This video is really only going to reach a niche audience with this video, but damn I'm glad I'm a part of that audience. With an econ exam coming up in 5 hours, I needed an asmr video that keeps my mind active while being relaxing. Fantastic voice and useful topic.
This is the most relaxing, well done, interesting, explanation of currency I have ever seen. All of your videos are great and teach me more than some classes I have taken for University in less time. Less hard on the books and more understandable. Thank you for your efforts and help!
Just found you channel and absolutely love the high quality learning combined with the relaxing ASMR. Will be watching pretty much all your videos over the next few months!
You honestly seem like the most friendly person to have a conversation about anything with. We could be talking about how the Earth will be swallowed by the sun and possibly end humanity as we know it in a few hundred million years and everything we've ever known and love will be destroyed, and it'll be the happiest conversation I'll ever have in my life
244 (current cpi) / 8.9 (1900 cpi) = 27.415 100 dollars (in 1900) / 27.415 is 3.65, just around 3.7 (value in 2017) is this related in some kinda inverse variation, or incidental?
It's basically ratios, proportionality, and all we do is use cross multiplication to solve for the unknown: (CPI in 2017) / CPI in 1913 = (2017 USD value)/(1913 USD value)
Yeah the 3.7 dollars is 3.7 dollars in 1900 not 3.7 modern dollars. Personally I Wouldn't have defined dollars in terms of dollars because its annoying to keep track of which dollar you're on about and it wasnt immediately obvious but once you understand it the method works.
Interesting the you use Dawkins' version of the value of money given Marx' writing about the value of money grounded in labor time. Nitzan and Bichler and I believe S. Keen also write about the power-value of money, but from slightly different perspectives, unless I'm misunderstanding their work (which is entirely possible). Good "episode".
One reason I ended up using Dawkins' definition was because Nick Szabo had used it in his article that I reference in this video, "Shelling Out: The Origins of Money"... and that I found it interesting (definitely not the end all and be all definition of 'money', for sure). I'm actually not very familiar with Dawkins' writings, outside of short pieces and interactions. I think the article really does an amazing job defining money. It's become my to go to piece. As for Nitzen and Bichler, I don't really associate their work with money but instead specific systems, specifically how capital can be regarded as power, and that rate of return, i.e. differential accumulation, is the driving force of finance. ...and the same goes for me, I could have totally misunderstood all of the above :)
For sure, Part 2 should be up by Saturday. Initially this was going to be one video but my computer really didn't appreciate me asking it to process a 2+ hour video so I ended up trimming it down a little and splitting it into two parts.
So far your jumps in logic are illogical. Try going to a store and paying for your groceries with compost or love so that's not currency, money, or assets. Martin A. Armstrong was was charged with fraud by the SEC and the CFTC. Armstrong was imprisoned for eleven years on contempt of court and fraud charges. He may be intelligent, but not exactly a credible reference. It might help to start your videos of this sort by saying: What I'd like to show is how inflation has effected the economy or something like that.
Just because the US government goes after someone it doesn't automatically discredit them, on the contrary, it means that maybe we should look into why the US government has decided to go after them. Just like Julian Assange, Armstrong has explained why he was targeted. As for what we decide to accept as a form of currency/money/asset is our choice. I personally have done a lot of work in exchange for gifts and services, and based on a lot of the stats coming out of most governments, many people are deciding to do the same. Just saying.
True. There are two sides to every story. But why follow someone unless you feel beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were without guilt or were unlawful? There are far better experts to read, follow, and can give you just as much information, if not better, without a criminal record. I go for the latter ie. Peter Lynch, Warren Buffet, or Benjamin Graham, who do not have criminal records and by the way, very very wealthy.
One reason is because Armstrong understands computing power and automation. I highly recommend reading his papers. Second, I don't seek out 'rich' people to take advice from, I seek out those who speek the truth, those who are authentic and tell no lies. I can honestly tell you, Buffet would be one of the last people in this world I would take advice from, he is anything but genuine.
This video is really only going to reach a niche audience with this video, but damn I'm glad I'm a part of that audience. With an econ exam coming up in 5 hours, I needed an asmr video that keeps my mind active while being relaxing. Fantastic voice and useful topic.
This is the most relaxing, well done, interesting, explanation of currency I have ever seen. All of your videos are great and teach me more than some classes I have taken for University in less time. Less hard on the books and more understandable. Thank you for your efforts and help!
