Bitcoin经济学--为什么主流经济学家在乎通货紧缩

我的许多普通读者都知道，我已经  写了几个  文章 Bitcoin 解释为什么它是金钱。在这些文章中，我谈到Bitcoin的固有特性，为什么给它的价值作为交换的媒介。我所提到的，但没有进入很深这些属性之一，是通货紧缩的货币体系方面。

Bitcoins本质上是一种货币通货紧缩，因为他们最终将顶部可以生产的数量。最终总额Bitcoin流通将达到约21万的硬币，并在这之后，没有新的硬币可以创建。因此，如果没有新的资金，可以创造，但如果经济增加生产能力，价格将下降，因为会有更多的商品追逐相同数量的硬币。

大多数人都记得审理后认为，通货紧缩是比从他们的高中或大学的经济学教师的通货膨胀同样糟糕（或更糟）。在这篇文章中，我将解释为什么这些假设是错误的的。通货紧缩是货币收益价值随着时间的推移的（即你需要它的越来越少，购买的相同数量的商品在未来）。

因此，让我们的名单为什么古怪的凯恩斯主义经济学家认为，通货紧缩是经济不好的原因。然后，我会解决这些问题。你即将看到一个家伙在MIS粉碎与工商管理博士经济学家的论点，使用简单的常识高尚的获奖。

通缩大概是不好的，  因为：

实际上有三种不同的理由担心通缩，两个需求方和供应方。

所以首先：当人们预期价格下跌，他们变得​​不太愿意花，而且尤其是不太愿意借钱... ...甚至是零税率可能不足够低，以实现充分就业。

第二个效果：除了对未来通货紧缩的预期，价格下跌加重债务人的位置，通过增加其债务的实际负​​担。

最后，在通货紧缩的经济中，工资和价格往往有下降-它是一个生命的事实，也很难削减名义工资 -  下降的名义工资刚性。

对通货紧缩的这些论点，是典型的凯恩斯主义的教条。其实，其实我写了完全相同的三个参数之前，我什至读克鲁格曼的文章，但我想如果我列出他们从马的嘴，它会更好。

因此，让我们的地址的第一个参数的人变得不太愿意花，特别是不太愿意借钱，并以某种方式导致失业。总是会有一些失业，如果经济不均衡（它从来没有，因为人类的欲望，随着时间的推移而变化）。随着人们希望笔记本电脑ipad公司转移自己的欲望，一些失业从这个结果。想想看，如果笔记本电脑的需求下降ipad公司增加的需求的同时，笔记本电脑生产商将最终奠定关闭或歇业而iPad的生产者，将雇用更多的人。转型期的人会失业，而他们寻找新的工作。

但是，设置这一点不谈，我们来看看为什么钱摆在首位发生通缩！克鲁格曼没有提到的原因，通货紧缩的发生货币，这并不奇怪。还有基本上只有两个原因（宏观尺度上）为什么货币将经历通缩：

1。经济的速度，货币供应量的增长速度高 ​​于  生产新的产品和服务... ... 。或

2。在部分准备金制度，债务被消灭，通过广泛的破产。

试想，在第一种情况，这完全是正常和健康的的！如果货币供应量保持不变，但经济增加的生产能力，将有相同数量的美元追逐更多的商品。通货膨胀是这个正好相反，即同样的钱追逐较少的商品（或更多的美元追逐相同/货少）。显然，在这个意义上的通货紧缩是对消费者有利。我们看到这个发生在电子行业，这在很大程度上是从政府调控和补贴。当竞争非常激烈，行业的生产能力过乘坐我们的分数储备经济通胀方面，我们看到价格回落，随着越来越多的电子产品生产更有效。

试想一下，如果经营电子行业，如政府补贴和医疗卫生行业监管。你会买现在所有的电子产品你可以，因为在未来，他们会如此昂贵，你可能无法向他们提供！所以呀，在这个意义上说，通货膨胀鼓励消费。但显然，这是不健康的消费人担心他们的购买力的损失所造成。

通货膨胀创建恐惧为基础的经济，促使人们花费超过他们的手段，未来的价值，因为他们的购买力正在不断减少。这将是愚蠢的尝试和节省未来开支在通货膨胀的经济，这显然破坏了储蓄的钱。保存为自己的退休生活的人将在银行的钱将在通货膨胀的环境中的傻瓜。

事实上，如果通胀得到够糟糕的，人为压低利率，人们会主动地采取了过多的贷款和信用卡债务，因为他们现在可以尝试并获得尽可能多的东西！男孩，喜欢肯定有问题的声音大家都熟悉不？

