I think your analysis is sound, but your solution would burst the bitcoin-bubble: The success of bitcoin is largely due to early adopters speculating on deflation. If monetary policy is changed to open-end bitcoin generation, an enormous inflation will set in immediately, collapsing the whole project.
What I think will happen: When bitcoin-mining gets less and less profitable, some mining-guilds will switch to block reweaving, double spending bitcoins instead of mining. This will happen more and more often, weakening faith in the currency, and collapsing the system.
The whole project doesn't have a future, but have fun while it lasts!
Topic: The current Bitcoin economic model doesn't work - page 11. (Read 96539 times)
Thanks, you should of just pointed me to http://lmgtfy.com/?q=definition+of+hoarding 
Seriously though, is this the literature where you specifically draw your assumptions from? Perhaps I should of been more clear, if you believe that hoarding is quantifiably, objectively different from savings, where did you learn this?
I looked over those sources and I can only conclude that there is no difference in their terminology between hoarding and saving. One source defines it as a variable that effects velocity of money, or "idle deposits", which could obviously be said of savings.
The first source looks promising, but only alludes to definitions of hoarding, the closest thing to a definition was "actual holding of cash". Please correct me if am missing something though.
Seriously though, is this the literature where you specifically draw your assumptions from? Perhaps I should of been more clear, if you believe that hoarding is quantifiably, objectively different from savings, where did you learn this?
I looked over those sources and I can only conclude that there is no difference in their terminology between hoarding and saving. One source defines it as a variable that effects velocity of money, or "idle deposits", which could obviously be said of savings.
The first source looks promising, but only alludes to definitions of hoarding, the closest thing to a definition was "actual holding of cash". Please correct me if am missing something though.
No, I just found these today and haven't looked at them in depth but from the looks of it the definition I proposed is not what these authors are referring to.
Thanks, you should of just pointed me to http://lmgtfy.com/?q=definition+of+hoarding
Seriously though, is this the literature where you specifically draw your assumptions from? Perhaps I should of been more clear, if you believe that hoarding is quantifiably, objectively different from savings, where did you learn this?
I looked over those sources and I can only conclude that there is no difference in their terminology between hoarding and saving. One source defines it as a variable that effects velocity of money, or "idle deposits", which could obviously be said of savings.
The first source looks promising, but only alludes to definitions of hoarding, the closest thing to a definition was "actual holding of cash". Please correct me if am missing something though.
Seriously though, is this the literature where you specifically draw your assumptions from? Perhaps I should of been more clear, if you believe that hoarding is quantifiably, objectively different from savings, where did you learn this?
I looked over those sources and I can only conclude that there is no difference in their terminology between hoarding and saving. One source defines it as a variable that effects velocity of money, or "idle deposits", which could obviously be said of savings.
The first source looks promising, but only alludes to definitions of hoarding, the closest thing to a definition was "actual holding of cash". Please correct me if am missing something though.
And thanks for the interesting question. I was looking at some economic texts today and they define hoarding with some convoluted formulas that if I had more time it would probably be fun to try to decipher.
I'm curious as to where the assumption that "hoarding" is objectively and quantifiably different than "savings" originates from. Could you identify those sources?
Sure. Here are four sources I found today on google books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UGq6vlIm5TUC&pg=PA189&dq=definition+of+hoarding&hl=en&ei=J6XmTcaHKOHe0QGm0-ySCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=definition%20of%20hoarding&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=8mbgqf0squcC&pg=PA203&dq=definition+of+hoarding&hl=en&ei=J6XmTcaHKOHe0QGm0-ySCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=definition%20of%20hoarding&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=e4QiEMmZcLwC&pg=PA192&dq=definition+of+hoarding&hl=en&ei=J6XmTcaHKOHe0QGm0-ySCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=definition%20of%20hoarding&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=8_xMAAAAMAAJ&q=definition+of+hoarding&dq=definition+of+hoarding&hl=en&ei=J6XmTcaHKOHe0QGm0-ySCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBg
And thanks for the interesting question. I was looking at some economic texts today and they define hoarding with some convoluted formulas that if I had more time it would probably be fun to try to decipher.
