🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@thatguyoverthere

Its not "nearly worthless" either... In fact its worth is quite high, you can literally buy **anything** with it thatis for sale.

@niclas @roboneko

@niclas

Money should have a store of value but does not need to be a "perfect store of value"... money can loose value over time, so long as it is a slow process, and it is still a store of value.

Much like a bucket that very slowly leaks is still a store of water, it just isnt a perfect store of water.

But more important to the fact is that this is a **desirable** quality... We want money to slowly loose value because that encourages investment rather than hoarding.

@thatguyoverthere

@thatguyoverthere

> you are high sir, we haven't talked about "the ecomony" a day or two ago.

I am not talking about you and me personally, but on my feed.

> Also it doesn't really matter where the beginning of arc is, the point is that money today is not able to buy the same things it could before.

I just proved the exact opposite, not only can it buy what it could before it can buy **much** more than before. Again used to take 3 hours worth of money to buy a poiund of butter and now it only takes 20 minutes... That doesnt make money worthless.

@niclas

@thatguyoverthere @niclas

Huh? We covered this just a day or two ago...

1910 prices/wages it would take 3 hours of factory work to earn 1 pound of butter, compare that to today where it takes only 20 minutes worth of effort to earn that same butter.

So quite the opposite the value has **increased** not decreased at all.

Where you get confusion is between about 1970 and today work place related deaths have dropped to 1/3 of what they used to be (far more so if we count from 1910). So while in 1975 it only took 12 minutes to earn 1 lbs of butter you did so with 3x the risk to your life. So today we simply pay extra for increased safety, which of course adds to cost.

@thatguyoverthere

If that were true he wouldnt be able to buy anything eith it. The fact that the value changes over long periods of time is not the same as saying its worthless..

@niclas

@Gina Wonderful! Happy to hear it all worked out.

@eleland

Yes I did say that, which clearly was a statement about the federal constitution as anyone with a bit of common sense would be able to see.

That said even if they genuinely thought I meant any addition to any document anywhere (the more general definition of an amendment) it is now made **explicit** that is not what I meant. So I still await an answer.

@stevesilberman

@yurnidiot People play this without the board. Just get magnets and any space. Works best with square ones though without the board.

@torparskytt its probably less weird than it sounds. There is a type of blindness where people cant see but if you ask them to guess at what is there they can almost always guess accurately. Like its not fully conscious. Id imagine it is similar to that.

@torparskytt

From what i can tell it isnt like normal vision. When they close their eyes they can sometimes see sometimes not. I think its half conscious.

@stevesilberman

That is not what i asked. I asked about the federal constitution. You are talki g about state level politics, not what i asked.

@worldsendless A search for accounts doesnt show anything (which it would if he had migrated). If that ever happened no one ever told me. Pretty sure I would know.

Maybe your thinking of Wil Wheaton from a while back. He was considering joining QOTO and I used to chat with him a lot.

@worldsendless You sure? I feel like if that happened I would have known about it.

@worldsendless Also just double checked, the server he is on doesnt block us or silence us. I also last saw one of his posts 40 minutes ago. His laster interaction with me (a message he sent me) was a few days ago

@worldsendless What do you mean lost him? I still see his posts and he responds to me all the time.

@worldsendless Fair, all good. Keep me updated, thanks.

@worldsendless wonderful. Please let them know they are welcome to reach out to me if I can be of any help.

Did they offer any explanations?

@worldsendless Let me know if there is any progress there. I dont think they have ever reported us on anything so very odd.

@QasimRashid

I've seen your posts, you wont be getting my vote anytime soon.

@VoxDei

> I don't think it's correct to say that living standards in 1975 were achieved by compromising workplace safety (and by extension that any loss since then is because more is being spent on safety). Safety standards at the time were what was believed to be acceptable, it's not that people were cutting corners to save money, and even if they had been workplace safety isn't generally as expensive as all that.

No you misunderstand. I dont think people in 1975 said "Lets be especially dangerous and fuck safety because we want to make things cheap"... I think that they just had a mind set where safety was less important for a number of reasons, a large part of it is ignorance.

The point however is that, while unintentional, that lack of process/effort put into safety relative to the level of time , money, and effort we put into safety today, is the reason things were so much cheaper, even if it was accidental.

> Any erosion of median living standards since the 70s is likely to be a result of massively widening inequality between the top and the bottom. For instance in the UK in 1979 the top 10% took home 21% of the total net income, in 2009/10 it was 31%. This rise was largely at the expense of the bottom 30%. (figures from https://www.poverty.ac.uk/editorial/more-unequal-country). The top 10% have a 50% pay rise over that period, the bottom 10% have a 75% cut. Similarly, from https://www.poverty.ac.uk/pse-research/going-backwards-1983-2012, the percentage of people lacking three or more "necessities" in the UK has more than doubled between 1983 and 2012.

This train of logic makes no sense, you suggest the lack of safety wasnt intended to save money, then go on to assume it **didnt** save money... this makes no sense. We know the safety was less, and we know that saved tons of money. Any argument you make about intent is not relevant to that.

Furhtermore your argument just doesnt line up witht he facts, like at all, and I debunked it before. In short when you look at the correlation throughout history between wealth disparity and cost of living it does **not** line up, in face we see an inverse corelation, suggesting the **opposite ** of what you say is true.

We have to be ccareful to use facts and evidence to back up our claims and not just try to back up what we feel makes sense or feels right, no matter what amount of explanation you can produce for it. Thefact is, the numbers do not line up with your assertions, yet they line up with mine quite well.

@kilroy_was_here