Question for economists - which medium is "better" for the economy?

 

Are you joking? Except for recent losses, 401 K and other retirement accounts, even when very conservative have been amazing since recovery from the housing collapse. I don't know how you are reaching your conclusions but the retired have done quite well unless they kept their savings in a shoebox.

You may be right. I don't know the statistics. But many older people who got hurt in 2008 in the stock market, got out and shifted what money they had left to cash and bonds which are more secure, or so it seemed. With interest rates dropping, they got hurt by that decision.

 

But there's a lot of fear with older people who don't have the time to recover if markets go down. For younger people in 401K still working, they've done well of course. Also, I would not be too sure that the same thing might happen again soon. The bubbles in stock, real estate, etc. driven by high debt and inflation, seems like it's coming to an end unless the Fed chickens out and stops raising interest rates and starts printing heavy again. That latter could happen as well. Also, remember that some stocks have already taken a beating. If they invested wrong, they're in trouble, I'm thinking of ARKK fund that lost about 85% in high tech. The woman who ran it was the darling of the investment world a year ago. Now she couldn't get a date. ;)

They effectively are. When we record all-time highs, for example, we all refer to them in USD. We don't refer to Pounds Sterling or Yen or Euro. Just like English is the lingua franca, the USD is the 'valuta franca'.

Well, no. We do not, and it is not. Says a lot about your perspective, though.

They effectively are. When we record all-time highs, for example, we all refer to them in USD. We don't refer to Pounds Sterling or Yen or Euro. Just like English is the lingua franca, the USD is the 'valuta franca'.

Whether crypto is referred to in dollar value or in values of other world currencies, just points out the fact they're not a currency itself. Otherwise, people could say, that a Nikon Z5 is worth let's say .067 Bitcoin. But no one ever says that because Bitcoin isn't a currency except in that Central American country El Salvador.

Most companies that accept crypto as a payment for something they sold, immediately convert crypto to acceptable established currencies, such as the US dollar, because crypto changes in value so much and so quickly. They're not a good store of wealth for business transactions because their value is not stable enough. They could get devalued ten percent by the next day. Maybe worth 0 as what happened to that other crypto coin.

Economic value means different things from different points of view. In the Soviet Union, as many as five people were employed to operate a single turret lathe or screw machine. In the US, one person operates a machine tool of that sort, and in some operations, one person operates three such machines. Which is more valuable to the economy, (over) employment or productivity? Which was more successful in the long run (ultimately employing and feeding many more people)?

The same situation applies to digital v film photography. For over 100 years there were more people employed in the manufacture of film and supplies, and subsequent processing, than making cameras. Those jobs are largely gone, but many more photographs are taken by consumers than before. That may not constitute "productivity" in the strictest sense, but the digital revolution was (and is) driven by consumers. Instead of photo processing shops, we have FaceBook and Snapchat, which involve thousands of employees and millions of users.

Economic value means different things from different points of view. In the Soviet Union, as many as five people were employed to operate a single turret lathe or screw machine. In the US, one person operates a machine tool of that sort, and in some operations, one person operates three such machines. Which is more valuable to the economy, (over) employment or productivity? Which was more successful in the long run (ultimately employing and feeding many more people)?

 

The same situation applies to digital v film photography. For over 100 years there were more people employed in the manufacture of film and supplies, and subsequent processing, than making cameras. Those jobs are largely gone, but many more photographs are taken by consumers than before. That may not constitute "productivity" in the strictest sense, but the digital revolution was (and is) driven by consumers. Instead of photo processing shops, we have FaceBook and Snapchat, which involve thousands of employees and millions of users.

The Chinese used to have lots of workers and little productivity. Now they have lots of productivity creating wealth for their country. If we got rid of tractors, we could employ loads of farm workers like they use too. But the cost and availability of food would skyrocket. Who could afford to eat? If we didn't have efficient productivity, we wouldn't have time to take up photography as a hobby. We'd be scrounging around looking for food to feed our families. No one wants to work. We work because we have to eat. If we can increase our efficiency and productivity, we can work less. We'd have more time to waste on photo forums. ;)

Businesses are always looking to increase profit for the owners. They could lower the cost of goods needed to make their products or make their workers more productive. So, your boss gives you a laptop to type things up and keep records and fires all the secretaries. Cost of labor goes down. Profits go up. They develop programs that allow us to work more efficently. The boss can even afford to give you some of that money that went to the secretary who now makes coffee at Starbucks.

How can you compare a corporation like Apple or Amazon to crypto?

Crypto is software.

Whether crypto is referred to in dollar value or in values of other world currencies, just points out the fact they're not a currency itself. Otherwise, people could say, that a Nikon Z5 is worth let's say .067 Bitcoin. But no one ever says that because Bitcoin isn't a currency except in that Central American country El Salvador.

 

Most companies that accept crypto as a payment for something they sold, immediately convert crypto to acceptable established currencies, such as the US dollar, because crypto changes in value so much and so quickly. They're not a good store of wealth for business transactions because their value is not stable enough. They could get devalued ten percent by the next day. Maybe worth 0 as what happened to that other crypto coin.

Silver isn't a currency either although you can use it as such if you want. Crypto is a currency, a store of wealth, software, a cross-border settlement plaftorm, etc. Crypto is volatile and there is nothing wrong with that. It's volatile because it's immature. It's like being in the 1990s. A Cambrian Explosion of projects and ideas.

The same situation applies to digital v film photography. For over 100 years there were more people employed in the manufacture of film and supplies, and subsequent processing, than making cameras. Those jobs are largely gone, but many more photographs are taken by consumers than before. That may not constitute "productivity" in the strictest sense, but the digital revolution was (and is) driven by consumers. Instead of photo processing shops, we have FaceBook and Snapchat, which involve thousands of employees and millions of users.

Good points made.

Crypto is software.

 

 

Silver isn't a currency either although you can use it as such if you want. Crypto is a currency, a store of wealth, software, a cross-border settlement plaftorm, etc. Crypto is volatile and there is nothing wrong with that. It's volatile because it's immature. It's like being in the 1990s. A Cambrian Explosion of projects and ideas.

 

 

Good points made.

Non-sequitar.

Non-sequitar.

'Non sequitur'. ;-)