This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Seventeen days ago, silver was $90/oz from APMEX. That was list price of a 1oz round, shipped and everything. Spot price was ~$80.
Today, it's $120 shipped, $110 spot, over +30% in a little over two weeks.
Gold is at $5185 for a single round delivered to your door, up from 4650, or 11%. Using spot it's about 12%.
Is this hyperinflation? Is this de-dollarization? A bubble? Does this have anything to do with Venezuela? With Iran? Taiwan? AI?
I'm honestly grasping at straws here, because metals aren't supposed to do this. I've been worried about the specter of hyperinflation since 2008, but it never really materialized, and so my worries were able to be soothed by looking at the lack of hyperinflation in reality.
You can't even tell anything happened in 2008 when you look at the money supply, but you can't help but notice that we've nearly x5 the money supply since December 2019.
Then again, silver is a useful metal. It gets blown up in missiles, it gets used in microchips and electronics, solar and battery technology, and more. Business building these things will simply pay the price for the metal they need and then use it, driving the price up regardless of speculation, but I can't believe that the usefulness of silver has quadrupled in the time since it was going for $25/oz.
In May 2020 FRED changed it's definition of M1 to include savings accounts, which is why there's a huge spike in specifically that month. If you switch the graph from billions of dollars to % change this is much clearer. Changes in M1 (percentage wise) seem to have been pretty similar before and after (perhaps even less volatile after), based on my eyeballing the graph. They have a blog post explaining it.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Seriously, whose idea was this? We should have just kept calling the old definition M1, and created the new definition as M1.5 or M1b or something. Instead we've got a definition of M1 that's so screwed up, explaining precisely how screwed up it is is a famous problem in philosophy.
My impression is that continuing to construct the previous series was not really practicable. The blog post talks about this a little bit. The change in the definition wasn't arbitrary. The fed changed a regulation that required "savings" accounts be permitted no more than 6 withdrawals a month, otherwise the account had to classified as a "transaction" account. Transaction accounts are included in M1 but savings accounts aren't. They also count differently for capitalization requirements. It sounds like when the fed changed the rules about limited withdrawals banks largely started reporting all their accounts as "transaction" accounts, and therefore contributing to M1. So the fed can't really construct the old M1 anymore because they relied on banks to make the relevant distinction between accounts and banks largely stopped making that distinction in reports to the fed once it no longer served a purpose.
There's actually a little blurb under the FRED chart noting this discontinuity in definition for the M1 and M2 measures.
Oh that's why banks did that! Thanks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link