From 1813 to 1913 prices went down because we had a deflationary economy and had the industrial revolution. I'm not saying that caused
Bitcoiners advocate for theft by refusing to make Bitcoin a privacy coin. Jeff Booth: What rate of theft is required for a productive economy? (v.redd.it) https://v.redd.it/vyfws00046za1 submitted 1 day ago by KAX1107 [–]Rustafareanredditor for 3 months 19 points20 points21 points 1 day ago So the government will teach the general public about importance of inflation to economic growth So the people will keep working more to catchup with the value lost through inflation That's sad. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Joe_Doblow 2 points3 points4 points 1 day ago Reminds me of the movie “in time” with Justin Timberlake permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]nvnehi 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago That’s the world of a deflationary currency. Quite literally. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]nvnehi -2 points-1 points0 points 1 day ago Nothing to do with catching up. Inflation allows poor people to survive. Without inflation no new fiat is added, and when the wealthy can’t spend more money, or have no reason to, then you have to introduce money SOMEHOW in order to prevent millions from dying a year. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]IIIIIIllllllll0redditor for 5 weeks 6 points7 points8 points 1 day ago Lets do a thought experiment. If the only goal of inflation IS inflation, then why don't we create inflation by simply sending $1 to every American citizen? every poor citizen, every rich citizen, every citizen. And do this until we reach the rate of inflation that's desired? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Living-Walrus-2215 0 points1 point2 points 16 hours ago Without inflation no new fiat is added, and when the wealthy can’t spend more money, or have no reason to, then you have to introduce money SOMEHOW in order to prevent millions from dying a year. Why do you think the amount of cash available has anything to do with providing people services? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Mektzer 18 points19 points20 points 1 day ago Everyone that has at least a little bit of keynesian indoctrination knows very well that the rate of theft required for a productive economy is around 2% per year. To the question why? Well, numbers go up, GDP is higher, wages go higher, numbers go up. People don't really know why this is good or IF this is good. They just know that THAT is what they're aiming for: "growth". permalink embed save report give award reply [–]The_Realist01 14 points15 points16 points 1 day ago It’s not growth though - it’s inflation. There is no incremental value provided by the growth of 2% due to inflation. If US gdp grows at 2.8%, and inflation is 2.0%, incremental value produced in the year is only 0.8%. People are just dumb. Dumb with a B. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Fbastiat1850 8 points9 points10 points 1 day ago If US gdp grows at 2.8%, and inflation is 2.0%, incremental value produced in the year is only 0.8%. Wrong. Because technology is deflationary, you're measurement of inflation from the zero bound is inaccurate. IF inflation measured at 2%, but -2% deflation would have occurred due to technology and productivity improvements, then the rate of inflation is 4%, not 2%, because you measure from the wrong 'starting point'. What would 2.8% GDP against 4% inflation leave you with? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]The-Francois8 3 points4 points5 points 1 day ago That’s a shrinking economy in my opinion. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]rhozack 4 points5 points6 points 1 day ago That's a shrinking economy in fact. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]The_Realist01 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Yes fine. Technology and additional incremental productivity gains. Correct viewpoint to take. Not only does fiat burden us with base inflation, we lose out on deflationary technological and productivity gains. Double theft. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]PoeCollector [score hidden] 16 minutes ago I just want to add that GDP increase reflects increased money flow, not necessarily an improvement in the concrete state of things. For instance, cleaning your own house doesn't increase GDP, hiring someone to do it does. If everyone ordered DoorDash so they could dedicate more time to their soulless corporate jobs and pay for twelve different streaming services and Subscription Boxes of Bullshit, GDP would go way up. If everyone cooked meals for their families and read books, GDP would go down. Progress = hyper-specialized office geek bugmen who can't cook. Sorry, just had to get that off my chest. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 4 points5 points6 points 1 day ago Rigth, its keynesian fairy tale that offers no justification. Its virtual a religious cult permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Fbastiat1850 5 points6 points7 points 1 day ago Government is a dogmatic religious cult. Keynesianism is simply a tool used by said cult, to justify deficit spending by the cult. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Olorin_1990 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago 2% target was selected to give the Fed enough time to react to deflationary pressures which signal a recession. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Mektzer 2 points3 points4 points 1 day ago Yeah but it doesn't make sense, it never worked. With that excuse the system has simply been abused over and over again. As Jeff Booth said: technological advancement IS deflationary, deal with it. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]snek-jazz 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Oh they know why, it's because you're effectively borrowing from the future, because there's a lag between when you print and spend the money and when the full effects of the inflation are felt. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]spezthemanipulator 3 points4 points5 points 1 day ago Money is time, time is life. Basically the ones enabling inflation are mass murderers. That symbolic 1 trillion coin, siphoned from society, that's about 500.000 lifetimes of money. