It turns out that broad money supply growth going vertical was kind of inflationary.
lynalden.com/november-2020-…
And money velocity doesn't need to be high for inflation to happen.

Velocity just needs to not be actively falling as fast as money supply is rising. Hence 2021 was different than 2020.
lynalden.com/inflation/
"But it's just due to supply chain issues".

Every inflationary period in history occurs in part due to some physical constraints creating bottlenecks. Commodities, labor, supply chains, etc. Usually with a backdrop of rapid M2 growth.

That's like, what price inflation is man.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Lyn Alden

Lyn Alden Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LynAldenContact

30 Sep
Twitter integrating bitcoin/lightning for tips is interesting.

There are easy ways to send small amounts of money domestically cheaply, but few ways to do it internationally cheaply. Lightning is one of those few ways.
Notably, Strike separates bitcoin the asset from BTC/LN the payment rail network. So a tip receiver can elect to just keep the tip in USD even though it was sent over Lightning rails as sats (fractional bitcoin).
This increasing abstraction between bitcoin the asset and BTC/LN the payment network (two important aspects of #Bitcoin with different and overlapping use-cases) has been accurately predicted by @starkness for years.
Read 4 tweets
26 Aug
One of the most interesting ways to visualize bitcoin's adoption is via a polar coordinates chart, such as @clockwork_parts has done.

The logarithmic radius represents bitcoin's price, while the angle represents time.
I think it was @PrestonPysh who noted that, basically what bitcoin bulls wouldn't want to see, is for the lines on that graph touch, meaning a four-year cycle failed to continue growth adoption. Otherwise, the monetization remains on track.

Seems logical.
You can also denominate any commodity in sats (fractional bitcoin), and watch the inward spiral instead. Meaning the commodity gets consistently less expensive in terms of bitcoin.
clockworkpartners.com/commodity/
Read 5 tweets
25 Aug
There are many instances where journalists can't own bitcoin or cryptos. The idea is that it affects bias.

However, not owning some of the best-performing assets, like bitcoin, can also affect bias.

Imagine not owning something that goes up 1,000% to a $1 trillion market cap.
It's understandable that you can't own some minor altcoin that you could conceivably move the price of with your words, as a journalist.

But bitcoin is a $900 billion market cap asset. An individual piece of writing, even at WSJ or Bloomberg, won't materially influence it now.
People who write about money and finance, should be able to own money. Bitcoin is money, in a global sense.

It's controversial, it's volatile, but one way or another, that's what it is. Owning it is bias. Not owning it is also bias, at this point. We're not in 2013.
Read 7 tweets
4 Aug
I ran some of the numbers on this out of curiosity.

If an electric car consumes 100-150W while idle, and if the whole US goes electric one day (276 million cars), that would be 240-360 TWh per year in annual power waste.
If all cars globally go electric, that's 1,200-1,800 TWh in annual power waste.

That's a small amount of energy globally (only about 1% of global energy consumption) but about 10x as much energy as the current bitcoin network consumes, for reference.
If we have like a robotic-driving world in the future, where fewer people own cars and people get around with robo-ubers, as ARK has envisioned, then the numbers would be lower because the number of cars would be lower. But still likely hundreds of TWh per year globally.
Read 5 tweets
4 Aug
Nassim I've not bashed you or said anything negative about you.

I critiqued the set of arguments in your recent paper, not the author behind the paper, or your other works. I haven't used ad hominem remarks against you, although you have against me.
I know it can feel tribal when people have their work disagreed with, especially online.

But being tribal or personal is not my intention; the focus is on the content of the paper and the arguments therein.

People disagree with my work plenty. I welcome it.
Earlier this year I published a paper that was somewhat critical towards Ethereum, highlighting risks/concerns from an investor perspective:
lynalden.com/ethereum-analy…

The Ethereum community crowdsourced a response, so I shared it with my audience:
Read 4 tweets
3 Aug
Regulators have historically had a tough time predicting systemic bank risk ahead of time.

Bank capital ratios, for example, were not predictive of the 1929 or 2008 financial crises. Risk-weighted and raw charts:
Capital ratios are of course critical for analyzing the health of a specific bank balance sheet, but historically failed to detect system issues in the bank lending sector.

That's why they were reformed post-GFC, to make them more granular.
Historically some combination of private debt as a % of GDP, monetary base as a % of total bank loans, and the percentage of bank assets held in nominally risk-free assets, has been more predictive.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(