[kccqzy]

Mild inflation is a good thing, at least according to modern economists. In a deflationary environment, money is worth more when you don’t spend them. And when people don’t spend them, there’s no economic growth. It’s just like having very high interest rates but the central bank cannot act to lower them.

[CyberDildonics]

This thread was someone saying you can't peg a currency to something else because "there isn't enough of it" which is nonsense.

there’s no economic growth

Printing money doesn't create economic growth, it just inflates assets and depresses nominal wages.

money is worth more when you don’t spend them

People say this stuff like it's gospel, but if someone understands currency dynamics in the first place they would have their money in investments, which already should appreciate and act like a deflationary currency. People can already buy stocks and leave money there to get more valuable, so why does anyone spend money now?

You also have to figure out why it already worked for hundreds of years. People act like it would be an experiment. Floating currency is the experiment and it has lasted 50 years so far. Currency has lost almost all of it's value from before the 70s and minimum wage is a fraction of what it was nominally while asset prices are sky high, then people wonder why people can't afford a house or beef or gas or just to live alone.

[kccqzy]

Economic growth comes from spending. Households must be incentivized to spend either through inflation or low interest rates.

Buying stocks hoping that it would appreciate doesn’t work when there is no economic growth. So we are back to square one.

And for hundreds of years we didn’t have the same kind of international trade, or the same financial markets. One must wonder whether a new kind of currency must accompany a new era of economy and trade.

Currency losing almost all its value is by design. Modern economists target a 2% inflation rate. This means currency is supposed to lose value. It’s another mechanism to encourage spending to increase economic growth.

[xorcist]

> Buying stocks hoping that it would appreciate doesn’t work when there is no economic growth

Why? If you and I earn $100 per year, every year, that means there is no economic growth. We spend half of it on food, clothes, and other necessities and buy stocks with the other half, stocks will go up in value.

An non-growing economy has aspects of a zero-sum game. Speculation can still occur, and can continue unbounded. Stocks, gold, bitcoin, have historically all been deflationary.

[CyberDildonics]

Economic growth comes from spending.

Who told you that?

Households must be incentivized to spend

Says who? What about governments and companies? People are already incentivized to spend because they need things.

Buying stocks hoping that it would appreciate doesn’t work when there is no economic growth.

You're contradicting yourself and going around in circles. If there is "economic growth" according to you, then stocks will go up, which means they end up being a deflationary currency, which means people will put there money there and not spend it.

They already go up due to inflation, people do buy stocks and other liquid assets, people still spend money anyway.

Also, gold still exists. By your own logic, because anyone can still buy gold or gold futures they should park their money there and never spend it.

Currency losing almost all its value is by design.

It is by design by governments and for governments. No person wants an inflationary currency, governments want it because they can they can borrow and print money they don't have and hand it out to people who in turn help with political power.

People don't want their currency to inflate away unless they own a business that can raise prices while their employees make less nominally.