Bitcoin vs. Cash Inflation — A discussion on which is better

[danherbias07]

Thanks for sharing your article.
It's easy to understand.
Bitcoin is still better for me, but we still rely on traditional fiat which is a necessity. So, there isn't much of a choice yet. 
Do you mind if I share your article to some social media platform? Just to enlighten some people which are still having some questions about inflation.

[1715358709]

1715358709

[1715358709]

1715358709

[1715358709]

1715358709

[1715358709]

1715358709

[Latviand]

Bitcoin is going to be the better one, cash is losing value and keep losing it every year so people lost their trust in it. On the other hand bitcoin is growing technology and it is getting recognized recently for various reasons so time will let us know which is better to individuals.

If you think about the bitcoin's future, it is really the most effective to choose as its value depends on the factors that are related to the advancement of our technology. We are engaging into a more digitize money which is easy to use using our gadgets in many transactions that we will do.

Bitcoin is one of the best creations that can last up to so many years, as this cryptocurrency has a lot of potential to grow more and become the cryptocurrency with a highest value in the market.
Right now, we are still under recession and that can contribute to the value of bitcoin, some businesses are still unable to operate because of the huge increase in the number of infected cases of this pandemic.

[fullhdpixel]

-sniped-

It is not going to be temporary but it is not going to be forever neither. Why it can't be temporary?

Because, there is a crash every once in a while and recovering takes a long time and when that recovery is finally getting over there is another one and another one and it continues like that, so in theory one printing is temporary and inflation is temporary, if there is no more crash ever again there won't be any more inflation and we would have a great economy that has never seen before, economy is something that would grow and be awesome without crashes. Why it is not forever?

Because crashes can't happen forever, we can't continue to have crashes every once in a while and still survive, enough people get affected by the crashes that corporations will be looked at as the guilty eventually and there will be a government where its filled with people who got affected by these and will stop giving them bail outs, may take a long time but will happen.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Because crashes can't happen forever

Says who? They've been happening regularly for the last 200 years, and they are showing no signs of slowing down. Currently the COVID crash. Before that 2008. Before that 2001. Before that 1990. Before that 1980. Before that 1973. And so on.

Recessions are a normal part of the economy. There can't be positive growth at all times, forever. What isn't normal is our reaction to these recessions - devaluing our currency and pumping trillions of dollars of new money in to the system which will never be removed.

[Darker45]

I am wondering, based on your example, in times of a pandemic such as the one we're going through right now or in times when the economy is severely disrupted, if not with the printing of money out of thin air, is there any way we could possibly maintain liquidity and keep the economy floating?

Yes. They could just let things go. The weakest company would sink good one would continue to work (and profit on reduced competition). Lockdown last 1-3 month (depending on country). If this is enough to destroy company maybe it wasn't strong enough? Maybe it was wrongly managed? Printing is simply taking money from you to those who leave on the edge of bankruptcy to give them extra year (in most cases). I wonder if people would be ok with that knowing that it is similar to taking 5% from your bank account and pure it into corporations.

You are speaking as if, in a pandemic, a company dies due to a healthy competition, or due to not being able to keep up with the latest technologies, or due to not being run well, and so on. It is certainly not the case. The case is that these companies are not allowed to operate. Hotels, casinos, resorts, airlines, shipping lines, restaurants, shopping centers, and even manufacturing companies are closed.

While there must be something wrong with how the monetary injections are being spent, a government for the people cannot just allow all these companies to freely sink just like that. That would mean incredibly high unemployment rate, loss of vital services, huge tax loss, and so on. All these would mean public chaos in due time.

However, all this is temporary. It is an emergency measure so to speak.

That's the problem though - it isn't temporary. Here's the Federal Reserve's balance sheet for the last 17 years (click for full size):

What I'm trying to say is that it is not everyday that the Fed is printing billions. I mean, the monetary mechanisms, although most probably abused, are there for dire times. I cannot imagine how the economy would fare out in a severe crisis without all this, say, in a Bitcoin-run economy.

For sure, the economic recovery from the previous crisis has been too slow. And, yes, the process of pulling out money from thin air into thin air is too slow as well that the next crisis was able to catch up and turned the entire process around. There is definitely a lot of improvement needed in that area considering that the next crisis is just around the corner.

Well, on a side note, talks of the US dollar losing value have been around for many decades. Notwithstanding the devalued dollar, however, I'm pretty sure you can still buy a burger with a couple of bucks.

[solomine]

Fiat and cryptocurrencies complement each other. One cannot do what the other can. The combination of fiat and crypt in our life can help to achieve better results than it would be if you chose only one side. Cryptocurrency has adopted a lot from fiat, but fiat has now begun to connect to this race. So you can use traditional cryptocurrency tools now. For example, a bank card with the ability to exchange for cryptocurrency. I am using gekkard now. We must use these bridges between the two worlds of finance!

