eniotna

Any amount of money, as long as it is sufficiently divisible, is capable of facilitating trade within an economy. The idea that somehow money has to increase over time is one of the most non-sensical idea.

"Thus inflation becomes the most important psychological resource of any economic policy whose consequences have to be concealed; and so in this sense it can be called an instrument of unpopular, i.e. of anti-democratic, policy, since by misleading public opinion it makes possible the continued existence of a system of government that would have no hope of the consent of the people if the circumstances were clearly laid before them."

It doesn't, proof of work is what makes Bitcoin unique. (1) Having to spend physical resources better aligns incentives (2) Proof of work is decentralized and fair

It's a worthwhile tradeoff.

Keyword here is "forcefully", when you use an exchange, you willingly do so.

What you're paying for is essentially to signal to employer that you've been able to make it into a very select club which is in turn acting as a proxy for intelligence/conscientiousness. As long as the seats are be limited, it will be worth the cost.

We don't really know.

Computers have been deflationary since their inception (you can get a better computer for the same money if you wait a year) but people will always value the present more then the future, that's why we've been buying computers regardless. The same principle could apply in theory to other asset classes, you want a house now even though you could get a better one in the future because you value comfort today rather then tomorrow. Spending isn't driven by inflation, it's driven by knowing we have limited time to live.

Devaluing money doesn't create wealth, increased in productivity does. Devaluing money in many instances lowers productivity because people have to invest time into protecting the value of their labor instead of making more stuff they are good at. I haven't read a single convincing explanation as to why encouraging consumption somehow generates more wealth on the long run.

> There’s a reason we have target rates

In an interview Powell admitted no one really knows why the target is 2%. Why is 2% better than 10%, why not 0%? We don't need to encourage consumption with artificial money devaluation, humans already discount the future because of the finiteness of our lives

Rome wasn't built in one day, as the total market cap grows, price fluctuation will become irrelevant.

Money is never truly yours if you are not the issuer. That's why we need more "hard" money (gold, bitcoin).

Value is entirely subjective, a starving man in the desert will value water over gold.

Asset and income denominated in some currency which is also an imaginary concept that we decided to all agree on was worth something. Not much different if you ask me

Working with people who care about their craft is definitely much more enjoyable.

"What should we work for?

Only this: proper understanding; unselfish action; truthful speech. A resolve to accept whatever happens as necessary." — Marcus Aurelius

It seems inevitable at this point that part of the solution is investing in carbon capture technology in the future to offset the damages we're causing today, the question is; are the damages reversible? Asking individuals to consume less is useless at best and hypocrite at worst.

> Change the maximum amount you can sell a house to be equal to cost of materials plus 30 days of labor for 5 people.

That's a terrible idea, who will construct anything if there is no money to be made? You don't fix those kinds of problems by price fixing, let the free market take care of the supply/demand issue. Unfortunately, the bay area is far from a free market when it comes to housing.

In most real world problems, you don't really care about keeping a data structure sorted at all time. All you want, is to have it sorted when you're about to do X. So it's generally faster to just have a contiguous chunk, insert at the end, then sort when you need.

I believe it's the opposite, taxes for companies are lower in Quebec than in the US (did not factor in R&D credit, etc). Individual taxes are higher in Quebec.

I have to disagree with you, not everything is about money or commerce. Laws are put in place to protect people, so that everyone feels like they are part of the society they build. Honestly, it's about respect for the local people. I don't see how having a sign in both French and English so that people can understand you better is a big deal.

Why is the language policy in Quebec bad? From my understanding, it was created to protected their right to be served in their native language. Not everyone has the luxury to learn and speak English fluently.

By buying Softimage, Microsoft wanted to develop a high end product, to demonstrate to the world that its OS was powerful enough to compete with high end, software specific machines, at a lower cost. In that regards, I believe they succeeded.