Same story as 20 + pages ago, very funny to look on crying investors.
I going to buy popcorn, this story will be better Titanic.

On this forum, yes. Anywhere else (any economics literature...), no. This is like telling a physicist there are two kinds of temperature, one based on molecule vibration and the other based on things being hot.

Lagarde doesn't know about money, system will collapse ... any serious comments?

The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned that deflation remains a real risk to economic recovery in the eurozone.

Despite signs of recovery across the world, Christine Lagarde said that potential risks must not be ignored.

One of these was the fact that eurozone inflation, at 0.8%, remained "way below" the 2% target set by the European Central Bank (ECB).

She was speaking on the final day of the World Economic Forum, in Davos.

Deflation can hinder growth, as prices and the value assets continue to fall.

More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25894050

Slovenia would seize the money? Please don't write such nonsense. I think what you are (very clumsily) trying to say is, that if Slovenian branch of Unicredit would go bankrupt, Slovenian state would only insure (i.e. vouch for) deposits up to 100.000€, which is standard EU limit.

The only problem Bitstamp has are posts like this. I don't think they have their cash sitting on a local Unicredit account anyway and even if they were, Unicredit Slovenia is doing just fine. It was stress tested in 2013 and it didn't have to be included in the bad bank scheme.  3 other banks were included, but even there no deposits were touched, above or bellow 100.000€!

Ignorance pumping FUD, all there is to it.

Wars can be actually pretty good for business. If we were to talk about a zombie apocalypse, that's different story altogether.

1. Company X invents a new product, new sgement and all other prices of unrelated products will fall at once so X can make more money? Yea right, dream on. Most prices are rigid.
2. If you read anything in those 20 years, please post a link where we can find your fabricated definition of inflation. Wikipedia - no, Investopedia - no, any economics scholbook - no ...

Q is quantity of product, price is a separate variabale ... ah what's the point. Go ahead, ignore all theory and blindly believe that almighty Bitcoin will save us all.

Two mistakes in your reasoning:
1. It is the other way around; when an economy has by itself a business opportunity to grow, but the money supply doesn't get increased accordingly, this growth will be at least partially hampered.
2. If the prices don't grow, there is no inflation. Please read any definition of inflation you can find apart from the first post in this thread.

I didn't say that money supply is the only variable in the equation of exchange. But we need to respect the economic terms for what they are and not mix different categories even if they are in a cause and effect relationship.

Equation of exchange (most popular form): M*V = P*Q

M - money supply (mass of money in circ.)
V - velocity
P - price level
Q - productivity or quantity of product (goods, services)

So if you have a growing economy (Q is rising) and there is no change in the way you do business i.e. trade (V doesn't change) you need to increase the money supply to support this growth. Most prices are downward rigid and this is the only way to make it work. If Q and M are in proportion there is no inflation, just healthy growth supported by growing money supply.

This is all pretty elementary, no differences in opinions between economic theories etc.

We need to go to the start of this thread. The idea of dividing price inflation and money supply inflation makes no sense. According to all major sources, these two categories are just cause and effect of inflation. CPI is the most basic measure of inflation worldwide.

What are your 10-20% supposed to mean and where did you get this data?

As for China; i wouldn't refer to it as an example of a place where people i.e. workers have a good and fair life, it is in fact quite the opposite. See Foxconn...?

No.

Inflation in EU is very low, monetary policy is restrictive and EU has significantly higher unemployment than any other major economy. I haven't heard a single unemployed person complain about inflation ever and I've been around a while (Yugoslavia with hyperinflation, Slovenia with own fresh currency and now €). Which 'real' people are you talking about?

You are also neglecting companies, business. They do most of the borrowing. People work in companies. Companies need to take loans (or issue shares) to grow business and offer jobs. If a company stops to borrow money it's usually a seriously bad sign, it means it has no idea, no room to grow and it will be overrun by competitors, people lose jobs.

Calling this nationalization is is misleading. The bank in question (and a few others) were on the verge of bankruptcy. Shares of any bankrupt company are worth nothing. The state set up a bad bank which took over the poisoned assets (bad loans etc.) and pumped several billion € of fresh capital into these banks, so they can now function normally.

All of this was conducted under strict EU supervision and with previous approval. Such procedures (healing troubled banks with a bad bank) took place in many EU countries like Finland, Germany, Spain and UK. Some of these bad bank were set up in the 1990s  See "bad bank" on wikipedia to learn more.

PS
Slovenia as a state isn't bankrupt. Public debt after this bad bank scenario increased for those billions that were pumped in these banks, but still it is about 65% of GDP which is average. E.g. Italian debt is 125% of GDB, Greece 160% and Poland 53% ...

I'm afraid you got it all completely wrong. Most prices (except high tech gadgets) are typically very rigid downward and mild, non-destructive inflation encourages putting money to use from passive cash to active capital form. Deflation on the other hand encourages being passive, holding on to cash, not investing, not taking loans and is as such quite devastating to any economy. Japan is a typical example where deflation alone has crippled a very healthy economic growth for decades.

The less Bitcoin is usable, more of a bubble it is. If we don't get to a point where goods are massively sold for BTC directly, we just let the BTC exchanges take commissions instead of banks.

As for people losing money within the system I'm proposing; either you are deliberately oversimplifying or you just don't understand economics. Given the fixed final amount of Bitcoins on one side and the ever growing world economy, Bitcoin is bound to be at least slightly gaining value, prices of goods in Bitcoins are bound to be going down and exchange rates to other currencies are bound to constantly rise. If the yearly fee rate would be smaller or equal to the appreciation rate, nobody would lose their money.

Again, I'm not advocating inflation. I'm proposing a variable transaction fee to compensate for negative effects of inherent deflation.

All major currencies are far more stable than Bitcoin. Bitcoin prices swing over 10% each and every trading day, when was the last time USD did that?

OK, here we go; M*V=P*Q (M=mass, V=revolving velocity, P=price, Q=trading quant.). If we observe the market as it is now, we see that mass is stable and all other variables are very unstable. Price fluctuates and so does trading volume. Most of the time we have low trading volume, with occasional spikes (positive and negative) in price accompanied with much higher volumes. So we can conclude we have low and unstable velocity of money, which I think is pretty bad. The goal should be exactly the opposite, a high and stable velocity, supported by stable prices and constant high trading volumes.

When you compare Bitcoin to land, there is one huge difference; land is a resource that provides yield (rent, crops, ...). Bitcoin is just money, it can only provide profit when traded.

The only bright future I see is when a currency becomes relevant. Many small coexisting currencies are doomed to also be irrelevant. Bitcoin is now on a good path. For it to succeed completely, it needs a stable price which will allow more and more goods to be sold for Bitcoins directly. Otherwise it will remain more or less a bubble, even if deflatory in nature.

I see many people defending the deflatory nature per se. Why??? The goal should be for it to be strong, globally relevant and foremost useful to as many people as possible.

I'm suggesting a solution to Bitcoins problems (mainly volatility). I don't seen any way how I would personally benefit from such a change.