@mjdigspigs They said even if you're a wealthy person but NEVER used a credit card or took out a loan/mortgage for anything, your 'credit score' will be low.
@mjdigspigs Based. You can build your score up pretty easily now using bills and stuff through the reporting agencies. I am very anti usury but unfortunately debt is useful in fiat land where currency is constantly devalued.
@vic@mjdigspigs Semantic distinction. Are you a good alternative to government treasuries to get slightly better yield for the risk. The biggest parts are [PAY BILLS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF DUE DATE] followed by [HOW MUCH % OF CREDIT LINES ARE IN USE]. Easy to game and easy to screw up. I'm a big fan of not buying stuff you don't need and not financing when you don't need to, but sometimes you can arbitrage because you have good credit. My friend just bought a car and went to pay cash, but he financed it at 1% for 3 years and has his own money earning 3%+ in the bank. Prime example.
You don't have a "credit score", you have a "debt score". It says how good they think you are (i.e. how much usury money they expect to make from you) at being in debt.
@jeffcliff@mjdigspigs@vic >treasuries come with their own consequences: government default risk Literally zero. For standard financial reporting, the risk free rate of return is the treasury rate. They steal from my kids to pay Israel.
also treasuries come with their own consequences: government default risk, and the risk of the US government in particular being able to fund israel more
@jeffcliff@mjdigspigs@vic How about instead of doing an AcKshUaLLy, you look up what you're talking about? Real rate of return uses 3 month treasuries. To say :Ackshually: There is no risk free rate of return is to ignore that a man with a gun puts you in an 8x8 cell if you don't pay taxes with USD which indirectly guarantee said treasury.
@BowsacNoodle@mjdigspigs@vic no it's not literally zero. On the long run, governments only typically last about 250 years. the US is...nearing the end of its term and Trump openly is talking about defaulting.
> For standard financial reporting,
if "standard financial reporting" isn't taking into account the evidence of what government *actually* do it's not scientific accounting.
> the risk free rate of return is the treasury rate
No, it's not risk-free. Treasury rates have a risk of default. Or about 0.5-1%/year on a normal year, probably a lot higher rn, maybe closer to 10-20%.
@jeffcliff@mjdigspigs@vic Sovereign default risk is considered unavoidable as any other metric for investment would utilize currency denominated in USD which intrinsically carries the same risk. As was brought up, they can print currency to pay for treasuries and they've done it before. >There are four lights. Dude mmt isn't magic nor is it entirely fictional wizardry. We probably share the concerns of its use to obfuscate underlying rot and kick the can down the road, but because of armed taxman mentioned earlier, it's a moot point.
@BowsacNoodle@mjdigspigs@vic there are four lights regardless of what the man with the gun says and us treasuries carry sovereign default risk no matter what the man with the gun says.
IMO the risk with US treasuries is inflation / devaluation. Personally I like to try to keep my debts matching my cash position, but both of those are quite small...
@jeffcliff@cjd@mjdigspigs@vic systematic failure is something you can't fully mitigate if you want your asset to do anything other than wither away from inflation if currency or decay if hard.
@BowsacNoodle@mjdigspigs@vic >as any other metric for investment would utilize currency denominated in USD which intrinsically carries the same risk.
duh that's why you need a global currency, like bitcoin
> Dude mmt isn't magic nor is it entirely fictional wizardry.
You're right; it's just a wrong theory of economics, on the trash heap with every other wrong theory of economics from marxism to mercantilism, unfortunately still used as a skin suit by economists who still don't know what they are doing.
@jeffcliff@mjdigspigs@vic If you don't have something to reset the compounding effects of a zero sum game, eventually you have conflict (war). We should get moving on space travel because that will definitely create war but expands the resource through significantly.
@jeffcliff@cjd@mjdigspigs@vic That's true. There's no threat of force. I'm sure Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi feel good knowing that the reason they died, the force backing the USD, isn't real.
@cjd@mjdigspigs@vic@jeffcliff >They decide to intentionally collapse it and convert it into something else This could definitely happen in our lifetime. It's an simple way to ignore creditors. The rugged self-reliant stock that built this country is being intentionally disenfranchised and replaced by people who are more compliant and happy to have a gentle tyrant. Because for all of America's flaws, so many places are worse.
The US isn't going to just willingly stop the scheme because it benefits them to keep it going, and that means continuing to pay out it's creditors in dollars that they get to print - in exchange for those creditors happily giving them back said dollars for new loans in the future, thus establishing their value. THIS IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE EMPIRE.