I'm curious as to where the assumption that "hoarding" is objectively and quantifiably different than "savings" originates from. Could you identify those sources?
I think we're not that far off. I think we both see hoarding as similar to saving, but different in degree. I don't think there's anything wrong with hoarding, and I don't think the definition I proposed implies that there is anything wrong with hoarding. As several posters have noted, hoarding can serve as a value to society, as the profit motive rewards people who recognize trends or future developments and accumulate/preserve the appropriate resources for later distribution.
The definition I proposed simply offers an objective way to tell whether someone is accumulating a significant amount of something for a particular purpose (expected significant increase in prices). What are normal uses of the word that my definition does not fit? Accumulating liquor and guns for an apocalypse would seem to fit, hoarding bitcoins with the anticipation of significant profits would seem to fit, putting 10% of my weekly paycheck in a CD would seem not to fit (and would be considered saving, which I think comports with the generally accepted use of the word)? What does my definition exclude that should be included? Again, I'm not looking for the bounty, just interested in pursuing the discussion at this point.
The definition I proposed simply offers an objective way to tell whether someone is accumulating a significant amount of something for a particular purpose (expected significant increase in prices). What are normal uses of the word that my definition does not fit? Accumulating liquor and guns for an apocalypse would seem to fit, hoarding bitcoins with the anticipation of significant profits would seem to fit, putting 10% of my weekly paycheck in a CD would seem not to fit (and would be considered saving, which I think comports with the generally accepted use of the word)? What does my definition exclude that should be included? Again, I'm not looking for the bounty, just interested in pursuing the discussion at this point.
I still disagree, but since I worded the challenge poorly I sent you 5 BTC.
Maybe this is more in line with my intention:
What makes saving good but hoarding bad?
Cool, thanks! I'm going to hoardsavespeculate with that...
And thanks for the interesting question. I was looking at some economic texts today and they define hoarding with some convoluted formulas that if I had more time it would probably be fun to try to decipher.
Hoarding is somewhat inefficient but more efficient than alternatives. People just get upset with hoarders because they drive the price up, often profit from the price going up, and don't contribute anything but storage or market adjustment for that profit. It's pretty much the same envy that drives some people to have an emotional issue with concept of early adopters/initial investors who get something for nothing (in said people's minds), and everyone else who follows their lead is left to diminishing returns.
There's nothing bad with hoarding but that's the problem people have with it. If it isn't flat envy of wealth it's envy of foresight. There is also the irrational fear that hoarders can somehow take everything and leave nothing, and the concept people learn at a young age that it's rude not to actively share what you own.
"Saving" money isn't quite hoarding, even when you aren't investing it because [see my earlier post]
People don't have a problem with saving because you aren't strictly profiting from it. You weren't actively pursuing profit, merely a wait, or a critical price [edited from "gain" because I don't proofread my messages for thought process artefacts]. The same irrational people often dislike the opposite side of the coin as well, which is to borrow the money for something instead of saving it, because they see everything from only one side. Borrowing money means you increase the overall cost (for the borrower) and therefore it's a worse deal than saving. These ideas are irrational but pervasive.
There's nothing bad with hoarding but that's the problem people have with it. If it isn't flat envy of wealth it's envy of foresight. There is also the irrational fear that hoarders can somehow take everything and leave nothing, and the concept people learn at a young age that it's rude not to actively share what you own.
"Saving" money isn't quite hoarding, even when you aren't investing it because [see my earlier post]
People don't have a problem with saving because you aren't strictly profiting from it. You weren't actively pursuing profit, merely a wait, or a critical price [edited from "gain" because I don't proofread my messages for thought process artefacts]. The same irrational people often dislike the opposite side of the coin as well, which is to borrow the money for something instead of saving it, because they see everything from only one side. Borrowing money means you increase the overall cost (for the borrower) and therefore it's a worse deal than saving. These ideas are irrational but pervasive.
