I'm not familiar enough with the terminology and schools of thought to debate you on this. All I know is that you're backing your arguments with roughly conventional 21st century capitalist economic theory. I don't necessarily refute this theory, but I regard it with a healthy dose of skepticism, and I believe it's not necessarily applicable when analyzing bitcoin. So debates over bitcoin money supply, deflation/inflation, etc. are not necessarily covered by this theory.
Well, call me conservative, but I'm not buying the idea that whole international pans of economists are in a kind of conspiracy or group think erroneously putting aside a former correct theory of money to replace it with gobbledegook. Economy is a complex science, because it combines different fields and sociological aspects, but I don't think that world-wide scolars are deluded to the point of defending totally erroneous views on things. Our state of knowledge advances of course, and what was once thought to be more or less right, turns out to be more subtle than imagined, but I won't just say that most of late 20th century monetary theory is bogus, and that some ideas from the beginning of the century are "obviously" closer to the truth. In fact, the "classical" story of how money came to be (namely, a generally used commodity that was more and more used as an intermediate good of exchange) is historically proven *entirely wrong*. Nowhere, ever, a generally used commodity became money. This is nevertheless on what older theories, such as sound money doctrine, are based on.
Straw man argument. I'm not replacing economic theory with "gobbledegook", I'm simply pointing out to you that mainstream theory just supports the current system, which is neither stable, normal, or rational (surely you don't you believe that, right?). Imagine what the "economists" said about the spending and lending of the king and his court... I'm sure it was favorable. Many of these so-called scientists are just rationalizing the current system. Friedman is precisely such an ass-licker - do you know that he advocated "shock therapy" for people starving in third-world countries? If you've read Austrian economists or any libertarian arguments you should know that there are many theories that aren't in concert with your line of thinking.
Well, I must disagree with you here: velocity is precisely what is interesting about the last 20 years of monetary, banking, and economic policy and law. The establishment is moving more and more toward systems which CAN control velocity and DO. Read up on the cashless society. The current vast majority of financial transactions use electronic fund transfers which may be FROZEN at any point. People don't even realize how quickly all of their bank deposits could evaporate or move into an inaccessible state.
Well, that's a very radical way of "regulating velocity". You can hardly call that a monetary policy. It is an emergency (panic) decision to do so, to try to block a run-away condition. Things like what happened in Greece at a certain point, was just a measure to avoid Greek banks which were essentially bankrupt, to collapse, the time needed to bring the Greek government back to reason, or to have it decide to step out, so as not to have the whole of Europe pay for Greeks' jokes.
Funny you should mention Greece... you do realize that their entire collapse was caused by a combination of criminals who retired from the Greek government, the ECB, and Goldman Sachs? And you do realize that the "Troika" was nothing short of a coup? Not much economics to discuss there - it was outright fraud and theft. Or maybe you just listened to the mainstream account and stroked your beard? How about Cyprus? Did you know that 50% of private citizen's bank deposits were simply stolen by the government to pay private bond holders (Goldman again, I believe)? This is precisely why the global system is highly unstable - confidence is likely at all-time lows, and the level of fraud is unprecedented. When the "economic laws" are in the elites' favor, they invoke theory, when they're not, they quietly break all the rules and print money or just steal it.
The term "radical" is relative in this context.
My point about velocity is that the central banks are able to print trillions because of the very fact that they can and will cut velocity when needed. Remember daily withdrawal limits on bank accounts? Notice how long it takes an international wire to process, and how often they are frozen? Inflation would be massive if velocity couldn't be tightly controlled when needed.
Bitcoin is a whole different animal. Funny that Blockstream attempts to control the velocity of bitcoin in their own way...