Banning Usury will promote cryptocurrencies

[BobK71]

Your point was that a fix-money-supply system is logically provable to be inherently unstable.  Have we moved the goal post?

I don't quite understand what you mean. Anyway, you should keep in mind that if you want to logically disprove something you should yourself use logic but not refer to examples. Regarding your examples themselves, the Italian Renaissance cities are irrelevant as such since their economies are not sustainable on their own at all, in the first place. They were basically bankers and traders (read resellers). Without the rest of the world, they would quickly die out in a matter of months if not weeks. And which book are you talking about?

The producer-consumer example was my invention, just in case

Sorry, you're the one who has to prove that a fixed-money-supply economy is inherently unstable, since that was your assertion.  I only have to provide counter-examples

This certainly won't do

I think that I have logically proven my point. Ultimately, this is irrelevant (since you still consider my arguments as not sufficient). What is relevant here is that you can't just pop up and claim that my point is shaky or invalid. Basically, you should either disprove it by showing that it is internally wrong and inconsistent using the same logic as I used (which you simply can't since it is logically perfect) or somehow prove that this model, though internally consistent and coherent, is not applicable to real life. Obviously, your so-called example are not disproving (or proving, for the record) anything in any conceivable way

Trade was only one of many supporting factors for the Renaissance economy.  Every economy has them.  I suppose you're going to say that if a Medieval crop economy was subject to destruction by climate change, it would prove that fixed-supply-money is inherently unstable?   Or that the economy was no example of a stable, fixed-money-supply system?

It doesn't matter if it was only one of the factors in the Renaissance economy. What actually matters here is that it was not in the least sustainable on its own and greatly depended on the outside world. That pretty much renders your example useless. It is like claiming that you live on your own while in fact you live in the basement of your parents' house

You still have not addressed the core issue with your model, that having only actors who must increase their savings will naturally not work with a fixed money supply, so that the model was unrealistic and actually could be argued to have been chosen for its conclusions

I assume that all other actors ain't relevant. If you disagree, explain how they should be

See my original statement.  I guess I'll just have to keep waiting

Honestly, I can't fathom what you mean by me "having only actors who must increase their savings". Just in case, it is about consumers and producers. Essentially, it is not about saving, it is about having enough means for pure subsistence

I laid out as plainly as possible why your model is unrealistic.  Yet you "honestly can't fathom."  I hope this model is not the sole basis of your "proof," but I can't seem to recall there's anything else.

Unless we have anything new to add, wouldn't you agree this discussion has come to the end of its useful life?

[1714130913]

1714130913

[1714130913]

1714130913

[1714130913]

1714130913

[deisik]

See my original statement.  I guess I'll just have to keep waiting

Honestly, I can't fathom what you mean by me "having only actors who must increase their savings". Just in case, it is about consumers and producers. Essentially, it is not about saving, it is about having enough means for pure subsistence

I laid out as plainly as possible why your model is unrealistic.  Yet you "honestly can't fathom."  I hope this model is not the sole basis of your "proof," but I can't seem to recall there's anything else.

Unless we have anything new to add, wouldn't you agree this discussion has come to the end of its useful life?

You must be kidding (really)

In fact, in your place I would try to address the lack of sustainability in the economies based on a fixed-money supply on reality, not on references to "savers" (which you still didn't explain what they have to do with this model). In reality (as it actually happened for some time during 19th-early 20th centuries), the constant loss of nominal amount of money received by the consumers as wages in such an economy can be offset through the growth in productivity. In that case, the less amount of money would still be able to buy more or the same quantity of goods, and thus we can't claim that this economy wouldn't be sustainable (at least, as long as the real purchasing power of an average wage remains essentially the same)

[BobK71]

In fact, in your place I would try to address the lack of sustainability in the economies based on a fixed-money supply on reality, not on references to "savers" (which you still didn't explain what they have to do with this model). In reality (as it actually happened for some time during 19th-early 20th centuries), the constant loss of nominal amount of money received by the consumers as wages in such an economy can be offset through the growth in productivity. In that case, the less amount of money would still be able to buy more or the same quantity of goods, and thus we can't claim that this economy wouldn't be sustainable (at least, as long as real purchasing power of an average wage remains the same)

Not entirely sure what your point is here, but if you think 19th and 20th century gold standards constitute a 'fixed-money-supply' system, the discussion will be wrong from the start.

[deisik]

In fact, in your place I would try to address the lack of sustainability in the economies based on a fixed-money supply on reality, not on references to "savers" (which you still didn't explain what they have to do with this model). In reality (as it actually happened for some time during 19th-early 20th centuries), the constant loss of nominal amount of money received by the consumers as wages in such an economy can be offset through the growth in productivity. In that case, the less amount of money would still be able to buy more or the same quantity of goods, and thus we can't claim that this economy wouldn't be sustainable (at least, as long as real purchasing power of an average wage remains the same)

Not entirely sure what your point is here, but if you think 19th and 20th century gold standards constitute a 'fixed-money-supply' system, the discussion will be wrong from the start

I refer to Industrial Revolutions

Two of them occurred in the 19th century. The first encompasses the period from the late 18th till your date of the British Empire expansion (1840). The second occurred in the last quarter of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century as I said. Gold standard is synonymous with a "fixed-money-supply" system (at least, as long as the supply of gold itself is constant and governments actually stick to it). Though you are free to choose any definition of that as you feel like (this is not a school and I'm not a teacher)

[BobK71]

Not entirely sure what your point is here, but if you think 19th and 20th century gold standards constitute a 'fixed-money-supply' system, the discussion will be wrong from the start

I refer to Industrial Revolutions

Two of them occurred in the 19th century. The first encompasses the period from the late 18th till your date of the British Empire expansion (1840). The second occurred in the last quarter of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century as I said. Gold standard is synonymous with a "fixed-money-supply" system (at least, as long as the supply of gold itself is constant and governments actually stick to it). Though you are free to choose any definition of that as you feel like (this is not a school and I'm not a teacher)

The gold standard was a 'fixed-money-supply' system only by elite propaganda (with mainstream economists singing the supporting chorus.)  Paper money was printed all the time and various manipulations were used to keep the system stable.  That was why Britain only had enough gold to redeem 3% of its paper money at the start of World War I.  (Does this look like any effort to keep money 'sound' in reality?)  That was why the system collapsed entirely by 1971.  The system was no different from today's in essence, just with a slower pace of asset inflation.