Spain’s colonies funneled huge amounts of gold and silver into the European economies without a complementary increase in productivity to absorb it, causing massive inflation.
A ship for transatlantic shipping might have first cost 100,000 maravedí to build and equip before the treasure fleet expeditions, but afterwards with so much gold flowing into the economy and lots of competition for a limited ship building industry, the costs would inflate to 1 million maravedí (number roughly from memory). Same with the canons and shot, animals and sailor salaries, and so on.
Meanwhile, shipbuilders with all their newfound money are competing for blacksmiths, the outfitters are competing for livestock and horses, and so on. This puts lots of pressure on the rest of society which might need the iron for farming tools and the livestock to survive the winter, which they can no longer afford since the conquistadors and their merchants can pay a lot more in gold. In the end the maravedí accounts look bigger but represent the same amount of physical goods or labor.
Repeat this process across the whole economy and it throws everything into chaos. Some people here and there get rich, but economy wide it’s a total wash. Any wealth created for the state mostly just went into paying for wars because the inflation worked its way up through salaries.
This entirely misses the fact that Spain became a European superpower during that period because war was then done by mercenaries…
> Any wealth created for the state mostly just went into paying for wars because the inflation worked its way up through salaries.
Wealth created for the state just went into paying for wars because that what mattered to the early modern aristocracy and that's what they wanted to pay with their additional money. From the point of view of the Spanish elite of the time, their “wealth” increased dramatically during that period, it's just that this don't fit your or my criteria for wealth.
The problem is it became a non-expert political issue where people who knew meme-facts based on their social bubble only really argued absolutist policies against stone wall opposition.
We needed people in a minmax mode arguing about specific levels of risk vs reward to set optimums, instead you had 0 risk folks screaming at 0 restriction folks screaming back with the middle entirely excluded. (We'll STILL get people on both sides responding here)
I was in NZ during COVID. I was adamantly pro-lockdowns. In hindsight, it was a very selfish view. It benefitted my family directly and I was more than happy to follow the rules and scoff at those that didn’t.
I won’t claim to know what the appropriate response level should have been back then. But it is very clear that the whole affair has hurt and damaged people and society irreparably. The only winners are the wealthy who scooped up assets at never-before seen interest rates.
Yeah the lockdowns have really damaged my mental health. And the mask mandates even more so due to ancient trauma (where I nearly suffocated and have very bad associations with breathing that feels obstructed). But that's a very personal reason that I understand couldn't be accommodated for back in those days.
I don't know if it was worth it or necessary but tbh I just try to forget the whole phase ever happened. For me it was a few lost life years and I'm still trying to get back to where I was mentally.
I do feel those things were really overlooked back in the day. But I'm also glad I'm not the one making such decisions which can't be easy.
The only thing I have an outspoken opinion about were the curfews we had here. Meaning the available time for things like shopping was more compressed and thus the shops were a lot busier than normal which was super counterproductive. And it didn't stop partygoers because they simply slept over.
Everything is easier in hindsight isn't it? Especially with such a complex problem.
> The COVID restrictions needed to be less and end sooner
What would we have been optimizing for here? GDP? Deaths? ICU Capacity? Lifestyle? Or would we weight them? If so would we take 2nd and 3rd order effects into consideration?
> An example graph, when restrictions should have been on or off left as an exercise to the reader
I lived in a country/state that did this during the pandemic. It wasn't a case of restrictions on, restrictions off. It was more a dialing back or ramping up of restrictions. If you look at other countries that did this you will still find the wave pattern. If I had to guess that is related to immunity after exposure. What would change however is the height of the peaks. With it's political/media landscape I don't know if the approach you suggest could have been applied effectively in the USA. Ultimately what drives cases/deaths is human behavior and the virus itself. Those who thought covid was an issue were taking precautions regardless of the restrictions.
> The disease didn't go away, we just at one point decided we were done with restrictions even though conditions didn't change.
This is a gross simplification of the whole pandemic. If I was to narrativize it I would say that over time as exposure to the virus increased it became less deadly so the vast majority of the people who were already prone to dying via covid had done so already.
> The problem is it became a non-expert political issue where people who knew meme-facts based on their social bubble only really argued absolutist policies against stone wall opposition.
This is more a comment on the political/media landscape than the response to covid itself. People have to operate within the system. If they present any sort of nuanced idea then they are persecuted by roughly 50% of the population whose narrative it infringes upon.