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]justinlongbranch 4 points5 points6 points 1 day ago Productive for who? That's the question permalink embed save report give award reply [–]OkCalligrapher4400 5 points6 points7 points 1 day ago Productive for homeowners and people with strong investment accounts. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]HurricaneHarvey7 5 points6 points7 points 1 day ago Dunno, but any time I bring up this issue in other subreddits they automatically say that Bitcoin doesn't fix the problem and inflation is good for everyone. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–][deleted] 1 day ago [deleted] [–]mostlyeve 13 points14 points15 points 1 day ago Which in turn benefits the rich and people close to the printer. How does inflation benefit a 21 yo working 3 jobs in New York? Or a 40 yo carpenter in Lebanon? permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Daddio_87 4 points5 points6 points 1 day ago Exactly! 💯 permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]nutyourself 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago The argument, not that I necessarily buy it, is that inflation invites growth (spending). A guy decides to spend his money by starting a business and hires a carpenter and a 21 yo. Instead of sitting on his cash saving it. The carpenter and 21 yo have jobs because of inflation (indirectly, obviously). Or so they say, don't kill the messenger. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]icocode 2 points3 points4 points 1 day ago If they have jobs only because of inflation, are those even good jobs, sustainable long-term? Or if they have jobs because they are producing true value for the economy, wouldn't they have jobs without inflation anyway? I get giving the economy a kick-start now and then in a crisis, but I am not convinced that's productive in long term. Like living on coffee and sugar, sooner or later there's a price. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]IIIIIIllllllll0redditor for 5 weeks 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago if inflation creates those jobs, then the only way we can continue to provide those jobs is to keep doing more and more inflation, effectively having a net 0 effect. Meaning we lose just as much as we gain, effectively achieving nothing. Money shifts around within society but no additional value is actually created, and when we stop printing, we can no longer provide the jobs. Think about this for a second. what you're saying is that if we take a tiny bit of money from everyone (inflation), we can take the carpenter, who already has a job, and the 21 year old, who already has a job, and give them.. a different job? Nothing was gained. And in order to do this, again, we had to steal money from everyone. Glossing over all of that is the essence of blind self motivated behavior to the point of intentionally disregarding your impact on your community. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Kobens 9 points10 points11 points 1 day ago encourages investment Rather than sitting on cash I keep hearing this. And I keep hearing that "if our money grew in value over time, we would never spend it, knowing that we could by the product for less tomorrow" I think that argument is utter nonsense. If I need a gallon of milk and eggs to make my kids breakfast, I am not going to say "kids, let's skip breakfast today, so that the next day we can get that breakfast for less". Sure, this is an oversimplification, but I believe it is all that is necessary to drive the point home. Business wouldn't just "stop spending". If they need a new vehicle today, because the old one broke down, that business isn't going to say "well, let's just halt our business operations for now. That way we can purchase that replacement vehicle next year for less money" In order words, purchases would be based more off current needs. Not fear of "I have to get rid of this cash because it is losing value". No common person is buying bulk necessities because "I need to buy it now as my dollar is losing value". Thus, helping grow the economy. Deflating the value of the people's money is theft of the people's money. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]zuilli 3 points4 points5 points 1 day ago I agree with what you say and go even further: if we are incentivized to keep our money and only spend on what's necessary then products and services have a giant push to become of a better quality to justify it's value to consumers. Planned obsolescence and consumerism would have a sharp drop if people are incentivized to not spend trivially. The only people that see that as a loss are the big players in capitalism. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–][deleted] 1 day ago* [deleted] [–]Kobens 2 points3 points4 points 1 day ago Don't believe I proposed "sitting on cash" either. Pretty sure I said "people would spend, because they need". Cash would still serve as a medium of exchange. I am also fine with a target inflation of 0%. Explain why inflation is necessary. "Encourage investment" isn't an explanation. It's a desired outcome, which neglects to acknowledge the hurt it causes in the process. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]skystarsss 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago I don't have a single clue how is inflation good for everyone. Good for maybe the 5% I dunno. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]smallbluetext -1 points0 points1 point 1 day ago Because inflation promotes spending, while deflation promotes saving. Economies thrive based on spending not saving. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]nogi-ezekielredditor for 3 months 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago So I guess all those poor african countries just forgot all they had to do was print a bunch of money and spend it, then they'd all be wealthy, right? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]smallbluetext 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago The fuck are you talking about? There are a million reasons unrelated to inflation why they are poor. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]nogi-ezekielredditor for 3 months -1 points0 points1 point 1 day ago so it's almost as if spending isnt what actually makes economies prosper permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]smallbluetext -1 points0 points1 point 17 hours ago Yeah poor African country residents are spending so much with their massive wealth dude permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]sc00ttie 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago People who wish to trade goods, services, and labor. A free market is productive because it evolves to meet the needs of the smallest minority, the individual. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]tallmon -2 points-1 points0 points 1 day ago Whom permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Productive for who? That's the question for the people who produce. For the people who steal, of course inflation is great... but you cant call that productive because its anti-productive. It reduces total production in society when you steal. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]bitjava 0 points1 point2 points 21 hours ago All else being equal, technology makes us all more productive. The problem is inflation is constantly stealing from the poorest people, negating those benefits or even causing a net negative, yet the average person thinks the “greedy corporations” are to blame, which is not surprisingly the government-sponsored narrative. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]dbudlov 15 points16 points17 points 1 day ago Zero percent ideally, every instance of theft/taxation makes the state and politically connected better off to the detriment of everyone it's stolen from We're living through a global scam called government, the sooner it ends the better off we all are permalink embed save report give award reply [–]albacore_futures 10 points11 points12 points 1 day ago 0% is the ideal, but is reaching 0% possible? I don't think so, and fwiw neither did Satoshi. He wrote about the ideal being 0%, and the ideal being obtained by a money supply that would automatically contract and expand in response to the need for it (which would be 0% inflation). However, he decided that implementing it would be too technically difficult - you'd have to sift out wash trades, effectively, to prevent manipulation of the supply - so he went for a purposefully-deflationary currency. What matters for inflation and deflation is not absolute change in the money supply, but instead the change in money relative to the demand for it. If the demand for money goes up but the supply stays constant, then we have deflation. If demand for money collapses, but the supply stays constant, we have inflation. Satoshi decided that a deflationary currency is superior to an inflationary one. The question is whether or not that judgment is correct. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]FairBlamer 5 points6 points7 points 1 day ago Could you kindly share any sources you have regarding what Satoshi said on this subject? I hadn’t heard that before and I’m skeptical by default permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]albacore_futures 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/p2pfoundation/3/ permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]KAX1107[S] 4 points5 points6 points 1 day ago* Money in its natural form is a privately produced market good like all the goods we trade it for. Anyone from anywhere in the world can produce bitcoin through work. Gold is a saleable market good but it's political, not absolutely scarce, lacks velocity and doesn't work without trust, therefore gave rise to fiat. We need neutral money that's not political, very hard to create, very easy to carry and transfer without trust. Monetary inflation is a consequence of one thing only, monetary expansion/debasement of currency. Relative asset price inflation is driven by free market dynamics and money in the sense of a privately produced market good is no exception to it. "The quantity of money available in the whole economy is always sufficient to secure for everybody all that money does and can do." What is the correct amount of money? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Iamgod189 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago the IR but it didn't harm it. Deflation increases wealth permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Alfador8 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago I would argue that the industrial revolution caused the deflation during that time period. Prices of everything dropped precipitously because they became exponentially cheaper to produce/transport. I believe we would be seeing the same thing happen with the technological revolution if not for our debt based monetary system demanding constant inflation permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]albacore_futures 0 points1 point2 points 22 hours ago* Productivity drove aggregate demand higher, but the money supply remained the same. The result was deflation (the same amount of money chasing more transactions), and in the US a remarkably underdeveloped and unstable banking system which catastrophically failed more often than any other contemporary system. The deflation also created the primary political division of the 19th century - between farmers / populists, who advocated an expansion of the supply, and the goldbug bankers who insisted on maintaining the gold peg at all costs and refused to add silver to the supply. The resulting increase in income inequality led to outbreaks of armed rebellion against the government and employers from ~1870 until about WW1. Deflation further prevented average Americans from affording a mortgage, which in addition to being much shorter than today (5-10 years, with full repayment due at conclusion) actually grew more expensive to repay over time. This is what deflation does, and it's one of the main reasons farmers and their populist allies demanded and won a federal revamp of the home mortgage system during the Great Depression. The idea of Jeffersonian homeownership, of self-reliance, is a long-held American ideal and the deflationary gold standard directly harmed that principle. We shouldn't act like it was a wonderful policy that worked without any issues. There's a story behind why that system got replaced, not just in the US but worldwide. Deflation caused serious problems. Side note - I've always found it ironic that today's goldbugs cast themselves as populists when they are, in fact, making the same arguments JP Morgan would have in 1895, and with the same passion. