El Salvador abandons Bitcoin as legal tender

I'll nibble at the bait regardless:

Your comment of spending patterns is missing the forest for the trees. A modern, capitalist infused, economy works like a big cardiovascular system, or like an engine. That is to say, it's happiest when blood/oil is pumping through it. Therefore, you can compare to a certain extent the different states an economy can be in to its cardiovascular counterpart.

When an economy is struggling with deflation, you can imagine this as the heart pumping slowly. Slower pumps mean less blood going everywhere, means less performance. The less money circulates, the smaller its multiplying effect, the harder it is for suppliers to stay afloat, prices fall.

The opposite of this would be someone walking around with their heart rate through the roof nonstop. Too high, too much blood, too much pressure, dangerous. When money is flowing too quickly through an economy, its effects are magnified, and in a sense, you can think of it as harder for the consumer now, prices rise.

To aid the visualization, step into the shoes of a dollar for a moment, and imagine its journey in these different scenarios. It comes into someone's account from a paycheck, it stays for a while, goes to the candy store, sits there, goes to a supplier of the candy store, etc. Now multiply that journey countless times. See if you can spot the effect that more or less tendency to spend can have on these journeys.

So you see now, it's a pendulum. A delicate balance that must be struck. And there you have the job of the federal reserve and other central banks like it. They are in charge of modulating the accelerator of an economy and making sure that we're neither going too fast nor too slow. Right in the middle is where you get the most stable and efficient economies.

Bitcoin is unsuitable as a currency because it belongs to the same family as other tried and failed systems of _hard currency_, think gold, but now its worse. Due to its decentralized nature, it will never (by design) be controlled by a central bank. And so it will be at the whim of all the things fixed supply currencies are at the whim of. If you want examples of why this is bad, just take a look at basically anything before 1970's.

If you want a more thought out and perhaps entertaining debrief on this, I encourage you to check out this blog post by Matt Ranger:

https://singlelunch.com/2020/10/21/badeconomics-putting-400m...

I'm not intending to bait. Really I find the arguments against deflation insufficient. I get the picture that some inflation is good to keep the system running smoothly, however, the description of why inflation is desirable is lacking when explaining why deflation is necessarily bad, all things considered. I don't see a first principles argument against deflation, neither do I see a thorough comparative analysis between deflationary and inflationary economies. The only example given is Japan, which, as I said before, doesn't seem to have fared too badly. Moreover, the list of countries that have had problems with runaway inflation is very long. Inflation is a well established economic malaise. In fact, it is almost a maxim that all states are destined to at some point or another, debase their currency.

I think one has to weigh the economic arguments, whatever they may be, against the fact that humanity has never had sound money that can't be debased, and that isn't at the whims of some elite, however well intentioned and wise they may be -- which more often than not, they aren't.

Cryptocurrencies will continue being developed, the flaws will be solved, and the wrinkles ironed. We will have something that may work as sound money. And I say we let it compete fairly against fiat money, put our theories to the test, and see what kind of money if preferred by the people. If it turns out that sound money is finally achieved, I'm sure it'll be a momentous time in human history, and could very well become a new human right: the right to own and use sound money.

No other currencies without a state to promote it, and basically force it on their citizens, made it through yet Bitcoin did it.

More and more people are buying it, people are valuing it more and more, close to 100k$ now when it worth nothing a few years ago.

That's quite a success to me and and I believe part of it's success is because Bitcoin is by nature deflationary.

No one would willingly buy an inflationary currency, the only reason they success is because they are forced by gouvernement.

Bitcoin (or any other commodity/crypto) being valued well and being a "good" investment is completely detached from its function as a national currency. One does not (and should not) imply the other.

You need something to exchange things with (currency), and you need things to exchange. The currency is the medium of exchange, the journey, not the destination.

> You should use a money that loses value because its purpose is as a medium of exchange and not a store of value. You need to have something in your life that you can reliably use to acquire things you need and exchange them for things you have (new laptop for hours worked). You want a hot potato, you get it, you pass it along to someone else. If you don't want to spend it on material goods and want to save, that's fine, you can instead "buy" a savings, or "buy" an index fund. You're still passing the hot potato around, but it's giving you different things.

