Comments on: Questions For Krugman On His Latest Bitcoin Screed

By: Non Abbiate Timore della Deflazione

Non Abbiate Timore della Deflazione — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:33:07 +0000

[...] non potrebbe avere più torto. La deflazione non è un problema nel sistema monetario tradizionale e non sarà un problema [...]

By: Michael Suede

Michael Suede — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 23:02:00 +0000

So you’re saying people will stop buying food, clothing, medical care, housing, gas, etc.. etc.. etc.. because money is gaining in value?

That’s the most retarded argument I’ve ever heard.

Yes, CONSUMPTION will slow but PRODUCTION will increase. This will continue until a market equilibrium is reached. SAVINGS means capital investment is occurring. Capital investment is necessary before production can be expanded.

By: Stephan

Stephan — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:19:00 +0000

What about a contract with some fixed mortgage rate – say 3% -, but applied after decreasing the remaining debt by the deflation rate? So
- the debt would always reflect the real value of the money at time being spent, and
- the bank would get their profit as it is in an inflationary system (where mortgage rate is a few percents above inflation).

By: Michael Suede

Michael Suede — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:08:00 +0000

Bitcoins are money because the market says they have value.

Because bitcoins have all the features of a money (divisible, fungible, scarce, recognizable), and because people are willing to trade goods and services for them, they are a money.

By: Bitcoin: kritika és válasz | Magyar Bitcoin Portál

Bitcoin: kritika és válasz | Magyar Bitcoin Portál — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:56:59 +0000

[...] Forrás: Libertarian News [...]

By: allocater

allocater — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:40:00 +0000

If you have a thing that everybody wants to take, but nobody wants to give, it is a bad currency (deflation)
If you have a thing that everybody wants to give, but nobody want to take, it is a bad currency (inflation)

A good currency must cause 50% of the people to want to give and 50% of the people to want to take.

By: Rebecca Snyder Baird

Rebecca Snyder Baird — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:30:00 +0000

Bcanuck -

Congratulations! You are close to understanding MMT. For more education,, go to http://www.moslereconomics.com.

Start with the “Required Readings”, and ask about anything you don’t understand – people are happy to answer.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 07:07:00 +0000

Economic growth = money spent.
Ta da! It’s that simple!

If you want to get the economy as a whole to spend more then there must be more to spend (I think I’m getting the hang of this). If there must be more money to spend then more money will have to be created.

Typically money creation is through the banks or from the government borrowing money and never paying back the debt. But why bother with banks? There is no guarantee the banks will actually lend the money out. So why not go directly to the consumer? Afterall, if demand is lacking why not get the money to the people you will go out and spend it?!

The Federal Reserve can legally create money by crediting accounts electronically. If you wanted to jump-start, jolt, prime-the-pump of the economy, why not have the Fed directly electronically credit people’s bank accounts? This could be done progressively: if you make less that $20,000 a year you would get $2000 a month added to your account. If you made more you would get less added to your account. People making more than $100,000 per year would get nothing.

Would this not be a more equitable and prosperous society? Most people would have more money. Isnt that a good thing? It’s technically possible. It’s politically possible; who wouldn’t vote for free money?! Surely the economy would boom! How could it NOT work?! Has Krugman ever proposed or advocated such an elegant solution? Surely, he must approve.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:39:00 +0000

Instead theorizing about the economy or what other people might do in an expected deflationary economy, ask yourself what YOU would do if YOU expected your money to continually increase in value aka deflation?
Would you cancel your cable subscription?
Would you quit picking up a coffee at Starbucks every morning?
Would you quit filling your car with gas?
Would quit paying your mortgage or rent?
Would you never buy a new TV or computer?
Would you never get a new iPhone?
Would you buy less groceries?
Would you never go out with friends or to a movie or take a vacation? Afterall, all of these things would be cheaper in the future, why ‘waste’ your money now? Would YOU become a cash hoarder? If YOU answered ‘no’ to most of the questions above why would the economy grind to a halt?

People DON’T want MONEY!
People want the THINGS money can buy!

Money is just a middleman, it is not wealth. Produced goods and services are wealth. This is what people value.

People will always and continually want stuff and will be willing to spend their money on it.

If a government continually debases the currency then people can buy LESS for their dollar, how is that good?

By: Dimetrodon

Dimetrodon — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:04:00 +0000

Personally I don’t understand what makes Bitcoin money. It is not tangable in and of itself (like raw gold silver or copper and local paper currencies like Ithica Hours, BerkSHARES or Potomacs) nor is it backed by anything tangable (like e.gold internet credits used to be before the US Government did the stopped it or private gold, silver or copper certificates would be). To me Bitcoins just seem to be more of a money made out of NOTHING than even FRNs are.