I think we're not that far off. I think we both see hoarding as similar to saving, but different in degree. I don't think there's anything wrong with hoarding, and I don't think the definition I proposed implies that there is anything wrong with hoarding. As several posters have noted, hoarding can serve as a value to society, as the profit motive rewards people who recognize trends or future developments and accumulate/preserve the appropriate resources for later distribution.
The definition I proposed simply offers an objective way to tell whether someone is accumulating a significant amount of something for a particular purpose (expected significant increase in prices). What are normal uses of the word that my definition does not fit? Accumulating liquor and guns for an apocalypse would seem to fit, hoarding bitcoins with the anticipation of significant profits would seem to fit, putting 10% of my weekly paycheck in a CD would seem not to fit (and would be considered saving, which I think comports with the generally accepted use of the word)? What does my definition exclude that should be included? Again, I'm not looking for the bounty, just interested in pursuing the discussion at this point.
The definition I proposed simply offers an objective way to tell whether someone is accumulating a significant amount of something for a particular purpose (expected significant increase in prices). What are normal uses of the word that my definition does not fit? Accumulating liquor and guns for an apocalypse would seem to fit, hoarding bitcoins with the anticipation of significant profits would seem to fit, putting 10% of my weekly paycheck in a CD would seem not to fit (and would be considered saving, which I think comports with the generally accepted use of the word)? What does my definition exclude that should be included? Again, I'm not looking for the bounty, just interested in pursuing the discussion at this point.
I still disagree, but since I worded the challenge poorly I sent you 5 BTC.
Maybe this is more in line with my intention:
What makes saving good but hoarding bad?
But that's just it. Economics is the study of personal preferences, either in small (micro) or large (macro) scales. Personal preferences are how people make value decisions, which they express through trades.
Also, I should point out that no one else in the entire world would ever come up with your definition of hoarding, and you've really only twisted "saving that society finds distasteful" to "saving that society finds statistically abnormal".
I think it was a trick.
Also, I should point out that no one else in the entire world would ever come up with your definition of hoarding, and you've really only twisted "saving that society finds distasteful" to "saving that society finds statistically abnormal".
I think it was a trick.
I suppose it was a trick in that I didn't expect anyone to come up with a satisfactory answer. It wasn't a trick in the sense that I thought it was a self contradictory question or it was impossible to answer.
There is a lot of talk of hoarding, especially revolving around the concept of deflation. The idea is that if the purchasing power of a currency is rising, people will hoard it instead of spending it, as if the only correct way to use money is to spend it. Hoarding, or saving as I prefer to call it, is merely the action an individual takes when they prefer a liquid cash balance as oppose to less liquid investments. When people refer to saving as hoarding, to me what they are saying is that the person is saving an excessive amount. Again, excessive is completely subjective.
I feel like the definition that you presented was carefully crafted to exclude things that you do not consider "excessive", but does not fit the normal use of the word. That is why I do not feel obligated to pay you the bounty.
I think we're not that far off. I think we both see hoarding as similar to saving, but different in degree. I don't think there's anything wrong with hoarding, and I don't think the definition I proposed implies that there is anything wrong with hoarding. As several posters have noted, hoarding can serve as a value to society, as the profit motive rewards people who recognize trends or future developments and accumulate/preserve the appropriate resources for later distribution.
The definition I proposed simply offers an objective way to tell whether someone is accumulating a significant amount of something for a particular purpose (expected significant increase in prices). What are normal uses of the word that my definition does not fit? Accumulating liquor and guns for an apocalypse would seem to fit, hoarding bitcoins with the anticipation of significant profits would seem to fit, putting 10% of my weekly paycheck in a CD would seem not to fit (and would be considered saving, which I think comports with the generally accepted use of the word)? What does my definition exclude that should be included? Again, I'm not looking for the bounty, just interested in pursuing the discussion at this point.
