This doesn't change or correct anything I said. Baffling.
Nothing you've described is inherent to an inflationary system, and indeed, would become significantly worse in a deflationary one. Wealthy people can become increasingly wealthy with zero risk just by not spending money in a deflationary economy, while workers are "forced" to spend money by virtue of needing to pay rent and so forth. Inflation doesn't create additional value, because again, value is not inherent to currency. Your asset may grow in "value" in terms of actual dollar amount, but not in appreciable "real value" just by virtue of inflation; those later dollars it's valued at a higher total at are worth less than the earlier calculation. A home worth $1 million before 10% inflation, and worth $1.1m after that inflation, has not actually increased in value. Whereas a hoard of $1m dollars in a vault, after 10% deflation, is worth 10% more in terms of tradeable value relative to everything else.Forcing people to spend their money, consume, and gamble with it on markets, while keeping wealthy people wealthy by having them benefiting from assets price climbing up due to the continuous devaluation of money isn't what I consider to be healthy. I'm just observing this inflationary system and I dislike what I see.
That's bullshit. Inflation's incredibly well understood, broadly speaking. It's common parlance. People might not understand all the complexities, but they get the gist.At the very least there should be a message somewhere, stating "Careful, we are devaluing the value of your savings, so you can't keep it for too long". Like on those cigarettes pack. Why doesn't that happen? Many people aren't even aware of that devaluation.
Also, the people you're supposedly concerned about, the workers struggling to make ends meet, don't have savings in the first place. And those in the middle class and above who might, putting money into investments rather than a box under your mattress is standard practice. And investing means that money is earning returns, and that generally more than offsets inflation, while allowing that money to contribute to further economic activity, which money in a box does not do.
And? Crypto isn't an actual currency, despite the nomenclature. That's not up to personal opinion.I can decide for myself what I consider to be a good or a bad currency, same for everyone.
In the context you're talking about, the very concept of "value" in and of itself is inherently subjective. Nothing you're talking about could ever possibly change that.For me there's just too many examples showing that the value of things is subjective. If something is deemed worthless by someone, or if they think that thing will lose its value, they will probably want to sell it for something that has value to them. Regardless my point was that countries cannot guarantee the value of their money/currencies, because if that was true you would never see them going to zero.
Volatility doesn't come from how widely the currency is used. Cryptocurrencies are fundamentally designed to be speculative tools, not functional currencies. Sorry you bought into the MLM scheme without understand what it was, but that's what all cryptocurrencies fundamentally are. They're never going to become "real" currency. They aren't meant to, and never have been. And there's essentially zero interest in them as such outside their own community. They provide no advantages, suffer all the same vulnerabilities you're complaining about, and bring in a host of further issues with them if you try.A cryptocurrency can be real money assuming it's more widely used and volatility lowers as a result (which would be the consequence of many things, such as trust into that system). I wouldn't say it's money right now, but it can be if what I've said happens.
You can keep defending your system if you like, that won't change reality, which is that inflation dilutes the value of money, until it approaches zero. Building a money ultimately worth zero doesn't sound like a good plan.[/QUOTE]