[MadSudaca]

Thank you for your explanation, and the reason why I removed the last sentence is that I thought it was thoroughly unhelpful.

I'm not intending to bait. Really I find the arguments against deflation insufficient. I get the picture that some inflation is good to keep the system running smoothly, however, the description of why inflation is desirable is lacking when explaining why deflation is necessarily bad, all things considered. I don't see a first principles argument against deflation, neither do I see a thorough comparative analysis between deflationary and inflationary economies. The only example given is Japan, which, as I said before, doesn't seem to have fared too badly. Moreover, the list of countries that have had problems with runaway inflation is very long. Inflation is a well established economic malaise. In fact, it is almost a maxim that all states are destined to at some point or another, debase their currency.

I think one has to weigh the economic arguments, whatever they may be, against the fact that humanity has never had sound money that can't be debased, and that isn't at the whims of some elite, however well intentioned and wise they may be -- which more often than not, they aren't.

Cryptocurrencies will continue being developed, the flaws will be solved, and the wrinkles ironed. We will have something that may work as sound money. And I say we let it compete fairly against fiat money, put our theories to the test, and see what kind of money if preferred by the people. If it turns out that sound money is finally achieved, I'm sure it'll be a momentous time in human history, and could very well become a new human right: the right to own and use sound money.

[aucisson_masque]

It has already been competing against fiat currencies and the least we can say is that it's a success.

No other currencies without a state to promote it, and basically force it on their citizens, made it through yet Bitcoin did it.

More and more people are buying it, people are valuing it more and more, close to 100k$ now when it worth nothing a few years ago.

That's quite a success to me and and I believe part of it's success is because Bitcoin is by nature deflationary.

No one would willingly buy an inflationary currency, the only reason they success is because they are forced by gouvernement.

[Unearned5161]

You're not buying an inflationary currency. The inflationary currency is what you buy things with. Like commodities (bitcoin)!

Bitcoin (or any other commodity/crypto) being valued well and being a "good" investment is completely detached from its function as a national currency. One does not (and should not) imply the other.

You need something to exchange things with (currency), and you need things to exchange. The currency is the medium of exchange, the journey, not the destination.

[Unearned5161]

Perhaps the argument I left in a different comment will illustrate why inflationary currencies are preferable. Please note that by inflationary I don't mean high inflation, I mean small, controlled, inflation.

> You should use a money that loses value because its purpose is as a medium of exchange and not a store of value. You need to have something in your life that you can reliably use to acquire things you need and exchange them for things you have (new laptop for hours worked). You want a hot potato, you get it, you pass it along to someone else. If you don't want to spend it on material goods and want to save, that's fine, you can instead "buy" a savings, or "buy" an index fund. You're still passing the hot potato around, but it's giving you different things.

Now think of this on a large scale. You want hot potatoes going around. That means they'll be moving at a reasonably fast pace, changing hands and going places. You need your money to move so that it reaches all parts and doesn't stagnate places. That's not to say that savings, like the type you'd do at a bank, are bad for the economy, but that is to say that if everyone were to save a bunch of money under a mattress, that would be bad. That would mean that a solid chunk of currency in the economy is frozen and effectively useless to everyone but its owner until they decide to take it out and spend it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Historical_examples should give you some other examples of situations in which economies have been in deflation.

Again, controlled small inflation is the goal. Yes, this can, in the wrong hands, turn into too much inflation, but this is the same the other way too. These are not static states; they're highly dynamic systems that can spin out of control in either direction. And all things considered, it's easier to deal with high inflation than it is to deal with high deflation. It's playing with fire, but there is no other way, and if you find such a way, I and many others would be rather interested in hearing it.

Something to consider: economists' study, learn theory, and perform controlled experiments so that we can learn about these things. These are not unknowable truths of the economy that we can only roll the die and see what happens. And something that is often not considered by hard currency supporters is the results if things turn sour.

After all, you can have years upon years of nice solid performance of an economy built on whatever, for any sort of reasons, but the true assessment of that whatever as a means to serve as the currency for a nation, is how it performs under stress. Our modern fiat currencies and the ways we control them have been built on the ruins of previous methods and currencies. These ruins are costly and violent to a nations progress. This is not something you want to "wait and see". So instead of just thinking about the functions of bitcoin "during the day", while things are normal and people are behaving well, think also about that same currency at night. Think about what may happen if some exogenous shock hits the economy (not related to the currency itself), think oil embargo in the 70s. How will your economy deal with that? What are the tools at the government's disposal to get the economy repaired and back on track? Do they have any recourse? Do they have to just wait it out? This is beyond human lives at risk, this is human progress, human time.

Therefore, it's not about what people like, it's about what keeps the whole system as successful as possible for as long as possible. Economic systems are complex and unintuitive beasts, this is not an area that benefits from great civilian oversight and control. If your system works amazing for 20 years but then has a horrendous crash that wipes 10 years off of your progress, how good was it really?

[MadSudaca]

Thanks for taking the time to argue with me. You make some good points, however, for me personally, the evidence seems insufficient to sway me into believing that a deflationary currency is not beneficial.

I agree with your arguments about why some inflation is desired, it incentivizes people into spending their money, this makes it so that people engage in trade more often and, when voluntarily made on the basis of sound information, trade is beneficial to both parties. The net positive done in the world increases, at the small cost of some inflation, that is, the loss of some of your net worth if you rest on your laurels keeping your cash.

All this being said, for me there is a great asymmetry in the demonstrable harm done by inflation vs deflation. The list of people who have suffered the consequences of irresponsible governments is just too large, with you and me being at risk of suffering from them during our lifetime. The temptation is just too large to mishandle currency. While deflation is something that we will very hardly experience in our lifetime, barring some massive technological breakthrough that changes the means of production forever.

Moreover, there's no reason to believe that an economy can't work with deflation. Believe me, it CAN work with extreme inflation where calculation into the future is made very hard, it can surely work with deflation. Yes, some psychological aspects will be new, like people holding off purchases because their money will be worth more in the future, but that will not necessarily translate into a wide-scale halt in purchases. People will still want things more right now than the equivalent of their increasingly valuable currency. This new modality will introduce problems, no doubt, but these will be overcome by new adaptations. There is simply not enough evidence to ensure that a system like this can't work.

I agree that one ought to proceed with care in these matters because a system that seems to work in the beginning might fail catastrophically later on. However, as any change, one ought to weigh the negative risks against the benefits. With the promise of cryptocurrency we're entering a new world. One in which each individual will be more empowered and global commerce will be facilitated. The complexity of the world shows us that no matter how much optimism or pessimism you bake into your decisions, for some things, you will just never know for sure.

Lastly, another problem with inflation is that it favors the elites. Possibly, this is one of the biggest reasons why it's so widely disseminated. Those close to the central banks, those that understand about finance, those that seek power for themselves at the expense of others, among others. This kind of centralization of power motivates individuals at the top to sell the idea to the masses as if it's for their own good, and sometimes it is, but you can't deny that the incentives do not point to this being something that overwhelmingly favors the disenfranchised and the ignorant.