Quote from: memvola on March 25, 2013, 01:48:55 PM

Now you are being ridiculous. Land doesn't and can't stagnate in value, it's a scarce resource. It fits ideally to your model. When economies develop, land owners get rich by doing absolutely nothing. This is more true than it was a thousand years ago.

Buying land is an investment and like any other investment it can turn out good or bad. If you think it consistently gains value then you are misguided or you havent gone through a severe recession yet. Check out land prices in greece or spain, and if that doesnt look bad enough, adjust for inflation. LIke any other investment Im aware off, its true value (purchase power) is linked to the overall economy and in the long run isnt going to outperform it.

But even if land were the only risk free investment in the world that was guaranteed to increase its inflation adjusted purchasing power over time, it would do little to refute my argument because land isnt our currency. Our wages are not paid in acres, food prices arent set in it, loans are not made in it and its not what drives our economies primarily. I can do business without owning any land, I cant to business without having any money.

Quote

Furthermore, no one, including Kurgman, is arguing about Bitcoin doubling in value every week. At best, it will be like gold when it's established.

And when would you consider it established? If bitcoin were to become the default world currency, its actual purchasing power would go up along with the world economy because each bitcoin would represent 1/21000000th of it. So it would go up year after year unless you foresee a future with permanent recession (which is actually more unlikely in this scenario). You cant have it both ways. You cant have economic growth and stable value if the amount of money is unable to adjust to the economy the way credit money can.

As for gold; I already pointed out its not deflationary. We mine over $100B dollar worth of the stuff per year or roughly 1-2% of reserves.
Thats hardly less inflationary than fiat money.

As for the gold standard, the huge difference there is that even under the gold standard, money was credit money and its supply could vary along with the economy even if we didnt mine a single ounce of gold. Something bitcoins can not (ripple could however).

Quote

So, your claim is Bitcoin is more deflationary than gold? How and why?

Of course it is, or at least will be in a decade or two. But more important is that its infinitely more deflationary than even credit money under a gold standard.