I love your personality, great father figure.
:)
Just found you channel and absolutely love the high quality learning combined with the relaxing ASMR. Will be watching pretty much all your videos over the next few months!
Cool! Welcome to our little corner of the net, hope you enjoy the ride :)
Hands down, best asmr I’ve heard.
I absolutely love what you do and thank you for sharing everything with us. I especially really appreciate your dedication
Thanks, it's fun to share, and challenging of course so it is quite exciting as well :)
You honestly seem like the most friendly person to have a conversation about anything with. We could be talking about how the Earth will be swallowed by the sun and possibly end humanity as we know it in a few hundred million years and everything we've ever known and love will be destroyed, and it'll be the happiest conversation I'll ever have in my life
lol... i'm pretty sure we could definitely make it an interesting conversation ;)
I love your videos, I really relax and learn all at the same time.
I love everything about your videos and how often you upload. Much love from Calgary :)
Lots of love right back from Victoria :)
Ian Morganson I'm from Calgary as well! Love the videos Chycho
:)
I'm from Saskatoon
Thank you Chycho!
This was very relaxing and informative. I learned a lot from this video. Thank you!
244 (current cpi) / 8.9 (1900 cpi) = 27.415
100 dollars (in 1900) / 27.415 is 3.65, just around 3.7 (value in 2017)
is this related in some kinda inverse variation, or incidental?
It's basically ratios, proportionality, and all we do is use cross multiplication to solve for the unknown:
(CPI in 2017) / CPI in 1913 = (2017 USD value)/(1913 USD value)
Yeah the 3.7 dollars is 3.7 dollars in 1900 not 3.7 modern dollars. Personally I Wouldn't have defined dollars in terms of dollars because its annoying to keep track of which dollar you're on about and it wasnt immediately obvious but once you understand it the method works.
I'll watch any subject pretty much if it's asmr
Interesting the you use Dawkins' version of the value of money given Marx' writing about the value of money grounded in labor time. Nitzan and Bichler and I believe S. Keen also write about the power-value of money, but from slightly different perspectives, unless I'm misunderstanding their work (which is entirely possible).
Good "episode".
One reason I ended up using Dawkins' definition was because Nick Szabo had used it in his article that I reference in this video, "Shelling Out: The Origins of Money"... and that I found it interesting (definitely not the end all and be all definition of 'money', for sure). I'm actually not very familiar with Dawkins' writings, outside of short pieces and interactions. I think the article really does an amazing job defining money. It's become my to go to piece.
As for Nitzen and Bichler, I don't really associate their work with money but instead specific systems, specifically how capital can be regarded as power, and that rate of return, i.e. differential accumulation, is the driving force of finance.
...and the same goes for me, I could have totally misunderstood all of the above :)
to be continue?
For sure, Part 2 should be up by Saturday. Initially this was going to be one video but my computer really didn't appreciate me asking it to process a 2+ hour video so I ended up trimming it down a little and splitting it into two parts.
So far your jumps in logic are illogical. Try going to a store and paying for your groceries with compost or love so that's not currency, money, or assets. Martin A. Armstrong was was charged with fraud by the SEC and the CFTC. Armstrong was imprisoned for eleven years on contempt of court and fraud charges. He may be intelligent, but not exactly a credible reference. It might help to start your videos of this sort by saying: What I'd like to show is how inflation has effected the economy or something like that.
Just because the US government goes after someone it doesn't automatically discredit them, on the contrary, it means that maybe we should look into why the US government has decided to go after them. Just like Julian Assange, Armstrong has explained why he was targeted.
As for what we decide to accept as a form of currency/money/asset is our choice. I personally have done a lot of work in exchange for gifts and services, and based on a lot of the stats coming out of most governments, many people are deciding to do the same. Just saying.
True. There are two sides to every story. But why follow someone unless you feel beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were without guilt or were unlawful? There are far better experts to read, follow, and can give you just as much information, if not better, without a criminal record. I go for the latter ie. Peter Lynch, Warren Buffet, or Benjamin Graham, who do not have criminal records and by the way, very very wealthy.
One reason is because Armstrong understands computing power and automation. I highly recommend reading his papers. Second, I don't seek out 'rich' people to take advice from, I seek out those who speek the truth, those who are authentic and tell no lies. I can honestly tell you, Buffet would be one of the last people in this world I would take advice from, he is anything but genuine.