You ask the kids on campus what's wrong with society and they sace racism. They never notice the class issues, that the global elite are sucking all of the wealth of the nation and destroying the middle and working classes. — fishfry

Isn't that the objective here? Class or what was the slogan..."We are the 99%" would be far too unifying.

Wokestan vs Magastan works for the elites very well. Divide et Impera.

Corruption?

Actually might be just the always irritating realpolitik of the Saudi-US alliance, that still is important. Or would it be better that the relations went the way of one former US ally, Pakistan? Or like with another one, once heralded as the other "Twin-Pillars" ally of the US, Iran? Americans would so much love to hate the Saudis.




(Above an actual re-enactment of the old meeting, done in February 2020 by US and Saudi officials)

Switch a few words and it's the Thirty Years War. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up:

Agendas and objectives matter.

What should we do about North Korea? — David Solman

Face reality.

Just leave it as it is. You cannot do anything anymore (and luckily, didn't do anything before either). And simply stop being in panic about it.



North Korea has a nuclear deterrent and hence the US has a similar cold war situation with the poor country as you had with the Soviet Union (and basically still have with Russia). End of story. Forget ideas of interfering in their politics or "liberating" the country. Besides, they know they cannot win a war against South Korea and the US.

Actual peace deal would be nice, because the US just has an armistice with North Korea.

I'll ask again. Please explain in what way calling racial conditions in the US a war makes a solution to those issues easier or more likely. — T Clark

If your title would be the "national race and ethnicity writer for The Associated Press", would your objective be to provide solutions race relations or to show that serious racial problems exist in the US and that they matter?

Well, what is the difference between modernity and modernism? — TheHedoMinimalist

Modernity is the present that we live in, it's a historical period of time. Modernism can be said to be a philosophical movement and can be understood in many ways, starting from an art style to being a broader societal view. Hence many of those philosophers are more likely to be critical of modernism rather than of modernity, starting with the post-modernists.

I think many times the clash happens when the so-called "modernist" solution, or what is viewed to be a "modernist" solution to some problem, which likely is the rather pragmatic, technocratic (that the solution is to use technology, science and experts) or free market oriented (let the market mechanism solve the problem) solution to a complex problem, which then the "anti-modernist" doesn't like (and likely sees a political power play in the modernist solution).

In contrast, it seems like there are plenty of people like me that just don’t have any problem with modernity whatsoever. Given this, I tend to think that maybe we should give modernity more credit and maybe we should be more modest in our criticism of modern life. — TheHedoMinimalist

Perhaps it should be noted that modernity and modernism are two different things.

And of course, improvements happen when we aren't happy and/or satisfied with the things we have. Philosophers naturally see things to be corrected at our present society, in the one that they live in. It is a thing that is crucial for modernity, actually. How useful and beneficial their input truly is, is another question.

I just had to say that I much prefer, and only drive, old cars - as little technology as possible! — Photios

I remember this professor of economic history who preferred cars manufactured earlier than one specific year in the 1970's. That was the year when the first crude computers and electronic gadgets were introduced to cars. With cars before that year he could repair himself everything. (Which of course today would be a horrible blasphemy for car manufacturers...if people could do that.)

Likely he will be treated as a hero at least by the CPAC crowd, I forecast.



So much for the GOP having a sincere look at what went wrong with the 2020 elections (and with the Trump Presidency).

Now that COVID-19 is coming to an end — Shawn

You mean when? End of this year? Maybe that third wave at least in Europe still? Let's hope you are correct.

and new economic trends are arising — Shawn

Let's see what they are… besides a rampant speculative bubble in the markets thanks to asset inflation.

what will likely happen in the near future due to these tendencies in the economy arising and being enhanced by further more intelligent AI. — Shawn

Let's start from the beginning.

The deflationary impact of technology and price competition isn't anything new.

This happens especially when some technology is rather new and basically just "taking off" with rapid advancements being made througout the young industry. Yet this also happens in areas where the technology isn't going forward in such rapid pace too. Just compare, just for example, modern cars of this year and compare them with cars 50 years go (from 1971). Then compare those cars from 1971 to those of fifty years earlier in 1921. In both examples the features of the most luxurious and "high tech" cars of the earlier era have become totally normal in your average cheap family cars of the later era. And likely the tech has surpassed them making the newer cars far easier to drive and far more comfortable and safe.

