2 ms·

I would agree with most of what you said here. To echo your semantics and in the greater context of this thread, I was merely pointing out that increasing the s

I would agree with most of what you said here. To echo your semantics and in the greater context of this thread, I was merely pointing out that increasing the supply (and in the case of money, distribution/saturation) could increase the "quality" at a rate faster than the forces that that push the "quality" down in terms of "quality" per unit of currency. In the specific case of money, there is an additional group psychology at play: if you believe your money won't be worth as much tomorrow as it is today, then you should spend it today if you can. Since the value derived from currency is in its exchange (it's not producing any value sitting under a mattress), it increases the "quality" of the currency for it to be circulating.

beerandt 7y ago
Yea, if we're talking about money supply I suspect the phone comparison might be apt in a slightly different way. I haven't seen anyone touch on it in this thread, but I've read opinions where people have blamed companies for hoarding all of the newly available cash, especially for stock buybacks. If there's any truth to that, it would make sense, since companies can usually get better rates and first dibs at market level loans/ bonds/ etc than small business or individuals. In the phone analogy, (if we assume there's some value having multiple phones) this would be like a new dialing prefix being released, and companies buying up the numbers hundreds at a time at bulk rate discount, leaving little or no additional numbers for individuals. So supply was increased, but the businesses hoarding new numbers prevents any quality improvement if the network.