4 ms·

I (obviously) have heterodox views, but this is why I'm attracted to cryptocurrencies. But you asked, "Why would we want to give [central bank currency] up?" so

I (obviously) have heterodox views, but this is why I'm attracted to cryptocurrencies. But you asked, "Why would we want to give [central bank currency] up?" so I am explaining in good faith my honest opinions. I don't think inflation is a good thing in any capacity. Inflation is a redistribution of wealth away from savers to receivers of freshly printed money. Inflation also encourages mindless consumption as currency holders know that they have to buy something, anything in order to escape the destruction of their savings. This is much more common is countries like Brazil, but the same principle applies to every country. Furthermore, I don't like that essentially a few people (central bankers) ultimately decide where new money goes. Corruption in the US is less-obvious, but in countries like Lebanon, Turkey, Venezuela, Egypt, etc. the central bank is quite clearly redirecting new money to favored, politically-collected people and firms. This is straight up theft from their citizens. Many people say that even moderate inflation is fine, as savers can receive interest that cover the inflation. It's been years since that has been true, and in many countries they actually receive negative-interest for the "privilege" of saving money, which makes that argument untenable. Another argument is that savers can instead find yield to beat inflation by investing. I don't think forcing people to become mini-hedge fund managers, inflating asset bubbles, and encouraging malinvestment in firms because there are no other places to put money is a healthy thing. Inflation-oriented fiat currencies reward debtors. The smartest play is to have no savings and be in as much debt as you can, as inflation eats away at what you owe and you can typically own some sort of asset in return for that debt. Morally speaking I dislike the concept of a debtor-society like we have in all countries. Fiat regimes encourage every firm to become banks. Car dealerships aren't in the business of selling cars - they are in the business of making loans. Retailers aren't selling clothes - they are selling credit cards, and the clothes are the loss-leader to get people in front of the credit card seller. Ultimately the natural progression in the fiat system is to take whatever it is you are selling and convert into a loan shark so you can make interest above inflation. That is the highest-value service you can provide in the fiat monetary system. You said "horrors" of deflation. It is interesting that all computer equipment and services have fallen in price drastically, year after year, since the computer revolution began. There is no other way to describe this except "deflation" in prices of computers, yet this is not a horror and instead people love that prices continue to fall. People will always need food, shelter, and medical services. I believe they will continue to desire education, entertainment, and all manner of other goods and services and this will not stop in a deflationary monetary system. What I like about deflation is that firms are encouraged to constantly improve their offerings to convince people to part with their money, as savings are rewarded over consumption. It also makes salaries default-drop to match deflation, rather than default-increase which rarely happens in time to match the inflation rate and cost-of-living increases in the current system. I like a system where firms are forced to constantly improve their offerings rather than make them shittier as we do in the fiat system, i.e. shaving ounces out of the shampoo bottles, replacing high-quality ingredients with inferior ones, etc. in order to compete. In a hard-money deflationary world, equity would flourish and become as advanced as we currently are with loans and debt. As any loan would have to have very tiny interest (perhaps negative interest) to match deflation and entice borrowing, so equity would become much more common as a financing instrument and also align lenders far more closely with those they give money to. Finally, I dislike how the government's ability to print money enables them to fund programs I dislike, especially the foreign war machine, without making their citizens pay for it. In a hard-money system where governments actually had to raise all the funds from their citizens in order to pay for what the politicians want would IMO drastically reduce the size and scale of government. If citizens actually had to pay for foreign wars, they would not last anywhere near as long. This is a major benefit of a hard-money, "cannot print money out of thin air" system. I hope this gives you a brief explanation of my (obviously minority) perspective and why I dislike central banks and fiat currencies.

