theropost
Joined 5 years ago
Joined 5 years ago
I do appreciate old things, antiquity, retro technology, and nostalgia. But I also think people sometimes hold onto things long after their practical purpose has passed. That’s not necessarily bad. Typewriters, handwriting, calligraphy, old forms of art and writing can still have value as crafts and forms of expression. They just don’t necessarily need to remain the primary way we communicate.
The more interesting problem to me is communication itself. We often assume that because two people speak the same language, they’re actually transferring information effectively. In reality, two people can hear the exact same words and walk away with completely different understandings because their knowledge, context, and mental models are different.
I think the future should be less about preserving old methods of expression and more about finding better ways to actually transfer meaning between people, while still allowing each person to understand that information in their own context.
The old ways will probably stick around as art, nostalgia, and tradition, just like old forms of lore and craftsmanship. That’s fine. They’re worth keeping for those reasons. But I don’t think we need to confuse preserving the art with preserving the limitations of the old method.
So what do you do when your government is effectively bankrupt? You’ve accumulated more debt than you can realistically repay without imposing enormous economic pain, but you still need to keep the country functioning. One historical answer is an inflationary cycle combined with a trade war.
You impose tariffs on foreign goods, which creates government revenue while also making imported goods more expensive. You then blame the resulting price increases on foreign competitors and trading partners. But the tariffs themselves are inflationary because businesses ultimately pass much of those higher costs on to consumers.
As prices rise, nominal tax revenues also rise because governments are collecting taxes on larger dollar amounts. Meanwhile, governments have an incentive to continue borrowing, spending, and potentially expanding the money supply to deal with their fiscal problems. More money chasing higher-priced goods creates further inflation.
The critical part is what inflation does to existing debt. If you owe $1 trillion in debt today, but inflation dramatically reduces the purchasing power of the dollar over time, that $1 trillion becomes much easier to repay in real terms. The nominal debt remains the same, but its real economic burden shrinks.
So you can end up with a feedback loop: tariffs increase prices, higher prices increase nominal tax receipts, fiscal pressure encourages more borrowing and monetary expansion, monetary expansion fuels more inflation, and inflation gradually erodes the real value of the government's existing debt.
In other words, rather than explicitly defaulting on the debt, you can effectively "inflate it away." The creditors get paid back in dollars, but those dollars are worth substantially less than the dollars they originally lent.
The danger is that this isn't free money. The cost is ultimately transferred to consumers, savers, wage earners, and holders of government debt through reduced purchasing power. And once inflation expectations become entrenched, controlling the cycle can become extremely difficult without causing a recession or other severe economic disruption.
https://ship-voyage-4zn.pages.dev/
(apologies for any bugs/glitches - still needs polish)