5 ms·

I agree with the majority of your post, but I'm not convinced that inflation should be included in your list of bad things ("do you want inflation, meddling, an

I agree with the majority of your post, but I'm not convinced that inflation should be included in your list of bad things ("do you want inflation, meddling, and regulation?"). A moderate amount of inflation is a very good thing, and this isn't really even open to debate among economists. Its importance has been empirically and theoretically proven many times. Inflation is important because economics is all about creating incentives. We have property rights because it gives people an incentive to work hard and takes risks. We have patents because they give people an incentive to explain how their invention works. We have a market economy because it means that if a company wants to gain market share, it has to create value for the consumer. In the same way, central banks try to maintain low levels of inflation (~3%) because it encourages people to invest their money in profitable ventures, rather than just leaving it under the mattress. Investment is the way wealth is created, so it should be pretty obvious that deflation is bad for the economy. Notice that I'm talking about the economic health of the country, not the individual citizen. If you're only concerned about immediate short term benefits, you should push for zero taxes, high deflation, and the gold standard. But that's penny wise and pound foolish. You're shooting yourself in the foot. Better by far is to support actions which improve the economy, because a rising tide lifts all boats.

stretchwithme 13y ago
Inflation is not essential. If people hide their money under mattresses, all that means is that they aren't competing to buy the available goods. Inputs for other ventures are cheaper. If the government weren't trying to re-inflate the asset bubble with cheap money, ventures that make more sense would be flourishing instead. Resources are not infinite. When someone accepts a piece of paper and just holds on to it instead of immediately consuming what he could buy, the resources are available for other things. And when there are more people deferring their consumption, its cheaper to borrow money/resources and cheaper to grow new industries. Countries don't become rich and powerful by consuming everything as soon as they get it. They do it by growing their industries.
- chad_oliver 13y ago
  You have a very good point, and I hadn't considered that aspect. However, if people defer their consumption, surely they'll also have less need to spend money, and thus less incentive to perform economically productive activities in order to earn money to spend? I'm sure people will be quite happy in the short term, but over longer periods (decades) there will be much less effort (not necessarily money) invested in economic activity.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Yup, that's basically the problem with deflation. It stagnates the economy, and it is self-reinforcing. Called a deflationary spiral.
    - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
      Deflation is the easiest way to turn a recession into a depression.
- atmosx 13y ago
  I also believe that a currency must be inflationary for all the good known reasons but every time I think of BTC being inflationary I realize that Satoshi didn't really had a choice. Why on earth you would buy an unknown inflationary currency? I mean, it would NEVER take off, except for illegal markets where use the privacy offered by a crypto-currency. But look where we are now? Silk Road gone (well almost) but BTC unaffected and sky-rocketed. You would never have attracted that capital if you haven't a deflationary currency. Actually, by all means it's an asset.
  - lingben 13y ago
    You've got it wrong. If Satoshi's purpose was to get people to pile in after him/them, it had to be deflationary. Mission accomplished. Bitcoin isn't a run of the mill ponzi scheme, it is a very new take on it. But it is still essentially front-running and hoping and planning that lemmings follow you to push up the price so you can then unload.
3pt14159 13y ago
Note that you are the one that calls my list bad, yet I specifically said that the uninformed should prefer this currency. Why should the uninformed prefer an inflationary currency? Because the uninformed are bad at accepting a decrease in demand of their market rate (their work performance would disproportionately decrease if given a 2% decrease in nominal wages). With that aside, let me give cover my complex thoughts on inflation: Sometimes it is possible to alter a function in such a way that the output is later maximized. Sometimes this is possible by essentially lying to people. When someone doesn't get a raise each month to make up for the expansion of the monetary supply he is effectively getting a pay cut, but he's been manipulated into not really noticing this. But markets are not fixed. Technology expands, populations expand, priorities shift (from religious worship to drugs or science, for example). At some point it is possible for a portion of the system to understand the manipulation and to maximize it for that portion's gain. Just as Keynes talked about priming a pump, imaging those that sell the primer. It is in their interest for the system to stutter so they make efforts to have it so fairly frequently. The secondary effects of this manipulation are malinvestments by those not party to the information about the cycle. But even that has a secondary effect: The effect of some informed people taking actions to minimize the harm done to their own fortunes. They sidestep property and stock bubbles, but they still need to beat inflation. Those informed people start talking about a replacement for the inflationary monetary system. They argue on the internet about crypto-currencies and they refine their ideas, and ultimately Bitcoin gets created. We are living in aftermath of centuries of Keynesian policy, this is PART of the long run to which Keynes is dead in. The part where something by design is (essentially) non-inflationary. Even gold had its risks (Fusion, for example) but while Bitcoin is free as in liberty it is also unforgiving of mistakes. That is why the uninformed shouldn't access it. Or at least not it directly. They should trust banks or become informed, because as it stands now they are not equipped to handle it. Lastly, I reject the notion that inflation has proved useful for stabilizing the economy. Fractional banking by its nature monetizes all assets (since most loans are secured, the 10x multiplication window is just a fancy way of "printing" money from the value of your house or factory). But the relative value between the underlying assets and the currency is in flux (or the futures market for the good would be 0, and the information already priced into the market) and in exchange for this freeing of capital and acceleration of gains to wise economic asset allocators, this temporal variance in asset value causes an increase of volatility in the financial system ESPECIALLY when the majority of its deposits are demand deposits since there is also system wide uncertainty in cash-on-hand. It may be that the increase volatility and subsequent government action maximize technological, ecological, and industrial advancement by allocating assets into the hands of todays best and brightest; or it may be that the cost of management (inflation, regulation, deposit insurance, super insurance, asset backed derivatives, to big to fail bailouts) exceed the gains of a fractional reserve banking + inflationary monetary supply system, but we will not be able to tell by examining the data on inflation in economies where fractional reserve is a GIVEN.

