pull down to refresh
109 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 20 Feb
If governments only maintain a monopoly on money for financing an anomalous emergency, why commit to "low" grade inflation over the long term? Or maybe the author is arguing we prescribe inflation like opioids but once we have that prescription we abuse it, ie persistent inflation is a side effect but not the motivation.
It suggests defenses can't be adequately financed without inflation. Can a hard money country defend itself from an easy money adversary?
reply
465 sats \ 1 reply \ @KeynesianClowns 21 Feb
That last point is really interesting. I suppose the main difference is that the hard money country would have to rely on taxation revenue (increasing taxes if the war required more funding) rather than currency devaluation to fund its war. Still theft, but at least one is visible while the other is not immediately so. And if the war is actually in the interests of the citizens of that hard money country, it shouldn't be that difficult to sell the tax increase to the bulk of the citizens relatively speaking at least, shouldn't it?
reply
101 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 21 Feb
Taking the fiat side, building social support for a war could be too time consuming relative to inflation. If this is true (seems plausible), then a hard money economy would need the government to have real reserves/savings to compete with an easy money adversary.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @riberet19 20 Feb
https://m.stacker.news/16917
reply
110 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 20 Feb
https://m.stacker.news/16890
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Atreus 20 Feb
Oh this is a nice meme. Stealing.
(But actually I'm leaving sats so... buying? 🤔 )
reply
110 sats \ 0 replies \ @hasherstacker 20 Feb
https://m.stacker.news/16882https://m.stacker.news/16883
reply