Avatar
Toshi 1y ago

Thought experiment:

(This is all hypothetical, of course, but I would like to hear some thoughts and opinions on this idea from hard money maxis)

Imagine that in 100 years we live in a world where people no longer have to work. Machines do everything we don't want to do. In this world everyone has a chip implant. The purpose of the chip is to count how much that person moves during the day. It is 99.9% accurate. In this world money is obviously digital and similar to bitcoin. There is no entity that can control this currency. The ledger is written collectively by the top 30% (I made this number up) of people who do the most physical work during the day. They can run, swim, cycle or whatever. And as a reward they get something like a mining reward like in bitcoin. Let's pretend that all this, or something like it, is possible (and it probably isn't).

But there is one caveat: every year you have 2% inflation. Nobody can change that. It's there forever. But remember: that money is not going to the rich. That money goes to those who put in the physical effort. Proof of work, basically.

Now my question: are you happy with 2% inflation?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
El presidente Eloy Musketti 1y ago

So basically paying for my hobby?

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

labor theory of value is utterly disproven repeatedly by multiple economists since Marx proposed this idiot idea

prices are a product of supply, what is available, and demand, what people prefer more over what they prefer less (personal scales of value)

this applies not only to goods that are consumed but goods that are intermediate in production such as labor and raw materials

ultimately the end product price has a big influence on price but money itself is another intermediate good, always intermediate, like raw materials and labor

Avatar
El presidente Eloy Musketti 1y ago

Well nostr and the users never disappoint. Couldn't articulate it. But why would I need a currency if I get everything I want and need? I'd use dogecoin :)

77
772f9545... 1y ago

"Imagine ... we live in a world where people no longer have to work. Machines do everything we don't want to do."

In many ways, we have been living in this world for over a century. An example: https://blog.strom.com/wp/?p=7791 https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-collections/artifact/141576

Hazlitt discussed machines in Chapter 7 of Economics in One Lesson. https://leeconomics.com/Literature/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A143%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22Fit%22%7D%5D

Each person's time is still scarce. The machines are scarce and their time is scarce. The raw materials are scarce. So they will still be economized even if we have an abundance available compared to now.

As for "inflation ... goes to those who put in the physical effort. ... are you happy with 2% inflation?" I don't think the answer to that is impacted much by the scenario. The question boils down to "is 2% theft OK?" or rather "is inflation theft in a proof-of-work scenario?" If the situation is more like US dollars, where only a few are eligible to inflate by official capacity but everyone else is banned, then no, it's not OK. If the situation is more like gold, where anybody can buy property and mine if they put in the effort, then yes, it's OK.

In your scenario something went wrong with a fixed 2% inflation that everyone is subject to. First, why should everyone be subject to this one medium of exchange exclusively? They should be able to choose among media. Second, how could it be fixed at 2% or why 2%? How can you bootstrap such an agreement? Surely one asset could be created with that 2% inflation rate, but that leads back to the first point: no one should have to use it.