Ford Fiesta 2021:

Ford Taunus 1971:

Ford T 1921:


In fact, just to start or drive a Ford T-model from 1921 and change it's gears would be extremely difficult for a modern ordinary driver without any instructions. Yet I would make one important question here:

Is this truly a "deflationary" aspect of technological advance? Is to correct to call it "deflationary"?

Or is there still the basic utility behind the product, be it a car or something else, that has stayed the same? Driving to work with either a 2021 Ford or a 1971 Ford or even with the 1921 Ford is still the same thing: you drive a car to work. This is an important question as the "deflationary" aspect of technological advance is statistically used to lower inflation: your 2021 Ford Fiesta is so much better than 1971 that the statistician can argue that inflation hasn't been as great as the prices of 1971 and this year would tell you.

So, what are your thoughts? — Shawn

I think it's a way to hide inflation and distract people from the reality: to say that since your gadgets are so much more awesome now than yesteryear, hence inflation hasn't been so high. And better yet: you have "deflation" when the prices are down and the gadgets are more cooler! For the central bankers and the upholders of the fiat monetary system this is important. It serves them well, especially during a time when income inequality is going through the roof.

And just for those that are interested: a Model-T Ford cost 325$ in 1921. I don't know how much a Ford Taunus (manufactured in Germany) cost in 1971, but your average car cost then perhaps about 3500$. Ford Fiesta costs something like 15 000$, which is way more than just 3500$ in 1971 money calculated by CPI to present money (which would be like 9 000$). So to make the case for there being less inflation, you make the argument that your Ford Fiesta of today is so much better than the Ford Taunus of 1971.

The answer isn't a third party because people then worry that one party will siphon votes from another guaranteeing that the other will win. Abolish all parties and that eliminates that problem. — Harry Hindu

No, that's only the cry that the two-party system feeds the people and has successfully brainwashed many Americans to think (and hence stay loyal to their corrupt two-party system, whatever happens).

I think that a multiparty system would be an improvement to the US. If parties have to make coalition administrations, that has a positive diminishing effect on the polarization that is rampant today. The parties simply have to work together unlike now. Besides, now you don't know what you get when voting for a party. A good start would be if both of the two parties would break up into two.

My guess is that a lot of colleges are still fairly placid places. There are outstanding exceptions of course, where everyone is on somebody else's thin ice. — Bitter Crank

Even those places that where people "are on thin ice" likely are fairly placid places, I would think.

Let's remember that in the US there are 4000 colleges and universities and these protests, cancellations or student activity likely has happened in a fraction of universities and colleges. And all takes is some tweet or a tiny group of "activist" students to protest and the video to go viral, and everybody is commenting about it. This creates a false impression of the mood in the country. Yet on the other hand, some places like Portland have indeed have had their share of "activism" under the radar with the last protests happening just few days ago with a small group of demonstrators braking windows and quarreling with the police. Hence even the cold weather hasn't gotten them (30 to 50 people) of the streets.

Short version: freedom of speech is allowed within the accepted views of the current political narrative. So students are free to speak as along as they support the mainstream views. However free that is. — Book273

Current political narrative in the universities doesn't go hand by hand by those in political power.

There is a loud minority in the academia made by activist students and their supporters in academia who see as their obligation to "defend" the institution from something like rightwing extremism, racism and intolerance, who lurk under the veil of "freedom of speech". And then there's the vast majority who are in the university to either study or to work on their fields and fear to be the target of the activist crowd or simply don't care about what the fuss is about, so they opt not to engage in any political discussion. And why do that? Someone might cancel you. And finally there's the few that think that the above means that the universities have been overtaken by Cultural Marxists.

Just like in the 60's, it's actually hard to understand that the majority of students back then were far more conservative than the hippies that are now described as to be the dominant group back then. But those who are the loudest dominate the scene, I guess. Or those most successful in their cancel culture, I might add.

Anyway, the government getting itself into this mess won't solve anything. Don't get into a mess that isn't for you. The likely outcome is that everybody is annoyed of the government. A loosing proposition, I'd say.

I remember some polling done in 2016 that found that Trump would have lost against any other candidate than Hillary. Against Hillary he had a chance. And obviously he was successful...then.

