Eric and Jed, Why do we need someone to control the amount of money in circulation? Why do we need to split it up in pieces? I guess it is good for China they can now fix their economy by letting others pay for it. This nationalistic way of solving problems will go away. Just let it go natural. I do not think we need a financial nurse checking out for us. Freedom is a god thing liberalism does stand for that from the beginning but now it has become to mean socialism. Is that why everybody like to have more nursing? Cannot distinguish between liberalism and socialism:) Big difference.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I know little about economics, but limiting the amount of money based on >> the amount gold we have -- or the number of bitcoins -- seems like utter >> lunacy to me. It never worked in the past. There are two reasons: >> >> 1. The money supply has to increase when there is more economic activity >> and more people, or you get severe deflation. This happened in the U.S. and >> other countries on the gold standard. Severe deflation is a bad thing. >> > > This is the reason I've never understood the appeal of gold or bitcoin. > The urge to take the control of the amount of money in circulation out of > the hands of central banks seems to disregard the danger of deflation. > > Eric > >
