Krugman makes some good points

[Puppet]

Easy peasy, since I get to choose the time frames.  Any society that has ever existed upon a gold standard, prior to that same society's move towards currency debasement.  You're getting your cause and effect wrong, The Roman Empire didn't collapse because they used a deflationary currency (gold, silver, salt, nails) they debased that same deflationary currency because they were in the process of multi-generational collapse. 

So predictable: the infamous libertarian rewriting of roman history. Here is some the other side of roman coin:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.be/2011/06/debt-deflationary-crisis-in-late-roman.html

Money is simply a tool.

There is no arguing that: It just seems you want our society to use a tool that works for you; I will buy such tools myself and prefer society uses a tool that works for society.

[1714984810]

1714984810

[1714984810]

1714984810

[1714984810]

1714984810

[Richy_T]

But what you do achieve is making credit (ie money) available for businesses and generally thats a good thing for the economy.

It might be, it might not. If it's a poor investment, you have people and resources being soaked up doing something when they might otherwise be more gainfully employed. It might have been better for people to hold on to their money until a better opportunity comes along. But if you do that in the current environment, you're losing value. So spend, spend spend and hope you don't get caught holding the bag (Hint: you will because when it all goes South, the government will take even more of your money to bail the big boys out).

I can't believe anyone can honestly look around at what we're in now and think the status quo is a good idea.

[MoonShadow]

It's not better, nor worse, for society at large.  That's actually impossible.  The "market cap" of an economy is simply a reflection of the total wealth of that economy.  It doesn't matter so much who happens to possess that wealth, from an economic perspective.

Distribution of wealth actually matters very, very much.

Politcally and socially, sure.  Economicly or mathmaticly, not so much.

But thats not the point Im making, as it isnt about wealth; its about availability of credit.  You (usually) dont get significantly more or less wealthy if you invest your credit money for instance in the stock market. But what you do achieve is making credit (ie money) available for businesses and generally thats a good thing for the economy. If everyone would hide their fiat under their pillow you would have a problem. Thats why I say the small disincentive inherent to inflationary  credit money is actually a  good property for the economy at large.

You're missing the point.  Credit availability is a problem for whom?  I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm trying to be a better economics professor than you apparently have been exposed to thus far.  The classic method involves asking questions of the student, in order to lead them to a deeper understanding of the topic.  Economics is more than mathmatics or statistics, it's people, so both the who and why does matter.

 Central bankers inflating a fiat currency is a hidden tax upon the entire currency userbase, as it transfers purchasing power from those who earn and save in a currency to those who create and have first access to that currency.

Sure; but you dont have to save in  fiat currency: buy gold; buy stock; buy bitcoins; buy land, start a business.

Yes, you do.  To some limited degree and term, you must.  We all must, as there is simply no way to avoid it.  We can deliberately choose to limit that kind of exposure, but it's impossible to completely avoid it. And do you know who can least avoid it?  The poor.

 Credit money isnt meant to be the best possible preservation of wealth and that its not  is therefore not in the least a problem. Its by design.  The most important goal of a monetary system is not to preserve my wealth,  it has to do enable our economy.  And thats what credit money is much better suited for than bitcoins.

This reminds me of a quote...

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

-― Friedrich von Hayek

Just because that was the idea, son, don't mean that is what actually happens.  I question whether or not that was the true design, or simply propaganda to cover the scam, anyway.

Not till now, but that's exactly why Bitcoin exists, to present a real alternative.

Before bitcoin,  you truly found nothing to invest your money in?

Before Bitcoin, there was nothing truly detatched from fiat currency systems to invest into.  You betray your own though processes; as investing into regulated industries is investing into areas wherein the government has deliberately limited your choices, and then taxes you upon any successes that result despite them.  Even investing in gold is taxed here in the US; both up front (sales tax) and on the back end (capital gains tax).  The best way that I've found to invest without taxation is to use a Health Savings Account, but governments limit my choices there in other ways, and there is zero chance of fiscal privacy regarding one of those accounts.  There is also zero chance of investing in anything not dollar denominated.  It's acctually illegal to invest such funds into physical gold, for example.  An ETF, sure; but not actual coins.

And it's your choice also, now that Bitcoin exists.  I suggest that you choose to invest elsewhere.  Bitcoin is, after all, a very risky investment for which you seem to have zero faith.  Why are you here?  Do you want us to convince you of your errors, or are you trying to convince us of ours?  In the case of the former, all the benefit is your own; in the case of the latter, your task is futile.

You are completely misreading me. Im neither risk averse nor anti bitcoin; I just acknowledge what bitcoin is and what it isnt: A viable universal alternative to credit money; it is not: Something like ripple OTOH perhaps might be one day.

You say that it's not a viable alternative to credit based fiat.  Okay, that's your opinion.  What is it good for then?  Again, why are you here?  Are you trying to convince us, or yourself?

Think, young man, think.