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]AnonTheGreat01 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago What matters for inflation and deflation is not absolute change in the money supply, but instead the change in money relative to the demand for it. Incorrect. You have to take into account monetary expansion and demand, but also productivity. Per your definition, in/deflation is not possible with constant demand and fixed monetary supply, but this is false. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]albacore_futures 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Productivity has a direct effect on the demand for money. As things become cheaper, demand for them increases. Increased demand for stuff means an increased demand for money to transact said stuff. Inflation and deflation are not possible with fixed demand and fixed monetary supply. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]AnonTheGreat01 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Yeah I thought about that, but I don't think that's completely true because how does that reconcile when demand is static for example? E.g. some revolutionary innovation for a vital prescription drug has its price drop 90%. I don't think it does, because that's productivity induced deflation without a change in monetary supply or demand. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]albacore_futures 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Productivity leads to price declines, which all else held equal leads to increased demand for whatever good's price is declining. More demand for that good means more transactions (more people buying it), which in turn requires more money to facilitate the transaction. Without an expansion of money to facilitate the transaction, then we'd have a price decline both from productivity and from monetary forces. Should the money supply magically expand to precisely its needed level to facilitate these new transactions, we'd see a price drop but it won't have a monetary component. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Expensive-Tap420 0 points1 point2 points 20 hours ago *Monetary inflation * doesn’t happen with fixed money supply, but you’re always going to have inflation and deflation in different sectors, driven by supply and demand. Also, you can still have derivative markets if you have a fixed money supply and that can still cause bubbles. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]albacore_futures 0 points1 point2 points 11 hours ago Right. I have been disambiguating the impact of monetary forces on overall price levels from the impact of productivity on certain price levels. What OP described was overall productivity gains writ large, not one particular sector's boom. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]FUSeekMe69 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago If you believe human ingenuity will outpace the deflationary currency, then that judgment is correct. I believe that to be true. And ironically, bitcoin being tied to cheap, abundant, and sustainable energy helps us achieve that goal. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Living-Walrus-2215 0 points1 point2 points 15 hours ago 0% is the ideal, but is reaching 0% possible? Yes, just don't print money and the long term inflation rate will be 0%. Check the cumulative inflation rate in the US from its founding until the Fed was founded. It was basically 0%. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]bitusher 2 points3 points4 points 1 day ago Correct. 0% is ideal , but achieving that is near impossible. Thus as long as inflation is a very stable 1-2% or deflation is a very stable 1-2 %(hopefully what Bitcoin eventually achieves) it should be acceptable. What is horrible is how the CPI is calculated in a very dishonest manner to misrepresent the rampant inflation. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]DekiEE 2 points3 points4 points 1 day ago And how do you plan on maintaining streets or education without tax? Only allow school to people who are able to afford it? This is a highway to societal exodus. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]The-Francois8 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Taxes are better than inflation. It’s more honest. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Wesinator2000 2 points3 points4 points 1 day ago I don’t think there are many examples of a structured society that doesn’t have a governing body. If people are going to work together, they typically agree to set some ground rules. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]KAX1107[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago* When you remove money from government, the government is restored to its rightful role as servant of the people. Today, everything politicians pay lip service to, virtue signal and say they'll fix if you vote for them, not one of them really has any intention of actually fixing. Politicians are beholden to the money masters, not to the electorate. A society without honest money cannot aspire to honest political systems. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Throwaway021614 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Right! The government itself isn’t an entity that wants to benefit. Legislators can manipulate the stock market, make markets, and punish competitors. They do what this for their corporate sponsors. The government doesn’t steal wealth. They transfer it to the wealthy. Honest money doesn’t matter if those with more of it can blatantly do what they want without restrictions. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago When you remove money from government, the government is restored to its rightful role as servant of the people. lol... no. Government rules you, for its own benefit. It has no other real purpose. Our goal should always be the shrink or eliminate government. Putting a halo on a monster doesnt magically make it good. