3 ms·

Creating money is wrong because it benefits those who have the power to create money vs. those who can't. It's only ethically acceptable because people don't un

by Geee 5y ago

Creating money is wrong because it benefits those who have the power to create money vs. those who can't. It's only ethically acceptable because people don't understand it, or don't have any choice. "One must continually put one's wealth to productive use". It's not something that should be forced on people. One should have the ability to save for a bad day and hedge against volatility in the economy. One should also have the ability to spend less in order to save the environment. You can buy gold etc. but then you miss out on the currency aspect, i.e you can't spend it easily. And yes, obviously I'm talking about Bitcoin because it's the hardest asset ever created, and will replace fiat currencies whether you like it or not. I'm not talking about gold standard, because gold failed as money already. There aren't other options as far as I know.

xapata 5y ago
In a democratic society, people have a choice. Perhaps they don't understand their options, but it's clearly up for debate, as we're doing now. > spend less in order to save the environment That's an ironic argument, given the proposal of Bitcoin as the alternative. The choice to not expand the money supply is as much an intervention as expanding it, with equally predictable consequences. If the money supply contracts relative to demand, people will reduce their investment and consumption activity. That's generally seen as undesirable, except to the extent that the investment and consumption has negative externalities.
JetSpiegel 5y ago
> Creating money is wrong because it benefits those who have the power to create money vs. those who can't. It's only ethically acceptable because people don't understand it, or don't have any choice. It's actually the opposite, it depends on what to do with the created money. Creating 1M$ to give to every American is an effective transfer of wealth from Bezos to everyone else, because his billions are worth less relatively. Creating the same 1M$ per capita and giving that to banks that buy Amazon stock is a transfer of wealth to Bezos. Only wealth inequality matters, the numbers printed on the bills are just fictions.

by Geee 5y ago

xapata 5y ago

In a democratic society, people have a choice. Perhaps they don't understand their options, but it's clearly up for debate, as we're doing now. > spend less in order to save the environment That's an ironic argument, given the proposal of Bitcoin as the alternative. The choice to not expand the money supply is as much an intervention as expanding it, with equally predictable consequences. If the money supply contracts relative to demand, people will reduce their investment and consumption activity. That's generally seen as undesirable, except to the extent that the investment and consumption has negative externalities.

JetSpiegel 5y ago

> Creating money is wrong because it benefits those who have the power to create money vs. those who can't. It's only ethically acceptable because people don't understand it, or don't have any choice. It's actually the opposite, it depends on what to do with the created money. Creating 1M$ to give to every American is an effective transfer of wealth from Bezos to everyone else, because his billions are worth less relatively. Creating the same 1M$ per capita and giving that to banks that buy Amazon stock is a transfer of wealth to Bezos. Only wealth inequality matters, the numbers printed on the bills are just fictions.