BitCoin
-
I've been studying currencies for years now due to an interest in Forex. I am not a bazillionaire. This is a hobby of mine, so take my words with a grain of salt... 1) Rather than talk about the CEO of Bitcoin (he's obviously biased) I'll mention analysts... First, psychology teaches us its fun to jump on the bandwagon AFTER we see positive movement. And while that's all fine and dandy because people following along gives us swings in the markets to play with. But it A: limits profits and B: by its very nature means most people don't have to have a clue as to *why* it happened. And that's actually ok if you don't care about long term trends, but I digress. However, most will pretend they know to why things happened to sound smart. Remember, in the markets everyone claims to be rich and yet over 90% of people lose money (they just lie about it). So, forget what most people say. Watch what they DO. Because if they really know what they're talking about, they'd be in a yacht drinking mai tais. The point... most analysts get paid to sound smart and get readers. They don't make millions from the market themselves. So really, what do most know, if they themselves aren't profitable with the market they claim to know? They're not scientists. They're not economists. They're not even bankers. So really... what do they know? 2) Now, on to the future. Paper currency will die in developed countries. Over the past 100 years humanity has had a digital revolution. That's going nowhere. As population keeps on increasing but land and resources don't, we'll have to find a way to stop using paper for this. And we have it... digital crypto-currencies. However, it will take two generations at least to catch on big time. As in at least another 100 years. Old people that don't want to change will have to die to be blunt. Paper money will be around for a while, but it'll be phased out eventually just like gold was. In fact, there's not enough paper money right now to cover all the "money" in the US. Most of it is already just a number in a computer. Bitcoin is the guinea pig. It's being watched heavily as a tool for the future. It could die a sudden death though and that won't stop crypto-currencies or digital currencies in general. We need something new. The US dollar is doomed for failure. Right now it's impossible to fix it. As soon as people try to cut costs to pay off debt, people want to wage war. It's gotten out of hand and we're headed for hyperinflation as a way to "lower our deficit" if we don't
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Now, on to the future. Paper currency will die in developed countries. Over the past 100 years humanity has had a digital revolution. That's going nowhere. As population keeps on increasing but land and resources don't, we'll have to find a way to stop using paper for this. And we have it... digital crypto-currencies.
First of course all trends indicate that the population of the world will level off and reach sustainability levels this century. Second there is no problem in terms of resources for creating currencies. Not to mention even that at least for the US currency paper isn't used, but even if it is producing paper for currencies would be a minor blimp in terms of total paper demand. Fourth there is a difference between digital economic transactions and crypto currencies as the currently exist. Current crypto currencies have basically the same problems that currencies owned by banks (which is not what happens now) which used to happen. And they are obviously too volatile to be allowed to support the world economy much less a nations economy. Might be a viable solution for those country that cannot manage to stabilize their own currency but that is it. So although one might suppose that electronic transactions might become the only norm, they will still be based on a 'currency' that the government, not a market (or worse markets) owns and maintains.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Now, on to the future. Paper currency will die in developed countries. Over the past 100 years humanity has had a digital revolution. That's going nowhere. As population keeps on increasing but land and resources don't, we'll have to find a way to stop using paper for this. And we have it... digital crypto-currencies.
First of course all trends indicate that the population of the world will level off and reach sustainability levels this century. Second there is no problem in terms of resources for creating currencies. Not to mention even that at least for the US currency paper isn't used, but even if it is producing paper for currencies would be a minor blimp in terms of total paper demand. Fourth there is a difference between digital economic transactions and crypto currencies as the currently exist. Current crypto currencies have basically the same problems that currencies owned by banks (which is not what happens now) which used to happen. And they are obviously too volatile to be allowed to support the world economy much less a nations economy. Might be a viable solution for those country that cannot manage to stabilize their own currency but that is it. So although one might suppose that electronic transactions might become the only norm, they will still be based on a 'currency' that the government, not a market (or worse markets) owns and maintains.
- In regards to your first point. I did hear about that. I tend not to guess when a trend will end however since nobody can predict the future... no matter what people say. I do know at some point it'll have to taper off though. The question is when. 2) In regards to your second point. The first part of it, I'll admit it's a loooooong way away, but out of 4 trillion trees on the planet we go through 15 billion a year right now. This will only increase if we have more people. And the entire world knows we're getting away from paper at some point. Which is my point. But yeah, the demand isn't high right now as in this second. But I'm talking big picture stuff here. I thought it was evident in my posts, but I guess not when on CP. The second part of it is simply restating what I said already. So, thanks. :) 3) I'm fully aware of the difference. And I'm not going to elaborate on volatility again. If things change the volatility will change. Volatility is a sign of where it's at right now, not where it's going. And there are key fundamental economical reasons it's the way it is that will change in the future. But I digress and have no desire to get into this... again... on CP... again... with the usual peeps that argue... again. 4) To the fourth point, that's what I've been saying all along. Try again bro.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Au contraire, I think you're getting right and left the wrong way round.
