So if money is abstract why care about the value? Why not give everyone a billion BTCs so they can trade w it? Why not keep making more BTCs so every newborn receives a billion upon birth?
If something is abstract, it doesn't mean that it is not real or important. Gold is physical but the concept of money that human's ascribed to gold throughout history was abstact. Yet the fighting to acquire more of it sure was real.
If something is abstract, it doesn't mean that it can be changed. For example, the
real number line is an an abstraction built starting with the "concrete" integers 1, 2, 3, … Because the concept is an abstraction, does not mean that its reality is malleable.
Youre not saying anything different than me. Money is for stimulating economics not hoarding. Any money if it is to be useful needs elasticity and discipline. BTC only has discipline.
I'm saying something completely different: saving plays an important role in increasing the demand for money. It helps the free market determine interest rates.
Weimar hyperinflation was caused by severe reparations demands imposed by Allies.
The severe reparations demanded by the Allies is why the "Central control" printed so much money.
Bitcoin wouldnt have done squat because after Britain and France took their gold, they proceeded to take their factories and productive output.
If everyone was using bitcoin, how could the Allies have seized their money? How could bitcoin have been devalued to pay the unpayable reparations? The wealthy class in Wiemar Germany did better than the middle class because the factories (owned by the wealthy) were not seized while the money (the largest asset of the middle class) effectively was.
Anyways, my point is that boom and bust cycles can get swung to the extremes and what results is calamity and chaos. Maybe I didn't word it clear enough.
You haven't made any point at all that supports fiat currency. All you've shown is that fiat currency, war, centralized governments, and treaties signed by bureaucrats tend not have the best interests of the people at heart.
Bitcoin doesn't solve any economic problems. Because money by itself can't solve all economics issues. Central Banks can't solve all economic issues. But Central Banks play vital role in that they can backstop a recession before it becomes depression, act as lender of last resort, buyer of last resort, etc..
Boom and bust cycles existed under hard money (gold in the past and bitcoin in the future) and under soft money (fiat money today). The simply represent the cycle of hope and despair, excitement and fear, that play out over and over. The bust is what liquidates the inefficient businesses so that a new more productive cycle can begin.
Central banks try to solve a problem that doesn't exist and in turn create a larger one. In addition to bailing out TBTF bankers and funding war, stimulating the economy also leads to malinvestment and the exploitation of our natural and human resources.
Think about it: if the economy was less "stimulated" would we be using up our natural resources at a faster or a slower rate? Would people have more or less free time? A highly stimulated economy is a terrible thing because it leads to waste (more resources used than necessary) and more stress (people work longer hours).
Seems to me like bitcoiners don't understand why Central Banks exist in the first place. Its not even about money per se, its about liquidity. Invent a crypto that deals w liquidity issues and I'm sure everyone will get on board. Until then good luck convincing the masses to join your pump and dump
Central banks exist because of the "deflation is bad" myth.
For a myth to be adopted by a society, it must have at one point in time been
useful. Between 1700 - 1900, England was on a hard-money standard and price levels over these two centuries were fairly stable (although sometimes volatile). The "deflation is bad" myth had not yet been adopted
1.
Around the turn of the last century is when the "deflation is bad" myth truly took hold. Our productive abilities were increasing extremely fast--so much could be produced with so little human input. We had the factories in place to increase real output Q (from M V = P Q) and the will of the capitalists to push technology forward, but with a fixed-supply currency the only way Q could increase was if price levels P decreased.
We didn't have the internet back then and efficiently communicating real-time prices was difficult. Q increased only modestly, but since productivity had improved to such an extent,
there was less work available an unemployment increased during the Great Depression. And thus was born the myth that "inflation is good." The Fed increased the money supply M (by devaluing the dollar vs gold), which allowed Q to reach its potential without the fast drop in P that would have been required due to mankind's rapid advances in productivity.
The first thing the increased Q went to was WWII. We could produce so much stuff that we had to destroy it in order to keep the people employed!
But this got the people working, validated the "inflation is good" myth, and gave birth to our modern consumer economy. Our consumer economy is a relic from the Great Depression that says that if we don't consume our resources fast enough then people will lose jobs and will be back in a depression.
Our "deflation is bad" myth stems from our grandparents' inability to communicate real-time prices in 1933 efficiently enough to just let P fall to where it needed to be.
