[noncoml]

> Yes. That's why I've never bought a computer - next year there will be a faster and cheaper one on the market. And that's why people regularly starved before fiat currencies were introduced. They were just hoping they can buy more food tomorrow for the same money.

> People don't need encouragement to spend. They need encouragement to save. Whoever thinks otherwise, should talk a bit about it with an average American.

> Noone is going to stop spending because their currency will have 2% more purchasing power in a year. And the economy would run much better if we weren't wasting so many resources on shit that we don't need and never-ending boom and bust cycles.

This of it like this: You have a currency that is giving a return of 3% per year. Why would someone risk their money investing in existing or new businesses/ventures?

[dpc_pw]

Because, after factoring-in the business risk, the expected return is 5%, and 5 is bigger than 3.

Or 10%, or 20%. Eventually, some business opportunities are better than sitting on a pile of cash.

[jhanschoo]

You're adopting the micro perspective to a macro problem of a finite supply of coins.

Finite supply means that on average, net coin-profit of a business is zero coins. With such poor odds, why should someone go into business? Inflation incentivizes investment since you know that on average, a business opportunity has better ROI than saving.

[dpc_pw]

If you can produce 3BTC worth of goods using 2BTC, then people will pay you 3BTC.

Your doubts are based on the assumption, that somehow "there would be not enough money", which is simply not true. During the process of producing and trading goods money are not destroyed. They are just changing hands. There is always enough money in the economy.