Wow

[MemeFan]

Falling prices are only good if wages remain high and do not fall.

These good falling prices occur because of increased efficiency in production. New looms make clothing easier to produce, more clothing is produced, price of clothing falls. New agricultural techniques increase yields, price of food falls. And so forth. Fundamentally, the price is reducing because the supply of that particular commodity has increased, and price drops due to increased supply.

If wages remain at the same level, while prices fall, purchasing power has increased - the average person in society is now wealthier, because they can buy more things for their annual wages.

However, if the quantity of money available per person decreased, both prices AND WAGES will fall. People will not be able to buy any more than they could before. There are no "good effects" from this.

We agree that prices and wages will fall when money supply falls.

You have correctly described effects of productivity growth in second paragraf and third paragraf.

You are assuming both effects won't happen at same time. This is incorrect. Nobody will stop their productivity efforts just because money supply falls. So both coming together means prices falling faster than wages which means purchasing power going up.

Purchasing power = wages / prices. If wages falls by half and prices by quarter then purchasing power in now = 0.5/ 0.25 = 2. Puchasing power is now doubled.

Greater productivity means more goods are created. Looking from perspective of whole economy more goods implies more different goods because different people want different things. Some want cars, other phones. In the end more business will exist. And since workers are most flexible factor of production workers will see increased demand which will cause higher wages.

 

[Mark C]

Falling prices are only good if wages remain high and do not fall.

Prices also fall in a classic "Depression," when there is simply little or no 'money' available for purchases.

The USA has not had actual Constitutional (or Scriptural) money ("gold and silver coin") for over half a century.

The kind of inflation now embedded in a totalitarian kleptocracy will not be 'cured' by hiking usury rates. Once the supply chains are broken, and there simply AREN'T goods (especially enough FOOD) to purchase, prices in fiat currency (not 'money') are ultimately irrelevant.

But given that it (even the CBDC replacement!) can be printed without limit, the End is far more likely to be hyperinflation. Stay tuned...it probably won't be long.

 

[Mark C]

Nobody will stop their productivity efforts just because money supply falls.

People will stop producing because they don't want to work for nothing, and get tired of having it stolen from them. (Even the Terminally Slow will eventually figure it out: Hence Ludwig von Mises' "Crack Up Boom".)

 

[Mark C]

Any commodity can function as money, including electronic. If you can exchange it and store it is enough to be money.

Wrong. There are five nominally accepted characteristics of 'money'. Merely being ABLE to exchange it doesn't mean anyone else will WANT it. And if you try to store it, but it rots on the shelf (think: new CBDCs with expiration dates and social[ist] controls) - it fails to be a real "store of value."

And that goes for electronic money when the power grid fails, and/or the web.

 

[MemeFan]

People will stop producing because they don't want to work for nothing, and get tired of having it stolen from them. (Even the Terminally Slow will eventually figure it out: Hence Ludwig von Mises' "Crack Up Boom".)

Nobody is totally self-sufficient. There will alwy be trade. Only question is under which conditions.

 

[Mark C]

Nobody is totally self-sufficient. There will alwy be trade. Only question is under which conditions.

That's why I quote Revelation 18:4, and encourage people to go "off-grid" and learn to use Honest, Scriptural Money (aka "qesef", in Hebrew, translated as silver, and also the equivalent, 'money'.)

 

[The Revolting Man]

Such a blanket claim is in conflict with Scripture. We have examples of women in authority such as Deborah who was a judge in Israel and the children of Israel came to her for judgement (Judges 4:4, 5). The Queen of Sheba visited Solomon in Jerusalem and came with a very great retinue, and she had servants under her authority (1 Kings 10:2, 13). Esther was Queen and she had authority over maids and servants, giving commands to e.g., Hathach concerning Mordecai and Mordecai did all that Esther commanded him. (Esther 4:5, 10, 17). Children are to honour and to obey their parents because both father and mother have authority over their children (Eph. 6:1, 2). King Lemuel's mother is honoured for teaching him through a reference to her in Proverbs 31:1. Not one of the situations I have referenced have any kind of negative connotation associated with them. The only passage in the Bible that I'm aware of that indicates a women should not teach or have authority over a man is in 1 Tim. 2:12 but we know this instruction is given regarding the role of women in the assembly (see e.g. 1 Tim. 1:3; 2:11; 3:14) so doesn't apply generally. If it applied to all of life in every situation, no woman could have servants and especially male servants; she couldn't serve as a queen, judge, police officer, or military officer, etc. No woman could have authority over her own children or employees in her business. However, we see in the Bible that women can and do have authority in certain places just the same as men can and do have authority in certain places, but all are under the authority of Him who reigns over all. Shalom

Not.

