It doesn't increase purchasing power

[slapper]

There are many economic theories that believe that interest rates, no matter how low, are harmful to the economy, and therefore loans should be 1:1, and that there is no safe and secure way to generate money from money except through risk, such as trading, trading, and other methods, but given the world we are in and its nature. In the global economic system, this does not happen. We have a system based on interest and on creating money from money and printing more for prosperity, and the person who collects the assets remains the biggest winner.

The problem with paper cash is that there is no maximum cap on printing money. What government does is offer interest to their people so that they deposit their savings in the bank which keeps those funds out of circulation. This should increase the value but what happens is the opposite the government prints more money to pay interest when the interest should be paid from the profits government made from the loan they took from the bank.

Paper cash based monetary system can keep an economy stable by manually increasing or decreasing the money supply but government has only interest in increasing it so money gradually loses its value over time.

Maybe not all governments are that greedy. And have you noticed, some currencies are still high in value when compared to others? IDK if what you are saying is true that printing money has no cap, because there might be and we only don't know it. And even if it doesn't, many banks doesn't print too much of it because they also know the consequences of doing so.

I think it's the government are the ones who offers an interest but it was still the banks because this is where we keep our money though maybe they still get an order to them. Depositing money in the bank is only optional and not many are attracted to it because the interest rates offered by them are not that lucrative enough.

I am glad that you have an interest in finance but I am sorry that your knowledge about finance is not strong.

All the governments are greedy otherwise they won't price paper cash without any assets to back them. The basic principle of paper cash is that for every $1 paper bill there is $1 worth of assets in the central bank. So the ratio of paper cash to assets in reserve should be 1:1. Paper cash emerges with these promises but this doesn't happen. Because the government is in control and the general public can not verify the money supply, they print an unlimited amount of money which causes the devaluation of the currencies. Governmnet government prints money and the central bank distributes that money to other banks to circulate it in the open market. This is how new cash comes into circulation.

First, I like your finance perspective. Always enjoy talking to enthusiastic folks. Money fascinates me

You're discussing fiat currency, which relies on economic trust and credit rather than tangible goods. For every $1 paper money, the central bank to have $1 in assets is outmoded. Modern economies are past the gold standard and asset-backed systems. Why? Due to flexibility. Governments and central banks can better adapt to economic developments

Yes, governments have the power to print money, but it's not as simple as just printing and causing devaluation. A system, process, and strategy underpin it. Manage inflation, boost growth, and maintain stability. While transparency issues are important, finance is complex, multifaceted, and intricate. It's not just about printing money; it's about managing an entire economy.

[DVlog]

First, I like your finance perspective. Always enjoy talking to enthusiastic folks. Money fascinates me

You're discussing fiat currency, which relies on economic trust and credit rather than tangible goods. For every $1 paper money, the central bank to have $1 in assets is outmoded. Modern economies are past the gold standard and asset-backed systems. Why? Due to flexibility. Governments and central banks can better adapt to economic developments

My take on this was that the emergence of paper cash was based on the principle that for every paper bill bank holds an equivalent amount of assets. You are right it is outmoded now and modern economies have chosen a new standard. This new standard gives government flexibility and control over the economy but this causes the loss of wealth for people with hyperinflation.

Yes, governments have the power to print money, but it's not as simple as just printing and causing devaluation. A system, process, and strategy underpin it. Manage inflation, boost growth, and maintain stability. While transparency issues are important, finance is complex, multifaceted, and intricate. It's not just about printing money; it's about managing an entire economy.

The more the government tries to control the money the worse matters get. The system is not totally crap, what makes things bad is corruption within the management authorities. 

[Antotena]

thats true make everyone a millionaire then that million would have no value, its silly but many actually believe such thing could bring wealth towards them which isn't true at all.
giving out money never a solution, instead its a way of destroying your own economy if the money given was too much.
nobody would trust money that gets printed out of nowhere, because after all if the government keeps printing, why even bother owning the money, there's too much supply meaning that money have no value at all better keeping commodity since its truly what these money represented to be but if money keeps getting printed, it means it fails as a money that keep its value.

No one knows for sure whether the money supply that has already been printed has any real collateral. Yes, the government will claim that everything is fine, but these are just statements. So maybe a lot of unsecured money has already been distributed, who knows?

There is documentation on every money that is requested from government to be printed by the central bank, they can't print not until there is a information from above and before the printing, the government has to provide a collateral or asked for a loan which they can promise to be repaid back.

The government is like a business person to the central bank, they cannot have anything they want from the central Bank except they want the country to be ruin by inflation or hyper inflation. There must be an agreement before any currency are printed.

