cesuntbanii on Nostr: https://nostrcheck.me/media/public/nostrcheck.me_7138249451104741021697318077.webp We ...
We can have 3 possible relations between prices and monetary base:
1. Constant inflation (low or high) - generated by the printing of currency. The monetary base grows faster than the real productivity. New monetary units are brought into existence (at zero cost) faster than the goods and services are brought into existence. Even on the gold standard we could have inflation if, say, we’re constantly discovering new gold reserves which are also easy to extract (being easy to extract, gold would become abundant and it would lose its function as money). The result: continuously higher prices. With fiat money, the ones who are closer to the money printer benefit the most (the government and the companies linked to the government) - they’re parasitizing the rest of the society who have to work for money.
2. Stable prices - protocol which implies that the monetary base grows in perfect tandem with productivity. Technically, this is impossible to do. There is no way to accurately quantify how a certain invention of a certain engineer will impact productivity. The productivity will grow with each new innovation and invention, sure, but it’s hard to measure it precisely. And who would have the (godly) privilege of deciding how and when the monetary base should grow or shrink? The same bureaucrats from point 1? The central banks and the government? No, thanks!
3. Prices always falling - fixed monetary base, infinitely divisible. Hard money (money with real cost of production) in finite supply. When we’re no longer able to deal with its smallest subunit, we do an upgrade and we divide it even further. This is easy to do with a digital form of money and if we really need to have a physical unit as well it should be made of precious metals (rare) which involves proof-of-work. A fixed monetary base is like a non existent monetary base (like it was on barter) and it’s deflationary (like it was in barter: hunting with rocks = expensive meat; hunting with bow and arrow = affordable meat). There is nothing to manipulate. Want value/money? Work!
I’d like to live in a world where the prices are always falling and if the rest of the world at large doesn’t agree (yet) then I, as an individual, choose to save in a deflationary type of money. As long as there are others like me and the adoption of that particular money is net positive (those who adopt it minus those who change their minds = positive number/year) then me and the community will benefit from the deflationary quality of the new money (as long as there is peace and/or productivity doesn’t fall).
Published at
2023-10-14 21:15:46Event JSON
{
"id": "e73603960847595168fe5825f5c14a64bbbd10e8eb5812effb30d4269aa3e25b",
"pubkey": "39da27d98bd0ba8ef210f6433e478dd6ba61c220457d91273fd2acdc8f9dd03e",
"created_at": 1697318146,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "https://nostrcheck.me/media/public/nostrcheck.me_7138249451104741021697318077.webp We can have 3 possible relations between prices and monetary base:\n\n1. Constant inflation (low or high) - generated by the printing of currency. The monetary base grows faster than the real productivity. New monetary units are brought into existence (at zero cost) faster than the goods and services are brought into existence. Even on the gold standard we could have inflation if, say, we’re constantly discovering new gold reserves which are also easy to extract (being easy to extract, gold would become abundant and it would lose its function as money). The result: continuously higher prices. With fiat money, the ones who are closer to the money printer benefit the most (the government and the companies linked to the government) - they’re parasitizing the rest of the society who have to work for money. \n\n2. Stable prices - protocol which implies that the monetary base grows in perfect tandem with productivity. Technically, this is impossible to do. There is no way to accurately quantify how a certain invention of a certain engineer will impact productivity. The productivity will grow with each new innovation and invention, sure, but it’s hard to measure it precisely. And who would have the (godly) privilege of deciding how and when the monetary base should grow or shrink? The same bureaucrats from point 1? The central banks and the government? No, thanks!\n\n3. Prices always falling - fixed monetary base, infinitely divisible. Hard money (money with real cost of production) in finite supply. When we’re no longer able to deal with its smallest subunit, we do an upgrade and we divide it even further. This is easy to do with a digital form of money and if we really need to have a physical unit as well it should be made of precious metals (rare) which involves proof-of-work. A fixed monetary base is like a non existent monetary base (like it was on barter) and it’s deflationary (like it was in barter: hunting with rocks = expensive meat; hunting with bow and arrow = affordable meat). There is nothing to manipulate. Want value/money? Work!\n\nI’d like to live in a world where the prices are always falling and if the rest of the world at large doesn’t agree (yet) then I, as an individual, choose to save in a deflationary type of money. As long as there are others like me and the adoption of that particular money is net positive (those who adopt it minus those who change their minds = positive number/year) then me and the community will benefit from the deflationary quality of the new money (as long as there is peace and/or productivity doesn’t fall). ",
"sig": "51550d5807b1a18aebd41bedb4c618975537575a96445cf7d5d02a8d534366a96ac0658b8ed63ddf8767b2a1b59e45d88f0c6b893c757ff9a463bfdaff56d834"
}
