4 ms·
It's a goal for a better currency. You don't have to store wealth in pointless assets if money has this property.
by Geee 5y ago
It's a goal for a better currency. You don't have to store wealth in pointless assets if money has this property.
- arcticbull 5y agoNo, it isn't. A currency only needs to hold its value from the time you get it, to the time you productively allocate it or spend it on necessities. There is no benefit to a currency holding its value long term, and in fact, it is a detriment as currencies are not productive vehicles. Keeping capital locked up unproductively is a detriment to the economy. Money is the pointless asset.
- Geee 5y agoIt sounds like you're stuck with that definition. Sometimes it's better to save money, in order to productively allocate it later. Spending non-productively is a detriment to economy and environment. And, because people are free to choose the better money, you can't do anything to prevent it from taking over anyway.
- arcticbull 5y agoAgain it’s strictly worse at being money. You just keep restating that it’s not instead of attempting to justify your position.