[Mauser]

Fiat and cryptocurrencies complement each other. One cannot do what the other can. The combination of fiat and crypt in our life can help to achieve better results than it would be if you chose only one side. Cryptocurrency has adopted a lot from fiat, but fiat has now begun to connect to this race. So you can use traditional cryptocurrency tools now. For example, a bank card with the ability to exchange for cryptocurrency. I am using gekkard now. We must use these bridges between the two worlds of finance!

I agree, a country without any FIAT currency will be having a very hard time during crisis when it's only relying on crypto currencies. Controlling the money supply is the standard tool for central banks for decades to fight financial crisis. Without a tool like that the countries might experience much stronger financial crisis than before.

Also we still have many old people without knowledge of crypto currencies and many people are lacking access to the internet. It will still take generations to get mankind ready to swtich to crypto currencies alone.

[o_e_l_e_o]

What I'm trying to say is that it is not everyday that the Fed is printing billions. I mean, the monetary mechanisms, although most probably abused, are there for dire times.

Sure, they aren't printing every day (and if they were, the dollar truly would be worthless), but they are printing enough and never undoing the changes. They also aren't only printing during dire times. 2013/2014 was actually a pretty good year for the economy, certainly no major financial crisis like 2008 or like now, and yet as you can see from the graph the Fed printed another $1.5 trillion.

There is definitely a lot of improvement needed in that area considering that the next crisis is just around the corner.

The problem is that there is no will to improve.

Well, on a side note, talks of the US dollar losing value have been around for many decades. Notwithstanding the devalued dollar, however, I'm pretty sure you can still buy a burger with a couple of bucks.

That's a silly argument, no offense. Burgers seem cheap because burgers are cheaper, and you are accustomed to the cost of the burger being what it is.

The dollar is losing value constantly. It's lost over 90% of it's value since 1950. That's a single lifetime. Are you happy with only being able to pass 10% of everything you own on to your children as inheritance and the state taking the rest? I'm old enough to remember when burgers cost 50 cents. Back then, $3 or $4 for a burger would seem outrageous, just like $20 for a burger seems outrageous today. But in a few short decades, that will be what burgers cost.

[Darker45]

Well, on a side note, talks of the US dollar losing value have been around for many decades. Notwithstanding the devalued dollar, however, I'm pretty sure you can still buy a burger with a couple of bucks.

That's a silly argument, no offense. Burgers seem cheap because burgers are cheaper, and you are accustomed to the cost of the burger being what it is.

My point is that despite the recurring talks and criticisms of how the USD is being continuously devalued or even desecrated as a currency by the monetary policies and decisions of the people up there, it remains true that even a tiny and seemingly insignificant amount which people can easily toss around can still provide you a decent food.

The dollar is losing value constantly. It's lost over 90% of it's value since 1950. That's a single lifetime. Are you happy with only being able to pass 10% of everything you own on to your children as inheritance and the state taking the rest? I'm old enough to remember when burgers cost 50 cents. Back then, $3 or $4 for a burger would seem outrageous, just like $20 for a burger seems outrageous today. But in a few short decades, that will be what burgers cost.

Losing value is an integral feature of any currency. Fiat is designed to be so. Therefore, it is not fiat's fault if parents would keep cash as inheritance.

Consequently, it is also by design that goods and services will also increase in price over time. But that does not mean that an ordinary person or family has also lost its purchasing capacity due to the increasing prices. Because along with it is also the increase of its income. If the increase in prices means that a person is losing one meal a day, then that's the inflation that is way out of hand. Otherwise, it could just be the preferred inflation.

So, if the USD is losing 90% of its value since 1950, I would also assume that people's usual salary has also increase around 90% since then.

P.S.: Pardon me if I may be speaking out of touch of the US economic reality. I haven't been there nor have I studied thoroughly its economy, but I'm a bit sure, however, that the US economy is largely founded upon consumer spending. It is consumerism that accounts around 70% of the economy. This simply means that the huge majority of the people out there has the capacity to spend and spend and spend.

[o_e_l_e_o]

it remains true that even a tiny and seemingly insignificant amount which people can easily toss around can still provide you a decent food.

Over 12% of Americans are living in poverty. It certainly isn't a tiny or insignificant amount to them.

Regardless of how you look at it, $4 is a significant increase from 50 cents. Given that that is a 700% increase, will you be saying the same thing when an average burger costs $32?

So, if the USD is losing 90% of its value since 1950, I would also assume that people's usual salary has also increase around 90% since then.