gspr 5y ago
> I (obviously) have heterodox views, but this is why I'm attracted to cryptocurrencies. For the record, I also consider myself to hold heterodox views much of the time. Just not on this topic. > I don't think inflation is a good thing in any capacity. Inflation is a redistribution of wealth away from savers to receivers of freshly printed money. Sure. But most of savings are held by the very few. So giving up inflation is a boon to the holders of capital. That's a fair enough opinion to hold, but I don't understand why so many ordinary people with little or no capital (probably more debt than assets) champion this. > Inflation also encourages mindless consumption as currency holders know that they have to buy something, anything in order to escape the destruction of their savings. I agree. But by disincentivicing spending on harmful things (i.e. by properly factoring in negative common externalities like environmental destruction, GHG emissions, etc.), that spending may not be a problem. That spending may in fact be the livelihood of others. > This is much more common is countries like Brazil, but the same principle applies to every country. Furthermore, I don't like that essentially a few people (central bankers) ultimately decide where new money goes. Corruption in the US is less-obvious, but in countries like Lebanon, Turkey, Venezuela, Egypt, etc. the central bank is quite clearly redirecting new money to favored, politically-collected people and firms. This is straight up theft from their citizens. I should have been clearer: I fully understand why citizens of failed (or failed-adjacent) states want to shy away from central bank control. My comment was meant to be about well-functioning liberal democracies. > Many people say that even moderate inflation is fine, as savers can receive interest that cover the inflation. I don't think that's an argument many people are making, is it? I'd say that moderate inflation is fine because it discourages hoarding (or "saving", as you put it). Not because interests on hoarding/savings outpace it. > Fiat regimes encourage every firm to become banks. Car dealerships aren't in the business of selling cars - they are in the business of making loans. Retailers aren't selling clothes - they are selling credit cards, and the clothes are the loss-leader to get people in front of the credit card seller. This seems like a wholly American perspective. I've never heard of anyone in Europe buying clothes on credit. > You said "horrors" of deflation. It is interesting that all computer equipment and services have fallen in price drastically, year after year, since the computer revolution began. There is no other way to describe this except "deflation" in prices of computers, yet this is not a horror and instead people love that prices continue to fall. Yes, but I'm also not arguing for a government-regulated supply of computer equipment or other goods. I'm considering currencies as something very separate from ordinary items. Moreover, the falling prices in computer equipment come not from deflation, but from vastly improved production methods. This is A Good Thing. > People will always need food, shelter, and medical services. I believe they will continue to desire education, entertainment, and all manner of other goods and services and this will not stop in a deflationary monetary system. What I like about deflation is that firms are encouraged to constantly improve their offerings to convince people to part with their money, as savings are rewarded over consumption. It also makes salaries default-drop to match deflation, rather than default-increase which rarely happens in time to match the inflation rate and cost-of-living increases in the current system. I like a system where firms are forced to constantly improve their offerings rather than make them shittier as we do in the fiat system, i.e. shaving ounces out of the shampoo bottles, replacing high-quality ingredients with inferior ones, etc. in order to compete. Perhaps. But consider the incredibly power of the haves in this system. In this system, currency is the most valuable good. What happens when the few are hoarding most of it? > In a hard-money deflationary world, equity would flourish and become as advanced as we currently are with loans and debt. As any loan would have to have very tiny interest (perhaps negative interest) to match deflation and entice borrowing, so equity would become much more common as a financing instrument and also align lenders far more closely with those they give money to. To me this sounds like a recipe for a barter economy. "I'll pay you 0.1% of my house and 1000 apples for that car". > Finally, I dislike how the government's ability to print money enables them to fund programs I dislike, especially the foreign war machine, without making their citizens pay for it. Again, assuming a well-functioning liberal democracy: you have mechanisms to remedy that. If they don't work for you, then you're either not living in a well-functioning liberal democracy, or the things you dislike simply aren't disliked by enough people. Tough luck in the latter case. You're not supposed to get your will in that case. In your deflationary currency world, it seems you would get your will depending on how big of a pile of every-more-valuable cash you're sitting on. Seems even more unfair than today's democracies to me. > In a hard-money system where governments actually had to raise all the funds from their citizens in order to pay for what the politicians want would IMO drastically reduce the size and scale of government. If citizens actually had to pay for foreign wars, they would not last anywhere near as long. This is a major benefit of a hard-money, "cannot print money out of thin air" system. You use a very loaded thing, war, as the item to be paid for. What about schools, hospitals, infrastructure? Should those always be paid for in full before they go anywhere, too? > I hope this gives you a brief explanation of my (obviously minority) perspective and why I dislike central banks and fiat currencies. It does. I appreciate the explanation. But I do fear that what you propose would shift power away from the ordinary person and towards those that have managed to hoard a bag of ever-appreciating money.

