I have seen a lot of incorrect comments about monetary economics with people claiming things like "inflation is necessary" and "an deflationary currency cannot work because people will just hoard it". Also things like "money's purpose is as a medium of exchange" or "people use money when they trade".
My view of money is a bit different. I see money as a social behavior where by people use it as an accounting ledger for tracking purposes. Someone "uses" money when they hold a currency for the purposes of deferred consumption. The moment they exchange this money for goods or services should therefore be considered he or she stopping their use of the currency and is only possible because someone else is willing to use that currency to defer his or her consumption.
That is, in an instant the only people using a currency are those who are hoarding it in that instance. How quickly the currency changes hands is irrelevant. What matters is the economic deman d for the currency--i.e. the number and willingness of people to hoard it.
Once you understand money this way, imagine a deflationary currency competing with an inflationary one. Who would choose to own a currency whose value is deluded over time via monetary expansion vs one that is of fixed supply? The outcome should be an absolute certainty for you. We can know with complete certainty that bitcoin will be worth $1M per coin, the only question is the timing. If the end result is known, it seems like it that people would position themselves accordingly and wait for this eventuality. Is there any doubt that in 50 years one US dollar will be worth less Bitcoin than it can currently buy?
submitted by 
No comments:
Post a Comment