* There are gold standardS, there is not 1 gold standard
* Gold standards are to balance imbalances in trades between nations with each their own currency (Pound, Fran, Mark). They have little purpose on the national level.
* If deflation encourages to postpone spending, so must do interest; For the individual, the net effect (of currency becoming worth more or earning interest) is the same.
* When there is deflation, there is less need for credit. You save without the 'help' of banks. That means less friction, less wealth shaved off by banks.
* If you propagate credit whose value must be inflated away, you choose for the younger generation at the costs of pensioners who will see their life savings evaporate. The middle ground, pensions and mortgages keep their real value, seems the most fair. Ergo, Hard Money.
* Fractional lending is still possible under Bitcoin regime. Perhaps to a lesser extent, but don't we all agree there has been too much fractional lending? Also, there will be less need for credit, because of deflation.
* The author seems not to question the modern idea that everybody is entitled to large mortgages and live in (too big) houses for their economic performances. (True for UK, USA and Netherlands). In most other countries, people build their own houses over the stretch of multiple years, postponing vacations, and putting every earned penny in the new house. Result? at 35 yrs of age the house is fully owned, no banks involved. Much healthier, imho.
* In my view money and monetary policy must be designed to (only) optimally facilitate trade, production and commerce. Social justice and fair wealth re-distribution should be accomplished by taxes, and by taxes only. Using monetary policy to (also) accomplish social causes diminishes its usefulness in trade and commerce, and people will search for protection/workarounds.
* Gold standards are to balance imbalances in trades between nations with each their own currency (Pound, Fran, Mark). They have little purpose on the national level.
* If deflation encourages to postpone spending, so must do interest; For the individual, the net effect (of currency becoming worth more or earning interest) is the same.
* When there is deflation, there is less need for credit. You save without the 'help' of banks. That means less friction, less wealth shaved off by banks.
* If you propagate credit whose value must be inflated away, you choose for the younger generation at the costs of pensioners who will see their life savings evaporate. The middle ground, pensions and mortgages keep their real value, seems the most fair. Ergo, Hard Money.
* Fractional lending is still possible under Bitcoin regime. Perhaps to a lesser extent, but don't we all agree there has been too much fractional lending? Also, there will be less need for credit, because of deflation.
* The author seems not to question the modern idea that everybody is entitled to large mortgages and live in (too big) houses for their economic performances. (True for UK, USA and Netherlands). In most other countries, people build their own houses over the stretch of multiple years, postponing vacations, and putting every earned penny in the new house. Result? at 35 yrs of age the house is fully owned, no banks involved. Much healthier, imho.
* In my view money and monetary policy must be designed to (only) optimally facilitate trade, production and commerce. Social justice and fair wealth re-distribution should be accomplished by taxes, and by taxes only. Using monetary policy to (also) accomplish social causes diminishes its usefulness in trade and commerce, and people will search for protection/workarounds.