 

[The Revolting Man]

We agree that prices and wages will fall when money supply falls.

No, prices rise when money supply falls with all other things being unchanged. There’s less money so it’s more valuable.

 

[NickF]

Such a blanket claim is in conflict with Scripture.

I should have clarified. Thanks!

 

[Communication]

I should have clarified. Thanks!

I think clarification is not going to achieve what (I suspect) is desired. Clarifying hasty and undisciplined thought (if is that, of course) just highlights those properties.
What I have observed instead looks somewhat like spin but I'm still making up my mind:
1. Insist the claim initially made without qualification is the clear, plain reading of scripture... "I posted clear scripture" and "no additional assumption needed."
2. Repeat that initial claim, but slip the word "possible" in this new version (maybe there is additional assumption needed for original claim?).
3. Introduce the words "derailment" and "contentiousness" without noting that you yourself introduced into the thread a claim [reason why God... heirarchy... "They lack discernment"] that others (myself included) are only responding to. (I also believe this analysis can be harmful.. not intentionally necessarily, but I think it can lead to some real life problems in some cases. Won't go into it now, but that is why this is important to me.)
...
On the other hand, maybe it's just a misunderstanding. I might be wrong about thinking I see "spin."
Anyway, I do appreciate discussions that make me think.

 

[HomesteadWife]

Any commodity can function as money, including electronic. If you can exchange it and store it is enough to be money.

If Bitcoin maxis are right, day will arrive when Bitcoin will become universal and standard way of payment across whole world. It will replace all fiat currencies.

Bitcoin is superior than gold in one key aspect. Original meaning of inflation is growth of money supply. Gold supply grows 1-2% percent per year while Bitcoin maximum is 21 million. It is this hardcoded and everyone can check which makes counterfeiting very hard, if not impossible.

The fact that the world is most likely moving towards a government controlled digital currency is alarming.

My biggest concern with crypto is that it is attached to the electronic grid. If access to that can be completely controlled by the government that would mean accessing what you own in any digital currency, even of they can't take it from you, nearly impossible. Which would negate any practical use.

 

[MemeFan]

Wrong. There are five nominally accepted characteristics of 'money'. Merely being ABLE to exchange it doesn't mean anyone else will WANT it. And if you try to store it, but it rots on the shelf (think: new CBDCs with expiration dates and social[ist] controls) - it fails to be a real "store of value."

And that goes for electronic money when the power grid fails, and/or the web.

Point stands. I didn't describe characterics of ideal money, nor what commodity will win race for money.

Cigarettes were money in prisoner's camp during WW2. Nothing better was available.

 

[LDremoved]

I do not think anyone is claiming that women pursuing a career and waiting to start a family is a sin. I think it is viewed as more of a Martha and Mary situation.

This website is Biblical _Families_ so it should not come as a surprise that there is a strong family advocate vibe here. I think many here, including myself, view a woman pursuing a career and waiting to start a family is a tactical life mistake.

For example, I have 3 sisters and my wife has 3 sisters, so 6 data points. All of them would much rather be a stay at home wife and mother than a career woman trying to raise a family at the same time, and all are or were unable to do so. Why is that?

1. School debts and other debts.

2. Not marrying men who were able to support them and/or had the moral value of the importance of supporting a stay at home mother.

3. Learning and not being willing to give up a lifestyle that requires a two income budget.

Often women themselves do not understand the trap that they have created for themselves until they have that first baby and they bring the baby home from the hospital and then realize that they will have to take that baby and drop it off a daycare for someone else to raise to go back to work in a career that no longer seems as important as that baby does.