Now for the Democrats, Trump is what Hillary was for the Republicans in 2016...just on steroids. So good luck for Republicans picking him up for his "second term" in 2024 (at the age of 78).

Or perhaps Americans love polarization so much, that they could do a rematch of Trump vs Hillary again in 2024. And why not? After all, no younger people than young octogenarians need not to rule the US, right?

Then again, catastrophic wars have boosted our technological advances profoundly. Furthermore, something like globalization and it's intercontinental supply chains can indeed be fragile to disasters, but how fragile are things like the written word when nearly all of us can read?

"Sending us back to the stone age" ought not to be taken literally.

I've allways stated that if you go through university education and still are excited about what you have studied, remain motivated and have an open, inquisitive mind, then you are ready for the ready for to do something in academic World.

The National Union of Students says there is "no evidence" of a freedom of speech crisis on campus. — counterpunch

:grin: Hilarious! Ah, have to love the 2020's...

I think it means that Robinhood gives a way for Citadel to frontrun those who trade at Robinhood...if I got the meaning of the article correct. And basically this is Robinhood's business plan: to make profit in selling the information of it's buy and sell orders to market players as Citadel.

Front-running is trading stock or any other financial asset by a broker who has inside knowledge of a future transaction that is about to affect its price substantially. A broker may also front-run based on insider knowledge that his or her firm is about to issue a buy or sell recommendation to clients that will almost certainly affect the price of an asset.

This exploitation of information that is not yet public is illegal and unethical in almost all cases.

Sounds very....normal for Wall Street.

They are lucky to be able to do this. But many in their old age have a lot less to work on. I guess, we should add that, when old age comes, often the old people are at the mercy of their family members, not the other way around. — Caldwell

The real cultural divide happens with how large is the "family", where do people draw the line in seeing as an obligation to help the elder person in the family. The natural thing even today in the West is that it's the responsibility of the direct offspring, the children, to help at least in some way, if possible. Yet to help an aunt or uncle or a more distant relative starts to be more rare, unfortunately. The focus on the nuclear family has eroded the larger network that earlier families have provided, at least in where I live (in Finland). This still can differ from family to family.

Add to this that many don't have children and a lot more are single than before, and you have a genuine problem of basically loneliness, which comes to be a bigger problem at old age.

However, no one formally contested the results of the 2016 election. That's the difference. - Do you see the difference? — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you see the similarity?

When you say "The Dems never contested the results of the 2016 election, nor were there accusations of theft", I simply make the notice that those elections weren't so fine and dandy, but a lot of bitching about the results then too. And accusations about theft?

Like in WP this one (from Dec 2016, among others): The 2016 election was stolen. Got a nicer way to say that?

It seems that the only way to live up to the American ideals of freedom and responsibility would be to abolish the United States of America altogether. — baker

If nation states should have a logic to them.

But they don't.

The strength of the US is that the US means so many different things to different people.

The Dems never contested the results of the 2016 election, nor were there accusations of theft. — Metaphysician Undercover

LOL! Yeah right:

Hillary Clinton is sticking with her conviction that the 2016 presidential election was not conducted legitimately, saying the details surrounding her loss are still unclear.

“There was a widespread understanding that this election [in 2016] was not on the level,” Clinton said during an interview for the latest episode of The Atlantic’s politics podcast, The Ticket. “We still don’t know what really happened.”

“There’s just a lot that I think will be revealed. History will discover,” the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nominee continued. “But you don’t win by 3 million votes and have all this other shenanigans and stuff going on and not come away with an idea like, ‘Whoa, something’s not right here.’ That was a deep sense of unease.”

See Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’

And oh, she gave that interview LAST YEAR, btw.

Honestly, to me, the best choice is for the old loved ones to spend their days with family — Caldwell

That people can live at their own home would be also one very important thing. We all hope that when the end comes, we still will be sharp in mind and have some ability to take care of ourselves. In truth, being totally dependent on others is not an ending I would hope to have. The question is what kind of life is worth living. Today the most crucial thing is to plan and act before you are in a situation where you simply cannot be at home and basically someone else has to decide where you stay. People can have only plans what to do, but not the will to implement them.

Who would want to live in a long term care home? There can be those good examples of this.

