4 ms·

> it turns out no one actually wants inflatable money You aren't supposed to want money. It's a medium for exchanging goods and services. Generally speaking, p

by Aunche 6y ago

> it turns out no one actually wants inflatable money You aren't supposed to want money. It's a medium for exchanging goods and services. Generally speaking, people's lives get better the more goods and services they exchange. If you have all the goods and services you need, you're supposed to loan or invest your money to someone who has an immediate productive use for these goods and services. Deflation disincentivizes these exchanges, and a fixed supply is even worse. That's why people aren't using Bitcoins any more for commercial transactions than they were 5 years ago.

atweiden 6y ago
> Generally speaking, people's lives get better the more goods and services they exchange. “Goods and services” strikes me as being overly broad. Self-education is increasingly obtainable online, and has had an outsized impact on my quality of life compared to other things I’ve spent money on. Regardless, it’d be putting it mildly to say there’s ample room for interpretation here. (And this is without getting into all the abstract philosophical concepts that creep their way into any discussion about “life betterment”.) > If you have all the goods and services you need, you're supposed to loan or invest your money to someone Particularly if we take an “infinite growth at all costs despite finite physical resources” world view. But if not... > Deflation disincentivizes these exchanges, and a fixed supply is even worse. Worse for who? Humans? Humans are already vastly overpopulating this planet. To someone like myself who’d be pleasantly surprised if humankind lasted another three decades here on Earth, I think your system of value is of questionable merit. We need to curb growth, starting today, to avoid an ecological collapse. A deflationary economic system like Bitcoin can help avoid calamity for billions.
- Aunche 6y ago
  >Self-education is increasingly obtainable online Which would be impossible if someone with a lot of money decide to hoard it instead of investing in YouTube. You can't guarantee that when people spend less money, they'll favor cutting out "bad" things over "good" ones. If something is causing ecological externalities, you can tax always tax it. If something has positive externalities, but you didn't raise enough money in taxes, you can fund it by printing more money. >Worse for who? Humans? Half the world lives off less than $5.50 a day. They don't have the luxury of caring about the environment. Madagascar nearly completely deforested, just from burning fuel for heating and cooking, so it's not like it's guaranteed that less economic activity is going to be any better for the environment. Conveniently, poor people are also the ones who have most kids because they are the only source of retirement possible. The only ethical way to curb population growth is to develop the economy in those poorer areas.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by Aunche 6y ago

atweiden 6y ago

> Generally speaking, people's lives get better the more goods and services they exchange. “Goods and services” strikes me as being overly broad. Self-education is increasingly obtainable online, and has had an outsized impact on my quality of life compared to other things I’ve spent money on. Regardless, it’d be putting it mildly to say there’s ample room for interpretation here. (And this is without getting into all the abstract philosophical concepts that creep their way into any discussion about “life betterment”.) > If you have all the goods and services you need, you're supposed to loan or invest your money to someone Particularly if we take an “infinite growth at all costs despite finite physical resources” world view. But if not... > Deflation disincentivizes these exchanges, and a fixed supply is even worse. Worse for who? Humans? Humans are already vastly overpopulating this planet. To someone like myself who’d be pleasantly surprised if humankind lasted another three decades here on Earth, I think your system of value is of questionable merit. We need to curb growth, starting today, to avoid an ecological collapse. A deflationary economic system like Bitcoin can help avoid calamity for billions.

Aunche 6y ago
>Self-education is increasingly obtainable online Which would be impossible if someone with a lot of money decide to hoard it instead of investing in YouTube. You can't guarantee that when people spend less money, they'll favor cutting out "bad" things over "good" ones. If something is causing ecological externalities, you can tax always tax it. If something has positive externalities, but you didn't raise enough money in taxes, you can fund it by printing more money. >Worse for who? Humans? Half the world lives off less than $5.50 a day. They don't have the luxury of caring about the environment. Madagascar nearly completely deforested, just from burning fuel for heating and cooking, so it's not like it's guaranteed that less economic activity is going to be any better for the environment. Conveniently, poor people are also the ones who have most kids because they are the only source of retirement possible. The only ethical way to curb population growth is to develop the economy in those poorer areas.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]