Topic: Are XPM and PPC just coins for keynsians? (Read 789 times)

Primecoin is a coin for miners.
And miners are the ones who benefit from inflation, so... I guess.

Absolutely, but at the same time artificially pushing all prices in one direction or another is undesirable. I prefer a neutral fiscal policy which allows prices to follow value based on supply and demand. I'm not suggesting that the money supply should be used to manipulate prices but rather that it should be set in such a way that it does not by itself influence prices. A fixed money supply pushes prices down over time, just as printing lots of new money pushes prices up. A money supply which increases at the rate of population growth simply fails to have increased (or decreased) scarcity built in.

Agreed that consistency is important. A known rate of increase is exactly as predictable as a cap.

Another aspect is that the population is always growing. Again, that too is predictable but if the population grows faster than the money pool that necessarily drives prices down—it's a constant forced deflationary policy which, while predictable, distorts value, and I see that as being just as bad as a constant inflationary one. Balancing the money supply with the population growth is a small measure compared to other factors, but if all other things were equal, a 1% per year increase in the money supply would be the best policy. It's a point that reasonable people can disagree on and the fact that there are so many other factors at play means it would be very difficult to prove one way or another.

Setting aside my own belief and opinion about money policy, what is more relevant to the original question is: does the constant and predictable inflation built in to PPC (I'm not as familiar with XPM) make it "keynesian" in nature. Considering that so-called keynesians like to manipulate the money supply on a year-by-year basis to "steer" the economy, as well as the fact that the "keynesians" I'm most familiar with (economists and politicians in the United States) are increasing to the money supply by 5%-8% per year, I'd say no. "Keynesians" want to be able to adjust the rate at will (which is not the case with PPC) and they want to increase the money supply much faster than the population is growing.

So even if you disagree with me about the desirability of a 1% increase in the money supply, I think it is fair to say that a steady and predictable 1% increase per year is very far from "keynesian" and at the very least much less damaging than current "keynesian" policy.

They will all eventually die.

I think it's fantastic, now we can see who will win finally rather than rigging the conditions in each others favour

A coin cap does not lead to price stability. People's preferences change over time, also in respect of their preference to hold money or not. Price stability is not what you necessarily should be looking for.

Why can't we achieve price stability with a coin cap?  This way the supply of money is 100% predictable simply because it's set in stone.  Markets like consistency(predictability) which gives markets confidence and hence leads to price stability.

I don't think they are necessarily keynesian. I personally don't believe in a hard cap on total coinage. The most stable scheme I believe would be one that increased the money supply at roughly the same rate as the growth of the world's population. That permits the value to remain stable without forcing deflation.

I am NOT of the camp that believes that falling prices is bad; but forcing prices in one direction or the other with the money supply is not cool. A currency with a stable value allows prices to rise and fall according to the conditions of their particular markets. So PPC's 1% per year increase is in line with my opinion of what a stable currency would look like.

Freicoin on the other hand, which automatically evaporates any savings you have, is exactly the wet dream of the neokeynesians (who I should mention Keynes would never have allied himself with.)

 It's all part of the experiment, a deep complex web of choice; for the last few thousand years we have had no choice on how we wanted to achieve mass consensus, yet we have had choice on what we can immediately choose. The technology that has emerged has allowed us now to reach the furthest corners of the earth and maybe beyond, by simply sharing our views we have gained someone to share our dreams and learn with us.  I can imagine there will be people who prefer their money to act a certain way, why not let them choose what they believe in?

  Though I must say, what an interesting suggestion it is to have an infinite cap on money... it can make naming conventions hard to follow and might become a yearly ritual. The keynesian model is quite exhaustive... infinite inflation? that's rough, it moves individuals to keep busy by economic demand.

though how would you distribute it? That can make a huge difference.

They have no coin cap limit!?  What kind of backwards thinking is that?