|
Title: . Post by: ChicagoSchooler on March 05, 2015, 10:52:48 PM .
Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: manselr on March 05, 2015, 10:59:26 PM In "The Denationalization of Money" (http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Denationalisation%20of%20Money%20The%20Argument%20Refined_5.pdf), Friedrich A. Hayek (http://mises.org/profile/friedrich-hayek) says that private monies should be allowed to exist and that the one with the most stable value would be most likely to win. I would much rather deal with BTC's volatility considering the pros/cons of the alternative (centralized national money).In defense of Bitcoin, many suggest that the frequent, large price inflations and deflations are preferred over a currency with stable value. Was F.A.Hayek wrong? Side note: he also says that indexation is not a substitute for price stable money. Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: L on March 05, 2015, 11:04:50 PM For normal day use and for people who live paycheck to paycheck I'll assume the most stable one is the preferable.
I think bitcoin is still a very speculative market and this is very attractive to investors and risk seeking people, not "normal" folk, anyway this is all very new and very hard to make accurate predictions. Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: oblivi on March 05, 2015, 11:17:19 PM I would much rather deal with BTC's volatility considering the pros/cons of the alternative (centralized national money). How about a decentralized one with continual price stability (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=960938.0)? When Bitcoin reaches mainstream usage it will naturally stop being so volatile. I don't believe in alternatives to Bitcoin, everything that's needed Bitcoin has it. Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: twiifm on March 06, 2015, 01:39:12 AM Private money has always been to allow to exist.
But the only money the state accepts for taxes is legal tender. Because of this no private money can compete with states money Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: johnyj on March 06, 2015, 02:24:10 AM Private money has always been to allow to exist. But the only money the state accepts for taxes is legal tender. Because of this no private money can compete with states money States money does not have power against another nation, it is the currency war we are experiencing right now, eventually all those currencies will depreciate faster and faster fighting each other, while the universally accepted bitcoin will become the last stable ground of value Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: johnyj on March 06, 2015, 02:33:51 AM In "The Denationalization of Money" (http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Denationalisation%20of%20Money%20The%20Argument%20Refined_5.pdf), Friedrich A. Hayek (http://mises.org/profile/friedrich-hayek) says that private monies should be allowed to exist and that the one with the most stable value would be most likely to win. In defense of Bitcoin, many suggest that the frequent, large price inflations and deflations are preferred over a currency with stable value. Was F.A.Hayek wrong? Side note: he also says that indexation is not a substitute for price stable money. Value is never a stable thing, since supply and demand are changing all the time, stable value is just a wishful thinking. People look at the price label and feel that the price does not change, call that stability, but that is because the value of fiat money and those goods are all dropping at the same speed Current large price swing of bitcoin is partly caused by extremely low liquidity due to low value, and partly due to large advances in mining technology. After the advance in mining technology has stabilized at more predictable speed, then price volatility will drop Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: cysive on March 06, 2015, 03:57:25 AM I would much rather deal with BTC's volatility considering the pros/cons of the alternative (centralized national money). How about a decentralized one with continual price stability (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=960938.0)? When Bitcoin reaches mainstream usage it will naturally stop being so volatile. I don't believe in alternatives to Bitcoin, everything that's needed Bitcoin has it. I personalty believe Bitcoin stabilizes in price when it equalizes the things traded with it. If that never happens, then it never will. When a unit of labor perfectly trades for a pound of chicken or a gallon of gas, with no supply or demand imbalances caused by the currency itself, then that currency will be perfect. That's probably an untenable goal, but whatever comes closest will win. That's probably what Hayek was after. A larger pool of Bitcoin may help that happen, may not. -C Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: Possum577 on March 06, 2015, 06:09:50 AM No, fiat is still preferred over digital currency. And stability is just one of the reasons (perhaps the most important).
Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: Amph on March 08, 2015, 08:08:40 AM he should keep i mind, that bitcoin stability is tie with it's adoption, and it's adoption isn't finished yet
they always talk like bitcoin will never be stable, i kinda hate that Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: Monetizer on March 08, 2015, 08:10:38 AM I believe bitcoins swings are what is helping it gain initial popularity right now as people all want to learn more and make some money if they can. In the future however I am sure many people would rather bitcoin become more stable so it can be used better as a currency.
Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: picolo on March 08, 2015, 11:49:57 AM In "The Denationalization of Money" (http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Denationalisation%20of%20Money%20The%20Argument%20Refined_5.pdf), Friedrich A. Hayek (http://mises.org/profile/friedrich-hayek) says that private monies should be allowed to exist and that the one with the most stable value would be most likely to win. In defense of Bitcoin, many suggest that the frequent, large price inflations and deflations are preferred over a currency with stable value. Was F.A.Hayek wrong? Side note: he also says that indexation is not a substitute for price stable money. There is no other crypto that is big, efficient and very stable Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: Exther2 on March 08, 2015, 01:36:22 PM In "The Denationalization of Money" (http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Denationalisation%20of%20Money%20The%20Argument%20Refined_5.pdf), Friedrich A. Hayek (http://mises.org/profile/friedrich-hayek) says that private monies should be allowed to exist and that the one with the most stable value would be most likely to win. He's not aware of Bitcoin power. Stability will be shown once Bitcoin gets global adoption and acceptance, so the usage too.In defense of Bitcoin, many suggest that the frequent, large price inflations and deflations are preferred over a currency with stable value. Was F.A.Hayek wrong? Side note: he also says that indexation is not a substitute for price stable money. By global I mean everywhere e.g. Google, Microsoft, PayPal, Amazon, eBay etc. Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: dothebeats on March 08, 2015, 04:30:18 PM In "The Denationalization of Money" (http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Denationalisation%20of%20Money%20The%20Argument%20Refined_5.pdf), Friedrich A. Hayek (http://mises.org/profile/friedrich-hayek) says that private monies should be allowed to exist and that the one with the most stable value would be most likely to win. In defense of Bitcoin, many suggest that the frequent, large price inflations and deflations are preferred over a currency with stable value. Was F.A.Hayek wrong? Side note: he also says that indexation is not a substitute for price stable money. Though bitcoin's price is somehow volatile, the concept that lies within the Bitcoin protocol is advantageous compared to a centralized national currency. Give bitcoin time to see adoption, stability will soon follow. But we cannot deny the fact that because of the lack of users, bitcoin tends to be more of as an investment vehicle used by people who has the $$$ in order to get a hefty profit. Title: Re: Hayek was wrong? Post by: dothebeats on March 08, 2015, 04:37:47 PM In "The Denationalization of Money" (http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Denationalisation%20of%20Money%20The%20Argument%20Refined_5.pdf), Friedrich A. Hayek (http://mises.org/profile/friedrich-hayek) says that private monies should be allowed to exist and that the one with the most stable value would be most likely to win. He's not aware of Bitcoin power. Stability will be shown once Bitcoin gets global adoption and acceptance, so the usage too.In defense of Bitcoin, many suggest that the frequent, large price inflations and deflations are preferred over a currency with stable value. Was F.A.Hayek wrong? Side note: he also says that indexation is not a substitute for price stable money. By global I mean everywhere e.g. Google, Microsoft, PayPal, Amazon, eBay etc. Well, global isn't only bound to the large players of tech. By global, it means that even little merchant use and implement bitcoin as their payment option. |