3 ms·
The core idea that I wanted to discuss is: If money is easy to debase then it will get debased a lot in the long term. That leads to inefficiencies in the marke
by Capira 5y ago
The core idea that I wanted to discuss is: If money is easy to debase then it will get debased a lot in the long term. That leads to inefficiencies in the market, and in particular to less sustainable behaviour of people and less sustainable societies.
Bitcoin is just an example for an attempt to create hard money.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> If money is easy to debase then it will get debased a lot in the long term. What happens to money in the long term doesn't matter much, what happens in the short term does. Investment vehicles short-term fluctuation matters less, but their long-term performance matters more. > That leads to inefficiencies in the market, and in particular to less sustainable behaviour of people and less sustainable societies. I see no reason to believe that the long-term smooth decline in the value of money does that at all compared to achievable alternative behaviors of money. In fact, one of the reasons money is typically managed with a goal of low-but-positive inflation with low volatility is that there is quite a lot of experience suggesting the opposite.
- jstx1 5y agoEconomies need a human-in-the-loop to adjust the settings every once in a while. That's what monetary policy does - it changes the money supply and interest rates as a response to what happens in the economy. Thinking that you can lock that policy in place once and let it run forever is naive - it just doesn't work in practice. This is why we don't have the gold standard anymore - it was a system so bad that it eventually broke and we had to move away from it. That's where all the talk about sound money ends - money has to be "unsound" in order to work in the real world.