5 ms·

> unless you are Zimbabwe That's like saying "it's fine if you rob me 2%, but please don't surpass it". See: https://twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/status/1110030668

> unless you are Zimbabwe That's like saying "it's fine if you rob me 2%, but please don't surpass it". See: https://twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/status/1110030668715614208 https://twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/status/1110030668715614208

stouset 8y ago
This anti-inflationary nonsense is the antivax of the finance world. There’s a huge reason it’s done essentially universally, but nobody alive had to live through the chaos that inflationary monetary policy was borne from. It’s fine to think that there might be other, better approaches to solving those problems. It’s fine to argue that central banks might not always act with the best interests of the economy at heart. But pretending like those problems weren’t real and that we don’t need any of it—as the financially-illiterate cryptocurrency community seems to do—is absurd.
- siwatanejo 8y ago
  Give it time, and the banks&governments that create money from thin-air will actually be the ones seen as the anti-vaxxers of the finance world instead, very soon.
- dnautics 8y ago
  > but nobody alive had to live through the chaos that inflationary monetary policy was borne from. This is a dangerous narrative. By strictly econometric measures, the 2008 crisis was not too far off of, say, the great depression. By and large, I wonder if the reason why people aren't dying on the streets (aka "chaos"), etc, is because we have reliable sources of food, access to medicine, etc.
- millettjon 8y ago
  Are the people of Venezuela not living through chaos? Outside of the US, EU, and a handful of other countries, the rest of the world is fairly chaotic.
- gdhbcc 8y ago
  The reason why it's done essentially universally is not necessarily because it is good for the economy in general, it needs only to be good for those who control the issuing of currency (governments). And it is beneficial for them to do so simply because it enables them to spend more without having to take unpopular measures like raising taxes. I have read the vast majority of the arguments for having inflation or deflation and to be perfectly honest I find most of them to be unconvincing and essentially boil down to "it's good because its good". Both inflation, deflation and stagflation have their benefits and drawbacks and they all have a place and should all be used, because economic scenarios and circumstances differ over time and place. To state that we should all have at all times everywhere 2% inflation is dumb, dangerous and frankly if you hold that sort of view you have no business being anywhere near monetary policy because you're not an economist, you're a priest.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
Suppose you hold a large amount of gold. Someone invents a new method of prospecting that allows them to discover new gold deposits, deploys it successfully at scale and increases the volume of gold on the market such that gold prices decline by 2% annually relative to other commodities. Is this person a thief? Have they stolen from you?
- siwatanejo 8y ago
  That's one of the (many) reasons why bitcoin is a better gold.
  - paulgb 8y ago
    Replace "new method of prospecting" with "new blockchain" and you have the same problem. It's hard to argue that none of the money that went into ICOs and other coins during the run-up would not have gone into Bitcoin if it were the only possible blockchain.
    - siwatanejo 8y ago
      > Replace "new method of prospecting" with "new blockchain" Note I said bitcoin, not cryptocurrencies. I completely agree with you here, shitcoins will always be shitcoins.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        But Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. Every new shitcoin competes for investment and usage and devalues all other cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, to the extent that it succeeds. And nothing has dethroned Bitcoin yet, but that isn't a law of nature. One of the others could become dominant. Even if Bitcoin then continued to exist and be used, that would devalue it substantially.
- chii 8y ago
  > Is this person a thief? Have they stolen from you? not directly, but they sure have redistributed that wealth you originally had. Whether it's legal or not depends on the law, and how much power you can wield.
imtringued 8y ago
I am sure that this person is also against paying taxes. (inflation is effectively a tax on the wealthy)
- chii 8y ago
  inflation affects the poor more than the wealthy (who has means to invest at greater-than-inflation returns), while the poor at best keeps their money in a bank account and earn less-than-inflation interest.

stouset 8y ago

This anti-inflationary nonsense is the antivax of the finance world. There’s a huge reason it’s done essentially universally, but nobody alive had to live through the chaos that inflationary monetary policy was borne from. It’s fine to think that there might be other, better approaches to solving those problems. It’s fine to argue that central banks might not always act with the best interests of the economy at heart. But pretending like those problems weren’t real and that we don’t need any of it—as the financially-illiterate cryptocurrency community seems to do—is absurd.

siwatanejo 8y ago
Give it time, and the banks&governments that create money from thin-air will actually be the ones seen as the anti-vaxxers of the finance world instead, very soon.
dnautics 8y ago
> but nobody alive had to live through the chaos that inflationary monetary policy was borne from. This is a dangerous narrative. By strictly econometric measures, the 2008 crisis was not too far off of, say, the great depression. By and large, I wonder if the reason why people aren't dying on the streets (aka "chaos"), etc, is because we have reliable sources of food, access to medicine, etc.
millettjon 8y ago
Are the people of Venezuela not living through chaos? Outside of the US, EU, and a handful of other countries, the rest of the world is fairly chaotic.
gdhbcc 8y ago
The reason why it's done essentially universally is not necessarily because it is good for the economy in general, it needs only to be good for those who control the issuing of currency (governments). And it is beneficial for them to do so simply because it enables them to spend more without having to take unpopular measures like raising taxes. I have read the vast majority of the arguments for having inflation or deflation and to be perfectly honest I find most of them to be unconvincing and essentially boil down to "it's good because its good". Both inflation, deflation and stagflation have their benefits and drawbacks and they all have a place and should all be used, because economic scenarios and circumstances differ over time and place. To state that we should all have at all times everywhere 2% inflation is dumb, dangerous and frankly if you hold that sort of view you have no business being anywhere near monetary policy because you're not an economist, you're a priest.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

Suppose you hold a large amount of gold. Someone invents a new method of prospecting that allows them to discover new gold deposits, deploys it successfully at scale and increases the volume of gold on the market such that gold prices decline by 2% annually relative to other commodities. Is this person a thief? Have they stolen from you?

siwatanejo 8y ago
That's one of the (many) reasons why bitcoin is a better gold.
- paulgb 8y ago
  Replace "new method of prospecting" with "new blockchain" and you have the same problem. It's hard to argue that none of the money that went into ICOs and other coins during the run-up would not have gone into Bitcoin if it were the only possible blockchain.
  - siwatanejo 8y ago
    > Replace "new method of prospecting" with "new blockchain" Note I said bitcoin, not cryptocurrencies. I completely agree with you here, shitcoins will always be shitcoins.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      But Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. Every new shitcoin competes for investment and usage and devalues all other cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, to the extent that it succeeds. And nothing has dethroned Bitcoin yet, but that isn't a law of nature. One of the others could become dominant. Even if Bitcoin then continued to exist and be used, that would devalue it substantially.
chii 8y ago
> Is this person a thief? Have they stolen from you? not directly, but they sure have redistributed that wealth you originally had. Whether it's legal or not depends on the law, and how much power you can wield.

imtringued 8y ago

I am sure that this person is also against paying taxes. (inflation is effectively a tax on the wealthy)

chii 8y ago
inflation affects the poor more than the wealthy (who has means to invest at greater-than-inflation returns), while the poor at best keeps their money in a bank account and earn less-than-inflation interest.