-
CEO at Bitcoin Inc [^] So I have an interest in cryptocurrency - either the biggest scam of all time or the best thing sliced bread - depends who you ask. If you ask the guy in the link he'll tell you it's the best thing, etc. If I read his resume and education history... tells another story. There was also an article in the DM yesterday talking about ICOs - China and SK have already outlawed them and the SEC has prosecuted a couple of companies in the US. And everyone and their dog are getting into blockchain. What to do, what to do... :-)
-
Ken Utting wrote:
To me I think the most interesting aspect in evaluating BitCoin is what can I buy with it, and how stable are those prices.
A the "unstable" argument; while most fiat-currencies are devalued (nice and stable), BC cannot be devalued. That means that, as a measurement-unit for value, it is hard to beat :)
Ken Utting wrote:
I'm only a casual observer, but so far it seems like mostly I can buy illegal goods and pay off ransomware.
Which was not possible with the other currencies - there were no illegal goods before BitCoin existed :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
When I talk about stability of prices, what I mean is, if it costs X BC to buy a widget today, how many BC does the widget cost a year from now? If a widget costs me 10 BC today, 35 next week and 5 the week after that, it isn't doing a very good job as a currency, in my opinion. And I'm not saying that BC is no good because it helps me buy illegal items. I'm saying it seems useless if I can't use it to go and buy groceries, or gas, or pay my mortgage, or whatever. And I know there is some gradual adoption of BC for ordinary goods, and so some day maybe it will be more useful. But the endless splintering into me-too "currencies" doesn't help. It just seems to me that a lot of the excitement around this stuff is due to the investment angle or the philosophical angle. But in order to sustain itself, its eventually got to become more useful as a currency.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Anything that is traded in a volatile market moves up and down fast
Currencies of first world nations do not. Exchange rates do not change by multiples in short time frames. As an example one can look to the Chinese yuan versus US dollar. As China has become a economic world leader the rate is far more stable than periods years ago when its economy was less stable. Dollar Yuan Exchange Rate - 35 Year Historical Chart | MacroTrends[^]
jschell wrote:
Currencies of first world nations do not.
Fiat currencies. The Euro is still called an "experiment".
jschell wrote:
Exchange rates do not change by multiples in short time frames.
Thanks to central planning. In the span of 10 years inflation becomes rather visible.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Au contraire, I think you're getting right and left the wrong way round.
-
When I talk about stability of prices, what I mean is, if it costs X BC to buy a widget today, how many BC does the widget cost a year from now? If a widget costs me 10 BC today, 35 next week and 5 the week after that, it isn't doing a very good job as a currency, in my opinion. And I'm not saying that BC is no good because it helps me buy illegal items. I'm saying it seems useless if I can't use it to go and buy groceries, or gas, or pay my mortgage, or whatever. And I know there is some gradual adoption of BC for ordinary goods, and so some day maybe it will be more useful. But the endless splintering into me-too "currencies" doesn't help. It just seems to me that a lot of the excitement around this stuff is due to the investment angle or the philosophical angle. But in order to sustain itself, its eventually got to become more useful as a currency.
Ken Utting wrote:
If a widget costs me 10 BC today, 35 next week and 5 the week after that, it isn't doing a very good job as a currency, in my opinion.
In BC-terms, it would be 10 BC today, 11 the day after, then 13, back to 11 and up to 20. Now tell me you don't want your savings to do that :)
Ken Utting wrote:
I'm saying it seems useless if I can't use it to go and buy groceries, or gas, or pay my mortgage, or whatever. And I know there is some gradual adoption of BC for ordinary goods, and so some day maybe it will be more useful.
No, that may make it useless to you, but that does not affect anything else. So, what do you think may happen if it may become more of a mainstream-thing and demand multiplies by a tenfold? :)
Ken Utting wrote:
It just seems to me that a lot of the excitement around this stuff is due to the investment angle or the philosophical angle. But in order to sustain itself, its eventually got to become more useful as a currency.