> We needed people in a minmax mode arguing about specific levels of risk vs reward to set optimums, instead you had 0 risk folks screaming at 0 restriction folks screaming back with the middle entirely excluded. (We'll STILL get people on both sides responding here)
The WHO was very clear at the beginning of the pandemic about the risks of the virus. For wealthy countries whose hospitals were "lean and mean" a high number of cases would cause immense pressure on these hospitals resulting in otherwise avoidable deaths not just from covid but from other things that would result from a limited ICU capacity. By this I mean life saving operations getting cancelled because there was no capacity in the ICU. It's also worth mentioning the restrictions pared with the financial aid allowed people to stay at home and not engage in any risk taking activities.
To summarize I think it's easy to arm chair quarterback the response to the pandemic. It's like most of politics. We sit here watching what is effectively a shadow puppet show but are left clueless to what is really going on because if we did know we can't be trusted with the secrets, or wouldn't be able to understand the data, or would object to a course of action as an emotional response, even if what is presented is truthful and the most optimal solution to a problem. The "masks are ineffective" narrative at the beginning of the pandemic was a classic example of this.
>Everything is easier in hindsight isn't it? Especially with such a complex problem.
These sorts of statements are far too often as a justification to dodge responsibility used by those who at the time just poured more virgins into the volcano in a obviously vain attempt to change the weather (or whatever metaphor for "clearly not gonna work but ideologically convenient" you want to use).
By all means after fact have an enquiry into the response and how it could have been better but don't do that without first acknowledging the uncertainty that was present at the time.
I just want to add that there is always a latent chaos / anarchy in people ready to jump at any oportunity to convince others to follow them. Doomsayers introducing themselves as messiahs. They are any combination of pseudoscience, religion and conspiracy. All this in addition of the normal political power struggles.
>Everything is easier in hindsight isn't it? Especially with such a complex problem.
I wrote the following July 2020:
>And with all of this money being injected into the economy, we are absolutely going to get an enormous amount of inflation... eventually. You could see it as already happening with the valuation of the stock market.
And in January 2022:
>It’s time to admit defeat and plan for what that looks like and stop pretending like anything at this point is going to make this virus go away. It’s here, it’s going to kill about one person in a thousand of those left, and if you choose to not get vaccinated that’s your choice and if you’re not young you’re taking a significantly higher risk of death.
Not so much hindsight as "what I've been saying all along".
>We sit here watching what is effectively a shadow puppet show but are left clueless to what is really going on because if we did know we can't be trusted with the secrets, or wouldn't be able to understand the data, or would object to a course of action as an emotional response, even if what is presented is truthful and the most optimal solution to a problem.
This is a bunch of nonsense. What was happening was quite transparent. The science was out in the open in papers and government statistics for anyone with scientific training to read. Politicians were caving to polarized public opinions on both sides to take advantage of and encourage their chosen pole.
Those of us talking about moderation and common sense reactions were demonize by one side or usually both depending on the venue. Nobody in leadership had the balls to lead and try to make people understand a middle path based on reason.
People STILL fall into their previously chosen polar opinion and refuse to accept that moderation was the correct and untaken path.
Not so much hindsight as "what I've been saying all along".
It was a dynamic situation and it sounds like the only things that you were optimizing for in your mind was inflation and covid deaths whiles ignoring second order effects and data that likely wasn't available to the public.
You are like a person who kept telling everyone it was 12:00am but it wasn't, then when it finally became 12:00am and everyone agreed you jumped up and said "See guys it's 12:00am why didn't anyone listen to me! I was right all along!".
It's a bit rich to blame all the inflation on the financial response to the pandemic without taking into consideration the effect the pandemic had on logistics or considering what would have happened if the government didn't spend enough. Also it's probably worth mentioning that the Fed operates independently and is tasked with only financial functions.
> The science was out in the open in papers and government statistics for anyone with scientific training to read. Politicians were caving to polarized public opinions on both sides to take advantage of and encourage their chosen pole.
No argument here except to say it's one thing to know the science and it's another thing to act on the science.
> Those of us talking about moderation and common sense reactions were demonize by one side or usually both depending on the venue. Nobody in leadership had the balls to lead and try to make people understand a middle path based on reason.