I remember my great-uncle, a former ambassador and a career diplomat, decided with his wife that simply staying at home, going to the supermarket was starting to be too exhausting and hence they went looking for a care home and found a nice one. Then they invited the whole family and relatives to see their now living quarters, basically a normal small flat with their furniture from their old home. I think their success was to make the change before either of them was in too frail condition.

The corporate business model is quite toxic in this case. But I would argue that this is also a problem for the other part of life, when being a child and being in a kindergarten. Kindergartens can also be extremely lousy when lead by profit focused leadership. One alarming indicator is when the personnel (be it a long term care home or a kindergarten) is constantly changing. This usually reflects that the working conditions are not good, the pay is low and there's not motivation to go around.

Fear sells, of course, and there are those that have basically have found their niche as "permabears", yet if exclude those constantly and only talk of a crash, one can see generally when people are fearful and when euphoric.

There are many instances when margin growth slows, where the market continues an upward trend, or it makes a slight coinciding dip then continues upward. 2020 provides a good example. — Metaphysician Undercover

Last year is a good example of how trillions put into the most massive QE do have an effect to make the market and the real economy go their separate ways. The only "V"-shaped recovery was the stock market. Of course you can think that this is just the "new normal" and things have changed, that we have a new economy, but at least I'm not so sure.

How totally different and spectacular things are now from the past is shown in this interview with Stanley Druckenmiller by nowhere else than Goldman Sachs' Youtube channel:

What I much admire about some non-Western cultures is their general belief in and practice of not placing their aged family members in long-term care homes. — FrankGSterleJr

Usually it isn't an option that they decide not to take. Without an ample welfare net, the family in general has a far more important role to the individual. I think that this basically is because of necessity, not only because off the differences in culture. In the West people don't think to have children in order there to be someone to care for them when they are old. You simply make savings for your retirement.

This said, the cultural differences are still noticeable. Yet it may be changing. From an older study about the US:

In the past, the use of formal long-term care services by Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, age 65 and older, has been shown to be substantially lower than that of non-Hispanic Whites. Cultural preferences, language differences, and lower income may explain some of the limited use of services.

However, the use of formal services has changed gradually over time for Blacks as anti-discrimination laws and public funding have provided greater access to nursing homes and home health services. Data from the 1999 National Nursing Home Survey (NNHS) indicate that, while nursing home utilization rates have declined for Whites, utilization rates have increased for Blacks and now surpass those of Whites.

Although data on the use of formal services by Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans are limited, a study by Himes et al. provides evidence that nursing home utilization rates are much lower among these groups than among Whites or Blacks. Using 1990 U.S. Census data on persons age 60 and older, their study shows that nursing home use was 3.3% for Whites, 3.1% for Blacks, 2.3% for Native Americans, 1.6% for Hispanics, and 1.2% for Asians. Lower rates for Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans may reflect a cultural preference for family caregiving.

Expressions of Schadenfreude are only appropriate when not displayed to the victim, or sufferer. — god must be atheist

But when a perpetrator gets his or her punishment? (Hope you don't mean that when it's expressed behind the victims/sufferers back)

I don't think we even call that shadenfreude, because we don't see it as the perpetrators misfortune, but as something that the perpetrator deserves. I think the example that gave can be viewed similarly.

I guess the way to avoid this is to just sell everything prior to the crash and go full on short which is either genius or insanity at the peak of a bull — BitconnectCarlos

More like insanity, because you are shorting on how crazy people can be. And they can be far more crazy and for far longer than you can anticipate.

Far more sane is simply to try to get 80% right: to decrease your stock portfolio when (in hindsight) the stock market is in the 20% nearest to the top and then buy when it's 20% nearest to the bottom. Hence if you sell and the stock indexes still go up still 20% to the peak, you still might congratulate yourself. Same true the other way.

Some indicators like what I and discussed like Margin debt growth are good in this case. When that Margin debt growth starts to decrease at the height of the market, that is really an alarming signal, because it means that people aren't willing to speculate as earlier. Both in 2000 and in 2008 the decrease in margin debt happened just before the stock markets plunged. And in an euphoric market, which now the market is (we are having this conversation on a philosophy forum), that is where the turn happens: there isn't the guy willing to buy at a higher price to speculate on the price going higher.

Trump IS the defacto leader of the Party — Wayfarer

What he isn't is a Party leader. Period. (And yes, obviously the GOP doesn't have a leader now...)