You mean like rise in price to show the inflationary effect, like gold would have were it not for the paper-gold in existence? While you do not deem it usefull, others are using it :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Now this is only my opinion, but I don't think that crypto-currencies will ever become truly mainstream. The primary reason is that the central banks spent several centuries getting a nearly world-wide monopoly on our money supplies. They are tolerating this novelty for the time being but if they ever begin to expand beyond their little niche, the banks are going to wield their inexhaustible political power to squash them into oblivion.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Why Governments Will Not Ban Bitcoin | Zero Hedge[^] Zimbabwe Panic Sends Bitcoin Soaring Over $6000 - Now Bigger Than Goldman Sachs | Zero Hedge[^] :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Ken Utting wrote:
If a widget costs me 10 BC today, 35 next week and 5 the week after that, it isn't doing a very good job as a currency, in my opinion.
In BC-terms, it would be 10 BC today, 11 the day after, then 13, back to 11 and up to 20. Now tell me you don't want your savings to do that :)
Ken Utting wrote:
I'm saying it seems useless if I can't use it to go and buy groceries, or gas, or pay my mortgage, or whatever. And I know there is some gradual adoption of BC for ordinary goods, and so some day maybe it will be more useful.
No, that may make it useless to you, but that does not affect anything else. So, what do you think may happen if it may become more of a mainstream-thing and demand multiplies by a tenfold? :)
Ken Utting wrote:
It just seems to me that a lot of the excitement around this stuff is due to the investment angle or the philosophical angle. But in order to sustain itself, its eventually got to become more useful as a currency.
You mean like rise in price to show the inflationary effect, like gold would have were it not for the paper-gold in existence? While you do not deem it usefull, others are using it :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
I think we're talking past each other. You keep talking about the price of BC; i.e. the conversion of BC and dollars. So I think you're thinking of BC as something you bought with your extra dollars and stuck in an account. If the value goes up over time, no matter how volatile it is, you're happy. To me, that means you're thinking of it as an investment. And of course you're right. If BC goes mainstream and demand goes up tenfold, your investment in BC should do quite well. But I'm saying that for this to happen, it will have to function better as a currency. I'm envisioning trying to use BC for everyday life, which is quite different than an investment, right? Here, volatility is a huge concern. No one wants the price of a loaf of bread to "be 10 BC today, 11 the day after, then 13, back to 11 and up to 20". And of course, you need to have a way to buy the loaf of bread without exchanging your BC for dollars every day. And the reason I'm thinking of BC in this way is because, ultimately, that is what BC needs in order to go mainstream, right? It's not stock in a company that makes revenue, or a bond with some revenue stream behind it. Right now, BC seems to have a niche in unordinary goods, as well as the occasional pizza. But as an investor (I'm assuming you are), I'm sure you want it to expand its market, right? In order for BC to expand its market and grow in value, ultimately, it has to function well as a way to buy and sell ordinary goods every day. Do you think BC can do that today? If not, what do you think will make that happen? What do you personally use BC for? Have you ever bought anything with it? Cheers
-
I think we're talking past each other. You keep talking about the price of BC; i.e. the conversion of BC and dollars. So I think you're thinking of BC as something you bought with your extra dollars and stuck in an account. If the value goes up over time, no matter how volatile it is, you're happy. To me, that means you're thinking of it as an investment. And of course you're right. If BC goes mainstream and demand goes up tenfold, your investment in BC should do quite well. But I'm saying that for this to happen, it will have to function better as a currency. I'm envisioning trying to use BC for everyday life, which is quite different than an investment, right? Here, volatility is a huge concern. No one wants the price of a loaf of bread to "be 10 BC today, 11 the day after, then 13, back to 11 and up to 20". And of course, you need to have a way to buy the loaf of bread without exchanging your BC for dollars every day. And the reason I'm thinking of BC in this way is because, ultimately, that is what BC needs in order to go mainstream, right? It's not stock in a company that makes revenue, or a bond with some revenue stream behind it. Right now, BC seems to have a niche in unordinary goods, as well as the occasional pizza. But as an investor (I'm assuming you are), I'm sure you want it to expand its market, right? In order for BC to expand its market and grow in value, ultimately, it has to function well as a way to buy and sell ordinary goods every day. Do you think BC can do that today? If not, what do you think will make that happen? What do you personally use BC for? Have you ever bought anything with it? Cheers
-
Fabio Franco wrote:
I try no to think about it, because it asks more questions than it answers. What will happen with current cryptocurrencies once quantum computing becomes viable. Even before it reaches mainstream some powerful hands could break current cryptography. The defense of blockchain is because it's hard to crack, if it's not hard anymore then it becomes vulnerable.
