this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
940 points (98.8% liked)

memes

16959 readers
2264 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 94 points 8 months ago (4 children)

A left-leaning friend of mine who was big into economics and business (as it was, well, his business) once described our current financial system as having organically and piecemeal emerged bit by bit into a rat's nest of tangled protocols. And that now it's ended up as a Gordian knot strangling us to death, but that cutting will kill us.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 40 points 8 months ago (2 children)

And that now it’s ended up as a Gordian knot strangling us to death, but that cutting will kill us.

so why wait?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 50 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Now you sound like him. But his was an advocacy based less on "Let's get it over with" and more "I've had a brick on the pedal for years and I've been waiting to find a good cliff to drive off of"

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

Now you know why econ forecasting as an industry has such a high rate of liver failure. No one can stay sober when both options result in a complete unwinding of society. There are no good ways forward. There's, likely, no way forward.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 15 points 8 months ago (5 children)

I don't believe the current system (by that, I just mean the institutions controlling currency) is what's killing us. The economic policies of different governments are the ones killing us.

I am a strong believer in leftist policies. However, I also believe that we don't have a better system than markets. The presence of markets requires the presence of Keynesian economics if we want to avoid boom-bust cycles.

That being said, do I think Keynesian economics will continue to exist decades in the future? No. One of the biggest flaws of this system is that monetary policies require a lot of time to have an effect on the economy. This huge ping difference understandably introduces many issues.

There are better ways to control the amount of money in circulation (like fluctuating transaction fees) whose effects can be a lot more immediate. However, they require all money to be electronic.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Immediate impact is not necessarily a good thing. A lot of our economy is built on predictability. Imagine going to use your credit card, and something costs more because the fee jumped yesterday, and might be less tomorrow. Banks would build in bigger fees to avoid the uncertainty. Because people want certainty.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago

Changes in transaction fees wouldn't be so drastic though. As you can make tens of thousands of corrections per year (compared to a couple in the current system), changes wouldn't affect you so much.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

The whole history of compound interest is quite fascinating. Early arguments for it are that seeds and livestock are capable of reproducing and multiplying themselves. If I lend you a handful of seeds and a year later you give back the exact same size handful, I have lost a whole year’s production I could have gotten out of those seeds.

Furthermore, assuming you actually planted the seeds instead of tucking them away in a drawer somewhere before giving them back later, those seeds produced a crop for you. This crop you could harvest and sell or feed yourself or your family or livestock. You could even save seeds from the harvest and pay me back the handful while keeping even more seeds for yourself. So by lending you seeds interest-free I’m essentially giving you a gift of harvest potential as well even more seeds in the future, at my own expense. Thus is the time value of money.

From this initial seed of an idea grows a huge amount of the financial system.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] superkret@feddit.org 80 points 8 months ago (3 children)

What it actually is:

We've given big, privately owned banks the right to create money out of thin air.
They lend it to you for a while, if you can prove that there's no risk involved.
You still have to pay them back a lot more than you got.
Once you've given the money back, it disappears.
The banks keep the interest, though. And can use it to create 10x more money out of thin air.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 53 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Man, if it were just this then banks would be pretty stable.

The problem is banks don't just lend and receive money, they invest. And they invest in everything. And they take super risky bets.

This is what caused the banking collapse of 2008 and what caused the death of SVB and a few other banks.

Your bank doesn't just hold your money and debt, if you rent it almost certainly owns a peice of the company managing your property. It owns crypto assets. It has shares of startups. And it uses those assets to get more money to create more debt.

Dobb Frank was created to stop some of this, but unfortunately it's been effectively repealed already.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yup, and banks are returning to high-risk securities, trading in debt-based products like collateralized loan obligations, just like they did leading up to the 2008 global financial crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/24/remember-the-global-financial-crisis-well-high-risk-securities-are-back

Bank: You should take out this loan you can’t afford to repay. Don’t worry, we’ll make it seem like a great idea.

Unqualified borrower: Ok, since you made it seem like a great idea.

Bank: Great! Hey, other bank, betcha this guy won’t repay this loan.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And Dodd-Frank was passed as a weak facsimile of the previously-repealed Glass-Stegall act that was written after the Great Depression and effectively prevented any major financial collapses for 70 years.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago
[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

We created this money to give to you, and you have to pay it back plus a 5-20% fee.
We're also betting on whether you will pay it back or not, and other people are betting on whether our bet will win.
If we lose too many bets, or too many people bet against our bets, then the money we just gave you disappears, the economy crashes, and you get kicked out of your house.

