4 ms·

" If the currency were successful, bitcoin's fixed supply (a constant denominator) wouldn't keep up with global growth (a growing numerator), which would make t

" If the currency were successful, bitcoin's fixed supply (a constant denominator) wouldn't keep up with global growth (a growing numerator), which would make the currency more valuable over time. This would result in a deflationary spiral (no one spends the money b/c they're better off waiting and letting it appreciate, which leads to less spending, which leads to even more deflation, etc.)" One of the best things about crypto is that its actually going to test keynesian economic dogma in a free market of competing currencies. The fed firehosed 6 trillion dollars into the accounts of big banks since the GFC, which hasn't done much other than inflate the stock market or sit idle. Is that extreme care? Don't bother arguing - within a few years we will find out the truth.

codyb 9y ago
Most of that was overnight and short term loans quickly paid back to ensure solvency of balance sheets to avoid a depression instead of recession no? I was also thinking it'd be interesting to have a fixed supply currency be tapered towards the UN and analysts predictions towards the apex of human population. Quite a few of the charts predict humans will level off around 10 billion in the year 2050. If that's the case, it might not make sense for the pie to be continually growing as it does now since the population continues to increase. But inflation with a growing population at moderate levels is generally seen to be a positive thing and I think the fed has even had trouble keeping up with the inflation targets they're comfortable with as of late (although I think last year was something like 2.4% which is pretty reasonable).
- Capt-RogerOver 9y ago
  Generally seen as positive by whom? A few people calling themselves economical scientists who have managed to come up with a jargon complex enough to not be understood by an average person, and thus make this average person think that he needs other people who do understand economics? There is no "science" behind this, it's all a giant experiment. There is no true "data" showing that you can really manipulate inflation like they have been doing, and that it will somehow make the economy better.
  - codyb 9y ago
    The idea we shouldn't trust an entire field of experts who've spent their lives studying something because all the answers aren't known perfectly would lead to huge subsets of people who don't believe in things like climate change or evolution... Oh wait. Why should the average person need to understand the jargon of an economics expert? The average person should be able to buy bread and shelter. Isn't that the understanding they need? Just like, why should the average person need to understand the different types of ozone depleting gasses? The average person should be able to breathe clean air and live in a city/state/nation that's not literally being swallowed by the ocean. Does the average person need to understand what a software engineer means when they talk about concurrent asynchronous calls kept in check by a byzantine generals algorithm to ensure consistency across nodes? I'm sure if the average person spent 100 hours studying economics they could grasp the basic concepts quite firmly. But, quite literally, the entire point of having experts in a society due to the advent of specialization stemming from the agricultural revolution is so that people can do and learn different things and the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole. If you want to learn more about economics than go do it, but attacking an entire field because you can't be bothered to learn its particular jargon seems shortsighted at best. No one's saying "trust everything blindly", either.
    - wellinever 9y ago
      The idea that we should trust entire fields of experts just because they are the experts is flawed. Many of the "basic concepts" of economics are not empirically proven. This is not newtonian physics; it is a vague social science. The economist will tell you that "the jury is still out on QE". http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-5 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/ec... Many of the fed workers who did the QE admit that it was largely ineffectual other than inflating bank profits. https://www.wsj.com/articles/qe-the-greatest-backdoor-bailout-of-all-timeqe-the-greatest-backdoor-bailout-of-all-time-1384200512 https://www.wsj.com/articles/qe-the-greatest-backdoor-bailou... Money printing has occurred up until now because there was no viable alternative to government issued fiat currency. Satoshi Nakamoto changed that.
- wellinever 9y ago
  No, in the US it was 4 trillion dollars of money printed and transferred to banks. I know, it seems ridiculous.
  - pas 9y ago
    Sources, please!

codyb 9y ago

Most of that was overnight and short term loans quickly paid back to ensure solvency of balance sheets to avoid a depression instead of recession no? I was also thinking it'd be interesting to have a fixed supply currency be tapered towards the UN and analysts predictions towards the apex of human population. Quite a few of the charts predict humans will level off around 10 billion in the year 2050. If that's the case, it might not make sense for the pie to be continually growing as it does now since the population continues to increase. But inflation with a growing population at moderate levels is generally seen to be a positive thing and I think the fed has even had trouble keeping up with the inflation targets they're comfortable with as of late (although I think last year was something like 2.4% which is pretty reasonable).

Capt-RogerOver 9y ago
Generally seen as positive by whom? A few people calling themselves economical scientists who have managed to come up with a jargon complex enough to not be understood by an average person, and thus make this average person think that he needs other people who do understand economics? There is no "science" behind this, it's all a giant experiment. There is no true "data" showing that you can really manipulate inflation like they have been doing, and that it will somehow make the economy better.
- codyb 9y ago
  The idea we shouldn't trust an entire field of experts who've spent their lives studying something because all the answers aren't known perfectly would lead to huge subsets of people who don't believe in things like climate change or evolution... Oh wait. Why should the average person need to understand the jargon of an economics expert? The average person should be able to buy bread and shelter. Isn't that the understanding they need? Just like, why should the average person need to understand the different types of ozone depleting gasses? The average person should be able to breathe clean air and live in a city/state/nation that's not literally being swallowed by the ocean. Does the average person need to understand what a software engineer means when they talk about concurrent asynchronous calls kept in check by a byzantine generals algorithm to ensure consistency across nodes? I'm sure if the average person spent 100 hours studying economics they could grasp the basic concepts quite firmly. But, quite literally, the entire point of having experts in a society due to the advent of specialization stemming from the agricultural revolution is so that people can do and learn different things and the sum of the parts can be greater than the whole. If you want to learn more about economics than go do it, but attacking an entire field because you can't be bothered to learn its particular jargon seems shortsighted at best. No one's saying "trust everything blindly", either.
  - wellinever 9y ago
    The idea that we should trust entire fields of experts just because they are the experts is flawed. Many of the "basic concepts" of economics are not empirically proven. This is not newtonian physics; it is a vague social science. The economist will tell you that "the jury is still out on QE". http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/economist-explains-5 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/03/ec... Many of the fed workers who did the QE admit that it was largely ineffectual other than inflating bank profits. https://www.wsj.com/articles/qe-the-greatest-backdoor-bailout-of-all-timeqe-the-greatest-backdoor-bailout-of-all-time-1384200512 https://www.wsj.com/articles/qe-the-greatest-backdoor-bailou... Money printing has occurred up until now because there was no viable alternative to government issued fiat currency. Satoshi Nakamoto changed that.
wellinever 9y ago
No, in the US it was 4 trillion dollars of money printed and transferred to banks. I know, it seems ridiculous.
- pas 9y ago
  Sources, please!