Hoarding and saving are just building up of capital for future investment. The problem with fiat currencies today is they discourage saving of investment capital, so everyone spends everything--even money they don't have in the form of credit. This is the crux of a consumer driven economy.
This is also the crux of a hyperinflation economy, where business owners cannot even buy half a can of paint for a work site, because in one week the can of paint will have doubled in price. Everything must be bought and used that day.
If everything can be bought and used 10 years from now, this would be a sign of a healthy economy that can invest in big, long-term projects, like cancer research, dam building, etc.
This is also the crux of a hyperinflation economy, where business owners cannot even buy half a can of paint for a work site, because in one week the can of paint will have doubled in price. Everything must be bought and used that day.
If everything can be bought and used 10 years from now, this would be a sign of a healthy economy that can invest in big, long-term projects, like cancer research, dam building, etc.
"It is up to the bitcoin holders to develop a means of getting bitcoins into the hands of others or all interest will be lost in them."
Yeah, like changing the Drupal 7 Commerce module natively support BTC, and creating a wiki on how to set up a website to sell goods for Bitcions. Heck, an amazon like website that holds many storefronts would be super nice, too! Nudge nudge.
Yeah, like changing the Drupal 7 Commerce module natively support BTC, and creating a wiki on how to set up a website to sell goods for Bitcions. Heck, an amazon like website that holds many storefronts would be super nice, too! Nudge nudge.
Hoarding was an unintended consequence of GPU mining that raised the difficulty factor against CPU mining. Unless more people get GPUs, the majority of bitcoins will be in the hands of a few people. Bitcoin will die unless they are spread around. It is up to the bitcoin holders to develop a means of getting bitcoins into the hands of others or all interest will be lost in them. No one else cares enough about bitcoins to do this for them.
The initial distribution of bitcoins probably doesn't matter.
That said, I believe the early users were able to generate tens of thousands of bitcoins on CPUs; GPU mining did not come until late 2010. Currently the difficulty is so high that even with a high end graphics card, you cannot generate a significant number of bitcoins (compared to what was generated by CPUs earlier).
Hoarding was an unintended consequence of GPU mining that raised the difficulty factor against CPU mining. Unless more people get GPUs, the majority of bitcoins will be in the hands of a few people. Bitcoin will die unless they are spread around. It is up to the bitcoin holders to develop a means of getting bitcoins into the hands of others or all interest will be lost in them. No one else cares enough about bitcoins to do this for them.
I like hoarding, and I think it's a good thing. Imagine if an Ebenezer Scrooge like actor stages a giant feast. More people would starve to death because the price of food had skyrocketed and the amount of food had dropped. Gold coins might buy food but being rich in gold doesn't mean you can magically make more food than there is. I'm often angered by this myth.
Still, I do consider there to be differences between "saving" and "hoarding", perhaps just because I read something about a bounty.
I'll assume (because I haven't read the entire thread) that by "saving" no one is talking about investing, "savings and loan" style deals.
Saving is holding with a target purchase in mind.
Hoarding is holding with a target value in mind.
If I save my money, I'm holding to buy say, a motorcycle. Once I have enough, I buy the motorcycle.
I might "save" a bag of potato chips for a party. I don't care what the later price of potato chips is.
When I "save" I most likely expect what I hold not to devalue, though. This is not a necessity in saving.
If I hoard my money I'm holding to make a profit.
I might "hoard" a bag of potato chips expecting a boom in the price of potato chips.
I use the bag of potato chips as a store of value, as opposed to a future use of potato chips.
When I "hoard" I expect what I hold to appreciate in value. I gamble that the price will increase.