That's not how percentages work. Let's say a burger costs $1, and I have a monthly salary of $1,000 (to keep things simple). I can buy 1,000 burgers. If USD loses 90% of its value, then I can only buy 10% as much as I could before. My $1,000 will now buy 100 burgers at $10 each. For things to stay even, I don't need a wage increase of 90% (which would give me $1,900 and 190 burgers at $10 each), I need a wage increase of 900%, which would give me $10,000 and 1,000 burgers at $10 each).

Sure, wages have gone up, but prices have gone up more. In 1950, average household income was $3,000, and in 2010 it was $49,000. That's an increase of 16 times. Now, take a look at some of the costs of living.
Average house price - $7,000 in 1950, $273,000 in 2010. An increase of 39 times. Average car price - $1,500 to $35,000. An increase of 23 times. New York subway single ride - from $0.10 to 2.75. An increase of 27 times. The average family has significantly less purchasing power than they did a generation ago.

P.S.: Pardon me if I may be speaking out of touch of the US economic reality.

Although we are talking about the US here, the exact same situation is applicable to any western country.

[Darker45]

it remains true that even a tiny and seemingly insignificant amount which people can easily toss around can still provide you a decent food.

Over 12% of Americans are living in poverty. It certainly isn't a tiny or insignificant amount to them.

Poverty is a handy word. Even in the world's richest countries per capita, there is poverty.

Correct me on this if I'm wrong but I would say that the face of poverty in the US is rather pretty.

Certainly, millions fall below poverty line but that line is quite high.

So, if the USD is losing 90% of its value since 1950, I would also assume that people's usual salary has also increase around 90% since then.

That's not how percentages work....

...The average family has significantly less purchasing power than they did a generation ago.

That's correct. I was wrong about that percentage thing. I should have meant x rather than %. I was trying to say that if the prices of goods rise 90x, or the purchasing power of the currency is down 90x, the disposable money must have also risen around 90x. Apparently, a lot of things have to be factored in so that the result is not in perfect accordance with the intended target or design.

But the increase of the prices of goods and services is not just brought or influenced by monetary inflation. You cannot point all the blaming fingers to it. As a matter of fact, I would say it plays a relatively minor role. Goods and services become more costly over time primarily due to the rising demand and supply shortage, which are of course most often intertwined.

I would even go as far as saying that even if the money printing was done at the minimum or most reasonable level, the prices of goods and services would still have increased at around the same rate.

[Petryakov]

I don't think that there is any controversy about Bitcoin being a better asset for value storage than cash. In fact, cash supply nowadays is deliberately configured so that it’s better to use other assets as a value storage. Otherwise, we can get high fluctuations of velocity, which will result in volatile prices.

That is the reason why fiat cash cannot compete with Bitcoin in terms of value storage, and that is why Bitcoin cannot compete with cash in terms of being a medium of exchange. The limited supply is one of the reasons why Bitcoin can never become a currency, which I explained in my recent post.

[Petryakov]

Skimmed the article, and it's good :thumbsup:

Anyways, since the discussion is about which is better, what do you think about the Gresham's "law":
- what makes money better?
- will the better money win?

I explained this in my recent post here Bitcoin is better from the point of view of consumers, but Gresham's law won't work.

[Petryakov]

Its based on that - good money(deflationary) rewards you for saving it (your money value grows in time) while bad money (inflationary) rewards you for spending it as fast as possible. That way if you have both you always want to spend bad money first. In the end you are using bad money all the time while good one is stored nowhere safely. Bad money wins in mass adoption. Good one is stored only by few who can afford that.

But i thought that it's not 2017. We are not talking about bitcoin replacing fiat currencies any more. Its bitcoin as digital gold mania now.

Graham's law works only with commodity money, and only given that the price of both good and bad money can be set exogenously. With regards to Bitcoin, it won't work: in the case of mass adoption Bitcoin will destroy fiat money and its more of a Thiers' law, rather than Gresham's.

[Leviathan.007]

The one benefit you can get over the Bitcoin is none can ever print and create new bitcoins over the 21 million total supply. This is what we do need in the word, actually one reason for the inflation is the banks printing money by the governments and they don't need to explain about it. Everyday, billions of euros and dollars are getting printed and due the rise of supply the currency will lose it price over the time. Bitcoin is trusted to have a fixed total supply and in my own idea. soon, the traditional banks should change their fiat currency into bitcoin. In the other hand, after the crisis in the world like the Covid-19 bitcoin can be the life saver over the inflation after crisis.

[Krabby]

In my opinion, it is up to each person. To me, fiat money is still better because it doesn't fluctuate too much. As for holding bitcoin, we may face a 5 or 10 split account if the bitcoin price drops sharply. It's not a stable asset, so I would never choose bitcoin. Although fiat money has inflation, that number is needed for people to try harder at work to get a raise.

