> unless you are Zimbabwe
That's like saying "it's fine if you rob me 2%, but please don't surpass it". See: https://twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/status/1110030668715614208
That's like saying "it's fine if you rob me 2%, but please don't surpass it". See: https://twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/status/1110030668715614208
It’s fine to think that there might be other, better approaches to solving those problems. It’s fine to argue that central banks might not always act with the best interests of the economy at heart. But pretending like those problems weren’t real and that we don’t need any of it—as the financially-illiterate cryptocurrency community seems to do—is absurd.
This is a dangerous narrative. By strictly econometric measures, the 2008 crisis was not too far off of, say, the great depression. By and large, I wonder if the reason why people aren't dying on the streets (aka "chaos"), etc, is because we have reliable sources of food, access to medicine, etc.
And it is beneficial for them to do so simply because it enables them to spend more without having to take unpopular measures like raising taxes.
I have read the vast majority of the arguments for having inflation or deflation and to be perfectly honest I find most of them to be unconvincing and essentially boil down to "it's good because its good".
Both inflation, deflation and stagflation have their benefits and drawbacks and they all have a place and should all be used, because economic scenarios and circumstances differ over time and place. To state that we should all have at all times everywhere 2% inflation is dumb, dangerous and frankly if you hold that sort of view you have no business being anywhere near monetary policy because you're not an economist, you're a priest.
Is this person a thief? Have they stolen from you?
Note I said bitcoin, not cryptocurrencies. I completely agree with you here, shitcoins will always be shitcoins.
And nothing has dethroned Bitcoin yet, but that isn't a law of nature. One of the others could become dominant. Even if Bitcoin then continued to exist and be used, that would devalue it substantially.
not directly, but they sure have redistributed that wealth you originally had. Whether it's legal or not depends on the law, and how much power you can wield.
In economics promoting such a law against competition falls into a category known as rent seeking and is considered villainous.
To see a clear example of why, replace "gold" with "housing" and "prospecting method" with "method of constructing taller buildings."