Other problems with delay:

1. All the good men are taken already - you are picking last. (Marriage is important: pick first and get the best man you can! Hint: There is a shortage of good marrying men. Marry the first good man you can find. You might not get another chance. )

2. Biological clock. (Women assume they can have a baby whenever they want: this is a fiction. There is a limited window.).

I am advising my daughters that if they want to be a stay at home wife and mother they should prioritize that over career. I advise them to:

1. Find a man that has the means to support a family and do not become involved with a man who is not in a position to support a family. If you have to tell him to come back when he can support a family. Maybe you will still be available?

2. Make clear in the courtship that you expect to be a stay at home wife and mother.

3. Avoid debt at all cost.

4. Learn to live within your means.

If you do all of the above you have an excellent chance for success without having to go the career route.

One of my daughters started an online business so that she can be stay at home wife and mother and still contribute to the support of the family. Excellent idea in my opinion.

So if a women has her heart set on a career climbing the corporate ladder than by all means do that. But if her heart is set on being a wife and mother then I suggest that that should be her first priority.

That you can have it all is a fiction. Very few people really have it all. Life is all about prioritizing and making choices.

P.S. Women pursuing careers and waiting to start families is a societal problem as well because it leads to declining birth rates. Basically Western Civilization is dying because of it, but most people make decisions like these for personal reasons and not to save Western Civilization.

You definitely make a good argument for the other side, I just felt the need to point out that having a career focused mother is not always a bad thing, it's not nearly as alarming as some people think it is.

Sometimes it's a blessing for children to see their mother's thrive in a career they enjoy. Some of the most motherly women I know had careers that they were passionate about and it was a blessing being raised by them. It taught me/us that we would be ok without a parent around 24/7. It taught us to be self sufficient and to learn to do things for ourselves at an early age. We learned how to take care of the younger children while adults were working. We realized that it was ok for our mother and grandmothers to have passions outside of raising children and that we would be ok not being the center of attention constantly.

I found the careers the women in my life chose to be inspiring as well, I loved hearing my mom's social work stories, I loved hearing my Aunt and Grandmother's nursing stories. I enjoyed working with my Aunt later on when I was older in the same field at the same employer. Women having careers brings back good memories for me as a child.

I don't necessarily think a woman has to be career centered to teach her children these things but I also don't think the issue is as black and white as many people think it is.

 

[steve]

I was staying out of this, but I feel to just make one observation.
The black and white thinking appears to be more on the side of society with the “career first, then a family if she wants it”. Because reasons.

Just that commitment from the peanut gallery, and now I’m out.

 

[paterfamilias]

I think both are a little extreme for me personally, I'm just a little old to be basing my feelings/opinions off of rebellion lol

The notion of rebellion ie not going along with a crowd marching towards a cliff being perceived as extreme rather demonstrates the notion that our thinking has been manipulated to the benefit of others rather than for our own benefit.

The article predicted the outcome for 2030, who knows how women will settle into their place in the world and the workforce by then. That's why I didn't feel it was a cause for alarm necessarily.

Lot of stuff planned for 2030 strangely

I will say I find it a little odd that people want women to work outside of the household when it benefits the household yet they take issue with women putting off having a family for a couple of years to establish a career that pays well enough to do that.

I literally don't see the contradiction in women working and being moms. Each in their time and in their place.
The fact that we are all here as advocates for plural marriage should demonstrate that we are aware of the advantages to women inherent in more working age adults in the family. Not intending to troll for single ladies here but I am going to quote part of my own dating profile to make the point "broader base of internal support and the wider number of potential options for the adults.
Want to focus on the career, go to school, be a house parent and homeschooler? How about all of them at various points?". Seems like polygyny would solve a few problems.

Don't think anyone is saying woman cannot do whatever they want. I personally am saying that as things have moved women into the default must prioritize work over family position, everyone's happiness has gone down and women's most of all.
I see rebellion as doing what makes you happy as opposed to what the liberal economic order wants of a group of potential workers. Some will go one way and others a different way. Currently however the pressure is very much one direction and it is killing us culturally and in large part literally.

 

[FollowingHim]

@MemeFan, I'm choosing not to go further down the debate about monetary inflation with mining as it's a tinny little issue that isn't really worth further time. The more important point is "what is money"?

