Quote from: CanadianGuy on May 05, 2013, 01:11:40 AM

100 bitcoins says MPOE-PR is shorter than 5'7
who's in?

Me. I'm picking MNW as an escrow, ready to go?

Quote from: drhobomanxxiii on May 05, 2013, 01:11:59 AM

Quote from: MPOE-PR on May 05, 2013, 01:03:22 AM

You surmise wrongly. That's unsurprising.

You're at least very closely related to the person who did write it, if any of the connections that your account has with the supposed author are accurate.

Quote from: MPOE-PR on May 05, 2013, 01:03:22 AM

Quote

Let's make a simple mental experiment. We both sit down at a table in your favourite fast-food-joint-masquerading-as-an-eatery. I wouldn't eat there more than I'd eat at the gas station, but you're you. I place in front of you a complete menu of whatever they have on tap and a note, which says "Redeemable tomorrow for two complete menus". You get to pick one, and just one. Either the note or the "food". So what do you do ? Do you eat the shit or wait till tomorrow ? Depends on how hungry you are, right ?

Tomorrow comes, and here we are again : me stuck nine feet under the biofilm, disgustedly mingling with the lower classes and you in your natural element. I place in front of you two complete menus of their crap, and two notes. Each note says, "Redeemable tomorrow for two complete menus". Do you eat the shit or wait another day ?

One thing's for sure : you will not be waiting forever.

How is this not about "the question at hand"? Deflation does not prevent spending. Deflation simply prevents misallocation of resources.

The issue isn't about deflation preventing spending. You're putting the cart before the horse here. The discussion was on how hoarding affects deflation.

The fact that you've missed this repeatedly is telling me that you're really not worth any more of my time. I've already explained not only that this is a different issue, but that the article you linked includes points that I agree with. I'm rather certain that I've made it clear I understand what those article(s) are attempting to say.

Also, for future reference, it's wise to link to more than a single source time after time. If you wrote it, then fine, but you suggested otherwise already, and even if you wrote it there should be links to outside sources within the articles rather than further linking within the blog.

It's in my signature after all, neh?

Quote from: Impaler on May 05, 2013, 01:13:43 AM

Can we just agree that EVERYONE Austrian or Keynesian expects the exchange rate for real goods and services against BTC will rise and BTC's will buy more in the future.

More whats? Will BTC buy more S.DICE shares in the future? Perhaps. Will BTC buy more S.MPOE shares in the future? Perhaps not, at least if history is any guide. Will BTC buy more iPhones in the future? Certainly, Moore's law. Will BTC buy more blow jobs in the future? Perhaps, if the population keeps growing. Will BTC buy more tuna in the future? Perhaps not, as tuna seems to be going extinct, and for all its virtues the USD can't buy any mastodon meat and never could. The list goes on and on and on.

Quote from: Impaler on May 05, 2013, 01:13:43 AM

Why because it actually MEANS something to an economy and an individual

This is a mistaken view much akin to the notion that "go left" MEANS something to a topology and an individual. In practice GPS uses actual coordinates. Which then it translates into go lefts and go rights for the need of the barely literate driver, sure, but what bearing does this have?