Are all stimulants bad?

[bitcool]

As a coffee lover and caffeine addict, my emphatic answer is NO.

When we get sick, we don't wait like a sitting duck, "letting nature take its course", we see doctors, we take medicine, we take antibiotics, at least the majority of people do this.

Then why do Australian economists and gold bugs hate policy intervention? and why do so many people hate government stimulus?  

Maybe printing money at the right moment does (or did) save us from much worse miseries. Maybe Keynesianism does have a point?

If this is true, isn't Bitcoin, a deflationary currency, a bad invention and a wrong tool to be had?

I am putting myself out there because I am confused and need some heavy enlightening...


Edit: I meant to say Austrian school economics, damn autocorrect

[hamdi]

crystal meth sure is bad.

[FreeMoney]

If other people can print money it saves me misery? I guess because I could borrow it if I wanted to buy all the normal overpriced things gov and bank will lend for?

If we're going to use an easy money lets at least be fair about it and each print the same amount, eh?

[bitcool]

If other people can print money it saves me misery? I guess because I could borrow it if I wanted to buy all the normal overpriced things gov and bank will lend for?

If we're going to use an easy money lets at least be fair about it and each print the same amount, eh?

So you are OK with it if there is a way letting everyone having same amount of extra money?  hmmm, it's called "tax rebate check" I do remember that.

[amincd]

A poor economy is not like a sick person. It is millions of different people, each with their own interests and separate rights. No one group has a right to decide for the others what course of action to take. If some segment of the economy wants to become hippies and not work, that's their right, even if it reduces aggregate production.

Furthermore, forcing others to engage in a certain action will generally be to their detriment, since generally people know what's best for themselves better than any one else.

[Clipse]

As a coffee lover and caffeine addict, my emphatic answer is NO.

When we get sick, we don't wait like a sitting duck, "letting nature take its course", we see doctors, we take medicine, we take antibiotics, at least the majority of people do this.

Then why do Australian economists and gold bugs hate policy intervention? and why do so many people hate government stimulus? 

Maybe printing money at the right moment does (or did) save us from much worse miseries. Maybe Keynesianism does have a point?

If this is true, isn't Bitcoin, a deflationary currency, a bad invention and a wrong tool to be had?

I am putting myself out there because I am confused and need some heavy enlightening...

I think comparing medicine and financial situations is completely apples and oranges.

Finance isnt a proven science, its speculative and at best organized gambling whereas medicine can be proven clinically to help/cure thats why we have factual evidence to back up claims of proven medicine. That said there is some speculative medicine on the market aswell but thats another story.

[bitcool]

I think comparing medicine and financial situations is completely apples and oranges.

It's not my invention to use the human body analogy. Many Australian minded economists compare Fed's money printing and government's borrowing to drug or alcohol abuse -- once you become addicted, it becomes harder and harder to withdraw.

I do think there's a great similarity between these two systems (human body and national economy), they are both complex, have up/down cycles, certain self-healing ability, and, of course, can be "stimulated"

[bitcool]

A poor economy is not like a sick person. It is millions of different people, each with their own interests and separate rights. No one group has a right to decide for the others what course of action to take.

I see your idealistic approach but this is not how human society works. Even in a democratic political system, some group of people are making decisions that impact others.

Not saying this is right, but it is reality and has been like this forever.

[bb113]

Medical treatments are tested through trial and error. Many, many people will die before a useful therapy is discovered.

[Clipse]

I think comparing medicine and financial situations is completely apples and oranges.

It's not my invention to use the human body analogy. Many Australian minded economists compare Fed's money printing and government's borrowing to drug or alcohol abuse -- once you become addicted, it becomes harder and harder to withdraw.

I do think there's a great similarity between these two systems (human body and national economy), they are both complex, have up/down cycles, certain self-healing ability, and, of course, can be "stimulated"

The "stimulated" part is completely incomparable. When you stimulate a person with drugs it affects that individual person positively/negatively, the single person doesnt affect the whole of society whereas stimulating with printed money out of nothing affects not just one person but the whole of society.

[the joint]

Medical treatments are tested through trial and error. Many, many people will die before a useful therapy is discovered.

And as in the case of Tuskegee, many people will die after a useful therapy is discovered.

[amincd]

I see your idealistic approach but this is not how human society works. Even in a democratic political system, some group of people are making decisions that impact others.

Not saying this is right, but it is reality and has been like this forever.

In nations that have been like this less than the norm, people have prospered.

[bitcool]

The "stimulated" part is completely incomparable. When you stimulate a person with drugs it affects that individual person positively/negatively, the single person doesnt affect the whole of society whereas stimulating with printed money out of nothing affects not just one person but the whole of society.

In the drug stimulation example, it proves a chemical can have positive effect on your body, whether it affect society is irrelevant.

If you ever experienced the boost from a cup of java in Monday morning, you know what I am talking about. Cells in your body respond to this kind of stimulant and make you more energetic, productive, and hopefully happier.  Negative effects? sure. but positives clearly outweigh negatives IMO.  Same thing can be argued for monetary stimulant.

[bb113]

Please think more about your analogy. I don't think you understand it.

How many people have died from use of stimulants? The equivalent for an economy is collapse. The record shows that when economies are constantly "stimulated" they eventually collapse. Much like if you smoke meth for 3 days straight. Someone addicted to caffeine is actually less alert than a normal person.

[gusti]

you are sick, so you go to the doctor along with a healthy person, and you force him to borrow you some of his health
now both are sick, but not so much ... 

[benjamindees]

Australian economists

crikey

It's not a proper analogy to compare voluntary stimulant usage with involuntary monetary inflation.  You should compare it with being forcibly drugged instead.

[bitcool]

you are sick, so you go to the doctor along with a healthy person, and you force him to borrow you some of his health
now both are sick, but not so much ... 

When you are sick, not all cells in you body need to be drugged, yet you take your medicine, putting up with the side effects.

[bb113]

And how was it determined which medicine to use?

[bitcool]

Australian economists

crikey

It's not a proper analogy to compare voluntary stimulant usage with involuntary monetary inflation.  You should compare it with being forcibly drugged instead.

What if the majority population calls for it? Mob rules?
A skin infection patient takes antibiotics, its not fair to his liver, brain, muscles...

I guess the question is, are we on the same boat? or should we just let the society fall apart.

[bitcool]

And how was it determined which medicine to use?

No doctor can be 100% correct.
But there's other countries and history you can study from.

Edit: I think our differences is deeper than who is going to prescript medicine. It's about whether we should use any medicine at all.
Australian's view is letting nature taking its course is the best option, any intervention is bad intervention.
As soon as you start talking about "how" and "who", you already admitted there a possibility of better outcome.
As long as such possibility exists, it's legit for someone to say  "let's try it".