Cigarettes were money in prisoner's camp during WW2. Nothing better was available.

What made cigarettes the best item? Enough people wanted them to ensure that they always held a certain value. And you could easily carry and exchange them with anybody. Just like a coin - except with the disadvantage that they were perishable if they got wet.

Salt was often used as money historically for the same reason - everyone wanted it, so it always had a value, but it did have the disadvantage of being perishable if it got wet.

The fact that the world is most likely moving towards a government controlled digital currency is alarming.

My biggest concern with crypto is that it is attached to the electronic grid. If access to that can be completely controlled by the government that would mean accessing what you own in any digital currency, even of they can't take it from you, nearly impossible. Which would negate any practical use.

Exactly. If you can't exchange it, it has no value. If nobody wants it, it has no value. If the internet is down for the long term, or if few people have electronic devices that can handle it (phones and computers cannot be replaced when they break due to supply chain disruption), or if there is political repression that makes the internet inaccessible to certain individuals like ourselves - then bitcoin ceases to have value for us. Even if there remain people somewhere else in the world who can still use it, its value for us would vanish overnight.

But silver and gold always retain a value. In the worst case you may have to exchange them with a dishonest merchant for below their true value - but they'll still have some value. You can bury them and dig them up decades later, and they still have value. You can find bullion a deceased family member left behind, instantly recognise what it is, and use it - while bitcoin could be tied up on an encrypted drive that is inaccessible to you or even breaks.

In that case, you'd be far better off with a sack of salt or a pack of cigarettes.

 

[NickF]

No idea how currency discussion came about. But here's a good meme about the whole marriage decay issue.

 

[MemeFan]

The fact that the world is most likely moving towards a government controlled digital currency is alarming.

My biggest concern with crypto is that it is attached to the electronic grid. If access to that can be completely controlled by the government that would mean accessing what you own in any digital currency, even of they can't take it from you, nearly impossible. Which would negate any practical use.

Elite needs Internet for their control system. How else they will track everythink you do? Computer or paper system? Which is better in spying on people?

 

[MemeFan]

No, prices rise when money supply falls with all other things being unchanged. There’s less money so it’s more valuable.

You have started right. Falling money supply raises value of remaining currency.

If before one dollar could buy 5 breads now it could can 7 breads. Here you have made error.

Price isn't how much breads one dollar can buy, but opposite. It is how much one breads cost me in dollars. Price is always expressed how much units of money I have to pay per unit of good.

Before one bread was 1/5 dollar, not it is 1/7 dollar.

 

[MemeFan]

@MemeFan, I'm choosing not to go further down the debate about monetary inflation with mining as it's a tinny little issue that isn't really worth further time. The more important point is "what is money"?

What made cigarettes the best item? Enough people wanted them to ensure that they always held a certain value. And you could easily carry and exchange them with anybody. Just like a coin - except with the disadvantage that they were perishable if they got wet.

Salt was often used as money historically for the same reason - everyone wanted it, so it always had a value, but it did have the disadvantage of being perishable if it got wet.

Exactly. If you can't exchange it, it has no value. If nobody wants it, it has no value. If the internet is down for the long term, or if few people have electronic devices that can handle it (phones and computers cannot be replaced when they break due to supply chain disruption), or if there is political repression that makes the internet inaccessible to certain individuals like ourselves - then bitcoin ceases to have value for us. Even if there remain people somewhere else in the world who can still use it, its value for us would vanish overnight.

But silver and gold always retain a value. In the worst case you may have to exchange them with a dishonest merchant for below their true value - but they'll still have some value. You can bury them and dig them up decades later, and they still have value. You can find bullion a deceased family member left behind, instantly recognise what it is, and use it - while bitcoin could be tied up on an encrypted drive that is inaccessible to you or even breaks.

In that case, you'd be far better off with a sack of salt or a pack of cigarettes.

Money is commodity considered in general population as currently best suited for exchange and storage of value.

What will be money depends on available alternatives and situation in which under consideration finds itself.

As far as I know before Europeans exploration age people on Pacific islandu generally didn't use metals as money. No access. Similar situation with war prisoners. Cigarrets was one of few stuff they could legally posses in camp.