克鲁格曼的论点，人们会被不太愿意以花和借用，和这将导致失业，是为说，因为电脑保持越来越便宜到未来，人们会被不太愿意花钱的计算机上荒谬的今天，因为他们可以简单地等待，并在未来购买更好的/更便宜的电脑。这显然​​是不怎么想的。人们的需求和欲望，必须得到满足，他们将购买的东西，只要他们对产品的欲望大于他们为未来储蓄的盈利的愿望。这，顺便说一下，是一个健康的经济应该如何操作。注意，没有恐惧。电子企业不歇业，因为他们的产品变得更丰富，更便宜。

因此，让我们看一下克鲁格曼的第二个参数，通货紧缩使债务人更糟。什么是留在这个假设没说的是，债务是一件好事，而储蓄是一件坏事。这是否对任何人作出任何逻辑意义吗？想想看，如果钱是处于通货紧缩，储户的利益。如果储户自然受益是谁把自己陷入债务的人多吗？储户放弃的那一刻期望在未来的乐趣更大的乐趣。这意味着资源消耗最小的生产收益可立即投入更大的项目，可能在未来产生更大的收益预留。储蓄是建立强大的经济基础。如果美国没有在债务如此疯狂的时刻，我们将在一个较大的增长前景更好的经济地位！

但也让我们考虑对利率的通货紧缩的影响。这笔钱将在未来的价值，如果货币供应量保持不变（像Bitcoins），但对经济的生产能力继续增加放贷，借钱的人会知道。这导致  利率下降。利率自然会得出一个通缩的环境下中，因为储蓄会增加，从而赚更多的钱可用于银行放贷。当银行有很多人与他们存钱，他们自然会降低利率。这是因为美联储是人为郁闷支付银行不放贷，并通过购买政府债券，在我们目前的情况，利率低严格。

美联储利率失真的生产结构，我不会到这里也有其他有害的影响，但根据奥地利商业周期的理论，通货膨胀和利率失真，是商业周期的主要驱动力。了解更多关于它通过观看  该视频由教授罗杰驻军。

究竟属于哪种情况，听起来健康吗？低利率，因为很多人都在省钱或低利率，因为美联储是人为令人沮丧的用纳税人的钱？

因此，让我们来解决克鲁格曼的工资面临的最后一个参数，这使得它更难以雇主的钱，是获得价值调整的抗跌。

考虑是否在这种情况下：

你的雇主集会议的所有员工，并告诉您，因为经济是生产力和金钱的价值，是这么多，他是要休假的员工处理货币升值。

从你的角度，你得到更多的时间，而你的收入仍然完全在购买力相同。谁不希望出现这种情况呢？此外，考虑如果你没有得到提高，每年，你仍然得到加薪！雇主不减薪;他们可以削减小时，或根本不给还提出了人仍然会比前一年更好。

但是，让我们说，经济是生产力的金钱收益雇主只是被迫削减工资 - 如果这是这么多的价值，会有人认真地给一个该死的？我们将生活在一个必杀技社会丰盈，绝对荒谬的金额。妇女可以留在家中照顾孩子，一个人可以提供所有必要的收入，考虑到照顾他的家庭和仍然退休，孩子们不会有工作的三项工作，把自己通过学校等...等...等...

少人需要在这样的经济工作（就像他们在50年代和60年代所做的那样），这将减轻雇主的需要，削减工资。

哦，是一件事情。我想我应该解决通缩提高生产率以外的第二个原因，而货币供应量保持不变 - 这是通货紧缩的默认螺旋结果，从一个庞氏骗局平仓。这是为什么凯恩斯主义的经济学家担心通缩贩子的真正原因。由于在我们疯狂的社会，金钱的债务，如果债务人自己进入一个位置，他们是如此过度杠杆化，他们是被迫破产，它可能会导致银行业的默认值，擦拭级联系列（连同政府其福利/战争状态）。债务被消灭了，货币供应量减少导致通货紧缩。

凯恩斯主义的经济学家们不断对通货紧缩的恐惧贩子，因为即使是少量的，可以擦我们的庞氏债务为基础的经济，进而消灭脂肪的政府援助燃料薪水。要了解的骗局，是基于我们的债务经济，检查了对美联储的情况 。它提供了一个现代银行制度如何运作，以及为什么它是创建清晰的画面。如果您正在寻找一些更有趣，但仍翔实，检查出的美国梦。它给出了部分准备金银行是很好的概述，以及为什么它只是一个庞氏骗局 。

像凯恩斯主义的经济学家克鲁格曼没有记住你的最佳利益时，他们对通货紧缩的争论。他们更关心自己的薪水，福利/战争状态活得很好。

以上GOOGLE翻译,英文原文如下:

As many of my regular readers know, I’ve already written a few articles on Bitcoin that explain why it is money.  In those articles I have addressed why the inherent properties of Bitcoin give it value as a medium of exchange.  One of those properties that I mentioned, but did not go into very deeply, is the deflationary aspect of the currency system.

