61–70 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually going very well for the US. Inflation has been been low and stable. The real economy is larger than it's ever been. Unemployment is very low. Out of all the countries and currencies on Earth over the past 100 years, the US and its dollar have had a better track record than almost any other. A few corrections to some possible misconceptions: (1) Fed is short for Federal Reserve. It's not an acronym. (2)…
Thanks. I am well aware of all the things you pointed out. I think we just have a different opinion of what stable is or should be. I think a currency that has $1.00 worth of purchasing power when I am given it should not lose 99% of its value over the next 100 years if I do not spend it. I am aware that that is impossible due to inflation, and that is why things like gold are much better stores of value than the dol…
Bitcoin has actually become a lot less volatile, when measured objectively over the last few years: https://twitter.com/lsukernik/status/864920873718951937 https://news.bitcoin.com/volatility-decreasing/
Yes these two links to two images presented without comment from a cryptocurrency VC and news.bitcoin.com scream "objective" to me.
http://images.woobull.com/2016/10/volatility-btc-vs-fiat.png (from https://woobull.com/bitcoin-volatility-will-match-major-fiat...)
The long-term trend is that BTC is becoming less and less volatile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If gold was no longer wanted for investment, its value would go very close to 0, despite utility to industry. Why? Because there's 190,000 tons of it, most of which is being held as an investment. If it wasn't needed for investment any more, then all that becomes available for industry, and now supply absolutely swamps demand. Jewelry demand wouldn't help, either. If the price of gold went to 0, how much would be use…
As price drops it would be useful for a wider range of things. Gold high voltage power lines for example are physically better, but cost prohibitive. Gold is directly useful for a huge range of things and the use in industry provides a very real price floor.
Bitcoin is stable in reference to itself, just as USD is stable in reference to itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As price drops it would be useful for a wider range of things. Gold high voltage power lines for example are physically better, but cost prohibitive. Gold is directly useful for a huge range of things and the use in industry provides a very real price floor.
I think the tensile strength/density might make gold transmission lines a bit crap. Maybe steel core with a gold outer where the AC current flows, but not sure if it would actually be any better than aluminum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually going very well for the US. Inflation has been been low and stable. The real economy is larger than it's ever been. Unemployment is very low. Out of all the countries and currencies on Earth over the past 100 years, the US and its dollar have had a better track record than almost any other. A few corrections to some possible misconceptions: (1) Fed is short for Federal Reserve. It's not an acronym. (2)…
Thanks. I am well aware of all the things you pointed out. I think we just have a different opinion of what stable is or should be. I think a currency that has $1.00 worth of purchasing power when I am given it should not lose 99% of its value over the next 100 years if I do not spend it. I am aware that that is impossible due to inflation, and that is why things like gold are much better stores of value than the dol…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I am well aware of all the things you pointed out. I think we just have a different opinion of what stable is or should be. I think a currency that has $1.00 worth of purchasing power when I am given it should not lose 99% of its value over the next 100 years if I do not spend it. I am aware that that is impossible due to inflation, and that is why things like gold are much better stores of value than the dol…
Are you planning to hold on to that dollar for a hundred years? Do you think you'll be alive then? Do you not think that perhaps if you want it to maintain or grow its value you should put it to work, rather than just sitting on it? Why should society value whatever it is you did to earn a buck today the same in 100 years?
That said, when you consider the way inflation actually works most of the new money pumped into the system disproportionately benefits big businesses and banks at the expense of the rest of the population. It is essentially a hidden tax on the rest of us.
Central banks pumping more money into the economy actually helps them because it equates to more interest payments they can collect and puts more people and governments in their debt. Also they don’t have to do any work to create the money so could you explain how that is considered a fair system?
Some elite bankers are able to just summon new money out of thin air to serve their interests but money that I worked hard to earn is going to lose its value if I hold onto it for too long?
Why do you think there is such a huge gap in income inequality that began as soon as we broke off completely from the gold standard in 1971?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I am well aware of all the things you pointed out. I think we just have a different opinion of what stable is or should be. I think a currency that has $1.00 worth of purchasing power when I am given it should not lose 99% of its value over the next 100 years if I do not spend it. I am aware that that is impossible due to inflation, and that is why things like gold are much better stores of value than the dol…
A good currency is focused on being a good medium of exchange, not a good store of value.
Until or unless agreement is reached on that, debating other points is kind of a waste of time. You're not going to agree if you disagree on the fundamental goal of money.
I've personally gone over to the Keynesian/Monetarist side. IMHO the most important idea of Keynes by far is monetary velocity: that wealth is a verb, not a noun. To be wealthy is to have much activity. The desire for idle stores of wealth reflects a very deep and very ancient wish for a stability that does not exist in this world. In this world things are either alive, moving, and changing, or dead.
Austrians want "hard money" that can act as an inert store of value for the same reason the Egyptians elaborately mummified their dead and piled vast stores of wealth in tombs. It's a very ancient and unfortunately very misguided quest for immortality through stopping of avoiding time. It doesn't work. The mummies were just corpses, the tombs were raided, and with enough time the pyramids will be dust.
If there is ever any kind of immortality to be had, it will be by embracing change and using science and technology to modify our biology or even transfer consciousness and intelligence itself into another medium ("mind uploading"). Those kinds of sci-fi things would require immense technological progress, and that's far more likely to occur in a world of dynamic economic systems biased toward investment rather than stuffing money into mattresses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good currency is focused on being a good medium of exchange, not a good store of value.
This is really the fundamental disagreement: what is money? Is it a store of value or a medium of exchange? Until or unless agreement is reached on that, debating other points is kind of a waste of time. You're not going to agree if you disagree on the fundamental goal of money. I've personally gone over to the Keynesian/Monetarist side. IMHO the most important idea of Keynes by far is monetary velocity: that wealth…
I’m going to just try to stay out of it from now on. Not worth the time or energy. Especially when my view is the minority view.
FWIW I don’t believe it is any sort of quest towards immortality. My biggest problem is how Keynesian economics tends to favor the central banks who are able to create money out of nothing.
