As an employee, in a growing economy denominated in bitcoin, you would see your pay drop frequently as the money supply gets stretched. There's no reason at all to think BTC-denominated salaries would be able to stay constant as the value of the money rises.
> I also would like to be able to save without having to put my economic output at risk.
That's not the same thing, a fixed proportion of the money supply does not guarantee that, nor is it a necessary precondition.
Further, this is not in the interest of wider society - work today should be valued more than work yesterday. If you want to grow your money, you make it work.
This is just a rehash of the problems with the gold standard now. But worse.
> As an employee, in a growing economy denominated in bitcoin, you would see your pay drop frequently as the money supply gets stretched. There's no reason at all to think BTC-denominated salaries would be able to stay constant as the value of the money rises.
Assuming the world productivity is denominated in 21 million bitcoin, if world productivity grows by 3% per year, my salary of 1 bitcoin gets more purchasing power. This is where you get a lever with your employer, he needs you to earn less, you don't have to negotiate to earn more (same applies to minimum wage, it needs to be adjusted upwards in a inflationary monetary system)
Every money is inherently more valuable yesterday than today, as you can divest it. I would argue that it is very much in the interest of the wider society to have their savings not inflated.
The best way to make your money work will always be to invest it in productivity, be it in educating yourself or investing it in companies. This investments need to be a lot more smarter and more sustainable than those of today, as the base money is not worth less every year.
I think wasteful spending is a property of an inflationary money, where smart spending would be a required property in a non-inflationary money.
There's no lever there. In a bitcoin economy there's no chance your contract gives you a fixed salary in the first place, it would be tied to some measure of inflation.
Like I said, most of the rest is just a rehash of gold standard stuff.
> Like I said, most of the rest is just a rehash of gold standard stuff.
Exactly, however bitcoin is infinitely better money than gold and makes the "gold standard" viable. Fortunately the gold standard has a lot of proponents globally, some of whom started embracing bitcoin.
I just hope that the experiment bitcoin keeps on going and I'm guessing we will see some form of resolution, maybe even in this decade. There is a lot to learn still.
Tbh. my very basic knowledge comes from strongly opinionated austrian economics literature, which tends to confirm my bias, and from [0], which at least gives me some data points to refer to.
Do you mind giving me some of your arguments why it's terrible?
I mean, for a start 'Austrian' economics is a joke.
There's plenty of literature out there about the end of gold standards in various countries. The upshot of it is that economies get warped by constrained currency supply and those who already have tend to get more, over those who produce or invest.
> I mean, for a start 'Austrian' economics is a bit of a joke.
More specifically, Austrian economics is overtly and proudly ideological rather than empirical; it is about advancing an agenda not describing reality.
It's worth taking seriously, but as a particular group’s body of theology and religious propaganda, not as science.
Calling a position a joke, and calling that a fact, is not very persuasive. I can't tell if you're a troll, or just a lousy debater, but you're trying to win the argument by default. You don't get to do that, at least not here. Either some evidence or some argument would strengthen your position; drive-by dismissive mockery just makes you look lazy and unwilling to actually engage in substantive conversation.
I am unwilling to engage in substantive conversation when it comes to Austrian economics. There's little point to it, those who are adherents are not going to change their minds, it's an idealogical, rather than empirical position to take.
I'm not trying to win a debate here, nor am I interested in debating the merits of a system that I don't think has any.
In a non-inflationary monetary system cost of goods decreases every year, thats how productivity growth works.
You seem to have it backwards, this is where the Econo101 book from the parent comment might help ;) /s
Inflation drives down the purchasing power, hence why milk gets more expensive every year, even though we get much more efficient at producing it. Remove inflation and 1 bitcoin buys you a liter today and 1.03 litres next year.
Salaries are negotiable and the renegotiation lever is skewed towards the employee. e.g. "i accept the pay cut of 3%, but will need 2 days of vaction more" vs "please employer pay me 3% more to combat inflation"
You won't get more rich by sitting on your salary, but you will also not get more poor like you do today.
If the milk seller doesn't lower his prices a competitor will do that, as he is able to do that with the bigger margin the better productivity brought.
Here in Italy I already have 28 days of paid vacation and can't be fired without motive and a judge can reinstate the worker if the motive was not valid
That's a political issue, it has nothing to do with how currencies work
If the milk seller is going to lower the prices to beat competitors, workers will compete on salaries as well
nothing different from what we have now, the only difference is that rich people could amass fortunes much more easily than today
they'll just need to keep their money in the bank (i.e. their gold reserve will keep appreciating by the virtue of existing)
Rich get richer today by being closer to the money source. In the "bitcoin standard" non-rich people can even keep their money in the bank and don't lose purchasing power by not risking it.
Rich and non-rich will always want to take risk to increase their net worth, however the assets must perform much better to outperform the money. Unlike today where almost all investments appreciate when measured in fiat.
edit:
> That's a political issue, it has nothing to do with how currencies work
Would you agree that it would be a good thing if the base monetary layer would enable that? I only see that happening with a monetary policy that respects savings and is not alterable by a few elected and unelected officials
Unfortunately my salary is fixed today as well and not only does it shrink as a portion of global productivity, but also as a portion of the monetary supply.
If you don't invest your bitcoin in productive assets you will be behind peers who do that, however they carry a risk.
Today you carry risk if you don't invest your savings. However with low-income you can't, as you need emergency funds.