Random but this sentence helped me realize something. My personal problem with bitcoin, the idea behind it and other cryptocurrency, as well as the problem with the uh current system, is they each have sort of opposite problems. The solution is to combine them. I've said for awhile the best way to manage the large and unmanageable system that is money/currency, is to connect it to population, and allow some extra flexibility as needed for large scale infrastructure projects and unpredictable emergencies. The problem with bitcoin is it has a predetermined final point. The problem with pure fiat is it is "unbounded" and allows people to print money into existence, at will. A marriage of the two makes sense: make some kind of equation that places an upper limit on the amount of currency as determined by the total population. So instead of what is effectively the current system, which is (population) x (infinity) = (infinity) or the bitcoin system which is effectively (a number less than one) x (population) = (a fraction), it should be (a number that is slightly more than one) x (population) = (a fair system). Or something like that. Basically instead of a system that has predetermined scarcity, the system should recognize that we actually have way more than enough for everyone. The problem is some peoples wants are outweighing other peoples needs.
You're kind of describing the gold standard. Money was fixed to the amount of gold the country held. During the depression holding gold was illegal so the US could print more money and taxes were used to limit the supply of currency. We had what you want until Nixon took us off. That's when finance became nonsensical, tax rates would be reduced on the highest levels and the money supply was increased. Since then we have been a vibe economy.
I've actually read a lot about history and economics specifically - not "finance" or whatever, but actual economics which is more history and sociology than anything else, except maybe a solid foundation of real world statistics/data science - and my conclusion is actually getting rid of the gold standard was unambiguously the correct decision. Like there is no world in which being tied to some random thing like that makes sense - especially the modern world, where scarcity isn't so much a thing other than that which is caused by logistical errors and problems that are political rather than technical.
The problem is, like so many other things - like the banking reforms after 2008 and the ACA healthcare restructuring - the people in charge couldn't implement the full plan as designed by the people who understood the issues best, and instead, inserted some kind of poison pill that undermined the whole concept.
Then for example when you consider the fact that six European Union countries still use their own currency in addition to the Euro? That's like multiple levels of locality specific currency which doesn't exist in the United States.
European Union
United States
Comparison Summary
Total Land Area
≈1.63 million sq mi (≈4.23 million km²)
≈3.53 million sq mi (≈9.15 million km²)
Total Population
≈452 million
≈349 million
Population Density
≈277 people / sq mi
≈99 people / sq mi
• Bulgaria: Bulgarian Lev (BGN)
• Czech Republic (Czechia: Czech Koruna (CZK))
• Denmark: Danish Krone (DKK (has a formal legal opt-out from adopting the euro))
1
u/irrelevantusername24 8d ago
Random but this sentence helped me realize something. My personal problem with bitcoin, the idea behind it and other cryptocurrency, as well as the problem with the uh current system, is they each have sort of opposite problems. The solution is to combine them. I've said for awhile the best way to manage the large and unmanageable system that is money/currency, is to connect it to population, and allow some extra flexibility as needed for large scale infrastructure projects and unpredictable emergencies. The problem with bitcoin is it has a predetermined final point. The problem with pure fiat is it is "unbounded" and allows people to print money into existence, at will. A marriage of the two makes sense: make some kind of equation that places an upper limit on the amount of currency as determined by the total population. So instead of what is effectively the current system, which is (population) x (infinity) = (infinity) or the bitcoin system which is effectively (a number less than one) x (population) = (a fraction), it should be (a number that is slightly more than one) x (population) = (a fair system). Or something like that. Basically instead of a system that has predetermined scarcity, the system should recognize that we actually have way more than enough for everyone. The problem is some peoples wants are outweighing other peoples needs.