Now think of this on a large scale. You want hot potatoes going around. That means they'll be moving at a reasonably fast pace, changing hands and going places. You need your money to move so that it reaches all parts and doesn't stagnate places. That's not to say that savings, like the type you'd do at a bank, are bad for the economy, but that is to say that if everyone were to save a bunch of money under a mattress, that would be bad. That would mean that a solid chunk of currency in the economy is frozen and effectively useless to everyone but its owner until they decide to take it out and spend it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Historical_examples should give you some other examples of situations in which economies have been in deflation.

Again, controlled small inflation is the goal. Yes, this can, in the wrong hands, turn into too much inflation, but this is the same the other way too. These are not static states; they're highly dynamic systems that can spin out of control in either direction. And all things considered, it's easier to deal with high inflation than it is to deal with high deflation. It's playing with fire, but there is no other way, and if you find such a way, I and many others would be rather interested in hearing it.

Something to consider: economists' study, learn theory, and perform controlled experiments so that we can learn about these things. These are not unknowable truths of the economy that we can only roll the die and see what happens. And something that is often not considered by hard currency supporters is the results if things turn sour.

After all, you can have years upon years of nice solid performance of an economy built on whatever, for any sort of reasons, but the true assessment of that whatever as a means to serve as the currency for a nation, is how it performs under stress. Our modern fiat currencies and the ways we control them have been built on the ruins of previous methods and currencies. These ruins are costly and violent to a nations progress. This is not something you want to "wait and see". So instead of just thinking about the functions of bitcoin "during the day", while things are normal and people are behaving well, think also about that same currency at night. Think about what may happen if some exogenous shock hits the economy (not related to the currency itself), think oil embargo in the 70s. How will your economy deal with that? What are the tools at the government's disposal to get the economy repaired and back on track? Do they have any recourse? Do they have to just wait it out? This is beyond human lives at risk, this is human progress, human time.

Therefore, it's not about what people like, it's about what keeps the whole system as successful as possible for as long as possible. Economic systems are complex and unintuitive beasts, this is not an area that benefits from great civilian oversight and control. If your system works amazing for 20 years but then has a horrendous crash that wipes 10 years off of your progress, how good was it really?

I agree with your arguments about why some inflation is desired, it incentivizes people into spending their money, this makes it so that people engage in trade more often and, when voluntarily made on the basis of sound information, trade is beneficial to both parties. The net positive done in the world increases, at the small cost of some inflation, that is, the loss of some of your net worth if you rest on your laurels keeping your cash.

All this being said, for me there is a great asymmetry in the demonstrable harm done by inflation vs deflation. The list of people who have suffered the consequences of irresponsible governments is just too large, with you and me being at risk of suffering from them during our lifetime. The temptation is just too large to mishandle currency. While deflation is something that we will very hardly experience in our lifetime, barring some massive technological breakthrough that changes the means of production forever.

Moreover, there's no reason to believe that an economy can't work with deflation. Believe me, it CAN work with extreme inflation where calculation into the future is made very hard, it can surely work with deflation. Yes, some psychological aspects will be new, like people holding off purchases because their money will be worth more in the future, but that will not necessarily translate into a wide-scale halt in purchases. People will still want things more right now than the equivalent of their increasingly valuable currency. This new modality will introduce problems, no doubt, but these will be overcome by new adaptations. There is simply not enough evidence to ensure that a system like this can't work.

I agree that one ought to proceed with care in these matters because a system that seems to work in the beginning might fail catastrophically later on. However, as any change, one ought to weigh the negative risks against the benefits. With the promise of cryptocurrency we're entering a new world. One in which each individual will be more empowered and global commerce will be facilitated. The complexity of the world shows us that no matter how much optimism or pessimism you bake into your decisions, for some things, you will just never know for sure.

Lastly, another problem with inflation is that it favors the elites. Possibly, this is one of the biggest reasons why it's so widely disseminated. Those close to the central banks, those that understand about finance, those that seek power for themselves at the expense of others, among others. This kind of centralization of power motivates individuals at the top to sell the idea to the masses as if it's for their own good, and sometimes it is, but you can't deny that the incentives do not point to this being something that overwhelmingly favors the disenfranchised and the ignorant.