Nostr Web Client

Replying to

Hanshan

people will always buy necessities, thats why they're necessities.

it isn't like we've had the last 50 years of technological growth DESPITE fiat money.

fiat money paid for it.

your smartphone, the Internet and the the rest of it exist largely because of easy money.

if all that capital allocation just went away things would be very different.

we can debate back and forth about where exactly things would land

and whether it would be better or worse than the current situation.

i think it would be mostly better.

but growth would grind to a halt because of this retarded idea that monetary inflation is just bad.

EVEN if monetary inflation tracks with economic inflation and purchasing power remains unchanged.

ManyKeys 7mo ago

Scenario 1 is more money chasing fewer goods. This leads to inflation where future cash flows must be discounted to account for the loss of value in the currency over time.

Scenario 2 is more goods chasing fewer money. This leads to deflation where future cash flows are discounted less — or even valued more through premiums — because the currency gains value over time.

The only thing that matters is sound economic calculation. As long as the rate of monetary change is known and stable, people can adjust their decisions accordingly. The real difference is not in the math but in the behavior each system incentivizes. One rewards speed and spending. The other rewards patience and productive investment.

You must be a Keynesian to paint this as you do. A Keynesian anti statist 😂

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

YODL 7mo ago

This is a better answer than I could have provided, but seems to me like you nailed it. Bonus for the zinger at the end

ManyKeys 7mo ago

Hanshan 7mo ago

its just a strawman and reducing the entire conversation to a simple binary question.

which it isnt.

nobody is advocating for more money chasing few goods.

YODL 7mo ago

I thought it characterized the essence of the argument quite well.

You already know most of my arguments if you've read anything like bitcoin standard, so will spare you.

With monero or BTC the difference is small enough (even in 50 years where BTC is effectively flat growth), that I think we're mostly in alignment that very small decay is best. If that's 0 or 1% probably doesn't make much difference. The greater problem anyway is how current system also directs new issuance (cantillion blah blah) imo.

Hanshan 7mo ago

its doesnt address the essence of our conversation*at all.*

the question is

"in a purely deflationary environment is innovation and economic growth incentivized enough?"

hes like

"yes, because increased producer efficiency"

I'm like

"no, because capital is now rarely allocated to increase producer efficiency"

its true the market will adjust to whatever the standard is.

irs just that a purely deflationary standard is probably pretty stupid.

YODL 7mo ago

I must be missing something.

We agree BTC and monero are close to the same, right? And they approach 0% issuance anyway, so not even sure anymore why you have this view, assuming you endorse the monero supply schedule as is.

Hanshan 7mo ago

but to answer your question

I suspect theres a big difference between 0% and .83%

so it depends where on the timeline we are speculating about doesnt it?

i agree that on a long enough timeline its likely monero isnt *inflationary enough*

to avoid the same problems I'm talking about.

the meme is a joke

I still haven't heard a reason why y'all would object to the money supply simply keeping pace with economic growth and purchasing power remaining constant.

YODL 7mo ago

Keep in mind here that I don't claim to be expert. in fact I so rarely articulate any of this that I find it beneficial to "spar" with you. Very few topics I dare take expert stance on.

One quick thought is that such a measure can't be done. No way to measure unchanging purchasing power of every individual over time. Best leave pricing to free market. And I just don't see how some arbitrary external decay rule guides the free market system better.

I'll think about it more maybe. Thanks for the insights

Hanshan 7mo ago

Thanks for the conversation ❤️

YODL 7mo ago

While an elegant meme format, 2 and 3 are arguably the same if by money supply you mean that which is circulating (otherwise not entirely sure what 3 means), and that doesn't lead to 4, which is also effectively equal to 2 if you fast forward a "few years".

Hanshan 7mo ago

3 means that the growth of the money supply matches economic growth.

so if there are more goods and services ("value") the money supply inflates to represent that,

if there is less stuff, the money supply contracts.

the result is the purchasing power of a monetary unit is constant year to year.

not achievable but worth thinking about.

mister_monster 7mo ago

Figured I'd help articulate something, it is not achievable because it requires predicting what people will create using their imaginations and how the world will react to those creations, how they'll find utility and benefit from them in their lives. You can't adjust real time to economic growth because it is an organic, distributed process flowing from the creative mind.

Hanshan 7mo ago

which is why .6 units per block is the galaxy brained take 😂

mister_monster 7mo ago

Well, yeah, the gold thing, where as the purchasing power of money (in this case gold) goes up, production of money also goes up, there's still a latency in that self regulating feedback loop there but it works well.

Continuous linear debasement smooths these problems pretty well too, and trying to build a system that inflates like gold, as a response to increased purchasing power, would require an external price oracle which is a terrible idea for an independent currency, so we have to use something algorithmic and self contained with no self reference. UTXOLive is a pretty cool thing that maybe could do this, but it's certain to be gamed with that much to gain from doing so. And between hard cap, geometric supply growth and linear supply growth, linear wins out, so linear it is.

ManyKeys 7mo ago

That's very shallow of you. I literally wrote pages to explain this yet you clinge on to your money cult. Im done entertaining this now. Thanks

YODL 7mo ago

It's just his style, he's not so different and occasionally says smart things. Nice to meet you, Keys