SPA
July 17, 2022 at 12:23 AM
#1
–
First of all, I’m not an economist, I work in IT, I just fell into the rabbit hole like many others and am now trying to find my way around the whole topic as best I can.
I have listened to the arguments and debates of the various schools of economics, and one theme that comes up time and time again is the accusation that limited money leads to hoarding and slows economic growth in the absence of credit can be awarded because too little money is available.
So far I’ve only read very evasive arguments that go in the direction of “we have a totally wasteful society anyway, that just brings everything back down to earth”.
Maybe there are still super clever counter-arguments that I don’t know of yet, then please feel free to write them in the thread.
Unfortunately, all the discussions always revolve around the fictitious situation in which Bitcoin has replaced all other currencies. Maybe that’s because we’re used to the fact that there is always only one monetary system per country, because it’s enforced with violence from above.
But in a world where money is not dictated but emerges from the free market, Bitcoin will probably not be the only currency. So I’m wondering, isn’t the root of the problem of limited money and difficulty in getting credit (if valid at all) dictating what money the people have to use? In a free market, solutions for this would form immediately.
Even in the Gold Standard there were already examples of private currencies that are pure credit and are only there to enable business between companies when credit in the main currency became too expensive (WE Bank) (who invented the Shitcoin?)
This is all possible without diluting the real money. Why shouldn’t something like that exist separately if it were needed?
But I would be interested to know what someone who understands economics has to say about this, because, as I said, I’m a complete layman and I just pulled it out of my fingers tonight.
–
1 like
–