> Why do we have to jump to infinity? Why can't the velocity of money vary based on market forces, including economic growth?
Because the velocity of money isn't determined by market forces, it is determined by how easy it is for money to flow.
If bitcoin was the dream it aspires to be (instant, easy, transparent money transfers anywhere in the world), velocity of money tends to infinity, and the value of bitcoin goes to zero.
> The idea of an asset that always increases in value (or a "free lunch", let's call it) is explicitly disowned by every theory of economics, from the Austrians & monetarists to the Keynsians & the Marxists.
I'm not talking about an asset that always increases in value. I'm talking about a fixed supply of money, which would on average always represent more value (since the economy is growing on average) year after year.
As the supply of bitcoin will never increase, but there demand will (on average) always increase, a single bitcoin will represent a larger amount of value each year after year.
Everyone tries to legally minimize the amount of taxes they pay, often resorting to procedures with names such as "backdoor ROTH" or "Mega Backdoor Roth IRA".
But when those same people see a company doing the same, they get pissed off and call it unethical, "not the right thing", etc.
TL;DR: companies are fighting for their interests, just like people are.
I believe OP mens abusing market power to prevent competition.
Although if it is or not a monopoly and an abuse of market power is dubious, but it clearly is anti-competitive.
This is similar to Amazon shutting off Google Products from any retailers using its platform. It is anti-competitive, but the jury is out on whether it is abusing market power.
TL;DR: you can try to shut off your competitors from the market, as long as you're not abusing your market power to do so.
PS: The Hacker News definition of monopoly has nothing to do with the economics, policy and antitrust definition of monopoly.
Uk wants to pass a new sales tax, that applies only on "established tech giants" that generate "at least £500m a year in global revenue" of 2% of sales made in the UK.
It isn't just the title, 2/3rds of the article are about index funds:
> Are Index Funds Communist?
> But when those thoughtful active analysts are replaced with passive index funds, the market stops serving that function.
> Indexing is cheaper, yes, but that's because active management has positive externalities, and if no one will pay for it, those benefits will disappear.
> But more fundamentally, there is an alternative view that the rise of passive investing will improve capital allocation
> The passive investors can't influence relative prices
> Their worry is that the growth in passive and quasi-passive products
> Or I guess pure indexing -- everyone passively throws money at everything that there is, with no judgment at all -- is an imaginable fourth answer, and is strictly worse than the others.
Not really, 2/3rds of the entire article, plus the title and subtitle are about index funds:
> Are Index Funds Communist?
> But when those thoughtful active analysts are replaced with passive index funds, the market stops serving that function.
> Indexing is cheaper, yes, but that's because active management has positive externalities, and if no one will pay for it, those benefits will disappear.
> But more fundamentally, there is an alternative view that the rise of passive investing will improve capital allocation
> The passive investors can't influence relative prices
> Their worry is that the growth in passive and quasi-passive products
> Or I guess pure indexing -- everyone passively throws money at everything that there is, with no judgment at all -- is an imaginable fourth answer, and is strictly worse than the others.
> But when those thoughtful active analysts are replaced with passive index funds, the market stops serving that function.
> Indexing is cheaper, yes, but that's because active management has positive externalities, and if no one will pay for it, those benefits will disappear.
> But more fundamentally, there is an alternative view that the rise of passive investing will improve capital allocation
> The passive investors can't influence relative prices
> Their worry is that the growth in passive and quasi-passive products
> Or I guess pure indexing -- everyone passively throws money at everything that there is, with no judgment at all -- is an imaginable fourth answer, and is strictly worse than the others.
He's one of the greats of the crazy diets: people should eat more white sugar and fructose, people shouldn't exercise because it stresses the body, people should reduce or eliminate vegetables from their diets, and so on.
Also the king of cherry-picking parts of studies that agree with his view and ignoring everything else, no matter how prevalent.
It isn't just technically worthless, it is technically wrong. I know that none of it is even the point, but that's where the article loses itself: there is no point but to make an appealing critique of nothing in particular.