Bitcoins are inherently deflationary as a currency because they will eventually top out in the number that can be produced.  Eventually total Bitcoin circulation will reach about 21 million coins, and after that, no new coins can be created.  Thus, if no new money can be created, yet if the productive capacity of the economy increases, prices will fall since there will be more goods chasing the same amount of coins.

Most people remember hearing that deflation is just as bad (or worse) than inflation from their high school or college economics teachers.  In this article I will explain why those assumptions are wrong.  Deflation is when a currency gains value over time (i.e. you need less and less of it to buy the same amount of goods in the future).

So let’s list off the reasons why crackpot Keynesian economists think deflation is bad for the economy.  Then I will address each of those points.  You are about to see a guy with a BBA in MIS smash a Noble prize winning PhD economist’s arguments using simple common sense.

Deflation is supposedly bad because:

There are actually three different reasons to worry about deflation, two on the demand side and one on the supply side.

So first of all: when people expect falling prices, they become less willing to spend, and in particular less willing to borrow…even a zero rate may not be low enough to achieve full employment.

A second effect: even aside from expectations of future deflation, falling prices worsen the position of debtors, by increasing the real burden of their debts.

Finally, in a deflationary economy, wages as well as prices often have to fall – and it’s a fact of life that it’s very hard to cut nominal wages — there’s downward nominal wage rigidity.

Those arguments against deflation are typical Keynesian dogma.  In fact I actually wrote out the exact same three arguments before I even read Krugman’s article, but I figured it would be better if I listed them off right from the horse’s mouth.

So let’s address the first argument that people become less willing to spend, and particularly less willing to borrow, and this somehow leads to unemployment.  There will ALWAYS be some unemployment if the economy is not in equilibrium (which it never is, since human desires change over time).  As people shift their desires from wanting notebook computers to iPads, some unemployment will result from this.  Consider that if the demand for notebooks drops while the demand for iPads increases, notebook producers will end up having to lay people off or go out of business while iPad producers will be hiring more people.  The people in transition are going to be unemployed while they look for new work.

But setting that point aside, we have to look at why money undergoes deflation in the first place!  It is not surprising that Krugman doesn’t mention the reasons why deflation occurs in a currency.  There are basically only two reasons (on a macro scale) why a currency would undergo deflation:

1.  The economy is producing more new goods and services at a rate that is above the growth rate of the money supply…. or

2.  In a fractional reserve system, debt is being wiped out through widespread bankruptcies.

Consider that in the first case, this is entirely normal and healthy!  If the money supply is held constant, yet the productive capacity of the economy increases, there will be the same number of dollars chasing more goods.  Inflation is the exact opposite of this, whereby same dollars are chasing fewer goods (or more dollars chasing same/less goods).  Clearly deflation in this sense is beneficial for consumers.  We see this taking place in the electronics industry which is largely free from government regulation and subsidies.  When competition is fierce, the productive capacity of industry over-rides the inflationary aspects of our fractional reserve economy and we see prices come down as more and more electronic goods are produced more efficiently.

Imagine if the electronics industry operated like the government subsidized and regulated healthcare industry.  You would buy all the electronics you could now, because in the future, they would be so expensive you might not be able to afford them!  So yeah, in this sense, inflation encourages spending.  But clearly this is UNHEALTHY spending caused by people fearing the loss of their purchasing power.

Inflation creates a fear based economy that motivates people to spend above their means because the future value of their purchasing power is constantly decreasing.  It would be foolish to try and save money for future expenditures in an inflationary economy, which obviously destroys savings.  People who save for their retirement by putting money in a bank would be fools in an inflationary environment.

In fact if the inflation gets bad enough and interest rates are artificially low, people would be motivated to take out excessive loans and credit card debt to try and get as many things as they could now!  Boy that sure sounds like a problem we are all familiar with doesn’t it?

