I think you shouldn't buy those beers: in a few more months they'll be a 1/9th of the price. And maybe then you should wait again...
For that matter, would you even buy beer now, when you could instead invest the money risk-free in US govt. bonds so you could buy more beer in future?
However, with technological items there was always another side: the new ones were so much better than our current ones, ours were actually getting old faster, and we were driven to buy. The same won't happen with the other goods on the market.
The interest of gov bonds or of any other financial instrument afaik represents (and is proportional to) a risk of not getting repaid.
But you still purchased it eventually. In that sense a deflationary currency might change the balance of consumer spending vs saving in favour of more saving, but that doesn't mean a continuous downwards spiral in spending, it could just be a new equilibrium.
>Imagine how companies loved that, and imagine extending it to just everything, from food to housing.
Personally I'd absolutely love if house prices halved every year, as at the rate they're currently increasing it'll be a long time before I could afford even a tiny apartment anywhere near where I work.
>However, with technological items there was always another side: the new ones were so much better than our current ones, ours were actually getting old faster, and we were driven to buy. The same won't happen with the other goods on the market.
Would it be bad thing if it did happen to other goods on the market? If e.g. a 2005 car was better than a 2000 car to the same degree that a 2005 computer was better than a 2000 computer.
>The interest of gov bonds or of any other financial instrument afaik represents (and is proportional to) a risk of not getting repaid.
I was referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-free_interest_rate : "In practice, to infer the risk-free interest rate in a particular situation, a risk-free bond is usually chosen—that is, one issued by a government or agency whose risks of default are so low as to be negligible."
For the reasons I explained, and that apply only to a small subset of goods.
> Would it be bad thing if it did happen to other goods on the market?
That is definitely not decided by the currency.
> risks of default are so low as to be negligible
Those have also negligible interest rates, that is, ones that only repay you of the inconvenience of not spending your money now. You know, there's also a non negligible risk that you'll die before you get your money back.
You explain the importance of monetary policy, why the gold standard is problematic, why this means Bitcoin will not replace modern currencies, yet they don't really hear. They just don't like "The System" and want to subvert it.
Bitcoin is great, but it will not change 'the system'. It is a novel and ingenious asset, nothing more.
Gold has existed for thousands of years, surely this commonly accepted idea is based on more than one or two heavily flawed data-points.
Things do not endure merely because some social engineer has a tortured explanation for them he trots out at every opportunity to justify the construct.
Bitcoin is that systems reckoning.
Edit: do we know if economies really behave like this under these conditions? Are we really using a scientific approach on this? Or are we holding these models as divine truth?
The relationship between productivity plus inflation (both measurable) and economic growth is similar. It’s the bedrock of modern macroeconomic theory, which has largely been successful in both explaining and predicting the effect macro policy has on economic growth. The history of North American and Western European economies after going off the gold standard, and asian and Eastern Europe economies more recently all show these same correlations. Outside of external influence, economies which stray outside of the ideal parameters end up either stagnating (lack of investment) or experience dramatic boom-bust cycles (excessive poor investments). I’m on mobile but there’s a fair number of reports by Fed and other central banks justifying their choice of interest rate based on historical examples, and with the purpose of achieving certain productivity (capital investment) and price inflation (money supply). You could also pick up just about any macroeconomics textbook and chase the footnotes and references or spend some time on Google scholar.
So what you're saying is that it's all based on one data point, the second world-war. Gold existed for thousands of years, why is this incredibly bizarre period of history used as a proof of anything about the gold-standard?
Even worse, the gold standard wouldn't have collapsed if it weren't for the widespread use of fractional reserves banking, along with many government policies at the time that significantly worsened the situation.
The 40's, 50's and 60's were a period of unprecedented growth for the US, which was on the gold standard during that whole period, but no one tries to claim that the gold standard was responsible for that.