If there is one thing I know it's that common sense only exists when people share the same values and assumptions. Why for example was it acceptable to you that 1 out of 1000 people died of covid? Why not more? Why not less?
>It's a bit rich to blame all the inflation on the financial response to the pandemic without taking into consideration the effect the pandemic had on logistics or considering what would have happened if the government didn't spend enough. Also it's probably worth mentioning that the Fed operates independently and is tasked with only financial functions.
The treasury spent an extra $2 trillion which the Fed facilitated the creation of and your response is "what about logistics??", hindsight isn't 20/20 for you and sky isn't blue it's a ham sandwich. It is pointless discussing this with people like you, this is why we can't have nice things.
So with your 20/20 vision and your ability to see into the future what was the exact dollar amount at the time that you thought should be enough to stop a total meltdown of the US economy? Using logic and reason how did you come to the exact dollar amount that would emotionally appease investors and business providing them with enough "investor confidence"?
The timescale you are looking at is very small. The federal reserve has a dual mandate to have maximum employment and stable prices. What would have happened on a longer timeframe to employment and prices if every other country effectively backstopped their economy but the USA didn't?
It's like you don't know why the fed even came to exist or have any knowledge about the great depression or just fail to recognize how catastrophic that the pandemic was to the USA economy or the world economy as a whole.
> And with all of this money being injected into the economy, we are absolutely going to get an enormous amount of inflation... eventually. You could see it as already happening with the valuation of the stock market.
To be fair when I read this I assumed you took issue with the actions of both the government and the fed since both were injecting money into the economy. The invocation of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act also blurred the line between the actions of Government and the fed.
Still I find it odd that you would attribute the inflation solely to the money that was injected into the economy via senate bills but ignore the trillions the fed was injecting into the economy and supply chain disruptions or rising energy costs due to the war in Ukraine.
The biggest number for total global fiscal support I found was $14 trillion, but that was only from before mid-2020.
Most countries created a whole lot of new money and even if yours didn't, unless you're very economically isolated from the rest of the world the inflation hits you just the same.
Sounds an awful lot like the AI data center build out sucking up resources at the expense of the rest of the economy. E.g.: Sam Altman cornering the market for computer memory.
As a sibling comment said, gold was effectively money. Having more money, without having more products to buy, effectively triggered massive inflation. Prices went up, but the actual supply of goods and services didn't change much. The Spanish economy suffered massive inflation, as did Europe in general to a lessor extent.
Since the industrial revolution productivity has actually been increasing and automation continues to make this happen.
If you don't have a mechanism for productivity increase matching your inflation it's just making whoever is creating the new money temporarily proportionally wealthier until the money spreads everywhere.
Well only with a fairly fixed amount of gold available. If suddenly a vast new supply of gold is discovered, its not shocking that there would be inflation.
It's interesting that mining gold and silver is similar to printing more money; we usually think of inflation as represented by debasing coinage but there's been a few circumstances where flooding the local economy with precious metals is the same effect.
We sometimes see similar localized effects when wealthy foreign governments and NGOs go into poor countries to "help" with foreign aid and investment. When done correctly this can boost the local economy in a sustainable way, kind of priming the pump. But often it just dumps a lot of cash in, causing price inflation as the supply of goods and services fails to keep pace with the supply of money.
Outside influence heavily distorts local economies and needs to be done extremely carefully or you end up making a few people rich and starving everybody else.
Heifer International presents a good face on doing this by introducing livestock, providing education to the new owners, and imparting an in-kind donation requirement so as to perpetuate and spread the gains.
Likewise charities that build clean water infrastructure, small scale solar, cell phone infrastructure, insulated cooking pots to reduce fuel use, and build infrastructure and training for basic medical care – these are all things that support increases in productivity by removing barriers and introducing efficiency into people's lives enabling them to do more, for their children to attend more school, for them to lose less time to illness and malnutrition.
Where just giving away food or money, especially on large scales distorts and ruins economies. Likewise introducing significant export markets when a local economy isn't ready.
> Early data from a sub-district pilot showed sharp reductions in extreme poverty and improved wellbeing with minimal inflation, showing direct cash is a scalable tool to accelerating the end of extreme poverty.
That is an organization judging it's own success while a program is accelerating.
And if you measure poverty by how much money someone has and then give them money saying you've fixed poverty is tautology.
If your plan is to build a client state on perpetual welfare, well sure it's easy to be successful. But you can never leave and it's very possible that if you do leave things will be worse than if you had done nothing at all.
