3 ms·

> assuming all other things being equal (convenience as medium of exchange etc.), an individual is always going to prefer holding currency that isn’t subject to

> assuming all other things being equal (convenience as medium of exchange etc.), an individual is always going to prefer holding currency that isn’t subject to inflation. An individual is never going to generously allow their government to erode X% of their liquid cash voluntarily. "All other things being equal" will never happen. Too many things change. For example, maybe the world economy is on the brink of depression (2008), in which people would prefer their governments do something about the crisis, despite the risk of inflation. Or maybe you're trying to manipulate your currency to gain a trade advantage. Etc. etc. It's just not a useful thing to consider. And although this is kind of anecdata, I'm perfectly happy for my (US) government to execute monetary policy that potentially devalues my savings and investments as long as it's justified. Hell I usually make it back with wage/benefit increases (although the same can't be said for most US workers) and interest on investments. > This future doesn’t require any crypto ‘dictating’ its money supply policy, it just requires at least one fixed supply crypto to exist in your country that is as convenient as existing cash / online payment to make governmental monetary policy useless. No one's saying what the future does or doesn't require. All I'm saying is that people who are extolling the virtues of a fixed currency should earnestly research why we moved off fixed currencies. There are a lot of really good reasons. No serious economist advocates for a return to a fixed supply of currency. > The problem for governments is: the genie is out of the bottle regarding fixed supply. This is comically untrue. It may be true in cryptocurrency circles, but it's absolutely not true in economic circles. It's an idea that's been widely considered and roundly dismissed as very bad. Its support in cryptocurrency circles is driven largely by libertarian ideology. > Note that I’m not saying it’s good or bad that countries cannot effectively control money supply anymore but it seems inevitable they can’t in the long term. On the contrary, countries that cannot effectively control money supply will continue to be at a disadvantage with countries that can. It's precisely because of its usefulness that countries will continue to employ it. What could possibly make you think otherwise?

aserafini 7y ago
> No serious economist advocates for a return to a fixed supply of currency. I am not advocating for its return or extolling its virtues or claiming the world will be better or worse with fixed supply currency. I'm simply stating that a rational individual or business will avoid an X% tax on their stored wealth if they can legally do so. I appreciate your anecdotal willingness to have your wealth devalued as a patriotic sentiment, but have to assume you are in a small global minority who would so if it can be avoided with the flick of a switch ('store my money in crypto') - consider countries where the tax is XX%, XXX%, XXXX% or even beyond (ie. Venezuela). Even X% is a rather large voluntary tax for US citizens with meagre savings. > This is comically untrue. It may be true in cryptocurrency circles, but it's absolutely not true in economic circles. It's true in the sense that fixed supply currencies exist today and usability will meet and eventually surpass 'traditional' currencies. The goodness or badness of the idea according to economists doesn't stop them existing today and won't stop them existing in the future. > On the contrary, countries that cannot effectively control money supply will continue to be at a disadvantage with countries that can. It's precisely because of its usefulness that countries will continue to employ it. What could possibly make you think otherwise? No government is going to voluntarily give up control of money supply but their mechanisms to do so are very limited in a world where every citizen and business stores their value in FixedSupplyCoin.

aserafini 7y ago

> No serious economist advocates for a return to a fixed supply of currency. I am not advocating for its return or extolling its virtues or claiming the world will be better or worse with fixed supply currency. I'm simply stating that a rational individual or business will avoid an X% tax on their stored wealth if they can legally do so. I appreciate your anecdotal willingness to have your wealth devalued as a patriotic sentiment, but have to assume you are in a small global minority who would so if it can be avoided with the flick of a switch ('store my money in crypto') - consider countries where the tax is XX%, XXX%, XXXX% or even beyond (ie. Venezuela). Even X% is a rather large voluntary tax for US citizens with meagre savings. > This is comically untrue. It may be true in cryptocurrency circles, but it's absolutely not true in economic circles. It's true in the sense that fixed supply currencies exist today and usability will meet and eventually surpass 'traditional' currencies. The goodness or badness of the idea according to economists doesn't stop them existing today and won't stop them existing in the future. > On the contrary, countries that cannot effectively control money supply will continue to be at a disadvantage with countries that can. It's precisely because of its usefulness that countries will continue to employ it. What could possibly make you think otherwise? No government is going to voluntarily give up control of money supply but their mechanisms to do so are very limited in a world where every citizen and business stores their value in FixedSupplyCoin.