The currency will always get devalued, and you specifically pointed to the process; decimalizing and using fractional amounts. Under a fixed-supply monetary system with a growing population and economy, there will be more and more demand for currency, meaning the value of that currency skyrockets, meaning that you will not be paid the same amount. Employers will immediately tie all future contracts to adjust automatically with deflation, so that when the value of a "coin" doubles, your salary drops by half. We already do the reverse with cost-of-living raises baked into contracts, and that's where doing so isn't in the financial interests of corporations; if we add that financial incentive (as you intentionally do), they'll have every reason to require such clauses.
If your salary was 500 "coins" a month, just to make up a number for the sake of comparison, then when the value of that coin doubles, you're not suddenly taking home a coin worth twice as much, you're taking home half as many coins, for the same value representation. And unless you've been able to secure savings, you can't ever grow that income. And as has already been pointed out, half or more workers literally can't put away savings, so your system is doing nothing but benefiting the wealthy, who can afford to hoard coins.
There is no practical way for the lower-income workers to benefit from this. At all. Because you're targeting a completely irrelevant factor and doing nothing about the actual cause of exploitation.
Which is not currently a problem. Savings in savings accounts generally roughly keep pace with inflation, and savings accounts aren't meant for long-term savings in the first place. CDs and such are better and guaranteed options. Inflation's generally around 2%, give or take, in a managed fiat-currency economy. At my current bank (RBC), CDs are about a 4% return rate. That requires you "lock in" your money for a set period, from 6 months to 5 years, and there's penalties for withdrawal, but it's a common form of retirement plan; you keep cycling CDs around and live off the interest. Workers are already able to save money and generate wealth over time by doing so.The wage issue is a big problem and it has to be fixed, yes. And I'm not advocating for using bitcoin right now, I'm saying that if such a system is adopted and the currency is actually stable, people's savings wouldn't get devalued by some people creating more money.
The problem is that so many workers don't have enough liquidity to save in the first place, and changing the currency will do absolutely fuck-all to help correct that, and I have no idea why you think it even could.
You're arguing that we change the system so the wealthy's savings can balloon in value with no risk and no need for investment into the economy, without providing any means that would allow workers to tap into the same systems, because so many of those workers already can't afford to save and nothing about your proposal change that.Workers being able to save without having it devalued isn't "working against workers".
So, regardless of your intent, what you're proposing is anti-worker. It's like throwing gasoline on a burning house and proclaiming that you're "just trying to put the fire out". Yeah, well, you're not.
Which immediately means you're discarding the needs of the poorest half of workers, give or take. That's why I'm pointing out your position is dehumanizing and unfair to workers.I'm not talking about salaries, I'm talking about savings.
The Cantillon Effect does not support your entirely baseless claim that this leads to generational decline. Because, again, salaries are re-adjusted every few years. The Cantillon Effect covers how rapidly things diverge between such adjustments, but each salary renegotiation resets that clock, because the new salary is established based on current dollar values.In your example the life savings of the grandparents would go to their children, assuming they had anything to give to them. Inflation does have an impact on those savings. The children would receive less than they could have if there were no inflation of the money supply. And that stolen wealth hasn't been lost for everyone. To be clear when I mention inflation I mean "monetary inflation". The cantillon effect does support the fact that people close to money creation benefit at the expense of those who have their savings devalued. Which is the big problem I have with inflation.
Nope. This is a thread about bitcoin, not about socialist market reform. We don't have to take your argument on faith until we have another argument to put it up against; your argument stands or fails on its own. And in this case, it fails. Completely. Because you have not tied any of these dots together.And by the way, all in all it doesn't seem that your intentions are different than mine; it just seems we disagree on the cause (hence the solution). I'm still open to hearing about your solutions to fix the problems we're having.
The Cantillon Effect can't lead to generational decline.
Inflation doesn't harm savings, as savings have wealth-increasing measures designed specifically to offset inflation or overcome it. In the narrow example of "cash money stuffed into a mattress", it impacts that kind of savings, but it should, because it gets that cash back into the economy, where it can contribute to that economy, whereas stuffing it into a mattress excludes it from economic action. Savings accounts don't do the same thing because the bank is using those funds constantly.
If you mean that they're measured in dollars, that's how everything's measured. That's literally the point of a currency.Your savings in the bank are insured in terms of supply, not in terms of value.
And? Same can happen to cryptocurrencies. Way more easily, because there's literally nothing backing those currencies.Some unlucky people have their national currency devalued. If you're on the dollar and the dollar becomes worthless, you can be insured 250k, if you received that after your currency was devalued and the funds lost, who cares. States cannot guarantee the value of their currencies that's why some national currencies go to zero in terms of value.
It's also exactly how all cryptocurrencies work. Which you consistently ignore.See above for the "fractionalized" subject.
"A core function of fiat currency is not to allow those who "get dollars early" to be able to leverage those into near endless wealth simply by virtue of that money existing." > That's too bad because that's exactly what happens.