pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @orangecheckemail_isthereany 9h \ on: What's the most ridiculous and poisonous Bitcoin critique till date? AskSN
Because of its deflationary qualities the economy will grind to a halt.
Only inflationary money, which transfers purchasing power out of your money into newly created money, allows spending and investment to occur to a sufficient degree to keep an economy functioning and producing.
You see if banks didn't suck purchasing power out of your money constantly, effectively stealing from you, you would not spend your money. You'd just keep your money knowing it would buy more in the future.
So goes the argument.
After all as we all know people don't ever cash out of investments in cases where those will likely be worth more later.
That's why nobody has ever sold S&P500 indexes. Because stocks tend to increase in value, and not decrease, nobody ever sells any stocks.
That's reality, right?
Oh wait.
And that's why nobody has ever sold gold ever in the history of mankind, right?
And never ever sold gold in exchange for stock in a company, right?
Every economy ever that functioned under a money that appreciated in value over time ground to a halt and no inventive and innovative companies ever came out such gold-backed economies, right?
Oh wait the industrial revolutionS did.
It's such a ridiculous argument.
Of-mf*k'n-course people would spend the money. The spending patterns would surely change, and yes many would hold on to money longer, save it, if they knew it would hold its value.
But it's like thinking that people who have a water bottle that doesn't leak would never drink from it. Just so g damn retarded. Yes the guy with a leaking bottle will drink it faster because the water will be gone if he doesn't. The guy with a working water bottle will drink when he's thirsty. And that's the preferable scenario.
Similary the guy with money that isn't broken will spend it when the trade-off between having the money and having the thing the money can buy seems worth it to him. He'll probably make wiser spending and investment decisions isntead of rushing into things knowing he'll lose what he's got otherwise, like drinking when he's not even thirsty.
He'll keep his money and only when the investment looks really good, or the product seems very attractive will he part with his money in exchange for the thing.
The coordination function / information exchange function of money will be enhanced. The direction of development of the economy will be decided by the people earning money in proportion to how much money they earn, not how much money they print.
Spending decisions will more closely track true preference hierarchies.
People will invest and spend when they truly want to, and not because they have to in order not to be stolen from.
Any other thoughts on this delfationary death spiral argument?
I just ask those sorts some simple questions.
Will you go hungry today if groceries are cheaper next year (as it would be, on deflationary money)?
Will you stay homeless today if housing gets cheaper next year?
Will you send your kids to school once they turn 20 rather than at 2, because schools will be cheaper?
What exactly will you not buy that will be cheaper?
Usually, those keynesians fall silent.
reply
Remember that one way to think about money is as fungible favours.
When I work for someone he gives me a token which I can then use to get others to work for me.
I do someone a favour and instead of that specific guy owing me a fovour I can now ask a favour of anyone who uses that particular kind of token as money.
Money printing then is kind of like stealing favours,
and successfully pretending like you did people a whole bunch of favours for which other people now owe you favours.
It seems like a bad thing to allow people who didn't provide any value for others to go around bossing people around (literally lol)
compared to
the people who provided the value for others getting to steer the economy.
I guess there's a technocratic argument for why we shouldn't allow the people who did the favour to be the ones allowed to ask favours back
and that instead a wise philosopher king should be able to direct the favours
But that's awfully convenient
Maybe it will be true for one in a million
And that person probably will not ever be the one who seeks it
So that's a hard pass for me.
I say he who gains the money through mutually voluntary interaction gets to spend the money
reply
Wanted to change the phrasing of one of the point a little bit. I'll reprint the whole paragraph here.
The coordination function / information exchange function of money will be enhanced.
The direction of development of the economy will be decided by the people earning money in proportion to how much money they earn, not how much money they print.
The people who worked for the money will decide to what ends it will be used. I'd expect better results that way. Generally people take more care making decisions when spending their own money, not to mention they're the only ones with a moral right to regardless of who would spend it "better" (better according to whom? But again: stealing isn't right. Not even if use the money to buy things for the victim. Definitely not if you use it for yourself like a regular thief, or use it attack the victim further as often is the case with the biggest thieving mafia thugs AKA governments today)
Spending decisions will more closely track true preference hierarchies.
People will invest and spend when they truly want to, and not because they have to in order not to be stolen from.
reply