Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1378. (Read 4671575 times)

In Europe the inflation is much less than 2 % (I think even below 1 % currently).
The problem is that despite Central Banks are trying push the money into the economy, it doesn't go all the way through but rather to assets and securities (stock markets keep rising and many companies are breaking their ATHs only because investors have cheap money but no places to invest it).
In Finland the car dealerships are offering 0 % loans and still complaining that there is not (enough) sales.
The Central Bank has lowered the deposit rate below 0 but still banks are not so much lending money as they should.

The difference between free markets and Keynesian approach is that Keynesians do not prefer so much volatility (the governement should increase their spending when business cycle is at low point). Keynesians do not suggest to waste money (this is a misunderstanding) but exploiting the opportunity to get cheap labor for building roads, hospitals, schools etc which are necessary. It is good for the labor force - they get job in down cycle from the governement and when the cycle turns, they get similar jobs from the private sector.
Wasting resources is something that Keynesians have to be avoided.

I don't think anyone here suggested free markets are perfect. At the same time, you are suggesting a central bank style direct intervention on the money supply. That is the main reason why cryptos exist in the first place - to prevent one entity from controlling the money supply.

Yup. The problem of free markets is that it is not a perfect like Chicago school suggests.
The free rider problem is something that the free markets cannot fix.
In this specific case, however, Monero's main problem is its low marketcap and thus the hardness to get some serious dollars out of the community for development.
Personally I am ready to donate as soon as my monero wealth grows in a significiant level in value (I want higher purchasing power for my moneros so that smaller donation will count more).

But, the problem of free rider is just one critisism of free markets.
I am not purely Keynesian or purely Chicago school because both have their problems.

The path comes from the location of the source when fluffypony compiled it. I agree it isn't really useful.

even though I mostly agree with your conclusion as well as your position, the free market fails in our specific spot to finance the development of monero. the reason is a dilemma which cannot be solved in a decentralized, anonymous free market manner. at this point decentralization fails, this obv. does not neccessary need a state to be a regulator but it needs a central institution, which solves this specific problem

Would anyone place a premium on first access to the GUI?

--Devs would get funding and valuable insight from the most invested/interested parties.

--Investors would get an early look and be able to give feedback.

--win?/win?

I agree. I raised the point earlier in the thread that a properly marketed crowdfunding effort could draw donations in from many different spheres. I believe a mistake that's often made in cryptocurrency marketing is not taking it past bitcointalk. There are lots of groups who would donate/invest in an anonymity-focused, open source project like Monero.

Your degree means nothing, and they are teaching you lies.  I say this as someone with undergraduate degrees in economics and political science (double major completed in 3 years) and an MBA with a concentration in finance.  From what you have said, your understanding of how the world works has been manipulated by those that have an agenda to do so for their own self-interest.  You are lucky you stumbled into crypto because you will likely be rich someday, but that will not be attributable to your intelligence or insight.  You sound young, though, so you still have time to learn the truth.

Please read some material other than what they teach you at university.  Start with Menger's "Principles of Economics" and go from there.  Please.

Congratulations! Most academic economic tracks in the last 50 years or so have been slowly corrupted by truthiness and bias towards the status quo (after all, the universities manufacture the academics that justify the status quo for the populus). The argument that the economy needs a small inflation to function has been repeated ad nauseatum and rebuked just as many times. It does sound plausible, but it simply is not true.

First, inflation does not mean increasing prices. Inflation means an increase in the money supply, and increasing prices is just an effect. For example, since 2008, the USD went through a massively inflationary period, but prices did not increase because all the excess cash stayed far away from common goods. Indeed, the self proclaimed purpose of the FED is to create price increases in RE and stocks ("wealth effect"). I use the FED example because I'm more intimately familiar with the matter, but everyone else is doing the same thing (ECB, BoJ, BoE, etc). Bending the meaning of words like inflation only serves to hide the real significance of their actions.

Secondly, let's get to the meat of the argument. You claim that increasing prices are necessary to make people buy stuff, because otherwise they would not and the economy would collapse. This can be shown to be wrong with two simple examples:

1. If the prices for necessary goods (i.e. food, fuel) were decreasing, you would not starve, but postpone purchase until you really need it. Thus, you end up paying less for a larger utility gain. Decreasing prices of necessary goods encourages mindFUL consumption instead of mindLESS consumption (consumerism).

