{myadvertisements[zone_1]}
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
IS stable money GOOD? bad? unfeasable?!
#11
(11-09-2021, 11:54 PM)brunt Wrote: I have actually put a bit of thought into this. I really didn't want to just answer the obvious "yes".

But allow me to be a little pedantic for a bit. If I were to put my academic hat on, my response to your question of whether or not stable money is good, would be "for whom?"

Not pedantic at all. For whom is it Good? simple, Government, smart people and wealth holders. Whom is it bad for? Those without wealth and the stupid uneducated


Clearly, for consumers, stable money is a good thing. You do not feel compelled to run out to buy something before its price increases.

Oh come on Brunt, outside of rare HYPER inflation times, nobody ever feels/acts that way. And consumers HATE Stable money!! imagine if Microwaves still cost thousands of dollars? or computers were 10s of thousands, ETC ETC. Perhaps you MEANT "consumers hate INFLATION?"?? (as opposed to deflation)
https://bestlifeonline.com/products-chea...years-ago/  as in WAY cheaper.

They're all mixed together.


To save for retirement, you could just not spend money, and count on that money to be worth the same amount when you need it in retirement - no need for extra risk to try to keep its value.

You make it sounds like people really do "save for retirement". MOST people just plain depend on the Government (and wouldn't couldn't if otherwise)


For governments, the ability to, or the reality of deflating money is great. They can push demand forward by making people buy now. They can effectively increase tax rates by taxing gains that are just to inflation. There are others, but those are the most obvious.

So, while there is a clear benefit to consumers to keep money stable, (STABLE???? as in all those items listed in the link above were still prohibitively expensive????) 

unfortunately, government has both the power to, and the benefits of, inflation. So here we are.
but IS IT? truly "unfortunate"??

I just can't get over thinking of all those items that now cost PENNIES,
even after the dollar has lost 99% of it's purchasing power. without inflation would those exist? OR would we carry "coins denominated in 1/1000th of a penny??"



and then too, thinking of the times like Great Depression when wages had to fall,
is inflation worse than the destruction of the loss of jobs that happened in the Great Depression???
some things aren't price flexible in the downward direction and inflation solves that issue.


EITHER WAY, I don't recognize "a lot of thought" into this issue. You sound here like you're parroting what we've always been told.
really.


(11-17-2021, 05:02 AM)andrew_o Wrote: Classic examples of unstable money are: The Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

So yes, stable money is a good thing. I've worked in countries with wobbly currencies and it's damned hard to run a business or a project.

.
Those are classic examples of EXTREMES,

and as most thinking people know, extremes do NOT prove generality
NOR good vs bad.

the original question was is it good, not can there be extreme outliers that are bad. Hell, there were extremes on the OTHER side too!!!!!
investopedia says it like this


Quote:https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hyperdeflation.asp
A deflationary spiral is a downward price reaction to an economic crisis leading to lower production, lower wages, decreased demand, and still lower prices. These events often occur during a period of severe economic crisis, such as the Great Depression.


really Andrew, using one sided extreme outlier as rationale?  weird.

(11-18-2021, 07:01 PM)Finster Wrote: Great point.  Money is used for measuring value.  A wobbly unit makes a mess of trying to build an economic structure - can you imagine trying to build a house if your feet and inches wobbled all over the place?

.

and ALL FIAT is subjective and therefore worthless as a measure,
sounds you are advocating something that is an objective unchanging unit?

Even gold doesn't fit that, (even though it has been ((as in literally a "has been")) close for thousands of years)

too bad there isn't a hard rock thing with a SET amount, of like
say, 21 million units.


OH WAIT, there is and you HATE it for it's beauty and it's singularity ability to meet exactly what YOU just said "money is used for".
go figure.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#12
Well guys, you might be about to find out what unstable currency is all about because the Democrats proposal for the Comptroller of the Currency, one Saule Omarova has stated she wants to close all private bank accounts and transfer the money to the Fed and bankrupt the coal, oil and gas industries in order to "reimagine" energy.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#13
(11-21-2021, 05:56 PM)andrew_o Wrote: Well guys, you might be about to find out what unstable currency is all about because the Democrats proposal for the Comptroller of the Currency, one Saule Omarova has stated she wants to close all private bank accounts and transfer the money to the Fed and bankrupt the coal, oil and gas industries in order to "reimagine" energy.

.

Against WHICH Currency andrew???????????

Hell, we could do Omarova's wacko dream and a TON MORE,
nobody's gonna choose a "more stable FIAT"




now define "stable"?


AND don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the US Dollar, nor fiat, nor wacko projects like reimagining energy or our crazy deficits.
Just pointing out, there IS NO competitive FIAT out there,
and next to nobody cares or knows better alternatives exist.

the NZ dollar??????????? backed up by a penguin and a few worthless souveniers?
or the Chinese or NKorean FIAT? both run by scary crazy nuts?
LOL
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#14
(11-21-2021, 03:08 AM)DaveGillie Wrote:
(11-18-2021, 07:01 PM)Finster Wrote: Great point.  Money is used for measuring value.  A wobbly unit makes a mess of trying to build an economic structure - can you imagine trying to build a house if your feet and inches wobbled all over the place?

.

and ALL FIAT is subjective and therefore worthless as a measure,
sounds you are advocating something that is an objective unchanging unit?

Even gold doesn't fit that, (even though it has been ((as in literally a "has been")) close for thousands of years)

too bad there isn't a hard rock thing with a SET amount, of like
say, 21 million units.


OH WAIT, there is and you HATE it for it's beauty and it's singularity ability to meet exactly what YOU just said "money is used for".
go figure.

Yet the US had pretty stable money for most of the nineteenth century, during which it grew from a ragtag bunch of colonies to one of the world’s greatest economies. There’s no such thing as perfectly stable money … it’s really a question of more or less stable. Not to mention how it holds up over the long term … where good old gold is peerless.
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}
#15
(11-25-2021, 08:08 PM)Finster Wrote: Yet the US had pretty stable money for most of the nineteenth century, during which it grew from a ragtag bunch of colonies to one of the world’s greatest economies.  There’s no such thing as perfectly stable money … it’s really a question of more or less stable.  Not to mention how it holds up over the long term … where good old gold is peerless.

.

You DO realize that much of the WORLD had that same stable currency during the nineteenth century,

and did not have the same results.


that ragtag bunch of colonies had many MANY OTHER Things making it the greatest economy
Reply
{myadvertisements[zone_3]}


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
{myadvertisements[zone_2]}