[roenxi]

> My money in my bank is very safe and it doesn't cost me anything.

Your money is safe, your wealth is not. Taking the US as a reference, it is official government policy that if you store your wealth as money then it has a half life of 35 years.

> Bitcoin is very very volatile and just because it went up the last x years, doesn't make it stable or trustworthy.

I was sneaky in my wording - I'm a gold bug and think Bitcoin is worthless. Nevertheless, a rational person who was interested in bitcoin would probably note that whatever its bad points it is simply not subject to the sort of technical intervention that makes fiat untrustworthy.

Also, using gold as a reference, the unofficial policy half life looks more like 12 years. Using the M2, maybe 14 years.

[arcticbull]

Supply is only half the inflation calculation, the other half is velocity. That's why the increase in the M2 supply doesn't translate to what you're paying at the grocery store. You've missed half the equation. [1]

[1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2014/september/wha...

[roenxi]

I'm not missing anything, I just don't care about the inflation calculation. I'm using gold and the M2.

[arcticbull]

Ok, so you're doing it incorrectly then. That's fine, but it seems weird to give advise on the basis of information that you know is wrong.

[roenxi]

That's got all the argumentative power of a damp noodle. If you happen to be using the CPI to adjust your portfolio, you might be saying you've experienced real growth when your investments are literally being outperformed by the steadily growing value of an inert rock.

The inflation rate is basically a proxy measure of wage growth [0]. The money printing hasn't going in to wages. It isn't appropriate to use the CPI to adjust wealth, because then you'd be mistaking asset price inflation for productive growth and putting money into things that don't earn real returns (ie, are grossly mismanaged).

[0] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2015/november/rela...