Whereas if you distribute a bunch of goats and chickens among a community and spread some education about raising goats and chickens, there's a good chance you've made a one shot permanent improvement to the quality of life of a community.
The criticism for giving direct aid in food and cash isn't that things are worse for the people you're giving them to while you're giving it to them... it's that you wreck the local economy for food and everything else because nobody can sell food when food is free and you can't price things correctly when money is pouring in. The money always stops and the aftermath is a disaster.
You can imagine every year the price per bushel of the wheat you grow drops and your mortgage stays the same. When your whole economy is like that no one wants to borrow or lend money and investment slows.
It would be interesting to learn about the technological developments Spain failed to make compared to some of their European neighbours. Merchant banking is one of them.
But why couldn't they, e.g. buy other people's thing in exchange for their gold? IOW, why is the relevant fact that _Spain_ didn't have much more wealth despite having more gold? Other people in other countries valued (and still value) gold too.
Think of difference between buying bunch of cars from someone making cars. Instead of buying the factory making cars.
Or maybe currently RAM. You found pile of money somewhere. You buy big amount of RAM. RAM prices go up, you do not care you have money. In a few years DDR6 comes out. The RAM you bought is not that expensive anymore. You do not really have either money or something currently expensive.
Wealth is owning the land, the machines, the buildings, the knowledge(more so now). Being rich is owning lot of what can buy those things. But if you keep spending liquid wealth, eventually it is gone and you are not wealthy anymore.
You can, but then those people have more money, and you have less. The money supply is much smaller than the supply of goods and services, because the same money circulates repeatedly. So simply doubling your money can tilt things a little more your way, but does not make the situation completely lopsided, because you can only spend the extra money once.
Also, to quote Jastram [0], "In spite of the romanticism of the Spanish Main and treasure ships, the supply of gold from the New World was just a trickle by later standards. Less than 1% of what was to be 1930 world production was produced in each of the years from 1500 to 1520." Over the next 80 years, it never got much above 1.3%.
[0] Roy W. Jastram, The Golden Constant (1977), pg. 41.
They could and they did. That meant that Spain ended up importing more and exporting less, which would have been bad for Spanish businesses.
There’s a lot more to “wealth” than just having a bunch of stuff. Especially in the long term, since most “stuff” will wear out or otherwise decay over time.
That may be true, but a modern money system could get you pretty close to that ideal, where the main difference is the friction of transactions.
It's close to ideal for a loaf of bread, or a bag of nails. I can hop on my bike and turn my money into either of those things in a few minutes. Turning money into a house is further from that ideal of course.
They spent it on war. The Spaniards were fighting the Ottoman Empire and the Relgious Wars brought on by the Protestant Reformation. Funny enough their main enemy for the religious wars was France, who was also Catholic. The Spaniards also went bankrupt multiple times too.
Today - if you give everyone $10 million dollars there isn't enough production for everyone to buy what they want - you just get inflation. Its probably worse for the economy as people stop working.
If all the sudden someone airdrops a hundred tons of $100 bills into your area, you are going to have a hard time buying food with just the $20 in your wallet.
Fine: you can't physiologically sustain yourself on a diet of gold alone. Gold is not a nutritionally complete diet. If all you have to eat is gold, you will soon be dead.
Fair enough, but I disagree that it's a good question. "Explain it to me like I'm 5" (not even written out in words, just the abbreviation we all know) is not a curious place to come from, it is a desire for the quickest path to the end/payoff.
I took it to mean something like, "I won't understand an abstruse Ph.D.-level explanation of what happened. I need an explanation geared toward the layperson."
In fact, I think that's closer to the essence of ELI5--as opposed to literally explaining something at the 5 year old level.
I suppose you can quibble about using the initialism, ELI, but only if you're advocating for people who might be unfamiliar with its use. Otherwise, I don't understand your complaint.
I don't think that I am. I don't think that they want to be treated like they're 5, but I do think they don't want to put thought into it. We're training ourselves to offload critical thinking and I was surprised to see it driving the conversation here.
It's common, I know what it means. It communicated its intent properly, I think. It's surprising to me that a venture capital finance site would need to clarify the difference between value and wealth, and I would be interested in hearing questions about this, but "ELI5" doesn't even meet the basic criteria for being a question. It asks no questions.
reply