stretchwithme 13y ago

Inflation is not essential. If people hide their money under mattresses, all that means is that they aren't competing to buy the available goods. Inputs for other ventures are cheaper. If the government weren't trying to re-inflate the asset bubble with cheap money, ventures that make more sense would be flourishing instead. Resources are not infinite. When someone accepts a piece of paper and just holds on to it instead of immediately consuming what he could buy, the resources are available for other things. And when there are more people deferring their consumption, its cheaper to borrow money/resources and cheaper to grow new industries. Countries don't become rich and powerful by consuming everything as soon as they get it. They do it by growing their industries.

chad_oliver 13y ago
You have a very good point, and I hadn't considered that aspect. However, if people defer their consumption, surely they'll also have less need to spend money, and thus less incentive to perform economically productive activities in order to earn money to spend? I'm sure people will be quite happy in the short term, but over longer periods (decades) there will be much less effort (not necessarily money) invested in economic activity.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Yup, that's basically the problem with deflation. It stagnates the economy, and it is self-reinforcing. Called a deflationary spiral.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    Deflation is the easiest way to turn a recession into a depression.
atmosx 13y ago
I also believe that a currency must be inflationary for all the good known reasons but every time I think of BTC being inflationary I realize that Satoshi didn't really had a choice. Why on earth you would buy an unknown inflationary currency? I mean, it would NEVER take off, except for illegal markets where use the privacy offered by a crypto-currency. But look where we are now? Silk Road gone (well almost) but BTC unaffected and sky-rocketed. You would never have attracted that capital if you haven't a deflationary currency. Actually, by all means it's an asset.
- lingben 13y ago
  You've got it wrong. If Satoshi's purpose was to get people to pile in after him/them, it had to be deflationary. Mission accomplished. Bitcoin isn't a run of the mill ponzi scheme, it is a very new take on it. But it is still essentially front-running and hoping and planning that lemmings follow you to push up the price so you can then unload.

3pt14159 13y ago

Note that you are the one that calls my list bad, yet I specifically said that the uninformed should prefer this currency. Why should the uninformed prefer an inflationary currency? Because the uninformed are bad at accepting a decrease in demand of their market rate (their work performance would disproportionately decrease if given a 2% decrease in nominal wages). With that aside, let me give cover my complex thoughts on inflation: Sometimes it is possible to alter a function in such a way that the output is later maximized. Sometimes this is possible by essentially lying to people. When someone doesn't get a raise each month to make up for the expansion of the monetary supply he is effectively getting a pay cut, but he's been manipulated into not really noticing this. But markets are not fixed. Technology expands, populations expand, priorities shift (from religious worship to drugs or science, for example). At some point it is possible for a portion of the system to understand the manipulation and to maximize it for that portion's gain. Just as Keynes talked about priming a pump, imaging those that sell the primer. It is in their interest for the system to stutter so they make efforts to have it so fairly frequently. The secondary effects of this manipulation are malinvestments by those not party to the information about the cycle. But even that has a secondary effect: The effect of some informed people taking actions to minimize the harm done to their own fortunes. They sidestep property and stock bubbles, but they still need to beat inflation. Those informed people start talking about a replacement for the inflationary monetary system. They argue on the internet about crypto-currencies and they refine their ideas, and ultimately Bitcoin gets created. We are living in aftermath of centuries of Keynesian policy, this is PART of the long run to which Keynes is dead in. The part where something by design is (essentially) non-inflationary. Even gold had its risks (Fusion, for example) but while Bitcoin is free as in liberty it is also unforgiving of mistakes. That is why the uninformed shouldn't access it. Or at least not it directly. They should trust banks or become informed, because as it stands now they are not equipped to handle it. Lastly, I reject the notion that inflation has proved useful for stabilizing the economy. Fractional banking by its nature monetizes all assets (since most loans are secured, the 10x multiplication window is just a fancy way of "printing" money from the value of your house or factory). But the relative value between the underlying assets and the currency is in flux (or the futures market for the good would be 0, and the information already priced into the market) and in exchange for this freeing of capital and acceleration of gains to wise economic asset allocators, this temporal variance in asset value causes an increase of volatility in the financial system ESPECIALLY when the majority of its deposits are demand deposits since there is also system wide uncertainty in cash-on-hand. It may be that the increase volatility and subsequent government action maximize technological, ecological, and industrial advancement by allocating assets into the hands of todays best and brightest; or it may be that the cost of management (inflation, regulation, deposit insurance, super insurance, asset backed derivatives, to big to fail bailouts) exceed the gains of a fractional reserve banking + inflationary monetary supply system, but we will not be able to tell by examining the data on inflation in economies where fractional reserve is a GIVEN.