theheck

Mitigate what, the value of your savings from being debased through money printing?

I'll assume that's your question in this response. Unfortunately there isn't a straight-forward answer, everything (precious metals, stock market, bonds, etc.) is more volatile than holding cash, but your cash is guaranteed to go down in value over time due to money printing, so you get screwed if you do nothing.

There are too many permutations and personal situations to offer a one-size-fits-all solution, but I'll offer some general guidance.

If you're just starting your career, and don't have much to invest, you should just focus on becoming the best in your field, take advantage of any retirement matching that your company offers, and invest it in low-cost broad market index funds (like Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund VFINX is one example). Most people who don't have very much money worry about what to do with their money when they would get much better returns just by focusing on improving their skills!

If you have money to invest, you should read about value investing, I'd start with The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. Even if you don't want to manage your own money (and most people shouldn't unless it's going to be their full-time job), it will give you a great foundation for understanding the financial markets and how to evaluate people who you select to manage your money.

You're correct that if someone has to store a physical item (like a car), there are costs related to storage. In the case of 21st century currency, however, almost none of your money actually exists in physical cash [1], the vast majority simply exists as accounting entries, stored as digits in computers (seriously).

Traditional banking typically consists of two SEPARATE functions.

1) The first function is the safe-keeping of deposits (for which a fee would normally be assessed as an actual commodity (gold, silver, etc.) would be stored, and you have to pay rent, security, etc. related to the safekeeping of that commodity).

2) The second function is loan intermediation (that is, matching up people who want to invest their money with people who want to borrow it -- as an investor you would receive a return on your money less fees assessed by the bank for determining who should receive loans). Certificates of Deposit (CDs) are the classic example of a bank engaging in this second function. CDs require you to relinquish your ability to withdraw your deposits for an agreed upon term.

Modern banking, however, muddles these two functions. Paper bills no longer represent specific quantities of physical commodities held for safe-keeping by the bank. They simply represent themselves, pieces of paper that people continue to accept as money because they were slowly weaned off of using physical commodities.

Further, banks are allowed to simultaneously loan out the money you have sitting in a savings account (and pay you interest on it) but also give it to you in physical cash should you demand it.

How can it be that your cash could be in two places at the same time (invested in a loan but also available for withdrawal)?

If you loaned your car to a bank, and they lent it out to someone else, could it simultaneously be available for retrieval by you and also continue to be loaned to someone?

Obviously not, it's no different with money. But, because cash is fungible, and most people don't withdraw all their money at the same time, banks are able to continue this charade, pretending like your cash is available for withdrawal while simultaneously lent out to someone else.

The only time that the charade becomes readily apparent is during financial crises. During crises people get nervous and start demanding their deposits in cash, if everyone should do so (a run on the bank), the bank would not have enough cash on hand to make good on their contractual obligations. The only reason the charade continues is because central banks loan banks more money during crises by printing more money out of thin air (of course, there's no such thing as a free lunch, money printing debases the currency, so anyone who holds cash loses).

[1] Estimates vary, but the consensus seems to be that less than 10% of "money" actually exists in printed bills/coins:

   (a) Estimate 8.3% -- https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-the-worlds-money-is-printed-in-cash-bills-coins

   (b) Estimate 8% -- http://www.howstuffworks.com/currency6.htm

Why down votes? At least explain why you're down voting.

Congested streets are the result of them being managed by the government, they aren't caused by poor road design.

All roads should be privatized, and consumers should pay for them like every other good and service they use.

How do popular restaurants, sports stadiums, and every other aspect of the economy deal with massive demand and limited supply?

Raising prices, and in the long-term making capital investments to increase supply.

Street congestion should be the quintessential textbook example in Econ 101 to explain the concepts of economic shortages.

Can you imagine any other good or service whose price never changes based on demand NOT having shortages?

Imagine a concert hall that charged the same price for seats whether the Rolling Stones or Vanilla Ice is playing?

The experiment with public streets has been a massive failure, and it's time to be ended.

You make a really good point and have caused me to think about this more deeply!

I think to answer the question I need to start by researching why Christians stopped being animated by the violent passages of the Bible, and only subscribe to the (relatively) more benign ones (generally).

I think the point I was actually making (albeit inadvertently) is that as long as Muslims believe the full text of the Quran is actually true, they will be motivated to violence (yes it may require some charismatic person to push them, or some sort of social encouragement, but that person or group also generally believes in the text of the Quran).