Another key difference is that when I purchase my potato chips to "save" them for later, I am not going to be acting in reverse of the mechanism with which I got them. I am not purchasing them to allow someone else to purchase them later. If I hoard them that's exactly what I am doing. An exception to this is money which by it's nature is a liquid asset. The only way to get money is to provide goods or services, and the only purpose to save money is to pay for goods or services. The difference here is of again saving money for an goal (even if unknown now, like a possible future medical bill) vs hoarding money for an appreciation in value.
I think hoarding/gouging are good things. They are natural and efficient mechanisms for managing a shortage, and gauging accurate prices.
Still, I do consider there to be differences between "saving" and "hoarding", perhaps just because I read something about a bounty.
I'll assume (because I haven't read the entire thread) that by "saving" no one is talking about investing, "savings and loan" style deals.
Saving is holding with a target purchase in mind.
Hoarding is holding with a target value in mind.
If I save my money, I'm holding to buy say, a motorcycle. Once I have enough, I buy the motorcycle.
I might "save" a bag of potato chips for a party. I don't care what the later price of potato chips is.
When I "save" I most likely expect what I hold not to devalue, though. This is not a necessity in saving.
If I hoard my money I'm holding to make a profit.
I might "hoard" a bag of potato chips expecting a boom in the price of potato chips.
I use the bag of potato chips as a store of value, as opposed to a future use of potato chips.
When I "hoard" I expect what I hold to appreciate in value. I gamble that the price will increase.
Another key difference is that when I purchase my potato chips to "save" them for later, I am not going to be acting in reverse of the mechanism with which I got them. I am not purchasing them to allow someone else to purchase them later. If I hoard them that's exactly what I am doing. An exception to this is money which by it's nature is a liquid asset. The only way to get money is to provide goods or services, and the only purpose to save money is to pay for goods or services. The difference here is of again saving money for an goal (even if unknown now, like a possible future medical bill) vs hoarding money for an appreciation in value.
I think hoarding/gouging are good things. They are natural and efficient mechanisms for managing a shortage, and gauging accurate prices.
In that case, I think I should get it for coming up with the only qualitative difference between saving and hoarding cash.
Then again, my answer falls apart when applied to commodities other than cash, as they all must.
Then again, my answer falls apart when applied to commodities other than cash, as they all must.
But that's just it. Economics is the study of personal preferences, either in small (micro) or large (macro) scales. Personal preferences are how people make value decisions, which they express through trades.
Also, I should point out that no one else in the entire world would ever come up with your definition of hoarding, and you've really only twisted "saving that society finds distasteful" to "saving that society finds statistically abnormal".
I think it was a trick.
Also, I should point out that no one else in the entire world would ever come up with your definition of hoarding, and you've really only twisted "saving that society finds distasteful" to "saving that society finds statistically abnormal".
I think it was a trick.
I suppose it was a trick in that I didn't expect anyone to come up with a satisfactory answer. It wasn't a trick in the sense that I thought it was a self contradictory question or it was impossible to answer.
There is a lot of talk of hoarding, especially revolving around the concept of deflation. The idea is that if the purchasing power of a currency is rising, people will hoard it instead of spending it, as if the only correct way to use money is to spend it. Hoarding, or saving as I prefer to call it, is merely the action an individual takes when they prefer a liquid cash balance as oppose to less liquid investments. When people refer to saving as hoarding, to me what they are saying is that the person is saving an excessive amount. Again, excessive is completely subjective.
I feel like the definition that you presented was carefully crafted to exclude things that you do not consider "excessive", but does not fit the normal use of the word. That is why I do not feel obligated to pay you the bounty.
I think this is a stretch. The task was to find an economic definition that didn't rely on personal preference. I proposed one that looked at expectation of significant price increases and significant accumulation, as opposed to saving which has an expectation of non-significant price increases. To say this relies on "personal preferences" is only true if personal preferences encompass everything in the entire world, including economic predictions and warehouse inventory. If a company accumulates more goo than another company, can you say that is somehow based on personal preferences? Only in bizarro-world.
