Cryptocurrency: What rate of theft from you is required for a productive economy?

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Fri May 12 19:01:01 PDT 2023


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

>From 1813 to 1913 prices went down because we had a deflationary
economy and had the industrial revolution. I'm not saying that caused
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.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list