4 ms·

> "Perfect stores of value" aren't natural, they're a wholly artificial construct with huge ramifications. That's not true, there are plenty of natural example

by lutusp 14y ago

> "Perfect stores of value" aren't natural, they're a wholly artificial construct with huge ramifications. That's not true, there are plenty of natural examples that end up being rewarded by evolution. This is not a comment about the topic under discussion, only a correction. As one example, bears put on a lot of weight in the fall, a behavior that allows them to survive the winter. It's a perfect store of value. Studies show the hibernating bears (strictly speaking, it's not hibernation) don't waste anything -- the scheme nature has worked out is very efficient. Certain species of cicada hibernate for between 13 and 17 years between mating rituals. Their ability to survive in dormancy for so long is remarkable but true. They do it by not wasting anything. Examples abound. Again, this isn't a comment on the immediate topic, only the argument that it's not natural. It is natural.

rayiner 14y ago
Those aren't examples of perfect stores of value. It actually takes energy to merely maintain the fat used to store the energy bears use to hibernate (after all, fat left outside a living body will quickly turn rancid). It might be an efficient store of value, but that's not the same as a perfect store of value. The overarching problem is that people see currency as something of value, as opposed to a proxy for goods and services. When you view currency for what it is--merely a proxy, the idea of currency that doesn't inflate is exposed for what it is--silly. Say I bake you a cake in return for weeding my lawn. With a non-inflationary currency, you're saying you should be able to "bank" that cake, and come back and ask for it 5, 10, 50 years into the future. With a deflationary currency, you're saying you should be able to "bank" that cake, and come ask for two cakes in 5 years or 5 in 10 years.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Those aren't examples of perfect stores of value. In fact, they are. They meet the evolutionary requirement that brought them into being, meaning not too much, not too little. If more resources were expended, that species would be outcompeted by another species who expended just the right amount of time and energy. That's what makes them perfect -- they're ideally suited to the environment and its requirements. > When you view currency for what it is--merely a proxy, the idea of currency that doesn't inflate is exposed for what it is--silly. But a noninflationary currency doesn't undermine the paper money thesis, all it does is change the rules by which one maximizes utility. A steady-state economy, one in which the value of a loaf of bread doesn't change over time, alongside a paper money system in which the value of a dollar doesn't change over time, works much like this one, but with some small differences, like the fact that one can hoard currency without seeing its value erode. If this were not true, people wouldn't invest in gold. Think about it.

by lutusp 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

Those aren't examples of perfect stores of value. It actually takes energy to merely maintain the fat used to store the energy bears use to hibernate (after all, fat left outside a living body will quickly turn rancid). It might be an efficient store of value, but that's not the same as a perfect store of value. The overarching problem is that people see currency as something of value, as opposed to a proxy for goods and services. When you view currency for what it is--merely a proxy, the idea of currency that doesn't inflate is exposed for what it is--silly. Say I bake you a cake in return for weeding my lawn. With a non-inflationary currency, you're saying you should be able to "bank" that cake, and come back and ask for it 5, 10, 50 years into the future. With a deflationary currency, you're saying you should be able to "bank" that cake, and come ask for two cakes in 5 years or 5 in 10 years.

lutusp 14y ago
> Those aren't examples of perfect stores of value. In fact, they are. They meet the evolutionary requirement that brought them into being, meaning not too much, not too little. If more resources were expended, that species would be outcompeted by another species who expended just the right amount of time and energy. That's what makes them perfect -- they're ideally suited to the environment and its requirements. > When you view currency for what it is--merely a proxy, the idea of currency that doesn't inflate is exposed for what it is--silly. But a noninflationary currency doesn't undermine the paper money thesis, all it does is change the rules by which one maximizes utility. A steady-state economy, one in which the value of a loaf of bread doesn't change over time, alongside a paper money system in which the value of a dollar doesn't change over time, works much like this one, but with some small differences, like the fact that one can hoard currency without seeing its value erode. If this were not true, people wouldn't invest in gold. Think about it.