3 ms·
It's more complicated than "printing press = bad". There's a good argument to be made for how and when monetary supply should be controlled and to what extent.
by jstx1 5y ago
It's more complicated than "printing press = bad". There's a good argument to be made for how and when monetary supply should be controlled and to what extent. But completely giving up that control is a recipe for disaster. It's like taking away the steering wheel just because your driver made a bad turn.
I'm not sure how many of the people advocating for fixed-supply currencies actually understand history, economic cycles, inflation-deflation and the role of monetary policy. A lot of the argumentation comes from a surface-level understanding of these concepts and knee-jerk reactions that get repeated by the hivemind.
- christophilus 5y agoI’m familiar with the theory, have read a number of history books on the subject, and have followed modern proponents of various economic schools. I think those in favor of the prevailing theory are overconfident. Time will tell.
- roenxi 5y agoThe government will literally arrest people who try to avoid using a fiat currency. I mean, you have to admit "this is in your own best interest" is a suspicious argument when it involves printing stacks of cash, giving it to big business/asset owners and prosecuting anyone who seriously tries to use a consistent stick to measure wealth. It looks like a bunch of people believe it isn't in their interest and need to be bought into line by force. I don't mind if you want a steering wheel, but given that we seem to be driving something of a money printing train I'm not sure what you expect the wheel to do. They're following an exponential curve of money creation. The only surprise is that they keep pretending that at some point they will be able to stop printing.
- bgroat 5y agoSource of this ever happening?
- deregulateMed 5y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_curr...
- bgroat 5y agoThanks for sharing a source
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y agoWell, gold was banned in US not that long ago ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act ). Naturally, we could argue whether gold is a currency and whatnot, but for the sake of the argument, I will state that there is absolutely nothing government will not attempt to legislate. Hell, they can legislate that 2 + 2 = 5. It won't make it accurate, right or even make sense, but they can.
- roenxi 5y agoIt is fundamental to the tax code. Say someone gets paid some amount of gold, holds on to it for 10 years then tries to barter it for something. They'll get charged with tax fraud on the theory that their lump of rock is worth more now than it was when they bought it so they should be paying some amount in capital gains tax. Now I'll accept an argument that we should have some sort of transaction tax, fair enough if you want to believe that. But the theory that the gold is becoming worth more over time in real terms is blatantly silly. It doesn't change, the supply of gold is increasing faster than population and the arguments that its value is changing are frankly a bit forced. It isn't increasing in real value at a rapid rate like the official numbers suggest it is. And the US dollar is, by policy, losing value - so the same basic argument will hold for any asset even ignoring the fact that the inflation numbers are wilfully ignoring asset price inflation.
- bgroat 5y agoI appreciate how thoughtful this comment is. Question, in the gold scenario is your issue with the idea of capital gains, or an issue with how it's accounted (given that you think the gold *hasn't* appreciated)?