Nostr Web Client

Good morning. Your way does sound more fair but it still creates distortions. Imagine everyone gets a stimmy check no matter their wealth. The goods and services in the economy remain the same but now they are being chased by more dollars so at first cut you could expect that everything will just get more expensive in proportion. So that doesn’t help anyone. But I don’t actually need a stimmy check to survive so i spend all of mine on bitcoin. But a poor person may have to spend all of theirs on food and shelter. In effect you gave rich people free bitcoin and made them wealthier. Was that your intention? In Australia they came up with the genius idea of giving all first home buyers a grant. All that happened was house prices went up in lock step, housing there is still unaffordable. All the well intentioned ideas for centrally managing the money supply makes it worse.

SatsAndSports 4mo ago

The economy isn't a zero-sum game; some decisions are better than others at improving average living standards.

The scenario here is where deflation - or deflation expectations - is causing harm to the economy because everybody is delaying purchases waiting for the price to fall. It becomes a vicious circle of decreasing prices and decreasing employment. The experts, correctly, decide that the money supply needs to increase to break this cycle.

In this scenario, the only question is: who should get the newly-created money?

The goal is to make more people active again, i.e. increase employment (in productive industries)

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Speedster 4mo ago

If people are delaying purchasing decisions it’s because thats what is best for them in their circumstances. I constantly delay buying more chairs because i don’t need them right now but i do spend on food fuel and shelter that i do need. If people lose their jobs it’s because they are doing something unnecessary or wasteful. They should do something else rather than be propped up by money printing. What is an example of a country where they print lots of money and standards of living and purchasing power increases?

SatsAndSports 4mo ago

I'll choose my words carefully, because it's possible that we'll fall into a very repetitive trap of making the same arguments that have been made around these topics for centuries 😃

I assume you accept that economics is not a zero-sum game? For example, living standards have improved pretty consistently over centuries, for example with technology and process improvements?

Neither of us think that a central planner can make perfect decisions, but we agree that governments can make harmful decisions?

Is that okay so far?

Speedster 4mo ago

It’s not that i think central banks are imperfect i think it’s an evil institution. I also acknowledge that without them there will be circumstances when some people suffer and i am ok with that.

SatsAndSports 4mo ago

You're changing the subject a bit. I never said we need to keep central banks. Some of the ideas in this space, including some of the ideas that I like, don't require a central bank

Speedster 4mo ago

Im not looking for a debate i just wanted to let people know about a book i read. If you have a thesis or think you have identified a problem and corresponding solution post it. Ive followed you so i wont miss it.

SatsAndSports 4mo ago

That's cool. Thanks for engaging. I'm very new to Nostr, and the discussions here are more interesting than on other platforms.

In a non-Bitcoin world, I think I'd be a fan of 'functional finance', it's an approach that doesn't require a central bank (although that's not the main selling point)

In particular, the three 'rules for fiscal policy' here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_finance

Speedster 4mo ago

Interesting thanks for sharing. The weak point that i see is all the intervention required and the assumption that a central planner knows best. In practice governments don’t reduce spending even when their philosophy says to. Are there any examples of where this had been put into practice?

SatsAndSports 4mo ago

You're making a number of different points in just that reply, and so it's difficult to respond. You talk about intervention, as if there is an obvious non-interventionist or less-interventionist alternative. And you also imply that governments should spend less. I'm not sure how to respond; very many different points have been made by both of us in this thread

Speedster 4mo ago

Yeah its hard to make a detailed discussion a few lines at a time. I like the bitcoin monetary policy. It is what it is. No matter what experts think everyone knows what’s happening from now till the end of time. I can plan with that. I don’t need an expert to expand or contract it. People that like it can adopt it. If others don’t like programed money and want to use central bank fiat I’m ok with them choosing that. Because there is a choice you don’t even really need to debate it. Just make a decision and execute. If your life gets better good, if not then change.