[odunybiz]

There should be no need to repay loans or pay interest, Banks should be fully at the disposal of governments to issue loans to the people without any hindrance, Along with this, there should be no need to pledge any capital to get the loan

If you believe that loans should not be repaid, then what is the reason to work or start a business (produce goods) when I can take out a loan for a house, car and everyday expenses and not pay it back for the duration of my life?

Money loses value over time, which is why loans carry interest. Moreover, money is a product. You pay for renting a car and also for renting skis, so why should renting capital be free (zero interest)?

This is where I'm confused. I wonder why loans won't be paid back. It isn't a gift, it called loan which really means there is an agreement to pay back with a period of time.

[shinratensei_]

There should be no need to repay loans or pay interest, Banks should be fully at the disposal of governments to issue loans to the people without any hindrance, Along with this, there should be no need to pledge any capital to get the loan

If you believe that loans should not be repaid, then what is the reason to work or start a business (produce goods) when I can take out a loan for a house, car and everyday expenses and not pay it back for the duration of my life?

Money loses value over time, which is why loans carry interest. Moreover, money is a product. You pay for renting a car and also for renting skis, so why should renting capital be free (zero interest)?

This is where I'm confused. I wonder why loans won't be paid back. It isn't a gift, it called loan which really means there is an agreement to pay back with a period of time.

seems really unrealistic, even in dreams, people should know that the loan that they repaid back will be loaned out to someone else for the sake of giving them opportunity to grow their business if its a productive loan that they took.
if government normalize not paying loan back be ready to get massive inflation that instead gonna destroy whole economy.
thats why when thinking about thing like this, it requires comprehensive thinking first about what things needs to be considered, it reminds me of those people that saying we can just print money to pay off the debt for a country, that in itself silly idea.

[ancafe]

There should be no need to repay loans or pay interest, Banks should be fully at the disposal of governments to issue loans to the people without any hindrance, Along with this, there should be no need to pledge any capital to get the loan

I really wanted to highlight the bold words you created and this feels annoying to me when I see several cases that occur in the country where I live. Banks are a government product and they apply interest rates not only to loans given to the public, but they also charge administrative fees to people who use their services. There are many conditions that must be fulfilled when people take out loans for business from banks and what's strange is that their administrative pattern is really chaotic.

An increase in unstable money in circulation can also lead to inflation and this is the reason why it is sometimes very important to stabilize the level of money stability in a country. Without collateral, you will never get a loan from a bank product because they will issue a loan based on the applicable terms and conditions.

[DashingAgent]

You didn't explain it that how it is a destruction of the world? Explain it with examples??
Such concepts are poor concept of economics, Money is needed for production and production for hard work, while after AI there is no need for hard work, only unlimited money is needed.

~snip~

I don't know what you mean. The argument constructed is not clear. The current financial system is (maybe) independent and the one who has financial authority is the central bank. The state does not have full power to intervene in the financial system. Even though they can make policies to regulate money circulation. The more money circulating in society, the state and banks will increase deposit interest so that more people save in banks and the circulation of money in society decreases. If there is too little money in society, banks will lower interest rates so that many people borrow money from banks and there is a lot of money circulating in society.

Then when you say that banks must help people by giving money and debts do not need to be paid then that is the destruction of the world.

[DashingAgent]

To keep the value of the dollar stable, it is necessary to print the same amount of other currencies in comparison, While in this way, the United States wants more inflation in other countries to increase the value of its dollar, due to which people's purchasing power decreases. This concept is not correct and it weakens other economies, This practice needs to end, This is an silly practice, Because the United States only considers fiat as a competitor to its currencies, while a larger market is the bitcoin and cryptocurrency market. If the United States buys Bitcoin and values it against fiat, then inflation will not devalue the US dollar. Rather, it would be hedged against bitcoin and would have the advantage of directly increasing revenue for the United States. While in this way the income of shrinking economies will also increase as their inflation benefits and they can improve their economy by increasing inflation further.

Meme coins may have been produced in larger quantities but meme coins as well as cryptocurrencies cannot beat the dollar when it comes to stability, trust, and value. Now look at the gold supply theory and the petrodollar theory which you have called for to be eliminated. Do you think our fiat currencies would be enjoying its stability if we didn't have these? It was the only option before crypto and even though it needs to be upgraded in my opinion to fit our current world, I don't think it should be eliminated.

[DashingAgent]

Can you explain that if you stop paying the loan, you will no longer need the business, home and car and you will not buy them?
If stopping the loan payments eliminates your need, then the concept is correct, But if you still need these things even if you don't pay the debt, then your theory is wrong, because economics is based on many bogus theories while after AI automation people do not need to do business and work hard.

