Keep going my friend. Velocity of money = value
twetch#9151 6.5y
Post by twetch#3375
That is false. Value is future production.
What the chain says
- Block
- 631 624
- Time
- 2020-04-21T20:43:06Z
- Signer
- 1Abd9yJS6mrzMmj1Ni6kjQB9GqtyaNujrm
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#3375
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1Abd9yJS6mrzMmj1Ni6kjQB9GqtyaNujrm VerifiedReposted by (1)
Replies (19)
Future leverage is often cataclysmic to a system over many iterations, especially from a normalized predictability perspective, which is what underpins the current value.
The more volatile over a longer period, the less valuable it should be today, yet..
You're just not valuing money correctly if you buy more when the velocity goes up. The correct reason to buy more is more future production.
There’s levels to it, methinks.
For instance, when the Fed prints money, velocity is inevitably going to rise.
Banks ‘buy’ that money fast (tacking-on velocity + inflation), then turn around and leverage it (vi++) by loaning it, (vi++), etc etc.
This is why payday lending is a huge scam, and a terrible idea.
But buying at the top is the name of the game.
Agree, velocity can be a symptom of an increase in economic activity, but that is totally different from asessing future productivity.
Velocity of money, in the traditional sense, is an artificial construct, a derivative produced in an effort to explain the world, not something directly observed.
https://mises.org/wire/problem-velocity-money
Of course, more txns on BSV is good.
I wouldn’t say totally different - future productivity is certainly impacted by inflation, no?
I was trying to imagine how an increase in economic activity could create lower velocity.
Sure, maybe after some period of time, but ‘in the now’?
This thread is longer than one page shows. Open a reply to see what follows it.