3 ms·

That's the point. Macroeconomists understand that people should keep savings in assets that are tied to real production, not just fiat. It's important to make c

That's the point. Macroeconomists understand that people should keep savings in assets that are tied to real production, not just fiat. It's important to make currencies not too attractive as a savings vehicle. A stable currency is very useful as an exchange and negotiation medium so we want to have it, but it being used too much as a savings medium is dangerous to the aggregate economy. It gets problematic when people's savings are too tied to promises/tokens/ious. I mean, if everyone owes everyone else their savings, on the aggregate, does anyone really have any savings? Things like gold remain sufficiently unattractive to not interfere with production markets because it is volatile and cyclical (Price of gold is highest when the average person is buying it and lowest when it is selling) usually making it a poor investment. Hopefully, cryptocoins remain that way too.

acapybara 6y ago
There's a fundamental difference between storing value and investment. You're right that it's good to invest in productive assets. That said, there is still a need to store and represent value, and to be able to transfer it, divide it, etc. If you look up the history of money, it actually shows that using something with tangible value (e.g. salt) is a bad idea for multiple reasons. This is why the U.S. dollar is not backed by oil, corn, salt, shares of Berkshire Hathaway, etc. This is what made gold historically a good money as well, as it historically had more use as a status symbol/symbol of wealth than actual industrial uses (this may not hold for the future).