[maratd]

> You could plan the rough change in value over time, and build it into the algorithm, perhaps making gains unlimited at first, then making it very deflationary for several years, and gradually easing gains to something like 0-2% deflation per year.

You want inflation, not deflation. The value of the currency should decrease at a 2% clip per annum.

This would make it into a realistic currency, where people get annual raises in their salary, prices gradually climb making merchants happy, etc.

You need to conform to basic human psychology for wide adoption. And don't worry about the miners, they will mine regardless, even if it's worth less and less each year ... now the speculators? Those will be gone and good riddance.

[rthomas6]

I can see this once it's up and running with a large market cap, but in my opinion you need the deflation in the beginning to attract users. There's much less of an incentive to use the new 'coin if it doesn't appreciate over time.

[saalweachter]

Well, that's the problem.

If the digital currency doesn't have any significantly attractive qualities outside its use as a store of value, it's a shitty currency.

If you can make a currency that people will use on a day to day basis, voluntarily, despite having 4% inflation (which is a much better target, economically -- the 2% is the weaksauce compromise with the anti-inflationists), then you've created something which has real utility.

[rthomas6]

To have that, the currency must be widely accepted. To have THAT, you need widespread adoption. But to have widespread adoption, you need a reason outside of its immediate utility for people to voluntarily use the currency. There are existing cryptocurrencies that are pretty close to what you're describing (freicoin), but they are not popular because there's no incentive for adoption. So if you don't have the beginning deflation, you need some other method of bootstrapping.

[johndevor]

> You need to conform to basic human psychology for wide adoption.

I don't think inflation is a part of basic human psychology.

[maratd]

> I don't think inflation is a part of basic human psychology.

Regardless of your thoughts, it is.

Most jobs do not experience constant annual productivity gains, but everyone wants a raise at the end of the year and feels like shit when they don't get it. Nominal inflation allows you to give them a raise without impacting your bottom line. Win/win.

Most merchants what to see their prices go up, it signals to them that there is demand for their goods. A steady, slow, increasing demand for their goods makes them feel good. Even if the costs of operating their business are going up at a similar clip, it makes them feel good that they can increase their prices. Having to keep your prices the same or drop them is frustrating, as if you're not making progress. Win/win.

A steady, slow pace of inflation is ideal.

It allows for short term saving, like for a downpayment on a house, but discourages unhealthy hoarding over long periods of time. Again, win/win.

Look, I get it, Economics is an art, etc. but this stuff has been established over a long period of time and it works.

[johndevor]

> Most jobs do not experience constant annual productivity gains, but everyone wants a raise at the end of the year and feels like shit when they don't get it.

End-of-the-year raises can happen in a deflationary economy too, that's not really associated with the inflation / deflation debate. The amount of the raise can be less in nominal dollars but the employee gets the same real purchasing power.

> Most merchants what to see their prices go up, it signals to them that there is demand for their goods.

Price doesn't signal that there is demand for their goods, demand signals that there is demand. Price is a reflection of demand / supply, not the other way around.

> it makes them feel good that they can increase their prices.

But don't they, similarly, feel bad when they see everybody elses' prices also increase? They know that their paycheck gets less and less at other stores.

I think it's hard to draw a connection between feelings and economics.

> It allows for short term saving, like for a downpayment on a house, but discourages unhealthy hoarding over long periods of time. Again, win/win.

We live in a time of unprecedented levels of debt, both personal and national. I'd argue that such debt isn't all that healthy for the long-term growth of an economy.

[maratd]

> The amount of the raise can be less in nominal dollars but the employee gets the same real purchasing power.

1. 99% of people out there have no idea what purchasing power is.

2. The 1% that do either lack the ability or the will to calculate it.

3. It's entirely irrelevant, because in a deflationary environment you will be receiving a pay cut. Remember, most people do not experience productivity gains which necessitates a pay cut. If you're flipping burgers, you're flipping the same amount of burgers you did last year. If your productivity didn't increase and your boss gave you a raise or even kept your salary the same, he's taking money out of his pocket for you. Very nice boss you have there ... also, a very rare creature.

4. Now that you're cutting people's wages ... you've seriously pissed them off.

> Price doesn't signal that there is demand for their goods, demand signals that there is demand. Price is a reflection of demand / supply, not the other way around.

I'm glad you know what a demand curve is. I actually know how to calculate one since I have a formal education in economics and actually took econometrics.

I also ran a pretty successful retail outfit that had revenue in the millions.

Do you know how many times I calculated a demand curve? Zero.

It would have been a waste of time. Because I'm not the only player in the market. I don't have the data.

What data do I have? More people are buying my shit. I'm running out of stock. Let me increase my prices. My prices increased, now people are buying the same amount of shit they did before. I am making more money. I feel good. Oh crap, my supplier increased his prices. My supplier is an asshole. But people are buying my stuff, I just increased prices, things are good!

99% of merchants operate in this way. Yes, I knew the changes were nominal. They still made me feel good. Inflation wins.

> But don't they, similarly, feel bad when they see everybody elses' prices also increase? They know that their paycheck gets less and less at other stores.

No normal human being makes the connection between prices and their paycheck. Not even economists. Yes, that's the rational conclusion. The world doesn't work that way.

When I get a raise, I'm happy with my boss and about my work. When I see prices rise at the store, I'm pissed at the store. There is zero connection there, even though it's obviously all connected.

People aren't computers.

> I'd argue that such debt isn't all that healthy for the long-term growth of an economy.

While I would probably agree with you, the inverse of saving is not debt. It's the lack of saving. You can skip saving a single dollar and still be debt free.

[tlrobinson]

So in a deflationary currency you'll have:

"More people are buying my shit. I'm running out of stock. Maybe I won't decrease my prices this year. My prices didn't decrease, now people are buying the same amount of shit they did before. I am making more money. I feel good. Oh crap, my supplier didn't decrease his prices this year. My supplier is an asshole. But people are buying my stuff, I didn't have to lower prices, things are good!"

[maratd]

Right. Your example illustrates the stupidity of deflation. You got so tripped up in the terms and concepts, you didn't even get it right.

In a deflationary economy, people always buy LESS of your stuff and you have no idea if that's happening because your goods are less popular or because the currency is deflating or possibly both. In an inflationary system, if less people are buying my stuff, I know there's a problem with my goods.

[johndevor]

> No normal human being makes the connection between prices and their paycheck. Not even economists. Yes, that's the rational conclusion. The world doesn't work that way.

That's not true. The world is entirely aware of prices and how their paycheck relates to it. It's called a Cost of Living Adjustment:

http://www.ssa.gov/cola/

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cola.asp

[pbreit]

Reply to rthomas:

Nope. Most economists prefer low but stable inflation around 1-3%.

[oafitupa]

And?

[pbreit]

And if you want to find out why, do a little Googling.

[rthomas6]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure most economists theoretically prefer an inflation rate of 0. However, they see inflation as less bad than deflation, so they err on the side of caution by generating a safety margin of inflation.

[aggronn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve

this is an old theory and has been refined over time, but its still the basic model taught in economics courses.

[fthssht]

2% per annum clip is nonsense dogma. As close to 0 as possible is probably ideal.

[yxhuvud]

If you can achieve that regardless of how deep a recession becomes, sure.