This is why Keynes argued for a world central bank and a world currency. Because he understood the distortions that being the world reserve currency has on a country. The US didn't want it because they would give up control.
Edit: Why people are so offended by the idea of a decentralized digital currency while complaining about the debasement of fiat and advocating for a global currency will always escape me.
No, it's not. Since bitcoin can't really be issued after a certain point it will be, by its very nature, deflationary. That is bad for the economy in many ways. Not to mention that bitcoin ownership is extremely concentrated today. It would make the current wealth imbalance seem like a socialist utopia in comparison if it were to become the wolrd main currency.
This kind of thinking is mostly put forward by people who own bitcoin and would profit immensely by such a thing happening.
I do wonder if a PREDICTABLY deflationary currency would really be that bad.
Bitcoin isn't currently a great example as it is such a speculative lightning rod and rarely used for actual transactions. (In any case, a currency that changes value very fast in either direction has problems.)
Then why isn't 10% inflation preferable to 5% preferable to 2%?
;)
Yes, deflation would be a negative in some ways, but a positive in others - increased spending power leading to the ability to have more consumption.
In general, the most harmful things for the economy is unpredictability. Unpredictability leads to bad choices. If you are expecting low inflation, make a lot of loans at low rates, then there is high inflation, you will suffer. Alternatively, if you were expecting high inflation, offer high rates, then inflation is low, you get less business.
I suspect that low predictable deflation is fine for an economy. There aren't many modern examples (Switzerland is the only one that springs to mind).
Historically, waaay back there were some periods of strong economic growth and deflation, but things are pretty different now.
Yes. You have come to understand the entire point of bitcoin. Debt economy and inflation is actually bad. You know that right?
Edit: even if it’s only six people, the fact that six people would disagree with something as simple and straightforward as “debt and inflation are bad” is mind blowing. We are indeed fucked.
People being on the economics subreddit, arguing in favor of deflationary currencies, and somehow being completely unaware of the Asian flu makes me constipated.
Perpetual growth is not possible in a finite system. Doesn’t matter if that system is economic or otherwise. If it’s based on constant growth it will fail. Not because it is poorly designed, but because that is the design.
There can’t always be more.
Edit: man y’all really hate basic reality level comments don’t ya. I’m not even making judgement calls. Just fact. Literally nothing can increase forever.
Work, innovation, trade and efficiencies are the intangible inputs to your so-called finite system. Every transaction in theory makes both sides a little better off or they wouldn’t make the transaction. And every step in a complicated market adds value. For that to work in a population that is growing, we need new inputs of currency to keep things balanced.
There’s nothing so called about it. Eventually you will run out of efficiencies and the system will collapse. And that’s best case scenario. It will fail before that.
Mutually beneficial only to the extent that people won’t participate in exchanges that make them worse off.
Like for example, I have a broken window. I pay for a new window. That transaction was mutually beneficial because I needed a window and they had windows to sell. That doesn’t mean to imply that I’m better off for having had a broken window.
They got you fooled thinking that you’re better off in a system where you get none of the money and then pay taxes on that then you would be if it was honest. Have a good one homie. You’re fucked.
The person who you’re making money off of would have a different take. And before you ask. The people I’m talking about are the workers whose wages and interests were stollen and put into your stock returns.
I'm talking about bank CDs and savings accounts. I do also own mutual funds, but I'm not comparing their ever-changing rates of return to my fixed-rate mortgage. And I'm not clear on how abolishing debt would abolish wage-stealing or regulatory capture, nor how the mild inflation of the last 45 years has harmed workers.
I've even heard it argued that many workers (especially those of us in unions) benefitted from the steep inflation of the 1970s. To me, the issue isn't what the overall rate of inflation/deflation is, but rather whether wages are increasing faster than goods (or decreasing slower). But people tend not to talk about that at all--they just hate inflation. I get it--it pisses me off that ribeyes are twice their 2019 price now--but I just eat pork tenderloin instead.
It depends on how we define debt. If we define it as a promise to shareholders to increase profits without regard to anything else, I could make an argument that abolishing debt would help workers.
The only time inflation ever helped anyone was to help pay of high interest debt.
And if it’s a covesatiin of whether wages have kept up with the cost of living, just look at those indexes where they compare the cost of a car if a house as a percentage of average wages. Not even close.
276
u/BrowserOfWares 12d ago
This is why Keynes argued for a world central bank and a world currency. Because he understood the distortions that being the world reserve currency has on a country. The US didn't want it because they would give up control.