buy $1,000 worth of stuff from washing machine who then buys $1,000 worth of stuff from Bi_3 who buys $1,000 worth of stuff from me. Total spending = $4,000 but the money supply in this case is only $1,000.

so this is what I was talking about here, just explained/metaphored poorly

4/5 wrote: "Because it's easier to spend $ in great amounts compared to paper." I'm not totally following this, but I think the answer is no.

bune wrote:that totally makes sense, thanks.

Reminds me a bit of one of the greatest TAL episodes of all time.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/355/th ... l-of-money

tragabigzanda wrote:

bune wrote:

Bammer wrote:So if we follow the money...

If money is not being spent (tourism, travel, hospitality, restaurants, etc.) and people can’t work to earn money (teachers, parents have to skip work to stay home with kids) ... where is all the money?

There is the same amount of money in the world so where is it if it’s not being spent.

Is it all just chilling in one of the Koch bothers’ checking account?

the gist of my nonexistent post from a few months ago. if there's money that can be spent - let's use a random number like $1.5T - then where does it sit when it's not being spent?

Once upon a time, US currency used to be backed by solid gold. Nixon moved us off the gold standard, and onto this fiat money/credit combo system that exists today. "Currency" (fiat money) is still physically tangible and controlled by the Federal Reserve, but everything else is basically a humongous convoluted hornets' nest of make-believe IOUs.

That's ... pretty much it.

Quantitative easing seems like the wrong way to handle this particular crisis. Or it's too early.

yeah this money could have been better spent by setting it on fire.

welp, the fed's out of bullets...