pull down to refresh
I got paid in Bitcoin last year. Bitcoin went down. Now I've got less purchasing power. That's frustrating, maybe even it makes Bitcoin bad money. Some kind of fixing. Ideally, my purchasing power would be preserved
Exactly that. Preserved PP is like 90% of the argument for why bitcoin is better money, and why we ought to save in it rather than some other broken asset.
...and then it doesn't do that, indicating how poorly it functions — no matter how beautifully we may paint its world-domination future. Shit is dead, eh
Re: prices telling us. I suppose you're right here, because if we take away monetary effects on nominal prices all that remain is the real changes. So yeah. That's at least partly how bitcoin, and even more so gold, can make economies function better.
reply
But this is curious isn't it? Translate versus transport. The point of money (at least a little) is to transport value.
Now, I have a quarter that was minted in 1936. If I take it to the store, I can't hardly buy what I could have bought with it in 1936. Bad transport of value. We want Bitcoin to fix this.
As we said in another thread: I got paid in Bitcoin last year. Bitcoin went down. Now I've got less purchasing power. That's frustrating, maybe even it makes Bitcoin bad money. Some kind of fixing.
Ideally, my purchasing power would be preserved. If it is, my sats today would be able to purchase as much as when I got 'em. I thought this is some of what we mean when we say something is a good money--it holds its purchasing power across time. If it does, wouldn't that tell us about the relative prices of other things? Transporting value is how you can translate it.
I've been spending way too much time with the regression theorem -- as you will see Monday or Tuesday.