@Undisciplined206
2,342,391 sats stacked
stacking since: #88718longest cowboy streak: 206npub1t49ke...rm3srw4jj5
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 1h \ on: 4 days left for Fireside Philosophy Sat Reward FiresidePhilosophy
Thanks for the reminder. I was busy the past couple of days, but I got a post in this morning.
Once again, we're getting bailed out by the rest of the world "managing" their economies even worse than us.
It's funny how sometimes you can see someone else write something very close to your own view, but it actually reduces your confidence in the position.
I think that catastrophe spiral probably has many off-ramps that are being overlooked. Things don't really go the way we expect, for very long, all that often.
That said, yeah, Israel's creating a really big mess here. The guy I recommend most highly on foreign policy stuff is (the great) Scott Horton. I think he sees the situation pretty similarly to Kulak.
how good the benefits are overall
Benefits are strongly influenced by government policies. It's really not about anything like employer generosity.
I associate it with one of my professors who said it whenever one of us had a really valid criticism of one of the theoretical models we were learning.
Stay tuned. If this ends tomorrow, I'm just going to resurrect the survivor pool for the playoffs and act like none of this happened.
That's nominal GDP, which is not constant for an inflating currency.
All models are wrong. Some models are useful.
One of the problems with this model is that it's static. People make decisions based on expectations. If you expect your money to be worth less in the future, you are more likely to trade it for valuable stuff.
If GDP were to stay constant during a monetary expansion, the explanation would be that velocity decreased. This is what seems to have happened during the QE's. We didn't see rapid price increases, like many expected, because banks didn't loan that money out into the economy.
Would it have to be an OT or would they consider interior guys with that pick?
I think the stud tackles and d-linemen will be gone.
I think so too. There are so many QB needy teams. Why wouldn't one of them trade into the back of the 1st to grab him?
Someone asked me a while ago for a ballpark estimate of what Bitcoin would ultimately be worth. I had just gotten into Bitcoin, so I hadn't thought about the question.
My answer was that you could get a rough approximation by just dividing the current global money supply by 21 million. However, I mentioned that if you wanted to refine that estimate you would want to account for how the velocity of money might be different on a bitcoin standard.
I haven't really thought it through beyond just raising the question. I'll hypothesize that money velocity would be reduced on a bitcoin standard, since it encourages savings. That should mean a lower price level, which means Bitcoin's purchasing power would end up higher than that initial estimate.
In fiat world, inflation discourages saving. So, as inflation expectations rise, I'd expect the velocity of money to increase, which exacerbates price inflation.
I like the trading back approach too, but we’re not quite as QB desperate.
I’ll be really curious to see where Penix goes.
What kind of trading up scenario do you like?
I went to third because that's as high as I could get without trading future picks. I was going to take whichever of Maye or Daniels was still available.
I was pretty happy with who I got in each spot, but the complete lack of day 2 picks meant that Jayden had to be enough to win it.