Now maybe those creditors are going to say "screw you, I'm putting my money elsewhere". But if they do, then that elsewhere is gonna become a glass parking lot. When the world burns, investors panic and go back to the USD for safety.
Like I said, the USD is backed by uranium.
And this system will never collapse unless either: A. They decide to intentionally collapse it and convert it into something else, or B. Every munition has been spent.
To my knowledge, nobody in the investor community considers US govt default a realistic risk.
The problem the US faces is if the interest rate on their bonds goes up, it causes a global bank run on all banks. You see, nobody will leave cash in the bank at 0.2% when they can lend to uncle sam at 10%, and the banks can only pay 0.2% because they used that cash to write 30 year mortgages at 1% back in 2017, so boom the whole banking sector suddenly becomes insolvent.
> on the long term (centuries)
Nobody holds cash for centuries because over such a long timeline it gets devalued to nothing.
@jeffcliff@cjd@mjdigspigs@vic >inflation on cash is a separate risk It is. The standard formula for ROI accounts for inflation and 3 month treasury rate. CAPM sets the default rate at treasuries and assigns risk based pricing for investors so that there's alpha to correspond to beta. If things get too desynced, the price of the asset moves. It's not the only formula used today, but it's still practical in a generalized way of understanding asset price of debt and its relationship to the risk free rate of return (treasuries).
@SuperSnekFriend@mjdigspigs@vic They were running a special on certified cars. The manufacturer or dealer owns them, so they offered 3 year at really good rate and they're finding a safe way to get cash and offload inventory.
@jeffcliff@Charles_in_Charge@cjd@BowsacNoodle@mjdigspigs@vic >The minute the government needs to use mass violence it usually falls apart. There's some kulaks in Ukraine who'd like to have a word with you, but they can't because they're dead.
@jeffcliff@cjd@BowsacNoodle@mjdigspigs@vic The government ultimately owes the central bankers. They, like everyone else, must dance to the central bank's tune. A man that owes a debt is a slave to his creditor.
Violence does not have to be an everyday thing. Many cops go their entire career without shooting someone. Yet they still wear that gun every day. They don't have to enforce the law with violence very often because the credible threat of violence is enough for most people. But if cops were to all be disarmed and forbidden from ever shooting anyone one no matter how violent they were acting, the credible threat of violence would vanish, and many, many, many more people would commit crime as a result.
If lenders have no way to force recalcitrant debtors to cough up what they owe, very few people would repay their debts. They'd take the money, say thank you, then give the lender the middle finger as they walked away. All law and government ultimately relies upon the credible threat of violence. If money isn't backed by something physical with real value to it, if it is printed out of thin air by a non-governmental group and then lent to the government and others at interest, that money, that debt can only be backed by the threat of force, forced used to collect the debt owed to the ultimate lender.
and most people don't think about a 'credible threat' when filing their taxes. they file their taxes because *that's what is expected of them*
>The government ultimately owes the central bankers.
No, it 'ultimately' owes its bond holders.
>All law and government ultimately relies upon the credible threat of violence
No it doesn't. Most of it relies on *people not being violent shitheads*. The minute the government needs to use mass violence it usually falls apart. The if there even is a non trivial amount of people becoming violent shitheads, the government and society falls apart.
>. If money isn't backed by something physical with real value to it
Which it isn't.
> if it is printed out of thin air by a non-governmental group
True
> and then lent to the government and others at interest
yes, at the rate mutually agreed upon between the government and the market.
>interest, that money, that debt can only be backed by the threat of force,
Again: bondholders don't have much of a hope of 'threat of force' working against the US government. They'll just default and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it when they do.
@jeffcliff@cjd@BowsacNoodle@mjdigspigs@vic Dollars represent debt. Debts only have value to the lender if the debt can be collected. Without the threat of violence, many debts would go unpaid. Thus the US dollar is ultimately backed by the threat of violence represented by the US military and law enforcement.
@Charles_in_Charge@cjd@BowsacNoodle@mjdigspigs@vic Obviously we're talking about more than just debt when we're talking about what the dollar is 'backed' by. And the US government itself is *in* the debt so what are they going to do, use violence against itself?
and the *vast majority* of taxpayer activity does not involve 'violence', either. Democratic, devleoped nations don't involve that scale of mass violence usually - The 'violence' thing is mostly a libertarian wet dream and/or projection.