Hacker News Reader

Hold on - you say "we find more gold every day" and then go on to suggest that the money supply doesn't actually need to keep up with economic growth?

If we had the technology to maintain 0% inflation, we would do that. We can't, and rather than risk deflation we instead target low positive inflation. This is because deflation leads to nightmare spirals where people start stuffing money into their mattresses instead of investing in useful things because holding has risk-free guaranteed returns that the unpredictable real world can't match.

The amount of gold being mined is not sufficient to keep up with economic growth and gold is therefore inherently deflationary. It's not a good way to store value, because a coin that's going to double in value over two years or whatever is obviously not a stable store of value.

You can argue about corrosion resistance or whatever other physical properties gold might have, but unless the civilization collapses you will find just as much luck storing your wealth in the database of a major bank. Needless to say, designing a civilization around the idea that it could collapse at any moment is unnecessary and expensive.

> If we had the technology to maintain 0% inflation, we would do that. We can't, and rather than risk deflation we instead target low positive inflation.

I don't think this is quite right. My understanding is that a low positive inflation would be targeted anyway, because it stimulates the velocity of money; i.e. there's a downside to hoarding, since you need to beat inflation to come out on top. So people will be willing to invest to at least some extent in risk assets, or to buy things now rather than later.

Which, yes, makes inflationary spirals possible, but they've proven less damaging. The inflation numbers seen in regimes that actually collapsed as a result are absolutely dizzying; whereas the deflation seen in the Great Depression was... significant, but not nearly comparable.

The main advantage to keeping inflation as low as possible but positive is also that it makes interest rates cheaper. Individuals are incentivized to spend when there's inflation, but banks have a harder time writing loans because the interest rate on the loan is the product of inflation and the bank's desired ROI.

Low interest rates are a good thing because they allow people to explore new ideas and new businesses - the entire modern tech industry would not exist without ZIRP because the scale of investments has only gone up as technology has advanced.

> Individuals are incentivized to spend when there's inflation

That's not what's happening currently. Inflation has driven up prices to the point where people can't afford to spend. They're forced to cut back on spending just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. Inflation promises that things are cheaper now than they ever will be, but that just means that anything you can't afford you either have to go without or take an even bigger hit to your wallet after trying to save money at a rate faster than prices are increasing. That sort of thing leads to less spending.

Credit cards were the solution for many Americans for a very long time, but that was never sustainable and now the US has record amounts of household debt and homelessness.

Deflation makes things more affordable and so people buy more. Yes, they could horde all their wealth, but you can't eat money and it isn't much fun. When times are good why would anyone bother going without when they can easily get what they want today. Consumerism is strong enough to keep people buying things. Decreasing prices gives consumers confidence that they can make risky purchases and investments.

> the entire modern tech industry would not exist without ZIRP

The problem with zero interest rate is that it doesn't incentivize better ideas. Why would you work to increase productivity if capital has no cost?

The period 2016-2021 was one where interest rates were the lowest, sometimes even negative, and you saw companies hiring endlessly, and acquiring competitors with no intention of doing anything their their products.

It is very hard to compete on talent and good ideas in such an environment when your all competitors are burning through loaned and venture capital (which itself is also largely loaned at some point).

> And even if there wasn't, imagine having an exchange currency that literally never inflated... that's GOOD.

I fundamentally disagree. Value comes from building stuff not from hoarding. I maintain my intense dislike for gold. And I grant that it had the property of having most people on this earth consider it the peak of value. Sure common belief is a useful property. But I disagree that it's a positive outcome or that there couldn't be many many other variations except gold.

Your dislike aside, is it part of your investment portfolio? If not, what did you replace it with?

> that's why you can trade and barter random objects...imagine having an exchange currency that literally never inflated... that's GOOD. We have been hoodwinked into thinking that we need inflation to keep up with goods and services, literal stockholm syndrome

Gahhh. Stop taking your economics advice from bitcoin bros and goldbug weirdos. They don't know how anything works and don't want to learn. It's like taking legal advice from sovereign citizens. It's not even that difficult to understand why it's a terrible idea!

High inflation is bad, sure. Deflation is an economic nuke. You know those people who spent like a whole bitcoin buying pizza way back when? "If I'd just held onto it, I'd have $HUGE_NUMBER now".

Yeah. If your money goes up in value, you have a huge incentive to stockpile it and not buy pizza. It's not just Dominos that loses out. All of the people and suppliers that go into pizza do, too. You need people to spend and lend to have liquidity and money flow.

> we find more gold every day, so there is an easing already happening naturally

That's not how that works. You're tying your entire country's economic growth to the production output of a single mining industry. Gold is not distributed evenly across the globe, either.

And yeah, we did all that in the past, and it caused deflation, which caused numerous financial panics [0], broke the British economy [1] and after two world wars, the US ended up with like 70% of the world's gold [2].

[0] https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/banking-panics-...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_1914

[2] https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/center/mm/eng/mm_dr_01.h...

--

TL;DR: Tying your entire country's economic growth to the production output of a single mining industry is stupid and we don't do it for very good reasons. Everything is a conspiracy if you don't know how anything works.

> If your money goes up in value, you have a huge incentive to stockpile it and not buy pizza

A lot hinges on this being true, but being deflationary is not unique to gold. It is also true for a lot of other things, including stocks. Yet we think it is good that regular people spend their earnings on stock, and it is generally considered to be one of the things which made American economy uniquely strong. So much so that other countries seek to mimic it.

The argument should cut both ways: A strong stock market which is deflationary should lead to economic stagnation. Why buy a pizza today when you can buy S&P500 and buy two pizzas tomorrow?

Reality seems to disagree here. People buy what they need and want, today, and whether the rest is stored in fiat currency, stocks, or gold seems to matter very little for economic productivity.

> Yet we think it is good that regular people spend their earnings on stock, and it is generally considered to be one of the things which made American economy uniquely strong

I...don't think you know what stocks actually are. Your argument doesn't make sense because stocks are the literal exact opposite of a deflationary good lol.

Companies issue stock to raise money. If you buy stock from a company, you're giving them that money in exchange for a small stake in ownership.

It gets more complicated with stock markets and all the other stuff, but the heart of it is taking money that would normally sit for decades doing nothing and giving it to those who can use it right now.

> Reality seems to disagree here.

It only does if you don't know how things work and don't want to learn lol

> Companies issue stock to raise money

There is certainly some misunderstanding here, and I am unsure about where it is. Perhaps another example could have been more clear.

When you "buy the S&P500" you do not buy stock from companies. No S&P ETF takes part in private placements or IPOs. They buy "used" shares on the open market, with the single intention of selling it on the open market to someone else.

When you buy the S&P, at no point do you give money to any of the S&P companies (except perhaps a small fee to the ETF issuer, most of which are public companies, but let's not split hairs about that).

There are of course other methods of buying the S&P500, such as tracker certificates, but they only add layers of indirection to the above, they do not change the fundamental facts about it.

> you don't know how things work and don't want to learn

I am not sure how to respond to this.

I do find it rather ironic that economists can pretty much universally agree on this concept. And yet when you point out the very existence of the billionaire class inherently causes the exact same issue you're suddenly a communits.

How is it good for an economy to have a small subset of individuals hoarding wealth through property, artwork, and offshore bank accounts - not spending it in the economy from which they extracted it? "Job creators" is a farse, the subset who you can point to who ACTUALLY create(d) jobs a-la Page and Brin have long since stepped away from that job creation and have joined the ranks of: number go up.