I care not at all about your past bullshit.
If you won't read cited references, we can't have a meaningful discussion. I am not going to repeat everything for you. You are not worth it to me.
Those links PROVE why debt requires debasement.
Bullshit. You can't prove anything.
Sigh. You have not refuted.
Essentially it is because if 97% use debt, then the money supply (or the velocity) has to increase by the prevalent rate of interest. That is mathematically unarguable. The lenders are protected against default by the central banks, which was my point after all, of what we can actually improve upon.
I agree that the above highlighted part is mathmaticly correct. However, your unstated premise is that the average inflation rate is the only variable force on the demand for money.
That is not my premise and not even a possible unstated mathematical relationship to my premise.
Feel free to attempt to write down an equation. I will be waiting.
For example, bankruptcy is a countervailing force.
Do you always fail to read? I wrote that central banks prevent defaults, which is the main improvement we can make with a decentralized currency.
Anohter unstated premise youseem to have is that, because this effect is evident under the current fiat currency systems (i.e. central bankng, farctional reserve) that it must always have been this way or cannot be any other way under a different monetary system. While it's possible that that second statement is still true, it's still unsupportable. Just because it's true in every case that you (or I) could be aware of does not condlucde that it must be true under any system.
I attempted to distill the information content of that and ended up with the empty set.
You would have already failed my class.
hahaha. I wouldn't waste my time if you were the "teacher".
You metioned that you live in England, perhaps you do or have attended Cambridge? Or, perhaps, like to echo the bullshit of someone who has for strangers on the Internet?
I never mentioned I lived in England. You have low comprehension skills. I did write the UK has a total debt-to-GDP ratio of 550%. And many other countries have near that level too.
And I quote...
"With a central bank that can create base money out-of-thin-air (or authorize banks to do it by lowering reserve ratios), they can just prevent write-downs for decades until we reach f
or example now 550% total debt-to-GDP in the UK we are facing now"
Considering that I live in teh US, I'm not "facing" anything that happens in the UK.
And again you did not read the link I provided which (contains a link which) shows all the countries in the world have a similar level of debt. Thus we are all facing the same outcome.
Again, no we are not. It's actually impossible for all nations to face the same outcome even if allnations have similar issues (which they don't). Once the first major nation defaults, the situation on the international stage has changed, and the next must fail in another manner. The cascade probably makes it worse for the late nations, so the best time to default is early. Iceland has proven this already, as they don't really have any lingering effects of telling Euopean banks to poiund sand.
It is always best to default sooner (but not every week! see point below), as you stop the further misallocation of capital.
All nations are in the same boat in terms of contagion effects, because global trade will implode and all nations are reliant on it. The USA is the least reliant, and has even become energy independent recently.
But the USA is facing the worst regime in terms of tracking down all wealth with the NSA and confiscating anything that tries to move abroad, e.g. with the FATCA. Europeans currently are not taxed when they are abroad nor on capital gains whereas the Americans are (I am a US citizen too), thus if that remains, they can go take advantage of all the opportunities the coming global implosion will create, but Americans will be locked inside.
I do understand the difference between a debt owed betweeen contracting parties and a debt based currency.
I was not referring to the political differences in monetary systems. Loaning the base fiat from the Fed to the Treasury, and the creation of money as debt by the banks due to fractional reserves is basically a political issue of how the power center is structured.
I was talking about the fractional nature of ALL money systems, whether which form they take (in various forms of regimes ranging from debt-issued fiat as we have now to fractional reserves of gold in the 1800s to fractional purity of coins in Rome).
I am getting more fundamental to the root of the nature of money, which is that it has to be compatible with debt regardless of which political form it takes.
If we set the debasement of money at 0%, then it means the capitalists can accumulate the total money supply faster. There has to be a balance between the 2% and 98%.
And the benefit we can get with a decentralized currency is that the control over the debasement can't be centralized and manipulated. But if we set the debasement to 0%, then the mining isn't funded (tx fees don't work due to transaction withholding attack), thus the decentralized benefit is lost.
You are thinking it doesn't matter if the money is debased, because the credit contracts can fall where they may in terms of success or bankruptcy. But you forget that people demand insurance. And then they demand the government to backstop the insurance.
A 0% debasement means the money velocity has to be exponential in order to keep up with the issuance of debt and thus demand for money, thus the debt expansions and collapses are too frequent, perhaps on the order of a couple of years or months or even weeks.
So then the public will of course demand to debase that money by demanding the government backstop and stop those too frequent corrections.
So for 3 reasons above, the debasement needs to be higher.
Since the 1800s, the data is that the debasment has averaged 5%. And the incomes have risen 5%. The 98% did not lose from debasment.
They lose from the power centers taking control of the government.
So the debasement rate has to be designed with the 3 factors I mentioned above in mind.
See sir, I am just thinking at a much higher and deeper level than you are.