gspr 5y ago

> I (obviously) have heterodox views, but this is why I'm attracted to cryptocurrencies. For the record, I also consider myself to hold heterodox views much of the time. Just not on this topic. > I don't think inflation is a good thing in any capacity. Inflation is a redistribution of wealth away from savers to receivers of freshly printed money. Sure. But most of savings are held by the very few. So giving up inflation is a boon to the holders of capital. That's a fair enough opinion to hold, but I don't understand why so many ordinary people with little or no capital (probably more debt than assets) champion this. > Inflation also encourages mindless consumption as currency holders know that they have to buy something, anything in order to escape the destruction of their savings. I agree. But by disincentivicing spending on harmful things (i.e. by properly factoring in negative common externalities like environmental destruction, GHG emissions, etc.), that spending may not be a problem. That spending may in fact be the livelihood of others. > This is much more common is countries like Brazil, but the same principle applies to every country. Furthermore, I don't like that essentially a few people (central bankers) ultimately decide where new money goes. Corruption in the US is less-obvious, but in countries like Lebanon, Turkey, Venezuela, Egypt, etc. the central bank is quite clearly redirecting new money to favored, politically-collected people and firms. This is straight up theft from their citizens. I should have been clearer: I fully understand why citizens of failed (or failed-adjacent) states want to shy away from central bank control. My comment was meant to be about well-functioning liberal democracies. > Many people say that even moderate inflation is fine, as savers can receive interest that cover the inflation. I don't think that's an argument many people are making, is it? I'd say that moderate inflation is fine because it discourages hoarding (or "saving", as you put it). Not because interests on hoarding/savings outpace it. > Fiat regimes encourage every firm to become banks. Car dealerships aren't in the business of selling cars - they are in the business of making loans. Retailers aren't selling clothes - they are selling credit cards, and the clothes are the loss-leader to get people in front of the credit card seller. This seems like a wholly American perspective. I've never heard of anyone in Europe buying clothes on credit. > You said "horrors" of deflation. It is interesting that all computer equipment and services have fallen in price drastically, year after year, since the computer revolution began. There is no other way to describe this except "deflation" in prices of computers, yet this is not a horror and instead people love that prices continue to fall. Yes, but I'm also not arguing for a government-regulated supply of computer equipment or other goods. I'm considering currencies as something very separate from ordinary items. Moreover, the falling prices in computer equipment come not from deflation, but from vastly improved production methods. This is A Good Thing. > People will always need food, shelter, and medical services. I believe they will continue to desire education, entertainment, and all manner of other goods and services and this will not stop in a deflationary monetary system. What I like about deflation is that firms are encouraged to constantly improve their offerings to convince people to part with their money, as savings are rewarded over consumption. It also makes salaries default-drop to match deflation, rather than default-increase which rarely happens in time to match the inflation rate and cost-of-living increases in the current system. I like a system where firms are forced to constantly improve their offerings rather than make them shittier as we do in the fiat system, i.e. shaving ounces out of the shampoo bottles, replacing high-quality ingredients with inferior ones, etc. in order to compete. Perhaps. But consider the incredibly power of the haves in this system. In this system, currency is the most valuable good. What happens when the few are hoarding most of it? > In a hard-money deflationary world, equity would flourish and become as advanced as we currently are with loans and debt. As any loan would have to have very tiny interest (perhaps negative interest) to match deflation and entice borrowing, so equity would become much more common as a financing instrument and also align lenders far more closely with those they give money to. To me this sounds like a recipe for a barter economy. "I'll pay you 0.1% of my house and 1000 apples for that car". > Finally, I dislike how the government's ability to print money enables them to fund programs I dislike, especially the foreign war machine, without making their citizens pay for it. Again, assuming a well-functioning liberal democracy: you have mechanisms to remedy that. If they don't work for you, then you're either not living in a well-functioning liberal democracy, or the things you dislike simply aren't disliked by enough people. Tough luck in the latter case. You're not supposed to get your will in that case. In your deflationary currency world, it seems you would get your will depending on how big of a pile of every-more-valuable cash you're sitting on. Seems even more unfair than today's democracies to me. > In a hard-money system where governments actually had to raise all the funds from their citizens in order to pay for what the politicians want would IMO drastically reduce the size and scale of government. If citizens actually had to pay for foreign wars, they would not last anywhere near as long. This is a major benefit of a hard-money, "cannot print money out of thin air" system. You use a very loaded thing, war, as the item to be paid for. What about schools, hospitals, infrastructure? Should those always be paid for in full before they go anywhere, too? > I hope this gives you a brief explanation of my (obviously minority) perspective and why I dislike central banks and fiat currencies. It does. I appreciate the explanation. But I do fear that what you propose would shift power away from the ordinary person and towards those that have managed to hoard a bag of ever-appreciating money.