If you are correct, the request for a definition was just a trick to show that personal preferences accompany everything in the world. I think a more reasonable reading of the purpose for the request was to try to discredit the concept of hoarding as a descriptive term, saying that it was just a pejorative for saving. I think what I have shown is that hoarding is not without merit as a descriptive term, and is not just a pejorative for "saving that I don't like" or "saving that society finds distasteful". It is actually a distinct economic category that can be defined objectively, by looking at price expectations and extent of accumulation. A plain reading of the request and my answers will reveal that this is the case.
If you are correct, the request for a definition was just a trick to show that personal preferences accompany everything in the world. I think a more reasonable reading of the purpose for the request was to try to discredit the concept of hoarding as a descriptive term, saying that it was just a pejorative for saving. I think what I have shown is that hoarding is not without merit as a descriptive term, and is not just a pejorative for "saving that I don't like" or "saving that society finds distasteful". It is actually a distinct economic category that can be defined objectively, by looking at price expectations and extent of accumulation. A plain reading of the request and my answers will reveal that this is the case.
But that's just it. Economics is the study of personal preferences, either in small (micro) or large (macro) scales. Personal preferences are how people make value decisions, which they express through trades.
Also, I should point out that no one else in the entire world would ever come up with your definition of hoarding, and you've really only twisted "saving that society finds distasteful" to "saving that society finds statistically abnormal".
I think it was a trick.
I think I found the problem. You think that personal preference means what someone says about a good. This is incorrect. The preference is what they actually do.
In your goo example, if someone finds goo disgusting, but also feels that it is a store of value, then the accumulation by that individual is an expression of their personal preference for a store of value, in spite of their dislike of the goo. Trade is, in fact, the only objective way to measure preferences.
I think this is a stretch. The task was to find an economic definition that didn't rely on personal preference. I proposed one that looked at expectation of significant price increases and significant accumulation, as opposed to saving which has an expectation of non-significant price increases. To say this relies on "personal preferences" is only true if personal preferences encompass everything in the entire world, including economic predictions and warehouse inventory. If a company accumulates more goo than another company, because its computer price algorithm predicted significant increases, can you say that is somehow based on personal preferences? Only in bizarro-world.
If you are correct, the request for a definition was just a trick to show that personal preferences accompany everything in the world. I think a more reasonable reading of the purpose for the request was to try to discredit the concept of hoarding as a descriptive term, saying that it was just a pejorative for saving. I think what I have shown is that hoarding is not without merit as a descriptive term, and is not just a pejorative for "saving that I don't like" or "saving that society finds distasteful". It is actually a distinct economic category that can be defined objectively, by looking at price expectations and extent of accumulation. A plain reading of the request and my answers will reveal that this is the case.
I think I found the problem. You think that personal preference means what someone says about a good. This is incorrect. The preference is what they actually do.
In your goo example, if someone finds goo disgusting, but also feels that it is a store of value, then the accumulation by that individual is an expression of their personal preference for a store of value, in spite of their dislike of the goo. Trade is, in fact, the only objective way to measure preferences.
I think this is a stretch. The task was to find an economic definition that didn't rely on personal preference. I proposed one that looked at expectation of significant price increases and significant accumulation, as opposed to saving which has an expectation of non-significant price increases. To say this relies on "personal preferences" is only true if personal preferences encompass everything in the entire world, including economic predictions and warehouse inventory. If a company accumulates more goo than another company, can you say that is somehow based on personal preferences? Only in bizarro-world.
If you are correct, the request for a definition was just a trick to show that personal preferences accompany everything in the world. I think a more reasonable reading of the purpose for the request was to try to discredit the concept of hoarding as a descriptive term, saying that it was just a pejorative for saving. I think what I have shown is that hoarding is not without merit as a descriptive term, and is not just a pejorative for "saving that I don't like" or "saving that society finds distasteful". It is actually a distinct economic category that can be defined objectively, by looking at price expectations and extent of accumulation. A plain reading of the request and my answers will reveal that this is the case.
Jump to: