3 ms·

> To me, it seems to be a good for most people when a competent central bank in a well-functioning democracy can regulate money supply in order to keep inflatio

> To me, it seems to be a good for most people when a competent central bank in a well-functioning democracy can regulate money supply in order to keep inflation present and moderate. Why would we want to give that up? If money is supposed to work like everything else in the universe, it should expand and contract. Hardly any politician or government every had the heart to let contraction happen, so outsized balloons of financial instruments grow, and then burst in an outsized bust. I think that's the argument for a money without political control. The idea is that political control can only buy time, or is sort of an illusion anyway. Consider that convertability to bullion or the mathematical algorithms of cryptos are attempts to achieve this same goal, in a way. So it's not new. Many users of a currency want this propertiy, or maybe more specifically, the lenders. Borrowers have to accept these terms. Unless the borrower has a lot of power, like a government, and can consequently change the rules.

gspr 5y ago
> If money is supposed to work like everything else in the universe, it should expand and contract. I don't understand this statement at all. There's plenty of things we don't demand this of. Are we upset that people work towards only expanding, not contracting, say innovation or productivity or intelligence or life expectancy? > Hardly any politician or government every had the heart to let contraction happen, so outsized balloons of financial instruments grow, and then burst in an outsized bust. I think that's the argument for a money without political control. Well, let's fix that then. The perhaps suboptimal wielding of a tool doesn't mean that the tool should go away. > The idea is that political control can only buy time, or is sort of an illusion anyway. ? > Consider that convertability to bullion or the mathematical algorithms of cryptos are attempts to achieve this same goal, in a way. Absolutely. And almost all economists agree that the gold standard is a bad idea. Bitcoin-like cryptocurrencies inherit all those problems. > So it's not new. Many users of a currency want this propertiy, or maybe more specifically, the lenders. Yeah. But most people are not lenders. This is why I'm doubly puzzled by the push for Bitcoin-like cryptocurrencies as some kind of empowerment of "the little man". Surely the elimination of moderate inflation benefits only the capital holders, not the little man?
- febeling 5y ago
  Sure. I'm not going to get into an emotional argument with you here. These are complex questions, and we're not going to settle them here conclusively. These discussions have been raging for hundreds of years. I was just offering a perspective wrt one of your questions.

gspr 5y ago

> If money is supposed to work like everything else in the universe, it should expand and contract. I don't understand this statement at all. There's plenty of things we don't demand this of. Are we upset that people work towards only expanding, not contracting, say innovation or productivity or intelligence or life expectancy? > Hardly any politician or government every had the heart to let contraction happen, so outsized balloons of financial instruments grow, and then burst in an outsized bust. I think that's the argument for a money without political control. Well, let's fix that then. The perhaps suboptimal wielding of a tool doesn't mean that the tool should go away. > The idea is that political control can only buy time, or is sort of an illusion anyway. ? > Consider that convertability to bullion or the mathematical algorithms of cryptos are attempts to achieve this same goal, in a way. Absolutely. And almost all economists agree that the gold standard is a bad idea. Bitcoin-like cryptocurrencies inherit all those problems. > So it's not new. Many users of a currency want this propertiy, or maybe more specifically, the lenders. Yeah. But most people are not lenders. This is why I'm doubly puzzled by the push for Bitcoin-like cryptocurrencies as some kind of empowerment of "the little man". Surely the elimination of moderate inflation benefits only the capital holders, not the little man?

febeling 5y ago
Sure. I'm not going to get into an emotional argument with you here. These are complex questions, and we're not going to settle them here conclusively. These discussions have been raging for hundreds of years. I was just offering a perspective wrt one of your questions.