[throwawash]

hmm, no government in the world supports his thesis I guess. From what I understand of his position: deflational currency is the best type of currency. Any inflation is bad etc. The reason governments create inflation is to keep population poor and control them I guess?

Putting aside the weird trash-talking of status quo economists, in order to evaluate the correctness of his position, I would have to do way too much homework.

His prediction of human behavior under a deflational currency though does raise some flags. He says people will buy stuff regardless. If know I can use the same money to buy two cars next year instead of buying a car this year, I will not buy a car this year. He seems to say I will.

[ephbit]

> The reason governments create inflation is to keep population poor and control them I guess?

When I listened to the interview I didn't hear him say that.

My view on this: governments simply cannot help increasing debt to spend more on whatever purpose they deem right at a certain time. It's simply the easiest way (least opposition from voters) for them to enact their programmes. The only other option (cutting other spending to increase spending on what's current high priority) doesn't get them reelected.

> Putting aside the weird trash-talking of status quo economists ...

Yeah, I admit he does too much of that, not optimal. But that doesn't mean the message is wrong.

> He says people will buy stuff regardless.

You won't? If your car breaks down, you won't let it get fixed right now but next month because it's cheaper? If you're hungry today you'll wait till next week to buy food because it costs 0,005 % less? You'll wait 10 years to fly to Fiji because it'll be cheaper? Oh wow, you must be a special person then.

> If know I can use the same money to buy two cars next year instead of buying a car this year, I will not buy a car this year.

You sure? You just watch everybody drive around? Besides: same money, next year worth 2x is dramatically exaggerated. What are typical gains of efficiency through technological advances? Maybe 5 % per year? I say you're putting up a strawman here. With 5 % deflation you'll have 2x the buying power in ~ 14 years .. you're going to wait this long?

> He seems to say I will.

Nope, as I understood what he says, he just says it somewhat shifts time preference.

[throwawash]

>If your car breaks down, you won't let it get fixed right now but next month because it's cheaper?

Which car? The one I don't have because I'm saving to buy two next year? You're changing the example I gave into something else entirely. If you're saying that drastically reducing or eliminating the purchase of everything that is not absolutely essential to have won't be bad for the economy, or if it is, it won't be bad for society in the long term -- then say that.

>> If know I can use the same money to buy two cars next year instead of buying a car this year, I will not buy a car this year.

>You sure?

Yes. (I lived someplace where there was a ridiculous price markup for electronic goods. I needed a new phone and laptop but I refused to buy them because of the ridiculous prices. Then the currency crashed a year later and I immediately bought them by exchanging US dollars before they could markup the prices or pause sales. I ended up getting them for less than the US price incidentally. Otherwise I would have waited until the old ones were preventing me from doing essential tasks. This is same for cars.)

"People consume because there's a limitless desire to consume" he says. And when Fridman calls him on it, he says yes well people economize due to constraints no matter what.

>same money, next year worth 2x is dramatically exaggerated.

Well yes that’s the point. aren’t we talking about a bitcoin economy in the end after all? If a transition from fiat to bitcoin standard starts happening, this is the path its going to take until the price stabilizes, no? People doubled their money in half a year in 2021 after all.

EDIT: his odd comment that he is migrating from anarchism towards supporting benign dictatorships doesn't exact endear him either.

[ephbit]

> Which car? The one I don't have because I'm saving to buy two next year?

So eventually you'll have two ... and what will happen? Yes, some time your car will need repairs. Will you have the repair done months later because it'd be cheaper then? Highly unlikely.

> If you're saying that drastically reducing or eliminating the purchase of everything that is not absolutely essential to have won't be bad for the economy, or if it is, it won't be bad for society in the long term -- then say that.

I think people would - as they always have been doing it - still spend money on things that aren't absolutely necessary. If not for mere hedonistic pleasure then for status or whatever.

>>> If know I can use the same money to buy two cars next year instead of buying a car this year, I will not buy a car this year.

>>You sure?

>Yes. (I lived someplace where there was a ridiculous price markup for electronic goods. I needed a new phone and laptop but I refused to buy them because of the ridiculous prices. Then the currency crashed a year later and I immediately bought them by exchanging US dollars before they could markup the prices or pause sales. I ended up getting them for less than the US price incidentally. Otherwise I would have waited until the old ones were preventing me from doing essential tasks. This is same for cars.)

You ignored what I read about the buying power doubling over not one year but rather fourteen years ... you're writing about "currency crashing" which is something completely different from a gradual steady deflationary currency.

> "People consume because there's a limitless desire to consume" he says. And when Fridman calls him on it, he says yes well people economize due to constraints no matter what.

What's the point? Of course people try to find a balance between spending now and saving, nothing new here.

> If a transition from fiat to bitcoin standard starts happening, this is the path its going to take until the price stabilizes, no? People doubled their money in half a year in 2021 after all.

Yes. But as with most such developments, there's the dynamics that you see at first glance (adoption grows --> people are more confident Bitcoin will become even more valuable --> demand increases --> price increases --> ...) and there's lots more secondary dynamics that will also happen and dampen the obvious dynamic (price increases --> too expensive for some --> demand decreases --> dynamic equilibrium). There's surely more such secondary dynamics and they're important.

> EDIT: his odd comment that he is migrating from anarchism towards supporting benign dictatorships doesn't exact endear him either.

Well, I'm not a fan of dictatorships.

I don't think it's a very useful heuristic to discard all ideas of some person because one doesn't share/like one or a few of their positions. You'd have to discard the positions of almost every person on the planet then, right?