4 ms·

Exactly wrong: People who have earned money ARE the productive economy. The current system puts money in the hands of those who run the printing presses. (and

by drcode 13y ago

Exactly wrong: People who have earned money ARE the productive economy. The current system puts money in the hands of those who run the printing presses. (and as I explained, the fact that coins are being "sit on" is irrelevant)

Nursie 13y ago
>> Exactly wrong: People who have earned money ARE the productive economy. Not when they're getting richer just by sitting on cash they are not. That's not producing anything, any/all productive work they did was in the past. >> The current system puts money in the hands of those who run the printing presses. We're not talking about the current system, we're talking about Bitcoin. >> (and as I explained, the fact that coins are being "sit on" is irrelevant) Except it's not irrelevant, for the reason I've just mentioned. You can dismiss or ignore it all you like but simply saying "You're wrong" doesn't cut it. If the amount of currency in circulation goes down because people sit on it, then yes the rest may well increase in value to cover the activity in the economy, but the hoarder gains economic power on the backs of everyone else's work. No thanks.
- drcode 13y ago
  Nursie, you are to be commended for understanding my argument, it gets tiring arguing against people who don't understand. OK, now SOMEBODY has to have economic power- So it can't be people who have earned money (as it is with bitcoin) and it can't be the owners of the printing presses (apparently I'm not allowed to say that)... ...so who's left? Should we create a currency that immediately bursts in flames unless it is provably handed to another person within 24 hours? Wouldn't that still be deflationary without printing presses? EDIT: Maybe you want all the economic power to be with cryptocurrency miners, via an inflating cryptocurrency? So now we're back to giving the power to those who own the presses (the miners, in this case)
  - Nursie 13y ago
    People who have earned money are perfectly entitled to have their earned economic power, they just aren't entitled to keep getting more powerful off everyone else's back simply by sitting on cash. Sitting on cash is not an economically useful activity, it's a null operation, and setting a system up to reward it is foolish. At the moment at least if you want to use money to make money you invest it, and by doing so you enable further economic activity. Ideally a currency would expand at a rough pace with the economy it serves, making it a reasonable store of value but a better fit for its primary function - a medium of exchange. The two purposes (fixed supply asset, medium of exchange) are not really compatible AFAICT. But then I'm not horrified by the idea* of central government controlling currency anyway, in theory it allows them a mechanism to smooth out some of the lumps and bumps in the economy. And while currency inflation above and beyond economic growth does effectively constitute a tax, I have no issue with reasonable* taxes. So in summary - I think BTC would be worse choice than what we have now, but neither is perfect. (*I said the idea, and I said reasonable, I know there's a hell of a lot wrong with how various governments handle their currency and the amount of wasted taxes)
    - runeks 13y ago
      > People who have earned money are perfectly entitled to have their earned economic power, they just aren't entitled to keep getting more powerful off everyone else's back simply by sitting on cash. Sitting on cash is not an economically useful activity, it's a null operation, and setting a system up to reward it is foolish. So tell me. If I work for a year and save up $10,000, and when 10 years have passed a car can be made using only 50% of the labor that was required 10 years ago - and, consequently, the car is cheaper than it was 10 years ago - who is more entitled to this increased in wealth than me? The increased productivity has to benefit someone. I don't think money producers deserve the benefit more than the saver.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        That's entirely different from gaining purchasing power by sitting on a fixed proportion of the currency supply, and you know it.
- runeks 13y ago
  >> >> Exactly wrong: People who have earned money ARE the productive economy. >> Not when they're getting richer just by sitting on cash they are not. That's not producing anything, any/all productive work they did was in the past. If they are getting richer just by sitting on cash, it means - by definition - that the economy is increasing in size. If it ever comes to a point where too many people just sit on their savings, then the economy will retract, and all these people will start to lose wealth. There's a balance in the system: when the economy increases too quickly, it will incentivize people to stop producing (because they can live off their savings), and when the economy starts contracting, it incentivizes people to start producing (because their savings are getting worth less).
  - Nursie 13y ago
    >> If they are getting richer just by sitting on cash, it means - by definition - that the economy is increasing in size. FAIL. It might just mean that more people are sitting on currency and less is in circulation.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    The size of the economy is the volume exchanged, not the sum of the market value of hoarded assets.