Krugman’s argument that people would be less willing to spend and borrow, and this would lead to unemployment, is as ridiculous as saying that because computers keep getting better and cheaper into the future, people would be less willing to spend money on a computer today because they could simply wait and buy an even better/cheaper computer in the future.  That is obviously not how people think.  People have needs and desires that have to be met, and they will purchase things as soon as their desire for the product is larger than their desire for future earnings on savings.  That, by the way, is how a healthy economy should operate.  Notice there is no fear involved.  Electronics companies are not going out of business because their products are becoming more abundant and cheaper.

So let us look at Krugman’s second argument that deflation makes debtors worse off.  What is left unsaid in this assumption is that debt is a good thing, while saving is a bad thing.  Does this make any logical sense to anyone?  Consider that if money is undergoing deflation, SAVERS benefit.  Shouldn’t the savers naturally benefit more than someone who is putting themselves into debt?  Savers are forgoing pleasure in the moment for the expectation of even greater pleasure in the future.  This means resources that could be consumed immediately for minimal productive gains are being put aside into bigger projects that could yield even greater gains in the future.  Savings is what builds strong economic foundations.  If the US wasn’t so wildly in debt at the moment we would be in a better economic position with larger prospects for growth!

But also let us consider the impacts of deflation on interest rates.  People who lend and borrow money will know that money will be worth more in the future if the money supply remains constant (like Bitcoins) yet the productive capacity of the economy continues to increase.  This leads to falling interest rates.  Interest rates will naturally come down in a deflationary environment because savings will increase, thereby making more money available to banks to lend.  When banks have a lot of people saving money with them, they will lower rates naturally.  This is in contrast to our present situation where rates are low strictly because the Fed is artificially depressing them by paying banks NOT to lend and by buying up government bonds.

Distortion of interest rates by the Fed also has other deleterious effects on the structure of production that I will not get into here, but according to Austrian Business Cycle Theory, inflation and its distortion of interest rates is the primary driver of business cycles.  Learn more about it by watching this video by Professor Roger Garrison.

Which situation sounds healthier to you?  Low interest rates because a lot of people are saving money or low interest rates because the Fed is artificially depressing them with tax payer money?

So let us address Krugman’s final argument that wages face downward rigidity which makes it more difficult for employers to adjust to the money that is gaining in value.

Consider if you were in this situation:

Your employer gathers up all the employees for a conference and tells you that because the economy is so productive and that the value of money is going up so much, that he is going to have to furlough the workforce to deal with the appreciating currency.

From your perspective, you are getting more time off while your income remains exactly the same in terms of purchasing power.  Who doesn’t want that?  Further, consider that if you don’t get a raise every year, YOU STILL GET A RAISE!  Employers don’t necessarily have to cut wages; they can cut hours or simply not give raises yet people would still be better off than they were the year before.

But let’s say the economy is so productive that money gains so much value that employers are simply forced to cut wages – if this was the case, would anyone seriously give a damn?  We would be living in a nirvana society that had absolutely ridiculous amounts of abundance.  Women could stay home to take care of the kids, one man could provide all the income necessary to take care of his family and still retire, kids wouldn’t have to work three jobs to put themselves through school, etc… etc… etc…

Less people would need to work in such an economy (like they did in the 50s and 60s) which would relieve the need of employers to cut wages.

Oh yes, one more thing.  I suppose I should address the second cause of deflation other than increasing productivity while the money supply remains constant – and that is a deflationary default spiral that results from the unwinding of a Ponzi scheme.  This is the real reason why Keynesian economists fear monger about deflation.  Since in our crazy society, money IS debt, if debtors get themselves into a position where they are so over-leveraged that they are forced into bankruptcy, it can cause a cascading series of defaults that wipe out the banking industry (along with the government and its welfare/warfare state).  As debt gets wiped out, the money supply decreases which leads to deflation.

Keynesian economists have to continually fear monger about deflation because even a tiny amount of it could wipe out our Ponzi debt based economy, and thereby wipe out their fat government aid fueled paychecks.  To learn more about the scam that is our debt based economy, check out The Case Against The Fed.  It offers a clear picture of how the modern banking system operates and why it was created.  If you are looking for something slightly more entertaining, yet still informative, check out The American Dream.  It is gives a great overview of what fractional reserve banking is and why it is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

Keynesian economists like Krugman don’t have your best interests in mind when they argue against deflation.  They are far more concerned about keeping the welfare/warfare state alive and well, along with their own paychecks.