[Puppet]

I would appreciate a little less presumptiveness (if not even condescension). Its been almost 20 years since anyone called me a young man: I also dont feel like I somehow have to justify my motivation for posting here; nor do I see you as my professor.

I will respond to the other points when I have time.

[MoonShadow]

Easy peasy, since I get to choose the time frames.  Any society that has ever existed upon a gold standard, prior to that same society's move towards currency debasement.  You're getting your cause and effect wrong, The Roman Empire didn't collapse because they used a deflationary currency (gold, silver, salt, nails) they debased that same deflationary currency because they were in the process of multi-generational collapse. 

So predictable: the infamous libertarian rewriting of roman history. Here is some the other side of roman coin:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.be/2011/06/debt-deflationary-crisis-in-late-roman.html

I stopped right here....

" but they never mention the rather important point that deflation and debt deflation were clearly factors in the economic and social turmoil that saw the fall of the Roman Republic in the first century BC and its replacement with the despotic Roman empire (for a timeline of Roman Republican history, see below)."

Because this is a strawman setup.  Of course "debt deflation" (as it's commonly defined, usually by Kenyesians) had significant effects upon the course of the breakdown.  That's freely acknowledged by most Austrians.  What your lot seems to misunderstand is the praxelogical effects of debt itself that leads to these ends.  It's not the debt deflation that is the root of the problem, it's the debt fueled boom that proceeded it.  The debt deflationary period is called a "correction" for good reasons.

Money is simply a tool.

There is no arguing that: It just seems you want our society to use a tool that works for you; I will buy such tools myself and prefer society uses a tool that works for society.

Go right ahead.  If you honestly beleive that money is a tool intended to "work for society" then there is nothing that I can do to change your mind.  Nor would I care to try, you're as free to be wrong as the next guy.  And yes, I want a tool that works for me, for I am the only person that I can trust to best handle my tools.  The prisoner's delima doesn't apply to free market trades in the absense of third party coersion, so in a free society wherein the vast majority of economic interactions occur in the absence of such coersion, it's literally impossible for the collection of individual interactions (presumedly favorable to both sides of the trade) to be a net negative for society.

Think, young man, think.  Think for yourself, not just how your professor expects you to react.

[MoonShadow]

I would appreciate a little less presumptiveness (if not even condescension). Its been almost 20 years since anyone called me a young man: I also dont feel like I somehow have to justify my motivation for posting here; nor do I see you as my professor.

I will respond to the other points when I have time.

I'm sorry, I assumed since you still had an economics textbook to refer to, that you were a student.  Learning that you are at least 40, and posses an economics textbook (presumedly from 20 years ago?) completely alters my mental image.  In my defense, most of the economicly uneducated in this forum are young and impressionable.

You're probably just too old to change your mind.

[Richy_T]

Go right ahead.  If you honestly beleive that money is a tool intended to "work for society" then there is nothing that I can do to change your mind.  Nor would I care to try, you're as free to be wrong as the next guy.  And yes, I want a tool that works for me, for I am the only person that I can trust to best handle my tools.  The prisoner's delima doesn't apply to free market trades in the absense of third party coersion, so in a free society wherein the vast majority of economic interactions occur in the absence of such coersion, it's literally impossible for the collection of individual interactions (presumedly favorable to both sides of the trade) to be a net negative for society.

Think, young man, think.  Think for yourself, not just how your professor expects you to react.

I feel that there are also several assumptions at work here. That government is synonymous with society (implicit in the idea that a currency needs to be controlled to be beneficial to society) and that the government would act in the interest of that society in its actions (likewise).

I see, as I suspect Moonshadow does, that money is a tool that is used by individuals and that the actions of those individuals sums to the interactions of society. The extraction of "the needs of society" as something to be sheparded is simply collectivism and us used as a pretext so subsume the needs and rights of the individual.

[MoonShadow]

Go right ahead.  If you honestly beleive that money is a tool intended to "work for society" then there is nothing that I can do to change your mind.  Nor would I care to try, you're as free to be wrong as the next guy.  And yes, I want a tool that works for me, for I am the only person that I can trust to best handle my tools.  The prisoner's delima doesn't apply to free market trades in the absense of third party coersion, so in a free society wherein the vast majority of economic interactions occur in the absence of such coersion, it's literally impossible for the collection of individual interactions (presumedly favorable to both sides of the trade) to be a net negative for society.

Think, young man, think.  Think for yourself, not just how your professor expects you to react.

I feel that there are also several assumptions at work here. That government is synonymous with society (implicit in the idea that a currency needs to be controlled to be beneficial to society) and that the government would act in the interest of that society in its actions (likewise).

I see, as I suspect Moonshadow does, that money is a tool that is used by individuals and that the actions of those individuals sums to the interactions of society. The extraction of "the needs of society" as something to be sheparded is simply collectivism and is used as a pretext so subsume the needs and rights of the individual.