by drcode 13y ago

Nursie 13y ago

>> Exactly wrong: People who have earned money ARE the productive economy. Not when they're getting richer just by sitting on cash they are not. That's not producing anything, any/all productive work they did was in the past. >> The current system puts money in the hands of those who run the printing presses. We're not talking about the current system, we're talking about Bitcoin. >> (and as I explained, the fact that coins are being "sit on" is irrelevant) Except it's not irrelevant, for the reason I've just mentioned. You can dismiss or ignore it all you like but simply saying "You're wrong" doesn't cut it. If the amount of currency in circulation goes down because people sit on it, then yes the rest may well increase in value to cover the activity in the economy, but the hoarder gains economic power on the backs of everyone else's work. No thanks.

drcode 13y ago
Nursie, you are to be commended for understanding my argument, it gets tiring arguing against people who don't understand. OK, now SOMEBODY has to have economic power- So it can't be people who have earned money (as it is with bitcoin) and it can't be the owners of the printing presses (apparently I'm not allowed to say that)... ...so who's left? Should we create a currency that immediately bursts in flames unless it is provably handed to another person within 24 hours? Wouldn't that still be deflationary without printing presses? EDIT: Maybe you want all the economic power to be with cryptocurrency miners, via an inflating cryptocurrency? So now we're back to giving the power to those who own the presses (the miners, in this case)
- Nursie 13y ago
  People who have earned money are perfectly entitled to have their earned economic power, they just aren't entitled to keep getting more powerful off everyone else's back simply by sitting on cash. Sitting on cash is not an economically useful activity, it's a null operation, and setting a system up to reward it is foolish. At the moment at least if you want to use money to make money you invest it, and by doing so you enable further economic activity. Ideally a currency would expand at a rough pace with the economy it serves, making it a reasonable store of value but a better fit for its primary function - a medium of exchange. The two purposes (fixed supply asset, medium of exchange) are not really compatible AFAICT. But then I'm not horrified by the idea* of central government controlling currency anyway, in theory it allows them a mechanism to smooth out some of the lumps and bumps in the economy. And while currency inflation above and beyond economic growth does effectively constitute a tax, I have no issue with reasonable* taxes. So in summary - I think BTC would be worse choice than what we have now, but neither is perfect. (*I said the idea, and I said reasonable, I know there's a hell of a lot wrong with how various governments handle their currency and the amount of wasted taxes)
  - runeks 13y ago
    > People who have earned money are perfectly entitled to have their earned economic power, they just aren't entitled to keep getting more powerful off everyone else's back simply by sitting on cash. Sitting on cash is not an economically useful activity, it's a null operation, and setting a system up to reward it is foolish. So tell me. If I work for a year and save up $10,000, and when 10 years have passed a car can be made using only 50% of the labor that was required 10 years ago - and, consequently, the car is cheaper than it was 10 years ago - who is more entitled to this increased in wealth than me? The increased productivity has to benefit someone. I don't think money producers deserve the benefit more than the saver.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      That's entirely different from gaining purchasing power by sitting on a fixed proportion of the currency supply, and you know it.
runeks 13y ago
>> >> Exactly wrong: People who have earned money ARE the productive economy. >> Not when they're getting richer just by sitting on cash they are not. That's not producing anything, any/all productive work they did was in the past. If they are getting richer just by sitting on cash, it means - by definition - that the economy is increasing in size. If it ever comes to a point where too many people just sit on their savings, then the economy will retract, and all these people will start to lose wealth. There's a balance in the system: when the economy increases too quickly, it will incentivize people to stop producing (because they can live off their savings), and when the economy starts contracting, it incentivizes people to start producing (because their savings are getting worth less).
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> If they are getting richer just by sitting on cash, it means - by definition - that the economy is increasing in size. FAIL. It might just mean that more people are sitting on currency and less is in circulation.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  The size of the economy is the volume exchanged, not the sum of the market value of hoarded assets.