[btc78]

I don't think that there is any controversy about Bitcoin being a better asset for value storage than cash. In fact, cash supply nowadays is deliberately configured so that it’s better to use other assets as a value storage. Otherwise, we can get high fluctuations of velocity, which will result in volatile prices.

There are no controversy here but the question about inflation in which Bitcoin using is more advisable than Fiat.
and Yeah Bitcoin is much better than fiat specially if you are willing to store the amount for long time as a Hodler.

That is the reason why fiat cash cannot compete with Bitcoin in terms of value storage, and that is why Bitcoin cannot compete with cash in terms of being a medium of exchange. The limited supply is one of the reasons why Bitcoin can never become a currency, which I explained in my recent post.

We have proven why Bitcoin is our choice compared to Fiat specially in banking our money with stupid dividend
 while in Bitcoin if lucky then our money can be multiplied by 2-5 depend on
 how the market goes.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

You are speaking as if, in a pandemic, a company dies due to a healthy competition, or due to not being able to keep up with the latest technologies, or due to not being run well, and so on. It is certainly not the case. The case is that these companies are not allowed to operate. Hotels, casinos, resorts, airlines, shipping lines, restaurants, shopping centers, and even manufacturing companies are closed.

2 months without income should not kill a well managed company. No matte what is the case. If we let strong survive and weak bankrupt than we could start building on the ashes when demand will show profit in a given sector of the economy. There is no need to hold in life companies that might (or might not) be useful in next few months/years. What if f.e Hotels won't be profitable for next 5 years?



We are now outside covid season. What if we will see second wave in December? Guy who could bankrupt with 100 000 in debt will bankrupt with 1 000 000 in debt and this will be final score of cheap loans. Let economy grow in a health manner. If there is demand on something there should be company doing that. If there is no demand on something there should be no one doing it. 100-200 years ago Hotel would change clothes and become kindergarten or something else. Today it get free loan to continue using money in ineffective way going deeper and deeper into debt.

What I'm trying to say is that it is not everyday that the Fed is printing billions. I mean, the monetary mechanisms, although most probably abused, are there for dire times. I cannot imagine how the economy would fare out in a severe crisis without all this, say, in a Bitcoin-run economy.

We had gold standard before 1971 so you basically can't imagine how people leave 50 years ago? What happened after 1971?








source of all

Don't think that this is done to help the poor and needy

Sure, wages have gone up, but prices have gone up more.

The biggest inflation fault is that you are doomed to work till the end of your life. You can't be a smart 20 yo guy who earned 1 mln and retired. You have to work all the time because all your saving are secretly stolen by devaluating them. Your money are not yours. You have to spend them on useless shit (stimulating the economy in the wrong direction) and continue to work. You have to buy a flat that you dont need (China Has 65 Million Empty Apartments) just to put your money somewhere. You need to buy gold that you dont need. You need to buy someone debt and so on. To simply not be robbed by inflation.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Certainly, millions fall below poverty line but that line is quite high.

Sure, but the fact remains that the lowest income workers have seen the most wage stagnation or real terms decrease, while those at the top see the biggest real terms increase. The gap between rich and poor is widening, not narrowing.

To me, fiat money is still better because it doesn't fluctuate too much.

I mean, you are half right. If you zoom out and look at years rather than days, then yes, fiat generally doesn't fluctuate up and down that much - it just continues its constant and steady race to the bottom.

You have to work all the time because all your saving are secretly stolen by devaluating them.

That's it exactly. Because of the constant money printing, the constant inflation, the constant devaluation, it's not enough to just "have" fiat. You have to spend a great deal of time (or a good chunk of fiat to pay someone else to do it for you) balancing investments, assessing risks, opening and closing accounts and portfolios, moving fiat around, etc., always trying to beat inflation. And even then, sometimes you are lucky just to break even.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

That's it exactly. Because of the constant money printing, the constant inflation, the constant devaluation, it's not enough to just "have" fiat. You have to spend a great deal of time (or a good chunk of fiat to pay someone else to do it for you) balancing investments, assessing risks, opening and closing accounts and portfolios, moving fiat around, etc., always trying to beat inflation. And even then, sometimes you are lucky just to break even.

And this in most cases stimulates economy in wrong direction - there is demand on goods where it should not be. So money does not work efficient and people do not work efficient for long term economy grow. There is the mass of hidden flaws in this system despite all those visible at first look.

About inflation. People very often compare bitcoin and fiat inflation 1:1. While bitcoin inflation is an amount of newly minted bitcoins devided by amount of bitcoins in circulation while fiat inflation is calculated from price changes ([new fiat supply - vanished/lost fiat supply] / amount of goods (economy grow)). If we tried to calculate bitcoin inflation that way we will most like come to the conclusion that bitcoin is deflationary and most likely was deflationary even before halving.