Belligerent Savant wrote:The dollar -- and other FIAT currencies -- have arguably been quite volatile as well over the same timespan.
Comparison doesn't hold up well...
USD Inflation vs BTC Price.jpg
Belligerent Savant wrote:How does Bitcoin have no mechanism for universal adoption if it's already adopted worldwide by institutions, governments, and individuals?
For the reasons outlined above—financial instruments carry an obligation and a redemption; bitcoin is a speculative "thing" that promises nothing. "Adoption" so far is experimental—and not going well. Regulations will make bitcoin even less money-like (if that's possible).
Belligerent Savant wrote:Interest is one of the key mechanisms for most loans, historically, for FIAT currencies, needless to say. Why shouldn't an individual benefit as a bank does?
Yes, interest on bank loans are the profits that (ideally) assure that borrowers are creditworthy and bad loans are minimized. The interest income ends when the loan is repaid.
The difference is that an individual owning, say, $100M in Treasury bonds enjoys a permanent free income just for having lots of dollars. This is
rentier income. A
rentier "is someone who earns income from capital without working. This is generally done through ownership of assets that generate yield (cash generated by assets), such as rental properties, shares in dividend paying companies,
or bonds that pay interest."
I haven't said that rentier income from bonds is
always bad; that's why I say, my
feeling is "no," the wealthiest among us should not be given free money just because they have lots of it. This is a problem with the current interest rate hikes—they produce what Mosler calls a "firehose of free money" to govt bond holders—guaranteed income for the rich. It worsens inequality which is already at the highest levels. On the other hand, yield-bearing securities (even high-yield ones) can play a socially positive role in the policy weeds.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.