[mctaylor]

Yup. I'm extremely unconvinced that a non-distributionary constraint (ex: limiting the money supply one way or another, i.e. the gold standard, bitcoin, etc.) fixes a distributionary problem.

You know what would fix a distributionary problem? A (re)distributionary solution.

The most obvious one is progressive/wealth taxation (a ceiling) and UBI (a floor).

Keep competitive market dynamics, narrow the window in which they're allowed to operate and add some hard constraints.

[saalweachter]

Or, if you're scared of UBI: government work programs, like the good old Works Progress Administration.

Tax, and hire millions of people for a good living wage to do things that either need to be done and aren't (infrastructure repairs and improvements, inspections of all flavors, etc), or that don't really need to be done but make some fraction of the population happy (unnecessarily beautiful post offices).

[clates]

> Yup. I'm extremely unconvinced that a non-distributionary constraint (ex: limiting the money supply one way or another, i.e. the gold standard, bitcoin, etc.) fixes a distributionary problem.

Well, that's good because that's not what limiting the money supply does. It _acts as a force against inequality_. It doesn't _fix_ or _prevent_ inequality that already exists and doesn't claim to stop organic inequalities from arising - but it does put a limit on inequality resulting from an inflation of the money supply.

[notahacker]

It doesn't act as a force against inequality though. It literally acts as a force to force the have nots to work harder and pay more to convince the haves to offer them any money for anything (whilst maintaining the purchasing power of any cash rich people that don't want to risk investing in anything that might create any wealth for anyone else)