> multiple lakefront properties

Let me guess, bought on credit, he over leveraged

> Cash is literally an article of faith and nothing else. It's not backed by any asset.

The US dollar is backed by the federal government, a behemoth that handles more assets than any other entity on earth. For example we know they target 2% inflation on average. So US dollars are much more stable than if I were to issue my own "klipt bucks" currency.

US dollar is also constantly and arbitrarily diluted by the Federal Reserve, to the tune of $2-3T a year. If it was a stock, you'd run away in horror.

Cash isn’t an investment. It’s a temporary store of labor value. Since work now is worth more than work later, of course cash has value decay. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be very good at its raison d’être.

The main reason the value of cash decays and the main reason central banks target 2% is downward wage rigidity. If you reduce wages of people, they get angry, sometimes very angry to the point of strikes. If the value simply drops, they don’t get as mad. It’s as simple as that, a matter of psychology and social institutions.

There is no reason why payment for labor should be a “temporary store of labor value”, whatever that means. There is no reason one cannot receive wage in productive assets, commodities, credit and whatnot.

>There is no reason one cannot receive wage in productive assets, commodities, credit and whatnot.

You're right about that. It's called the barter system and we don't use it anymore because it's inefficient and sucks shit.

>The main reason the value of cash decays and the main reason central banks target 2% is downward wage rigidity. If you reduce wages of people, they get angry, sometimes very angry to the point of strikes. If the value simply drops, they don’t get as mad. It’s as simple as that, a matter of psychology and social institutions.

No, it's because if cash has a fixed value, then the "temporary" part of labor storage goes away and the economy grinds to a halt.

> You're right about that. It's called the barter system and we don't use it anymore because it's inefficient and sucks shit.

Barter sucks because of coincidence of wants. It doesn’t suck because paying in S&P500 ETF doesn’t correspond to magical temporary store of labor whatever that is supposed to mean.

> No, it's because if cash has a fixed value, then the "temporary" part of labor storage goes away and the economy grinds to a halt.

What would grind to a halt exactly? Sorry, plebs, only rich people are allowed to be paid in stocks and other non-inflationary assets. You have to suffer, otherwise economy grinds to a halt!

>It doesn’t suck because paying in S&P500 ETF doesn’t correspond to magical temporary store of labor whatever that is supposed to mean.

How many shares of SPY does a car cost? Before you answer that, you cannot convert any value of this into currency first. I certainly can't answer it!

>Sorry, plebs, only rich people are allowed to be paid in stocks and other non-inflationary assets.

Rich people are paid in cash. When the CEO of a company gets $10m in stock grants, nobody involved in the transaction is working on number of shares of stock, they work with dollars and figure out how many shares they need to meet that number. If I get a $500 bonus from work and immediately buy a few shares of AAPL, there's no fundamental difference between that and me getting a $500 stock grant of AAPL. They're even taxed the same.

> How many shares of SPY does a car cost? Before you answer that, you cannot convert any value of this into currency first. I certainly can't answer it!

How many wons does a car cost? Why would I know it? You seem to keep missing the point that the unit of payment doesn’t need to be inflationary. And that there is no magical requirement for it to be a temporary store of labor value.

> Rich people are paid in cash.

You confuse a store of value with a unit of account.

> If I get a $500 bonus from work and immediately buy a few shares of AAPL, there's no fundamental difference between that and me getting a $500 stock grant of AAPL.

Ok? If there is no fundamental difference then how is swapping one for another supposed to bring an economy to a halt?

OK, it's 2025. You have received $1M in cash. The US stock market is ludicrously overvalued across the board. What's your move?

Yeah I know the dollar is intended to lose value on average:

> we know they target 2% inflation on average

That's why you don't put all your long term savings in USD. But it's good to have your emergency fund in USD because it has less short term fluctuations than assets like stocks.

And emergencies will generally correlate with stock prices going down.

… I mean, yeah, you’re not _supposed_ to invest in cash. Cash is, essentially, for using. If, say, your pension is in cash, you’ve been very poorly advised.

I would love to get in on the ground floor with klipt bucks. I am sold on kliptomania!

Cash is a thing that has, at its base, value in so far as you can pay your taxes with it. If the whole world (including American citizens) stopped using USD tomorrow, it would still have value since the US Government still demands it.

Makes you wonder if Vanguard will change their position if the new administration gives crypto any sort of US backing. So far it seems like the new admin has only been interested on the scam side of crypto though.

I dislike that take. Taxes don't really matter, and there are examples of currencies that are worth something and that are not used for taxation. Cigarettes in prison is an example of a currency that is not taxed per se, the early US dollars are another example.

Currency is useful because people have faith in its properties: scarcity and ubiquity as a medium of exchange. Dollar is important because people have faith in the US government to not dilute it (too much), and because everyone in the world accepts it.

Bitcoin _is_ a currency. Its scarcity is limited by its construction, and it's widely accepted. But it's a bad currency, that is mostly backed by illicit transactions, and its "mechanical" usability just sucks due to delays and transaction fees.

>Cigarettes in prison is an example of a currency that is not taxed per se.

Yes, cigarettes, like the dollar have an intrinsic value. You can smoke them and nicotine makes you feel good. It is similar to the way that I can pay my taxes in USD and feel comfort in the fact that I won't have to barter for cigarettes in federal prison.

Bitcoin is not a currency because it no longer meets the primary economic definition of currency - a medium of exchange. It is a speculative asset. A security, if you will. It can be used as a currency in the same way as gold bars and bricks of cocaine can (barter system) but it's not a currency.

>> I'm talking about cash here. Cash is literally an article of faith and nothing else. It's not backed by any asset.

It's backed by contracts to pay it back. There are powerful institutions employing people with guns and other means to make you pay back. "Faith" undersells the situation. We developed the whole system to force people to pay their loans back.

That money market account is backed by bonds, which are assets. Why not also make the argument that stocks are an article of faith. You have faith that the business will act in your interests and the currency you invested in will still exist when its time to sell.

If your old manager went bankrupt by mis-timing the market with a handful of tech stocks, then he most certainly didn't invest the Vanguard way: diversify and hold on for the long haul.

Can I buy (foreign) cash as an investment on Vanguard (I genuinely don't know)? The money market fund is about interests from debtors not currency speculation.

Cash is backed by a government that can exert influence and control over its population and counterparts with policy, laws or - at the extreme end - force.