What he's interested is his own image, and even there he flunked the test. Just look how "interested" he was about the senate seats in the end (that the GOP then lost).

You see, it's one thing to sit at a table and have people introduce you policy questions and options from what you choose something of your liking. That's what a POTUS does. That's basically what an investor like Trump does. It's another thing to organize a party and get various people with different objectives and agendas to work coherently as a group. In other words, to lead them.

He has many minions throughout the party organisation who will happily kneecap anyone who speaks against him. — Wayfarer

The My Pillow guy?

What you have is many people using him, riding on his wake. You see, Trump isn't a party leader. He isn't any kind of leader of people, a person who would organize people to do something. What he basically would be, if his Twitter account wasn't closed, the master of commenting issues through tweets.

The thing that the majority of GOP members are doing are not impeaching him. That hardly means that Trump is in charge of the party and controlling it. (Who controls a party is for example Vladimir Putin and his United Russia -party, which btw hold 74,4% of the seats in the Russian Duma.)

Even though the evidence against Trump is utterly irrefutable, smoking-gun, no possibility of misinterpretation, it seems like the Republican Senators will acquit. — Wayfarer

Of course.

But they are only thinking of how many of those 74 million or so that voted Trump are indeed "Trump loyalists" and think that the election was stolen. The Republican politicians are just meandering here not to get those people to dump the GOP, nothing else. They are thinking more about NOS4A2 than Trump.

The good thing here is that Trump is so utterly incompetent in leadership qualities as otherwise he really would make it his party. The fact that simply take away the ability to send tweets with his smart phone and he has been totally incapable of reaching out to anybody. Has Trump given an interview after the election? No, or at least I didn't find it. Has he participated otherwise in the discussion? No, I don't think so. Is he controlling the GOP. How? This isn't a man in control or planning to make a comeback. This is a defeated, humiliated, grandfather who sits in front of his television and bitches about everything and has an average level tantrum about the performance of his lawyers in the impeachment trial.

That looks.... worryingly unsustainable. — Benkei

Many things look worryingly unsustainable. Not just the stock market and it's stellar performance during an economic crisis.

However that doesn't mean that we can get the same thing, go along the same road singing merrily while we go on without a worry in our minds. And nothing really bad happens.

For a month or two. For a year or two. Perhaps for even a decade....or not.

Afterwards the easy wisdom of hindsight. How could people do what they did? How could they not use their brains? How could they not see what was happening?

What were they thinking?

Tell that to them.

The fact is that never has been so much leverage been used in the stock market.

(Margin debt is debt a brokerage customer takes on by trading on margin.)

(DEC 28th 2020) Margin balances have reached a new record high as a widening class of affluent Americans borrowed against their portfolio investments to buy more stock. Margin debt has reached the highest point in two years as investors borrowed a record $722.1 billion against their investment portfolios through November, topping the previous high of $668.9 billion from May 2018, according to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).2

This amount is a 28% increase since the same time last year and is up nearly 10% from $659.3 billion in Oct. 2020. The surge in risk-taking indicates that investors were euphoric as COVID-19 vaccines neared. These investors are chasing bigger gains and exposing themselves to potentially devastating losses through riskier plays, including concentrated positions, trading options, and leveraged exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The milestone is not a good sign for the stock market since margin debt records often precede market volatility, as seen in 2000 and 2008.

Just remember Benkei that in this World we live in profits are privatized, yet the losses are socialized.

With a trade there's a willing buyer and a willing seller who trade precisely because they are getting out of the trade what they want. It's win-win. — Benkei

Generally yes, people are happy with the voluntary transactions they make.

Yet tell that to someone that has to sell when they have gotten a margin call.

Yet the portrayal of "David" defeating "Goliath", the "little people" shoving it to the hedge funds was excellent PR: it got people interested in the trade and worked wonders for those doing the pump and dump trade. The Wall Street bashing alt-media was ecstatic. And longer time owners of the stock can be happy while it's still at prices where the share was at it's earlier peak back in 2008 before the financial crisis. Would be rather ugly if the stock would go back to single digits immediately. In a few weeks it will be forgotten as another squirrel catches our attention.

(Besides, those 150+ million shares or so bought over 300 dollars likely were just recreation.)

