3 ms·

> shameless hoarding Hoarding is a derogatory term, intended to evoke an emotional response from the reader. I prefer the term "saving". > Why lend, why build

by jamoes 14y ago

> shameless hoarding Hoarding is a derogatory term, intended to evoke an emotional response from the reader. I prefer the term "saving". > Why lend, why build new companies, when simply storing it is more than enough? Take shocks such as bubbles and demand-side crises. Most bitcoin proponents to indeed reject Keyensian, demand-side economics. I, for one, think entrepreneurs would typically benefit from not relying on debt. >capitalism[...] needs inflation, feeds from it Increasing the money supply helps one class of people: the bankers. It doesn't help the middle class, it doesn't help entrepreneurs, and it definitely doesn't help the common person. It's an insidious hidden tax. All this talk about inflation reminded me of a funny (in a dark way) propaganda video made in 1933 regarding inflation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUvm9UgJBtg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUvm9UgJBtg.

cynicalkane 14y ago
Increasing the money supply helps one class of people: the bankers. It doesn't help the middle class, it doesn't help entrepreneurs, and it definitely doesn't help the common person. It's an insidious hidden tax. I don't understand how something completely unsupported by the data is repeated as truth. Historically, deflation is disastrous for everyone, and high inflation also disastrous for everyone. Moderate inflation has the effect of redistributing wealth from capital to work, and tight money the effect of redistributing wealth from work to capital. Compare Australia (loose money) to the Eurozone or America or Japan (tight money) for example.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  I don't understand how something completely unsupported by the data is repeated as truth. Simple; it has never been conclusively and irrefutably disproven. Ergo, it must be true, or else it would have been disproven. Religion isn't the only one with nutjobs ;)
bigdubs 14y ago
inflation is an absolutely necessary force in an economy; without inflation there is little incentive to spend money and as a result there is no real liquidity. tl;dr; money is useless if no one spends it, that's the whole point. another way to think about it is a stock. if a stock is priced, and no one is buying or selling at that price, is that price really valid? whats to keep another actor in the economy from pricing a stock totally different if there is a 'dumb' actor wiling to buy at that price.
- nas 14y ago
  > inflation is an absolutely necessary force in an economy I don't think there is good evidence of this "fact". Economics is not a hard science. A few points, one, you can't argue that bitcoin deflates and therefore is worthless. The is an obvious inconsistency there. Second, imagine if bitcoin had built-in inflation. What would happen if someone would release bitcoin+ with inflation equal to zero (i.e. current bitcoin)? Obviously the "good money" would drive out the bad and everyone would save bitcoin+. It's not related to your comment, but I'd also like to comment on the Ponzi scheme arguments. My question is, how would you design a cypto-currency to avoid to problem of early adopters getting wealthy (the new ripple has a different scheme, a terrible one, IMHO)? You have to introduce the currency somehow. If you are an early adopter of bitcoin, should you sell now at $100? Maybe you should have sold out when it got to $1.
  - bigdubs 14y ago
    there are no real facts in economics, but there are some pretty easy concepts to grasp. here is another explanation: "Inflation is bad, but deflation is worse. The reason is that in a deflationary environment, no one spends money — because whatever you want to buy is sure to become cheaper in a few days or weeks. People hoard their cash, and spend it only begrudgingly, on absolute necessities" from https://medium.com/money-banking/2b5ef79482cb https://medium.com/money-banking/2b5ef79482cb
jellicle 14y ago
> Most bitcoin proponents to indeed reject Keyensian, demand-side economics. That's why we're laughing at you.
leot 14y ago
"Saving" fails to distinguish between different uses of assets. "Investing" one's resources means putting them to work to create value. "Hoarding" them means the assets are as good as if they were buried in the ground. Investing is riskier and takes more work and more smarts, but any idiot can hoard. What creates (or is more likely to create) more value? 1 million dollars distributed among promising startups, or 1 million dollars spent on mining gold? 1 billion dollars spent creating an airline, or 1 billion dollars spent on vast swaths of real estate?
- SilasX 14y ago
  That depends entirely on whether the investments are producing genuine value or, say, new ways to hide the risk in mortgages. Yes, sometimes saying "no" in the aggregate is the right call.

by jamoes 14y ago

cynicalkane 14y ago

Increasing the money supply helps one class of people: the bankers. It doesn't help the middle class, it doesn't help entrepreneurs, and it definitely doesn't help the common person. It's an insidious hidden tax. I don't understand how something completely unsupported by the data is repeated as truth. Historically, deflation is disastrous for everyone, and high inflation also disastrous for everyone. Moderate inflation has the effect of redistributing wealth from capital to work, and tight money the effect of redistributing wealth from work to capital. Compare Australia (loose money) to the Eurozone or America or Japan (tight money) for example.

sliverstorm 14y ago
I don't understand how something completely unsupported by the data is repeated as truth. Simple; it has never been conclusively and irrefutably disproven. Ergo, it must be true, or else it would have been disproven. Religion isn't the only one with nutjobs ;)

bigdubs 14y ago

inflation is an absolutely necessary force in an economy; without inflation there is little incentive to spend money and as a result there is no real liquidity. tl;dr; money is useless if no one spends it, that's the whole point. another way to think about it is a stock. if a stock is priced, and no one is buying or selling at that price, is that price really valid? whats to keep another actor in the economy from pricing a stock totally different if there is a 'dumb' actor wiling to buy at that price.

nas 14y ago
> inflation is an absolutely necessary force in an economy I don't think there is good evidence of this "fact". Economics is not a hard science. A few points, one, you can't argue that bitcoin deflates and therefore is worthless. The is an obvious inconsistency there. Second, imagine if bitcoin had built-in inflation. What would happen if someone would release bitcoin+ with inflation equal to zero (i.e. current bitcoin)? Obviously the "good money" would drive out the bad and everyone would save bitcoin+. It's not related to your comment, but I'd also like to comment on the Ponzi scheme arguments. My question is, how would you design a cypto-currency to avoid to problem of early adopters getting wealthy (the new ripple has a different scheme, a terrible one, IMHO)? You have to introduce the currency somehow. If you are an early adopter of bitcoin, should you sell now at $100? Maybe you should have sold out when it got to $1.
- bigdubs 14y ago
  there are no real facts in economics, but there are some pretty easy concepts to grasp. here is another explanation: "Inflation is bad, but deflation is worse. The reason is that in a deflationary environment, no one spends money — because whatever you want to buy is sure to become cheaper in a few days or weeks. People hoard their cash, and spend it only begrudgingly, on absolute necessities" from https://medium.com/money-banking/2b5ef79482cb https://medium.com/money-banking/2b5ef79482cb

jellicle 14y ago

> Most bitcoin proponents to indeed reject Keyensian, demand-side economics. That's why we're laughing at you.

leot 14y ago

"Saving" fails to distinguish between different uses of assets. "Investing" one's resources means putting them to work to create value. "Hoarding" them means the assets are as good as if they were buried in the ground. Investing is riskier and takes more work and more smarts, but any idiot can hoard. What creates (or is more likely to create) more value? 1 million dollars distributed among promising startups, or 1 million dollars spent on mining gold? 1 billion dollars spent creating an airline, or 1 billion dollars spent on vast swaths of real estate?

SilasX 14y ago
That depends entirely on whether the investments are producing genuine value or, say, new ways to hide the risk in mortgages. Yes, sometimes saying "no" in the aggregate is the right call.