Fractional reserve banking and the modern securities market is a trip. Kafka was on to something.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's not out of thin air, it's out of your account, and everyone else's too. They're banking (heh) on most people not needing most of their money all at once. They keep a required reserve amount for people to actually withdraw. If all of the sudden everyone wants all of their money then that's a run on the bank and it collapses.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 7 points 8 months ago (7 children)

No, it is actually out of thin air.
When a bank gives out a credit, that money is created on the spot, not drawn from somewhere.
There are rules as to how much money a bank is allowed to create, based on how much they actually have.
But no account of any kind is reduced by the amount they give out as credit.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

no but y y youre youre youre youre y you're saying the money's in Joe's house, th thats that's right next to yours, and and and and the Kennedy House, and Mrs Maitlin's house and a hundred others.

w w why w why why why whaddaya want the Moon, Mary? L L L Lemme throw a LASSoo around it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Yep. Just don't borrow it, fuck em.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 12 points 8 months ago

Unless you're really rich, you have the choice between borrowing money from the bank, and paying rent to a landlord for your entire life.
Unless you're moderately rich, you don't even have that choice.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

If people could buy housing without needing to borrow money, the world would be a much better place.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 67 points 8 months ago (6 children)

The derivatives market is out of control. The global annual GDP, actual goods and services produced, is something like $100 trillion. The derivatives market is something like 7 times that.

About 80% of the global economy is just gambling on what the other 20% will do.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

A derivative != gambling what the other 20% will do.

A common derivative is a "future".

Pre-ordering a videogame is a future contract. It's a way for game publishers to finance the development of the game.

Sometimes futures are the only way to trade a product: all electricity is sold under a future contract. This refers to producers and consumers agreeing "tommorow 11am to 12am, I will consume (for the one party), and produce (for the producing party), 10MW of power". It is a simple necessity to trade electricity as a future contract, as electricity isn't easily stored, and the grid needs to be balanced (production ~= consumption) at all times. Here, the future contract is used as a method of coordination.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

Futures are still technically gambling. In some cases a very, very safe gamble, but it still boils down to promising a predetermined price for a future transaction. There's always a chance that the underlying asset radically changes in value between the contract and execution dates.

I don't deny that derivatives are certainly financial instruments with valuable use cases. I'm just saying the scope of that market is out of control, especially in regards to financial derivatives. The MBS market basically directly lead to the '08 crisis, as you certainly know.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Futures are still technically gambling.

If you enter into a futures contract to fix your costs (electricity, oil, steel etc.) then you are reducing your risk. This is the opposite of gambling.

Sometimes doing nothing is the risky option.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Odd_so_Star_so_Odd@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Gambles on failure of stocks shouldn't be allowed, regulate wall street WS. They will make off like bandits when the tariffs hit.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

The derivatives market is something like 7 times that.

The notional value is that size, but that's not really representative. You can't compare or even add notional amounts.

For example, temperature derivatives would have a notional value measured in millions of °C.

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Harvey656@lemmy.world 45 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

While funny, and this is a the meme community, God it's so much worse than that. Debt accumulated in a western style capitalist society is just how money exchanges hands. Your debt, the one that deeply affects your life, that can ruin your ability to make basic purchases and health care is a simple gamble for the rich, OUR debts.

Their debts are waved away, all because it makes more profits to forgive major mistakes when the other people are rich. I'm looking at you GM and Chrysler, I'll never forget.

Edit: I forgot.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Wasn't Ford the American auto company who didn't have to be bailed out by taxpayers while GM and Chysler did?

[–] Harvey656@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Maybe. Listen, what I said was in the moment. You can't blame me for being stupid on the internet lol.

load more comments (2 replies)

Your debt, the one that deeply affects your life, that can ruin your ability to make basic purchases and health care is a simple gamble for the rich, OUR debts.

well no, so there are technically two types of debt, personal debt, the kind of shit you have on your car or house. Which are generally negative, and then investment based debt, a debt that is presumed on the potential future evaluation of a company for example. This is inline with how a lot of VC funding is done, although more complex.

There's also the concept of having asset backed debt, for example a car, or a house. The downside here is that cars and houses are generally very important to daily life, but if your debt is based on the valuation of your company for example, that inherently holds significantly less personal risk to you.

There's also a much more complex macro economic theory, where if extremely large players go down, a significant portion of the economy also goes down. It might be beneficial for a government to absolve the debt of a national company if for example, it protects broadly from a significant economic retraction, similar to the kinds we've seen before like in the great depression. Granted in that case, we did nothing, and everything imploded, globally.

[–] mlg@lemmy.world 26 points 8 months ago (12 children)

doesn't pay it back

2008 financial crisis

when your puny change in mortgage loan causes upwards of a billion dollars worth of ~~investments~~ gambling to fall apart

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My Student loans were sold before I even finished school.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Don't even ask the question.

The answer is yes, it's priced in.

Think Amazon will beat the next earnings? That's already been priced in.

You work at the drive thru for Mickey D's and found out that the burgers are made of human meat? Priced in. You think insiders don't already know that?

The market is an all powerful, all encompassing being that knows the very inner workings of your subconscious before you were even born.

Your very existence was priced in decades ago when the market was valuing Standard Oil's expected future earnings based on population growth that would lead to your birth, what age you would get a car, how many times you would drive your car every week, how many times you take the bus/train, etc.

Anything you can think of has already been priced in, even the things you aren't thinking of.

You have no original thoughts. Your consciousness is just an illusion, a product of the omniscent market. Free will is a myth.

The market sees all, knows all and will be there from the beginning of time until the end of the universe (the market has already priced in the heat death of the universe).

So please, before you make a post on Reddit asking whether AAPL has priced in earpods 11 sales or whatever, know that it has already been priced in and don't ask such a dumb fucking question again

load more comments
view more: next ›