3 ms·

> It seems that globally, the success in these countries is bought from weakening the currencies in poorer countries. Perhaps, but the period since 1914 saw th

by spupe 4y ago

> It seems that globally, the success in these countries is bought from weakening the currencies in poorer countries. Perhaps, but the period since 1914 saw the rise of many peripherical countries, notably China, who also have a tight control over their monetary policy, and use it all the time for their economic plans. For your counterfactual to make sense, you would have to present an example of a country that developed using the gold standard. > But then again, are the central banks even following practices based on economics, or did they become politicized and corrupted, because of their central position in the economy? We see blatant monetary corruption happening in autocracies, but is it happening in western economies too, but it's just less obvious? There is corruption and inefficiency at every level, but I fail to see how that would change by going back to the gold standard or cryptocurrencies for that matter. I am familiar with the Austrian line of argument, and I'm sure in your years of study you have come across many criticisms of it, so I won't bother, but let's just say I don't think this perspective has brought us tangible benefits at all. Meanwhile, the imperfect system we have has shown itself to be at least robust to major hiccups recently.

Geee 4y ago
I'm not saying that economic development isn't possible with fiat currency. What I'm saying is that fiat currency is immoral; it's a form of slavery. It disincentivizes people from saving and taking responsibility, and accelerates consumption and throwaway culture. Because of this, people are overworked and the climate and the planet suffers. Meanwhile, wealth is siphoned to the elite. If people are denied the use of gold as money, then they can't. There are many regions, where citizens are basically prisoned by their central bank, and can't use gold or US dollars. Also, Switzerland used gold backed currency until 1999, and they are one of the richest countries per capita. There's no reason to believe that they would have done better with a fiat currency. > There is corruption and inefficiency at every level, but I fail to see how that would change by going back to the gold standard or cryptocurrencies for that matter. Self-custodied Bitcoin is impossible to inflate. > Meanwhile, the imperfect system we have has shown itself to be at least robust to major hiccups recently. Disagree. We are now entering a long period of depression.
- rglullis 4y ago
  > It disincentivizes people from saving There is no virtue in saving. Money that is hoarded reduces "consumption" but also reduces "meaningful" investments, no matter your definition of "meaningful" and "wasteful". > Bitcoin is impossible to inflate, like gold. Or Litecoin. Or Bitcoin Cash, or BSV. Individually, they are all "fixed supply", but as whole, any crypto currency that enters the market and gets traded should be counted as part of the asset reserves. Unless, of course, we get some central entity to force everyone else to adopt the Highlander approach and claim "there can be only one"... Oopsies.
  - Geee 4y ago
    That stock market and real estate bubble is meaningful? It's better for the economy to let people save, instead of forcing them to invest just to escape inflation. No, money has strong network effects an tends to one.
    - rglullis 4y ago
      > That stock That stock market and real estate bubble is meaningful? and real estate bubble is meaningful? Correlation is not causation. Japan has fiat currency and has not had significant inflation for decades. Housing is affordable. It's not just because most countries have "bad" monetary policy involving fiat currency that makes it impossible to have "good" monetary policy. > money has strong network effects In relation to currencies controlled by central banks? When used by governments as single legal tender? Perhaps. But just look at any chart and see how BTC market cap relative to the rest of the crypto keeps going down. The number of Ethereum wallets is already larger than BTC. BTC is not the dominant chain anymore. Whatever advantage it had in terms of "network effects", it is evaporated. BTC is a failed experiment. It failed as a currency and it never was a "store of value". And let's not even get on the topic of how BTC price is so heavily manipulated by Tether, to the point that exchanges should only display BTC/USDT if they honestly wanted to reflect their dependence on Tether's "fractional reserve". We will wait until they crash to see how the maxis will be crying that Tether is too big to fail or something like it.

by spupe 4y ago

Geee 4y ago

I'm not saying that economic development isn't possible with fiat currency. What I'm saying is that fiat currency is immoral; it's a form of slavery. It disincentivizes people from saving and taking responsibility, and accelerates consumption and throwaway culture. Because of this, people are overworked and the climate and the planet suffers. Meanwhile, wealth is siphoned to the elite. If people are denied the use of gold as money, then they can't. There are many regions, where citizens are basically prisoned by their central bank, and can't use gold or US dollars. Also, Switzerland used gold backed currency until 1999, and they are one of the richest countries per capita. There's no reason to believe that they would have done better with a fiat currency. > There is corruption and inefficiency at every level, but I fail to see how that would change by going back to the gold standard or cryptocurrencies for that matter. Self-custodied Bitcoin is impossible to inflate. > Meanwhile, the imperfect system we have has shown itself to be at least robust to major hiccups recently. Disagree. We are now entering a long period of depression.

rglullis 4y ago
> It disincentivizes people from saving There is no virtue in saving. Money that is hoarded reduces "consumption" but also reduces "meaningful" investments, no matter your definition of "meaningful" and "wasteful". > Bitcoin is impossible to inflate, like gold. Or Litecoin. Or Bitcoin Cash, or BSV. Individually, they are all "fixed supply", but as whole, any crypto currency that enters the market and gets traded should be counted as part of the asset reserves. Unless, of course, we get some central entity to force everyone else to adopt the Highlander approach and claim "there can be only one"... Oopsies.
- Geee 4y ago
  That stock market and real estate bubble is meaningful? It's better for the economy to let people save, instead of forcing them to invest just to escape inflation. No, money has strong network effects an tends to one.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    > That stock That stock market and real estate bubble is meaningful? and real estate bubble is meaningful? Correlation is not causation. Japan has fiat currency and has not had significant inflation for decades. Housing is affordable. It's not just because most countries have "bad" monetary policy involving fiat currency that makes it impossible to have "good" monetary policy. > money has strong network effects In relation to currencies controlled by central banks? When used by governments as single legal tender? Perhaps. But just look at any chart and see how BTC market cap relative to the rest of the crypto keeps going down. The number of Ethereum wallets is already larger than BTC. BTC is not the dominant chain anymore. Whatever advantage it had in terms of "network effects", it is evaporated. BTC is a failed experiment. It failed as a currency and it never was a "store of value". And let's not even get on the topic of how BTC price is so heavily manipulated by Tether, to the point that exchanges should only display BTC/USDT if they honestly wanted to reflect their dependence on Tether's "fractional reserve". We will wait until they crash to see how the maxis will be crying that Tether is too big to fail or something like it.