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]KAX1107[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago Government rules you, for its own benefit through control of money shrink or eliminate government Removing money from government shrinks government to size. All incentives are corrupted by corrupt money. We'll always have some form of government but without control, only to serve the people permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago Lets end the Fed permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Ok_Opportunity2693 3 points4 points5 points 1 day ago You don’t want government, like, at all? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]LordIgorBogdanoff -2 points-1 points0 points 1 day ago Inflation benefits governments, yes, but governments don't need inflation to exist. Just put sales taxes, or tariffs. Those would be sufficient. What would be restricted is war, bailouts and social welfare. I'm sure you have mixed thoughts on that but that is the reality of fiat. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Throwaway021614 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago There’s nothing more a big business wants than a small government permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]LordIgorBogdanoff 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago Tell me you're indoctrinated without telling me you're indoctrinated. Big business LOVES big government. They often work hand in hand (see 2008 bank bailouts, Twitter censorship of anti-Biden news during the 2020 election cycle, and don't even get me started on wars for oil) Go back to r/neoliberal with the other midwits. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Throwaway021614 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago They’ve learned to work within the system with their paid media and politicians. Remove the system and they won’t have to waste that money greasing palms and buying media companies. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]LordIgorBogdanoff 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago* And how do you remove the system without removing big government? The easiest answer I see is the removal of central banking as an institution. No more wage slavery, induced boom/bust cycles, or other "once in a lifetime" events that magically happen more in central banking (but we're supposed to believe exclusive correlation isnt causation). No more exclusive money printing theft for the elite or government. No more disproportionate exponential powers. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Throwaway021614 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago Thank you for not adding a personal attack or to tell me to remove myself from the discourse and return to an echo chamber. I think this is a good discussion. I fully support a decentralized monetary system. The excessive printing and contraction of money supply is a core part of our economic situation. But a government is needed to ensure that wage slavery and financial crisis do not keep happening. Having a decentralized currency does not force companies to pay a living wage. It does not prevent them from polluting my fishing and hunt grounds, and turning my camp grounds and trails into condos. It does not prevent corporate landlords and property owners, like Blackrock (or is it Blackstone? I can’t remember which is which) from buying up homes and driving up cost of living. it does not stop food manufacturers from artificially increasing consumer cost and giving themselves record profits. Government is needed for that. Government is not working as well as we would all like, but that’s probably due to incompetence and external manipulation in the form of unregulated money into politics from a campaign level and a personal level for our legislators, judiciary branch, and executive branch. The government itself is a tool, right now those wielding it the best are the wealthy. And the absolute worse thing we can do at this moment is blame each other for our politics and culture. We’re being pitted against each other and fighting a culture war, when we should be fighting a class war. What a large corporation and a wealthy individual can do with their money absolutely needs to be regulated. Whether that takes a large government or well targeted small government, I’m going to honestly admit I don’t know. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]New_Painting5190 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago but governments don't need inflation to exist. Just put sales taxes, or tariffs And who in their right state of mind would vote for a President/party that significantly increased taxation? Of course Governments need inflation, they literally buy votes by promising better pensions, zero student debt, lots of "free" public services and how will they pay for it? By raising taxes? Not a chance, they just issue 1 trillion USD worth of new treasuries, e.g, kicking the can down the road and that'll become an even bigger problem for the next Government. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]LordIgorBogdanoff 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago I don't disagree with you but you are missing my point. Also people constantly vote for higher taxes on the wealthy, either because they (mostly rightly) feel billionaires do not deserve their wealth and have taken it through unethical or even illegal methods, or simply out of envy. It never works that way because the billionaires own both parties though. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]New_Painting5190 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Well but you said that Governments don't need inflation cause they can just raise taxes. What I'm saying is they cannot do that to the level they'd need to sustain public debt...people think they vote for higher taxes on the wealthy without realising the wealthy can just fuck off to another more friendly jurisdiction if it comes to that, the reality is that the middle class ends up paying more taxes. