Your comment assumes that the purpose of an economic system is to preserve a financial status quo. It isn't, and shouldn't be. Inflation incentivizes people to put their money to productive uses in the economy (capital formation) rather than hoarding resources.

The purposes of money are:

- store of value

- unit of account (a measuring stick for value)

- medium of exchange

Allowing the financial system to inflate the money supply destroys two of those fundamental qualities. The fact it can additionally charge interest on the money funnels the stolen value into its hands.

Interest on money loaned out is the only incentive required for putting money to "productive uses". Nothing about hard money affects that. In fact inflation only causes the people at the top of the pyramid to hoard all of the economic value instead. They are buying up and hoarding the entire world with the wealth they are taking from the people.

Bitcoin was envisioned by its creator to be used as a currency. To buy and sell stuff using it. If you ask today what is bitcoin you'll be told that it is a store of value. The purpose of money is not to be a store of value. It can be, but that is not its purpose which the case of bitcoin clearly illustrates.

> Interest on money loaned out is the only incentive required for putting money to "productive uses".

And what is the incentive to loan money in your system?

To become a medium of exchange, it needs to become a unit of account. That will happen as it's value stabilises, and that will only happen once it's proved itself as a store of value.

What if Henry Ford evisaged his Model T being used as a temporary alternative for when your horse is unwell? Or a fairground ride? Bitcoin is what it is.

> And what is the incentive to loan money in your system?

Interest - the age-old solution. Offer me interest that both compensates me for not having use of my money and for the risk of getting it back, and we have a deal.

Value can only stabilise if there's either someone in charge adjusting the rate of printing to maintain a stable value. It cannot be done algorithmically as there's no way to determine the value from inside the system.

Non-deflationary currencies encourage hoarding which leads to wild swings in value. Deflationary currencies do much better. Look at the price chart of BTC vs XMR.

It depends how you measure value. By stabilise I mean stops growing in value by 50%/yr with big short term swings of 80%.

As it matures and gets close to it's ultimate value, volatility will naturally reduce.

Once it is used as the unit of account, everything else will fluctuate in value relative to bitcoin, which has more stable fundamentals than anything else on earth (fixed/zero issuance, liquidity etc), but this will be decades in the future when it's dollar value will be 8 or 9 figures in today's money

> By stabilise I mean stops growing in value by 50%/yr with big short term swings of 80%.

Yeah, so that can't happen unless it's used for actual trade more than it's hoarded, which can't happen unless it's inflationary.

Not at all. It naturally stabilises the closer it gets to its ultimate market cap. The more it stabilises the more it will be used as a medium of exchange.

There is no evidence for this. When gold and gold-backed currency were used for trade, it fluctuated in value wildly and there were several depressions each decade. After centrally-issued fiat currency was introduced, it had a much more stable value, since it could be issued counter-cyclically.

How are you measuring the value of gold? How are you sure it's not the value of the quote asset that fluctuating wildly. If everything was priced in gold do you really think that the prices of everything would fluctuate wildly? For what reason? The only reason for any sudden changes in value of gold are due to demand, which is caused as people move their wealth out of fiat currencies which are collapsing in value.

The prices of things vary due to speculation as well as demand and supply. Gold is an industrial metal which has to be mined, thus making supply uncertain and exposed to the whims of miners. Central bank issued currencies are managed by varying the supply according to economic conditions, which has given economies much better stability as a result.

There's nothing special about gold except that some people think that it's a panacea. It's not, it's still an industrial metal. "Fiat currencies which are collapsing in value" has no basis in fact. It's just mindless ideology at best and no better than a conspiracy theory.

Fiat currencies are collapsing in value. It's a fact. Price fiat in any hard asset like gold, real estate, bitcoin etc and it's obvious to see. The devaluation can be seen to be almost directly linked to the increase in the supply which approximately doubles each decade (no coincidence that real estate prices do the same).

There is something very special about gold. It has the best monetary qualities of any physical substance. It is only bettered by bitcoin which essentially dematerialises gold - stripping away it's physical attributes that hinder it (portability, scarcity, verifiability, divisibility etc).

> Fiat currencies are collapsing in value.

Where's your evidence?

I can answer that question: you don't have any. Your vague anecdotes don't count as such. You need hard figures and there aren't any showing any such thing.

I explained the evidence very clearly in my last answer. You're clearly not acting in good faith. You try and help people on here and this is what you get every time. GFY.

You should get some help yourself. And "GFY"? Very classy. Clearly demonstrates good faith on your part. Really shows the strength of your argument and your ability to deliver that argument. Only the most intelligent and educated people tell people to "GFY", obviously.

But back to your "argument". Google "anecdotal" and "non sequitur". But to save you time, here's a summary: you're not providing evidence, but instead a story that you created that attempts to support your augment. Then you deliver a series of non sequiturs, where your claims don't support your conclusion.

So again, please provide evidence instead of nonsensical and unsupported claims, then we can have an actual "good faith" discussion that I'm sure will be very helpful to everyone.

Alas, any comments trying to talk about the problem are getting buried. They don't understand the solution because they stick their fingers in their ears when someone tries to show the problem. Of course a solution doesn't make sense if there is no problem.

We have to remember 2008 was 17 years ago. People who were born during the crisis are now adults. The tragedy is there might not necessarily be another huge crisis. We blew it 17 years ago. We didn't fix anything. People stopped talking about financial reform about a decade ago. So now we might just have to live with a system where a few elites are creaming the top of the money supply. A system where the brightest and most talented people go and work for something like Jane Street, spending their days playing games and trading bits of paper with each other, causing real effects for people doing actual work, but adding nothing of value themselves but taking loads.

This Douglas Adams quote explains a lot:

> I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

The thing is - the world young people are accustomed to is just a carefully managed matrix. There are glitches.

"Why do house prices endlessly rise?"

"Why am I working so hard in such a technologically advanced world yet can't even afford to raise a family?"

Once you see the reason, you can't unsee it.

We also have Gresham's and Thier's Laws on our side.

Bitcoin is also money printed out of thin air. Bitcoin is also a fiat currency. It may be impossible to change the rate of Bitcoin printing, but it's definitely possible to print more cryptocurrencies (see Ethereum, Monero, Solana, Tron, etc), it's definitely the case that bitcoin's non-deflationary nature is terrible for it as a medium of exchange as it encourages hoarding and destabilises the value, and it's definitely the case that it's impossible for any currency with a fixed issuing rate to maintain a stable value.

Is monopoly money a threat to the dollar? Does Hasbro need to report to the Fed how much it has issued each year?

People will only hoard hard money until they need to buy things after they've run out of the state's fiat tokens to try and sell.

Look up Gresham's and Thier's Laws

What?

I guess bitcoin is not for you.