# Lyn Alden vs Jeff Snider!

## Snider believes:

- Bitcoin is not perfect, as good money needs to be elastic to meet supply and demand

- Black markets and quasi money will be created in a system with fixed inelastic money

- The economic system does not adjust through prices, it adjusts through activity

- If you go through a deflationary period with inelastic money entrepreneurs will have to fire all their workers (because they don't have the funds to pay them)

- If you remove elasticity, it will be at the cost of economic growth, as debt is a factor, historically speaking, in creating economic prosperity for society ("imagine having a 2008 without all the economic growth of the 80's & 90's," he states)

## Alden believes:

- Bitcoin is good money as divisibility is the tradeoff for elasticity

- By having a hard and quickly verifiable deflationary money, less debt is injected in the system and it causes less problems during deflationary cycles

- Only highly indebted individuals or companies would suffer in a deflationary period

- Banks are incentivized to push inflation in a highly indebted system at a cost to society

----

Overall, Snider asks "the age old question", do you want a system that minimizes the downside of deflationary periods at the cost of attainable economic growth, by limiting the amount of debt? **Is it worth limiting the downfall at the cost of future growth?**

----

I've pondered this before and believe growth may be slower under a ₿ standard, but it would be more deliberate and less wasteful. Thoughts?

💜🫂🧡