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]LordIgorBogdanoff 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago* Raise taxes =/= survive on taxes. I agree with you, again. What would be needed would be a drastic decline in public spending. Which means either less services and public projects and/or more efficiently spent ones. Social welfare, war and glowies are very expensive endeavors that would not be sustainable with sound money. You can have your opinion on whether any of those are good or bad things, but sound money renders them impossible because the state can't take out debts with decentralized currency. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]New_Painting5190 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago EXACTLY, fully agree with you there. Public spending needs to be reduced, there's simply no free lunch and the sooner the average person understood that the better. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]nvnehi 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Inflation benefits the poorest. What are you talking about? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]LordIgorBogdanoff 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Poe's Law is the bane of my existence permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Tebasaki 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago While I love this view and the eye opening conversation he's having, I'm curious what kind of world we would have with no government in your eyes? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]bitjava 0 points1 point2 points 21 hours ago State ≠ government. Government will always exist in some form or another. The issue is the fiat controlled state, and the current form of government, but not government as a concept. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]DOG-ZILLA 0 points1 point2 points 17 hours ago It’s a stretch to go from inflation being bad to governments being bad. Just because some governments are corrupt in many ways, it does not make the whole idea of a government a bad one. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Bitcoin_Maximalist 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago* and why 2%? why not 1,5% or 3% ? there must be a broad scientific foundation for the goal of 2% inflation. where is it? permalink embed save report give award reply [–]guryfitze 5 points6 points7 points 1 day ago Scientifically, the 2% is how fast you increase temperature so that a frog doesn’t realize it’s being boiled. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]uber_poutine -1 points0 points1 point 19 hours ago There are many factors that cause inflation - speaking in terms of monetary supply, interest rates, and credit (which is not the entirety, but these are the ones most easily controlled by govt) sticking inside that range lets you extend sufficient credit to promote economic growth (which is generally considered good) while (at least usually) avoiding an inflationary spiral (which is generally considered bad). FWIW economics is much more an art than a science. That's not to say that there aren't metrics, but if your whole field of study assumes humans are rational... 🤷♂️ permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]kenlbear 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago There was never any intent to redeem or pay back the US national debt. Inflation reduces its real value while, at the same time, providing a reason to increase taxes and prices. Inflation and debt are the twin pillars of monetary policy. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]nvnehi 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago Scale wise, you’re paying less despite paying a “higher number.” Debt is a good thing at scale because it implies trust between those the debt is share between. Countries have little reason to attack those with whom they share debts. If we go in on a house together you are less likely to burn it down to spite me - sure, it can happen, it’s just far less likely. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]uber_poutine 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago He completely fails to mention the role that the petrodollar plays in this - by denominating certain commodity transactions in USD (ie. oil), inflation of USD is a tax levied on the world. What happens to the US when they can't do that anymore? What happens to the relative value of the USD, what happens to Americans' purchasing power, and what happens to geopolitical stability? permalink embed save report give award reply [–]bitjava 0 points1 point2 points 21 hours ago It doesn’t contradict his hypothesis, and it’s not his area of expertise. Have you read his book or listened to the many podcasts he’s done? It’s not fair to claim he completely fails to mention anything if you haven’t read/heard the entirety of his work. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]uber_poutine 0 points1 point2 points 20 hours ago It absolutely doesn't contradict his hypothesis, nor is it intended to. It's actually an illustration of how the problem is substantially bigger and thornier than he presents it. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Pale_Sock_7815 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago The problem with this narrative is that the average American’s purchasing power was significantly higher before the end if the Bretton Woods system and the creation of the petrodollar. Ending the petrodollar is going to negatively impact those who benefit from the Cantillon effect. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]coredweller1785 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago The part that a lot of these ppl leave out (probably purposely) is that capitalists need continued growth and this is part of it. Anyone on the left realizes that there have been many instances of economies without inflation that worked better for most ordinary people. I'll recommend my favorite book on this that goes back to 400 bc in China and traces lines forward through their economic history through the 1980s reform period. So many incredible ideas and ways of constructing economic reason. So much to think about in our current context since our current setup does not really work. How China Escaped Shock Therapy by Weber permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Pale_Sock_7815 1 point2 points3 points 1 day ago This strawman is so convoluted that you’re not even wrong. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk -2 points-1 points0 points 1 day ago The part that a lot of these ppl leave out (probably purposely) is that capitalists need continued growth and this is part of it. Capitalism does not need growth. What kind of insane logic is that ? Capitalism neither needs nor demands anything. Its just a type of freedom to trade with your neighbor. Thats all, its really simple. Do you need "growth" to borrow your neighbors lawn mower ? Do you need "growth" to sell lemonade to the public ? Obviously not. The whole "growth" story is a keynesian fairy tale that has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with justifying monetary socialism. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]coredweller1785 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago You are mistaking markets and commerce which has existing for millenia with capitalism. You dont need capitalism to trade anything with anyone. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk -1 points0 points1 point 1 day ago You are mistaking markets and commerce which has existing for millenia with capitalism. Capitalism is older than society. Any voluntary trade is capitalist. You dont need capitalism to trade anything with anyone. If the trade is voluntary, its capitalism. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]_Ad_Astra_Abyssosqueredditor for 3 weeks -1 points0 points1 point 1 day ago You know you can just Google this stuff instead of spouting incorrect info. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]nvnehi -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 day ago Markets need growth because people are living longer, and the population is growing. Without inflation poor people will die in the millions per year. You do need growth to borrow your neighbor’s lawnmower because in 10 years they’ll have two neighbors wanting to borrow it instead of one. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]nvnehi -2 points-1 points0 points 1 day ago It doesn’t work on a globalized scale. It only works in a locked society which doesn’t trade much with the outside world. Capitalism is very effective - you can’t compete with it but, you can operate within it within any system. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]coredweller1785 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Oh please, ask Cuba if they are allowed to operate within it. Or how about Nicaragua, Soviet Union, etc. Capitalism only allows a very narrow set of choices to be made and if you don't make them you are invaded, couped, etc. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BraidRuner 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Vladimir Putin knows the answer to this question. Check the yachts in the Harbour at Monaco and St Barts and theres your answer. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]FUSeekMe69 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Inflation isn’t “needed” for growth. Look around, What did money build? What did money create? That is human growth. That is human creativity. That is a representation of human’s usage and storage of energy. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]thedarkpath 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Someone been reading a little too much of Ayn Rand… permalink embed save report give award reply [–]MBA922redditor for 3 months -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 day ago Inflation is not theft because voluntary exchanges can escape it. Bitcoin/property/business value goes up with inflation. Just spend cash as fast as it comes in on hard assets. Inflation is only theft from banks/creditors. Wage earners whose wage gains grow slower than inflation are simply oppressed by factors other than inflation. Slavery and oppression can cause high theft/desperation crime, but it has the highest productivity rates. So if 90% of stuff does not get stolen, but you can pay less than 90% of "fair value" to people who need 70 hours/week to survive, and are willing to participate in 100 interviews per job opening process, outcompeting their fellow oppressed, then this all counts as productive. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]lahoussss -1 points0 points1 point 1 day ago There is. I reason for that, we should set the reality as it is, each corporation has it shares, even nations have currency that are simply a share of their economy the one that control the maximum flow has the control over the country and so on permalink embed save report give award reply [–]FuckRedDecks -1 points0 points1 point 23 hours ago Inflation isnt controlled by the government though permalink embed save report give award reply [+]biz_owner -10 points-9 points-8 points 1 day ago Problem is nobody in western countries is accepting bitcoin, so what are u gonna do about it? permalink embed save report give award reply [–]BigDeezerrr 2 points3 points4 points 1 day ago I accept Bitcoin. Individual choices to transact in Bitcoin and educating others. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BuyRackTurk 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Smart businesses are accepting only bitcoin. The dollar is garbage. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Born_Wave3443 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago He has a soothing voice, not gonna lie permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Dazzling_Marzipan474 0 points1 point2 points 1 day ago Funny how its been working that the richest keep getting richer while the other have less and less. My grandpa worked 1 job with a little overtime and provided for him, his wife and 5 kids. My dad worked 1 job with lots of overtime and provided for him, his wife and me and my brother. My wife and I both work overtime and no kids and we do ok, but if we did that in 1940-1990 or so we'd be rich AF. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]ryoma-gerald 0 points1 point2 points 23 hours ago Well said. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]superdopes 0 points1 point2 points 13 hours ago 2% to encourage creative destruction permalink embed save report give award reply [–]kenlbear 0 points1 point2 points 6 hours ago Conversely a debt can create enmity between the debtor and the loaner.