There should be no need to repay loans or pay interest, Banks should be fully at the disposal of governments to issue loans to the people without any hindrance, Along with this, there should be no need to pledge any capital to get the loan

If you believe that loans should not be repaid, then what is the reason to work or start a business (produce goods) when I can take out a loan for a house, car and everyday expenses and not pay it back for the duration of my life?

Money loses value over time, which is why loans carry interest. Moreover, money is a product. You pay for renting a car and also for renting skis, so why should renting capital be free (zero interest)?

[CageMabok]

You didn't explain it that how it is a destruction of the world? Explain it with examples??
Such concepts are poor concept of economics, Money is needed for production and production for hard work, while after AI there is no need for hard work, only unlimited money is needed.

Perhaps the intended destruction of the world is in the human resources sector, some of which will be neglected by the presence of robots such as AI so that jobs that are usually relied on by human hands will be replaced by robot hands. However, in terms of maintenance of the robot, it may still need to be researched in depth so that companies do not incur excessive costs for the devices they use. And in general, in fact, every production always has to involve money in it because the process is part of the hard work in any company.

[Biznesmen]

Decreasing the volume of dollars or other fiat currencies does not increase purchasing power


Cryptocurrencies, especially memes, have a much larger supply than dollar and other fiat currencies, If a person's purchasing power is to increase, more and more dollars and other fiat currencies need to be printed, The gold supply theory and the petrodollar theory in printing dollars must be completely eliminated, Because economically, these ideas of making the society prosperous are baseless, Similarly, increasing productivity to lead to economic prosperity is also a baseless theory, Because you need capital to increase production, And to get capital you need loans, And you need more production to pay off the debt, While the population of the world and the needs of the people are not increasing in the proportion in which the production is increasing, Moreover, even if production is increased, people are not prosperous, people do not have money, In all this, banks are only in profit and people are in loss, Because we have completely ignored the fundamental theory of necessity, Which is in addition to gold and production and this is labor, While AI is going to end this too, dollars and fiat currencies should be completely independent, There should be no need to repay loans or pay interest, Banks should be fully at the disposal of governments to issue loans to the people without any hindrance, Along with this, there should be no need to pledge any capital to get the loan

I don't know why your questions and concerns look absurd to me; maybe you could use more convenient examples and explanations for your theory. Maybe that could make me understand how to make you understand your absolutely baseless theory. Because just think if it's a free market, without any government or third party interference, how are demand and supply supposed to be balanced? If you're spreading some ideas of your own, you must have answers to these questions. A financial revolution is acceptable when it's more advanced than the existing system and more people-pleasing. And inflation is not an illusion; it needs to be controlled from time to time.

[BitcoinTurk]

There is documentation on every money that is requested from government to be printed by the central bank, they can't print not until there is a information from above and before the printing, the government has to provide a collateral or asked for a loan which they can promise to be repaid back.

The government is like a business person to the central bank, they cannot have anything they want from the central Bank except they want the country to be ruin by inflation or hyper inflation. There must be an agreement before any currency are printed.

Unfortunately, the situation you mentioned isn't valid in today's conditions because all governments continue to print money without collateral citing economic conditions. Especially in the last three years so much money was printed without collateral that unfortunately many countries didn't and cannot show any reserve for these amounts.

Although until a few years ago many countries used gold reserves or a similar collateral to print money, unfortunately, this situation has changed in today's conditions. It has now become known to everyone that all countries print and continue to print money without any reserve or collateral. Unfortunately, the old rules and order are outdated and today this order is being re-formed depending on economic conditions.

[BRINIRHA]

You didn't explain it that how it is a destruction of the world? Explain it with examples??
Such concepts are poor concept of economics, Money is needed for production and production for hard work, while after AI there is no need for hard work, only unlimited money is needed.

Perhaps the intended destruction of the world is in the human resources sector, some of which will be neglected by the presence of robots such as AI so that jobs that are usually relied on by human hands will be replaced by robot hands. However, in terms of maintenance of the robot, it may still need to be researched in depth so that companies do not incur excessive costs for the devices they use. And in general, in fact, every production always has to involve money in it because the process is part of the hard work in any company.

Concerns about this have actually been surfacing since the emergence of AI. But fortunately the current sophistication or level of progress of AI models is still not enough to replace most human jobs. So in the next few years or even decades, I think human hard work will still be needed. The change in profession may occur slowly. but this is the technological progress that we also have to face and humans have to adapt to all of it.