In contrast, someone who subscribes to Jainism could never be animated to commit a violent act rationalized by their religious text, because Jainism is against all forms of violence.

TL;DR - The content of the religious text matters, even if other factors are also at play.

My beliefs were definitely influenced by Sam Harris' writing (on religion anyhow, not a fan of his views on statism and torture).

You're right that other religions have similarly violent claims (like Christianity), but we generally don't see people going around committing violent acts and using the Bible as justification for them.

Here's how I account for the difference -- most Christians no longer deeply believe in the more violent passages in the Bible anymore. For example, what would the average Christian say if you asked that person, "should adulterers be put to death?" [1] The far majority of Christians will say no. You don't see many pastors and priests preaching fire and brimstone anymore. All their parishioners have gone elsewhere (but those verses are still in the Bible!) Nonetheless, Christians certainly had their turn in senselessly murdering people (e.g. the Crusades), and those people rationalized their actions using actual verses in the Bible.

However, if you ask the average Muslim, "Can suicide bombing of civilian targets to defend Islam be justified?" A large percentage of them will say yes! [2] Even if it's not a majority of Muslims, the fact that there are double-digit percentages who either "sometimes" or "rarely" say such actions are justified is scary.

Now as for the question of WHY do most Christians no longer believe in violence while Muslims do, I don't have a fully formed opinion on that matter, so I'll withhold it. But I still think it's valid to claim that religious texts can and are used as justification for violence.

[1] Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."

[2] Using the numbering at the bottom of the page, see the table on page 53 --http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-ameri...

Ha, there's at least one person who doesn't hate me!

I'm not claiming that I perfectly understand reality (who does?), but I am claiming that religious texts (and the people who wrote them) that unequivocally claim that there is a god and they know the will of god, are not rooted in reality. I don't think any religious people claim there is verifiable evidence that their beliefs are correct.

And if you're willing to adopt beliefs on faith alone, how do you decide which beliefs you require evidence for and which beliefs you don't require evidence for?

I think you're right, violence against Muslims does not cause Muslims to question their religious beliefs, it hardens them.

I encourage you to read the actual text of the Quran, there are ample quotes that advocate violence against infidels and martyrdom, even if there are some quotes that contradict them.

The root cause of most Muslim violence is that most Muslims actually believe the claims that the Quran makes about reality.

Here is a sample of such quotes directly from the Quran:

"Believers, if you yield to the infidels they will drag you back to unbelief and you will return headlong to perdition. . . .We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. . . . The Fire shall be their home" (3:149-51)

"Believers, do not follow the example of the infidels, who say of their brothers when they meet death abroad or in battle: ‘Had they stayed with us they would not have died, nor would they have been killed.' God will cause them to regret their words. . . . If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, God's forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches they amass" (3:156).

"God will not forgive those who serve other gods besides Him; but He will forgive whom He will for other sins. He that serves other gods besides God is guilty of a heinous sin. . . . Consider those to whom a portion of the Scriptures was given. They believe in idols and false gods and say of the infidels: ‘These are better guided than the believers'" (4:50–51).

Yes there are also some quotes in the Quran that contradict these quotes (like all religious texts, it's highly contradictory), and some people may be animated by charismatic individuals who distort the text, but Muslims who commit violence in the name of Allah need not believe anything more than the specific claims that the Quran makes to rationalize their violent actions.

The solution to this problem is like asking, "What's the solution to someone who still believes in Santa Claus at the age of 30?"

If you encountered such a person, would you let them continue to believe in Santa Claus or would you empathetically attempt to communicate to that person that they need to deeply examine their beliefs and ensure they're based in reality, based on evidence that can be readily observed.

But when most atheists and agnostics encounter a Muslim (or a Christian, or a Jew, or any religious person), they simply roll their eyes and shrug it off because they don't "want to get into it with them."

I'm not saying you have to go around trying to prove everybody wrong all the time, that's a recipe for ensuring everyone hates you. But religious beliefs are dangerous and they are the direct cause of violence -- not just Muslims of course, the Crusades are an obvious example of Christianity being the direct cause of violence.

The solution is to be empathetic, but not apologetic about the fact that their religious beliefs are not rooted in reality, and all beliefs should be.

TL;DR -- When you encounter a religious person, be empathetic, but not apologetic when communicating that their beliefs are based on a made up story rather than rooted in reality (as all beliefs should be).