2. If the prices for leisure (unnecessary) goods (i.e. from sports cars to cell phones and boutique cupcakes) were decreasing, you would not buy less of them, but more. Since we assume they are unnecessary goods, you have no NEED for them anyway, so you buy them simply for hedonic/aesthetic reasons. If you can get more of them, you will. A very good example for this are tech products like smartphones and laptops. Their nominal price does not significantly decrease (but it does), however their price normalized for performance/capabilities decreases inversely proportional to Moore's &co. laws. This does not make people postpone their purchases "because they will forever be better off if they wait for the next generation", but instead makes people buy them more often.

As prices drop, at some point the gained utility from an upgrade is larger than the lost utility due to price, and that's when you buy it. This is valid for the  next purchase too. This also price-discriminates buyers based on their early/late adopter traits, which is compatible with how prices work now anyway.

So, good luck in your studies, but make sure to read other schools of economic thought as well, because economics is far from an exact science. There are a lot of politics, a lot of manipulation and a lot of simply bullshit floating in the field.

I would give more emphasis to the term 'cheap' to be honest.

I haven't in this recent dump, but if it gets too low I might be forced to despite I have not that much desire to accumulate too large bag. I prefer others also buying, not me alone. 
But you are right, recently I haven't been buying, I am neutral in my own position (no sell no buy).

It seems that someone didnt scoop cheap coins at all!

it is an inherent dilemma with funding decentralized systems with a group where no personal contact is existent. there are ways to overcome this, but for this we need some kind centralization for a limited amount of time. short term helping would be a detailed and transparent list of costs for development.

I am majoring in economics at university of Helsinki in the faculty of Social Sciences (valtiotieteellinen tiedekunta). It is quite hard to get in there.   I think fiat money system's advantages surpasses its disadvantages as long as the inflation is in control. Debt based system is not good one but fiat system is since it forces people buying right now instead of waiting eternally. Those who want to save money can do it in gold or silver, fiat money is not the right tool for it at least for more than a few years generally. Economy needs small inflation in order to function. On the other hand, if the inflation is too high it is also problematic. ECB targets 2 % inflation which is optimal in my opinion (not too high but not too low neither).
It is well-known fact that crypto is a pyramid but to say it is ponzi is not legit IMO.

All I said, the price of xmr should go up which encourages people buying the coin and thus increases the marketcap.
If the price is in bearish trend, it is rational to postpone the buys and if the price is going up it is rational to buy immediately.
The challenge is to find the exact rate of emission which goes along with the pace of adoption. Ideally the emission should be a little lower than the adotion rate since some long term bagholders might want to sell and it shouldn't cause volatility too much ideally so there should be constant shortage of the coins in the market in order to keep the marketcap rising.

Also, there is no incentive to dump coins if the coin price is rising steadily because of the opportunity cost of loosing some of the gains.

Indeed +1. The devs just went an insane parade of crisis. The least we can do is to cut them some slacks and give them some time to rest. Seriously, that past month was like twelve different Internet shitstorms that got together, got drunk, had an orgy, and birthed a monstrosity that was an unholy amalgam of all twelve. Maybe we could start with being happy XMR is still standing on its crypto-feet after such a maelstrom (and that the price didn't completely crash) then wait a few days before jumping on the next critical coinkiller/point of failure that will crash the universe. Save our nerves, preserve my ulcer, for Satoshi's sake.

Spoken like a true student of Bernanke. Macroprudential, right?

You're not describing adoption, you're describing a Ponzi.

The fact is, the emission rate is too high now - this can be seen 1) Price is dropping, more supply than demand 2) blocks that do not have transactions.

To solve this I suggest to increase the block time without touching the block reward. This gives also more life expectancy for the coin.
The other alternative is to tax mining and put the taxes into escrowed account for development. However I assume the miners do not like the latter so we basically are left with increasing the block time without touching in any other parameters.
The economy is not simply ready just yet for the current emission rate. I see it not a problem to change later back if there is demand enough for the coins.

Ideally coin should be in overall bull trend on macro level. It kind of forces adoption since people do not get coins for lower price so they have to buy it right now.
If the coins are flooding to the markets but there is only little demand (supply > demand), the price goes down which will create a vicious cycle: when price goes down, people postpone their buy orders in hope of lower price (like if there is deflation in economy, people do not consume but they hold their cash and it kills the economy - even the real non-inflationary economic growth).

whoops, FAIL

Thanks equipoise

a stable coin