In developed countries, some are still experiencing a crisis of human resources or labor. So sometimes they bring in foreign workers to fill empty positions. But if one day AI and other technologies are more sophisticated than now, perhaps these developed countries will no longer bring in workers from other countries. In fact, currently there are many factories or industries that are operated by robots which can do work that is usually done by humans but have been done by robots and their effectiveness has turned out to be better. So it's not surprising that many people have lost their jobs. And robots that collaborate with AI seem to be more effective and indirectly if we talk about the long term or in the future, it is possible that it will be more difficult for humans to get jobs. I even saw a reporter on a private television in a country who was testing AI to become an announcer. And it looks so realistic. So television presenters must be prepared for this shift.

[Silberman]

Concerns about this have actually been surfacing since the emergence of AI. But fortunately the current sophistication or level of progress of AI models is still not enough to replace most human jobs. So in the next few years or even decades, I think human hard work will still be needed. The change in profession may occur slowly. but this is the technological progress that we also have to face and humans have to adapt to all of it.

In developed countries, some are still experiencing a crisis of human resources or labor. So sometimes they bring in foreign workers to fill empty positions. But if one day AI and other technologies are more sophisticated than now, perhaps these developed countries will no longer bring in workers from other countries. In fact, currently there are many factories or industries that are operated by robots which can do work that is usually done by humans but have been done by robots and their effectiveness has turned out to be better. So it's not surprising that many people have lost their jobs. And robots that collaborate with AI seem to be more effective and indirectly if we talk about the long term or in the future, it is possible that it will be more difficult for humans to get jobs. I even saw a reporter on a private television in a country who was testing AI to become an announcer. And it looks so realistic. So television presenters must be prepared for this shift.

What more and more people are seeing is that the power and the fields in which AI can be applied is increasing at a fast rate, so it will not be long until we reach levels which were not even imagined on since fiction movies, and if that is the case then a lot of people will lose their jobs and there will be no new jobs waiting for them once this happens, this may require that we rethink the current economic model as otherwise those people will have no way to get another job on their lives.

[Promocodeudo]

Even though the government decide to print more money and .make it be in circulation you can't just have it things have to be done for you to get, the loan stuff you said, there is no way loans will not be repaid, it is called we all know what it means, we can talk about the interest, Government should give bank other to vacate the interest attached to loan, but the thing is they do this to enable people to be serious on repayment, my take is, production companies and individuals that are into production should be given special access to loan facility, just imagine when we have more productivity, there will be competition and price of commodities will have no option than to go down on it's own, once the citizen can afford things within the value of their money the problem is solved.

[slapper]

You didn't explain it that how it is a destruction of the world? Explain it with examples??
Such concepts are poor concept of economics, Money is needed for production and production for hard work, while after AI there is no need for hard work, only unlimited money is needed.

Perhaps the intended destruction of the world is in the human resources sector, some of which will be neglected by the presence of robots such as AI so that jobs that are usually relied on by human hands will be replaced by robot hands. However, in terms of maintenance of the robot, it may still need to be researched in depth so that companies do not incur excessive costs for the devices they use. And in general, in fact, every production always has to involve money in it because the process is part of the hard work in any company.

Concerns about this have actually been surfacing since the emergence of AI. But fortunately the current sophistication or level of progress of AI models is still not enough to replace most human jobs. So in the next few years or even decades, I think human hard work will still be needed. The change in profession may occur slowly. but this is the technological progress that we also have to face and humans have to adapt to all of it.

In developed countries, some are still experiencing a crisis of human resources or labor. So sometimes they bring in foreign workers to fill empty positions. But if one day AI and other technologies are more sophisticated than now, perhaps these developed countries will no longer bring in workers from other countries. In fact, currently there are many factories or industries that are operated by robots which can do work that is usually done by humans but have been done by robots and their effectiveness has turned out to be better. So it's not surprising that many people have lost their jobs. And robots that collaborate with AI seem to be more effective and indirectly if we talk about the long term or in the future, it is possible that it will be more difficult for humans to get jobs. I even saw a reporter on a private television in a country who was testing AI to become an announcer. And it looks so realistic. So television presenters must be prepared for this shift.

AI models are not yet advanced enough to replace most human professions. I observe that technology is advancing rapidly. It's exponential and unrelenting. I expect a major transition in the next years or decades. Foreign labour is a temporary fix for the human resource crisis in wealthy nations. As AI and robotics advance, this labour will shrink. Robots are outperforming humans in many areas, as I've seen. When combined with AI, robots are typically unrivalled in efficiency.

AI announcing is a portent of the future. Television hosts and all professionals must prepare for this change. The work market is changing, not merely losing jobs. The future will require a new workforce, and we must prepare for it. We must adapt, reskill, and pivot to positions AI and robotics can't do. It's hard, but I trust human inventiveness and adaptability.