Quote from: Hueristic on July 22, 2015, 03:25:20 AM

All value is based on time.

Nonsense.

Value is based on relative fitness.

One of the generative essence of my theory of everything (see the last two articles in my blog unheresy.com and also my Understand Everything Fundamentally essay), is that fitness can not be characterized with any holistic (aggregate or macroscopic) metric. Fitness is inherently local and individualized.

Someday I will write some more carefully thought out essays to unify all the detailed arguments. But not now. I am busy being a programmer again.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on July 20, 2015, 12:35:19 PM

There is not one growth rate in an economy. Efficiency of production of some things grows faster than other things. Thus it is impossible to design a basket weighting for GDP or purchasing power which has the same relative impact on every member of society, since distinct demographics, personalities, and situations impact personal consumption priorities.

Who is to decide whose priorities are paramount?

Quote from: CoinCube on July 20, 2015, 01:53:14 AM

The only scenario that is not redistributive is one where the currency is debased at a rate equal to the aggregate economic growth in the economy. This is the point of equilibrium where idle savings maintain purchasing power but do not grow or decline.

There is no measurable equilibrium point because the economy has diversified personal metrics.

Rather the only metric I have been able to identify is the one I stated in my prior post:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on July 19, 2015, 06:19:06 PM

3. Due to that squared law explained in #2 and coupled with the fact that small things and investments grow faster, the upcoming wealthy gain more from debasement than the egregiously wealthy. Thus debasement is a very natural, efficient allocator of wealth to the maximum production. The super wealthy can't focus their investments to the most productive because their wealth is too large to allocate efficiently. They are more concerned about safety, economies-of-scale, and return of capital, which retards production in the economy. [implication is that the more wealthy someone is, then the more reliant on usury for return-on-investment instead of non-guaranteed return (a.k.a. return versus risk)]

Thus raising the debasement rate redistributes capital from lower efficiency investment (and thus production) to higher efficiency investment and production. Thus benefiting everyone in society.

Thus the debasement rate should be set as high as such that a super majority of society can receive an increase in their personal purchasing power (personal priorities) that exceeds the debasement rate. This will not stop members of society from competing for higher return-on-investment, because to be in that super majority you must compete.

Whereas, if it were true that everyone had the same priorities and we could set the debasement to one monolithic purchasing power metric, then no one would have an incentive to compete. This is yet another example of why uniform distribution is lifeless. I mentioned this abstract concept in my two blogs, The Universe and Information is Alive!.