>Inflation is outright robbery and theft. You have your money sitting in a safe and the value goes down and down and down. It can be described thusly. There are 100 bails of hay. A person writes a "money" for each (call it a "dollar"). Each "dollar" represents 1 bail of hay. So, 100 dollars, 100 bails of hay. Suddenly there are now 20 more dollars introduced into the system. The number of bails of hay have not changed, but the number of dollars representing them have. So, no longer is each dollar worth one bail of hay, but now each dollar is worth less. In order to buy all the bails of hay it would now take all 120 dollars, instead of 100 as it did before
I was refering to the idea that money stability shoud be foremost CB target. In your example, if there are next year 120 balls of hay, the amount of money in circulation *should* be 120 dollars.
>Inflation is very bad. It's a mass crime against the people.
When seen from the point of gov trying to ease out of the debt they incurred, agree totally.
>
>You NEVER want your money to inflate.
Here it becomes slippery IMO. Agreed that you don't *want* money to inflate (or deflate!). But what about changes in the surrounding economy ? What if by some chance the effort to create / find counterweight for the "money" has changed, like finding a solid block of gold or advantages in computing make BC mining easier ? Climatic changes allowed to create more hay stacks at nearly no additional effort ? Productivity changes ?
>It should be stable as controlled by some relationship to a fixed set of real commodities, such as was gold and silver (and mostly silver because it is more abundant) before we left the standard.
One of the truer aspects of getting rid of the gold standard was that coupling money (and thereby total economics) to gold as a single standard has it own set of absurdities. In theory coupling to the whole economic output/value makes more sense. In practice gov got more and more hold of central banks and allowed debt to pile up via money printed without the missing balance.
>We don't want money systems which provide the opportunity to easily hoard by a few designing men or else we wind up with systems like the Federal Reserve System and International Monetary Fund (which is completely enslaving nations and peoples today).
But if BC are really a limited supply, it means that after the last one is mined any change in real economy will deflate/inflate the BC-goods exchange rate.
>
>There's a video on YouTube about this:
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDtBSiI13fE>
>Around 19:00 into the video, he explains that there have been various systems of money throughout the ages, including one called a Tally Stick (which represented 25,000 pounds and was used for about 700 years). Systems of money or exchange are what we agree them to be. The same is true for Bitcoins. If I accept Bitcoins, and you accept Bitcoins, and enough people accept Bitcoins, then they are real money.
For me money intellectually has been an idea only for quite some time. Real life necessities make it sometimes more - and "acceptance" can be made difficult by gov as well - remember gov taxed real estate in economic crunches often around the globe and made gold in private hands against the law in the depression in the US similar to other nations when those were in need.
Not argueing the validity of most of your points but shying away from absolutes - whenever people thought one nomination was "safe", they were sure to screwed in the following years, either by a "bubble" or by taxation and/or infaltion/deflation.
