🤡
nitter.moomoo.me/JasonPLowery/status/1654882233910456321#m (https://nitter.moomoo.me/JasonPLowery/status/1654882233910456321#m)
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1654950311180791808#m
Eric Voskuil / @evoskuil (RSS Feed)
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/rss@rsslay.nostr.moe
npub1jl6n...j0gs
Twitter feed for: @evoskuil. Generated by nitter.moomoo.me
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil
The first honest Kennedy speaks. 🙄
nitter.moomoo.me/RobertKennedyJr/status/1654504202717089798#m (https://nitter.moomoo.me/RobertKennedyJr/status/1654504202717089798#m)
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1654564251955236865#m
Guy shows up presumably to tell me I'm wrong about the state creating money. Turns out to be a former Fed employee and an early advocate of "Fedcoin". As if to prove my point. They want you to blame banking. It's not banking, it's the state.
nitter.moomoo.me/lugaxker/status/1653298144799600642#m (https://nitter.moomoo.me/lugaxker/status/1653298144799600642#m)
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1653303768551948289#m
That's some funny shit.😂
nitter.moomoo.me/bitcoin\_bugle/status/1653033446040633348#m (https://nitter.moomoo.me/bitcoin_bugle/status/1653033446040633348#m)
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1653230613766492162#m
**Response to @evoskuil:**
Central banks (the state) want you to believe this. They offer it repeatedly as the explanation of inflation. You are a dumbass if you fall for it. The Treasury literally prints the money.
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1653089760674709504#m
But banks \*create\* money, and don’t rely on deposits, right?
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1653088484830363648#m
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1653088484830363648#m
Flux capacitor… fluxing.
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652812653079965698#m
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652812653079965698#m
nitter.moomoo.me/JasonPLowery/status/1652443688805466112#m (https://nitter.moomoo.me/JasonPLowery/status/1652443688805466112#m)
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652544853996376064#m
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652544853996376064#m
MIT apparently offers courses on copying the moronic cheerleader #Bitcoin (https://nitter.moomoo.me/search?q=%23Bitcoin) business model.
nitter.moomoo.me/JasonPLowery/status/1652330427728756737#m (https://nitter.moomoo.me/JasonPLowery/status/1652330427728756737#m)
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652368351539384320#m
**Response to @evoskuil:**
If your theory leads you to the conclusion that higher levels of hoarding imply lower interest rates, you are experiencing a direct contradiction - and might want to revisit your underlying assumptions.
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652103769075896321#m
**Response to @evoskuil:**
All people hoarding everything is 100% consumption and 0% production. Higher levels of hoarding imply a higher cost of capital (interest rate), and higher interest rates are a direct reflection of higher time preference, not lower.
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652103268552822787#m
**Response to @evoskuil:**
It's worth adding that all property is always hoarded by someone, including all money. It is the choice to invest (lend) part of that hoard to production that creates return on investment. Return is net of what is produced less what (of the hoard) was consumed in the production.
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652102538370625536#m
**Response to @evoskuil:**
So if you must define your concept of time preference in terms of consumption, you must use a meaningful definition of consumption. And trading something for something else is not it. Hoarding is consumption, even of money. Its opportunity is consumed by time.
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652099686713655297#m
**Response to @evoskuil:**
It is the meaningless treatment of the word "consumption" that leads people to believe that time preference is the choice between hoarding and trading. Trading is neither consumption nor anti-consumption, it is neutral. Hoarding consumes, lending does not.
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652099234274119685#m
**Response to @evoskuil:**
Time preference is reflected as the interest rate. It is a choice between hoarding and lending. What one hoards is consumed over time and what one lends is returned by contract - not consumed at all until it is so returned.
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652098635767910402#m
**Response to @evoskuil:**
The portion of one's savings that is hoarded is \*actually\* consumed by time. This is called depreciation and is the only meaningful "consumption". The good is destroyed. The portion loaned is not consumed, at all.
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652098232586207233#m
**Response to @evoskuil:**
Similarly the term "savings" is ambiguous. Rothbard distinguishes between "savings-investment" and "savings-hoard" for this reason. Investment has been loaned to another (contractual), and the hoard is held by the saver (not contractual). Both are colloquially "saved".
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652097795913056256#m
**Response to @evoskuil:**
A trade is not consumption in any rational sense of the word. A trade swaps ownership between the two people trading. Nothing whatsoever is consumed as a consequence of a trade. Both individuals have increased the value of their savings as a result of the trade.
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652097228054630400#m
**Response to @evoskuil:**
The economic concept of time preference is often described as preference for "saving" vs. "consumption". However, in the above treatment of consumption, there is no distinction whatsoever from saving. As a result, taking these ideas to logical conclusion leads to contradiction.
https://nitter.moomoo.me/evoskuil/status/1652096354062331904#m