If hoarders just sit on their stack, how exactly does the purchasing power of their money increase without others voluntarily producing more goods and services?

Who is forcing anyone to produce for them?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

yes.

their purchasing power increases because of the economic ventures of other people.

the hoarder gets a free ride.

there is no coercion. you want to structurally design it to be that way.

pretty sure we're just talking in circles now

┐⁠(⁠ ⁠˘⁠_⁠˘⁠)⁠┌

Exactly, no coercion.

The saver enables capital formation by delaying consumption.

Without savings, those ventures you speak of wouldn’t have capital to operate.

Calling that a free ride is like calling oxygen a parasite for feeding fire.

thats a extremely tortured metaphor and you didn't respond to my point at all

we're done here.

No saving = no capital.

No capital = no investment.

No investment = no growth.

No growth = stagnation & poverty.

Consumption alone doesn’t build wealth. It burns it.

nice strawman you got there 👍

lol horseshit

to recap

there is no austrian economist ever that advocates for creating the most deflationary environment possible

or a cap on the amount of monetary units

nothing you've said has shown otherwise

characterizing my argument as if I was against saving is a retarded strawman

But hey

I guess when you really don't have anything to say

except for repackaging Human Action

it's best to just strawman and claim victory

Mises, Hayek and Rothbard rejected government monetary expansion, which means keeping the money supply constant or decreasing.

Rothbard was against the state and didn't know about crypto, so gold was money for him. With a natural upper limit.

Hayek wanted currency competition and was in favor of deflationary currencies becoming dominant in the market.