The part I highlighted is absolutely correct; the latter part is probably also correct, but is irrelevent to the core issue.  The specualtion about the reasons why are simply value judgements.  Political perspectives infecting the conversation again.  Again, it's not that I'm disagreeing with your speculations; just that they aren't really material to whether or not money "works for society" or not.  Unless, of course, one considers collectivism to "work" for society, so perhaps I just contradicted myself.

[mai77]

KRUGMAN IS A FUCKING JEWISH TROLL .


OK ? 

[Razick]

free market trades in the absence of third party coercion, so in a free society wherein the vast majority of economic interactions occur in the absence of such coercion, it's literally impossible for the collection of individual interactions (presumably favorable to both sides of the trade) to be a net negative for society.

Very good way of putting it! When a transaction is made in a free market it is generally because both parties want what they are receiving more than what they are losing. This means that, unless they made a poor decision, they both leave, in effect, wealthier, than they came.

[MoonShadow]

KRUGMAN IS A FUCKING JEWISH TROLL .


OK ? 

Krugman is Jewish?

[paraipan]

KRUGMAN IS A FUCKING JEWISH TROLL .


OK ?  

Krugman is Jewish?

Yes lol, from '53

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Krugman is the son of David and Anita Krugman and the grandson of Jewish immigrants from Brest-Litovsk

[MoonShadow]

KRUGMAN IS A FUCKING JEWISH TROLL .


OK ?  

Krugman is Jewish?

Yes lol, from '53

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

Krugman is the son of David and Anita Krugman and the grandson of Jewish immigrants from Brest-Litovsk

Honestly, I really didn't care.  Such a revelation neither harms nor improves my personal opinons of him.  And since I'm ethnicly part-Jewish, I've grown accustomed to disagreeing with the liberal wing of my greater relations anyway.

I'm also ethinicly part-"native American", and the Office of Indian Affairs can stick it up their arse, too.

[johnyj]

Why? Why is it good to keep your savings in something which prime function is allowing commerce? Its better to have that money available for commerce than idling under your mattress.
Just put your savings in to something thats more suitable for it than credit money: Its not like you dont have a million things to choose from.

Make perfect sense, that is why we should spend fiat and save in bitcoin, you really don't want the same currency works both as a medium of saving and a medium of transaction

You want the medium of saving to be deflative to hold their value, and you want the medium of transaction to be inflative to stimulate spending and improve liquidity, a currency can not be both deflative and inflative at the same time

[mai77]

AND HE'S GOT NO CLUE

WHAT HE'S TALKIN' BOUT. 

LIL WONDER.

economists know stuff about models.
usually - as in the case of fucken Krugman - they have no clue about the economy. 


Max Keiser - on the opposite - does ! 

[Severian]

KRUGMAN IS A FUCKING JEWISH TROLL .

Speaking as a Jew, the fact that he's Jewish isn't the problem. It's the fact that he's a fucking idiot.

We can't help what people we were born to but we do have some choice in whether or not to be a fucking idiot.

[MoonShadow]

KRUGMAN IS A FUCKING JEWISH TROLL .

Speaking as a Jew, the fact that he's Jewish isn't the problem. It's the fact that he's a fucking idiot.

We can't help what people we were born to but we do have some choice in whether or not to be a fucking idiot.

Amen.  Stupidity should be more painful.

[jbreher]

It just seems you want our society to use a tool that works for you;

Close. I want society to allow me to use a tool that works for me. As, indeed, I suspect does everyOtherFrickinBody.

You can tilt at your 'what's good for society' windmills all you want. The market is made by multitudinous individual actors, each endeavoring to maximize their benefit.

You want to sell some monetary scheme that doesn't work for the individual? You're not selling anything that society (merely a large collection of those samesaid individuals) wants.

[Puppet]

It just seems you want our society to use a tool that works for you;

Close. I want society to allow me to use a tool that works for me. As, indeed, I suspect does everyOtherFrickinBody.

You can tilt at your 'what's good for society' windmills all you want. The market is made by multitudinous individual actors, each endeavoring to maximize their benefit.

You want to sell some monetary scheme that doesn't work for the individual? You're not selling anything that society (merely a large collection of those samesaid individuals) wants.

There is always a conflict between interests of the individual and society. I dont like paying taxes any more than anyone else, but that doesnt mean a society with no taxes is actually feasible or desirable.
Secondly;  the tool that works for you doesnt work for a business that needs credit to invest. It doesnt work for the majority of people wanting to start a business, buy a house, or even a car. So you are a tiny minority.

Let me repeat; I have nothing against bitcoin. Its a great concept, a powerful tool and potentially a lucrative investment; bitcoin is possibly an alternative to gold but anyone who thinks it can actually replace credit money is seriously misguided. You cant have a flourishing  economy without credit and you cant have credit with a hugely deflationary currency. Ripple might fit the bill and could potentially be a more credible alternative to fiat, even if bitcoin is used as its monetary base, like gold used to be our base under the gold standard, but then the obvious question becomes why in the long run you would need that monetary base to begin with.

[Severian]

Stupidity should be more painful.

It's certainly painful to witness.