Bartering is just a more localised agreement of valuing currency. — Possibility

Barter doesn't imply anything with currency. My lawnmover is worth x amount of your loafs of bread that we both agree on. Or that I mow your lawn for y amount of loafs of bread. The agreement is only between the two sides in the barter and likely will be different for a third person as his or her needs differ from mine.

If Y is added to X then X - the amount of money willingly being transacted - increases massively whilst the amount of products one can buy with this money stays relatively the same (ie. demand drastically outweighs supply) Then inflation occurs whereby the same loaf of bread that was originally sold for say $1 can now go for $150. — Benj96

The Quantity Theory of Money goes like this:

money supply × velocity of money = price level × real GDP.

If something is sold out, it doesn't mean that the price will multiply then by hundreds. If you cannot get the car you want today, will you insist to pay ten or twenty times more to someone that did get it today in order to get it? Or do you wait those six months? People will simply opt to wait until more are produced. High demand on products or services doesn't result in hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is a separate phenomenon from demand-pull inflation, which this is crucial in your example. I'll try to explain this (so others can understand what I mean...and I get it right myself).

Secondly, if people today empty their bank accounts and buy things today, likely tomorrow it's going to be a slow day in shops and in the markets. Hence the money velocity will have this huge spike today and then go to a lower level than before tomorrow. If I go and buy stuff with everything that I have in the bank account, that still doesn't mean I cannot future pay money debts as I still am working. It is correct that velocity of money is important for inflation to happen, but the issue is more complex than what you gave in your example.

Basically your model would result just in a run on the banking system if everybody would simultaneously want to use their money to buy something. Likely the central bank would give the banks more liquidity. It's the market mechanism here that would simply push prices higher. This is just the demand curve shifting to the right:



If the supply cannot adjust to the new demand, then prices will rise. Put it to the larger context, this is called demand pull inflation (AD=Aggregate Demand, AS=Aggregate Supply):


Notice that demand-pull inflation is quite normal for the market mechanism.

Yet if there's more demand, likely manufacturers will produce more. Also starting from things like clothes or food, your example of a loaf of bread, there's limitations to how much we want. I only can eat so many loafs of bread. Hence there has to be a genuine reason why people want to change their money as fast as they can to something else. And that again is the crucial point in understanding inflation...and hyperinflation. And the real issue here is the actual confidence in the currency, as you observed.

It's a subcontinent, isn't it? — frank

Other one is a continent, but the other a chain of Islands.

But as both are quite able to restrict and survey those coming and going from there, it's a more easier task. Just notice how strict these countries are about foreign species into their country with requirements that you have not visited a farm somewhere else before you come to Australia or New Zealand. Bit more difficult to close instantly the borders in Central Europe, for example.

If not earlier noticed:

(Feb 3rd, 2021) A team of investigators led by the World Health Organization visited a virus research laboratory in China’s central city of Wuhan and met with a prominent virologist there in its search for clues to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.The experts spent about 3-1/2 hours at the heavily-guarded Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has been at the centre of some conspiracy theories that claim a laboratory leak caused the city’s first coronavirus outbreak at the end of 2019.

“Extremely important meeting today with staff at WIV including Dr Shi Zhengli. Frank, open discussion. Key questions asked & answered,” team member Peter Daszak said on Twitter. Shi, a well-known virus hunter who has long focused on bat coronaviruses - earning her the nickname “Bat Woman” - was among the first last year to isolate the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

Most scientists, including Shi, reject the hypothesis of a lab leak. However, some experts speculate that a virus captured from the wild could have figured in lab experiments to test the risks of a human spillover and then escaped via an infected staff member. “Very interesting. Many questions,” Thea Fischer, a Danish member of the team, called from her car as it sped away from the lab following Wednesday’s visit, in response to a question whether the team had found anything.

Some scientists have called for China to release details of all coronavirus samples studied at the lab, to see which most closely resembles SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes the respiratory disease.

If all the money in the worlds banks were to flood out into the market and be spent simultaneously (for example in a global existential panic) Then the value of the currency would drop to nothing. — Benj96

How so?

Remember that spending is an transaction. There would be this just enormous bout of economic activity and yet afterwards the money would still be in the bank accounts of people and companies. Every storeowner or salesman would have happy memories of that day.

There would be so much supply and very little incentive to take it as real world objects like food, housing etc. — Benj96

?