Yeah exactly. So something will need to change I'm sure. I suppose when computers eventually rule us they'll figure something out. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I suppose when computers eventually rule us they'll figure something out. :laugh:
Haha, singularity. I am scared of that.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson ---- Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
-
- In regards to your first point. I did hear about that. I tend not to guess when a trend will end however since nobody can predict the future... no matter what people say. I do know at some point it'll have to taper off though. The question is when. 2) In regards to your second point. The first part of it, I'll admit it's a loooooong way away, but out of 4 trillion trees on the planet we go through 15 billion a year right now. This will only increase if we have more people. And the entire world knows we're getting away from paper at some point. Which is my point. But yeah, the demand isn't high right now as in this second. But I'm talking big picture stuff here. I thought it was evident in my posts, but I guess not when on CP. The second part of it is simply restating what I said already. So, thanks. :) 3) I'm fully aware of the difference. And I'm not going to elaborate on volatility again. If things change the volatility will change. Volatility is a sign of where it's at right now, not where it's going. And there are key fundamental economical reasons it's the way it is that will change in the future. But I digress and have no desire to get into this... again... on CP... again... with the usual peeps that argue... again. 4) To the fourth point, that's what I've been saying all along. Try again bro.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
since nobody can predict the future
So when you said "Paper currency will die in developed countries" that wasn't a prediction?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
but out of 4 trillion trees on the planet we go through 15 billion a year right now.
Can't speak to the rest of the world but in the US paper comes from tree farms. More paper usage means more trees, not less. Paper Chase | Ecology Global Network[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And the entire world knows we're getting away from paper at some point
Another prediction. One not supported by facts. That prediction was made by many people over decades but paper usage continues to rise.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
If things change the volatility will change.
Products in the open market are always volatile. That is why governments control currency to insure stability. Rightfully so since history is full of examples of market based commodity exchange systems that failed.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And there are key fundamental economical reasons it's the way it is that will change in the future
Another prediction. A fuzzy one and one not supported by current information. Current information might suggest a trend towards electronic transactions but only one based on government currencies.
-
jschell wrote:
Currencies of first world nations do not.
Fiat currencies. The Euro is still called an "experiment".
jschell wrote:
Exchange rates do not change by multiples in short time frames.
Thanks to central planning. In the span of 10 years inflation becomes rather visible.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Fiat currencies. The Euro is still called an "experiment".
No idea what that statement is supposed to mean. The Euro, like every other first world nation currency has a specific government agency tasked with keeping it stable.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Thanks to central planning. In the span of 10 years inflation becomes rather visible.
What? Reasonable inflation which occurs in first world nations is expected and required. Deflation or no inflation would negatively impact the economies. And if you are referring to hyper inflation that doesn't happen in first world nations. Or at least not in ones that remain a first world nation.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Fiat currencies. The Euro is still called an "experiment".
No idea what that statement is supposed to mean. The Euro, like every other first world nation currency has a specific government agency tasked with keeping it stable.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Thanks to central planning. In the span of 10 years inflation becomes rather visible.
What? Reasonable inflation which occurs in first world nations is expected and required. Deflation or no inflation would negatively impact the economies. And if you are referring to hyper inflation that doesn't happen in first world nations. Or at least not in ones that remain a first world nation.
jschell wrote:
No idea what that statement is supposed to mean.
Which part did you have trouble with? I'll gladly explain :)
jschell wrote:
The Euro, like every other first world nation currency has a specific government agency tasked with keeping it stable.
No, the ECB is not a government agency; our government here is Dutch, not European. There is no European law, no European passport, no European army.
jschell wrote:
What? Reasonable inflation which occurs in first world nations is expected and required.
CPI might sound like it is in a reasonable range, but it still cuts your savings in a few years. Monetary inflation (M3) is a lot more than CPI. I'm not going to explain the difference between those forms of inflation, as I can safely assume you already know everything about them :)
jschell wrote:
Deflation or no inflation would negatively impact the economies.
Strange, we had posters in school that claimed the opposite - google, and you'll find them too. The idea that I am going to stop eating and save my money for a year because bread will be cheaper by that time is academic nonsense.
jschell wrote:
And if you are referring to hyper inflation that doesn't happen in first world nations. Or at least not in ones that remain a first world nation.
Of course, the Americans are multitudes more intelligent and financially enlightened than the Germans. :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
jschell wrote:
No idea what that statement is supposed to mean.
Which part did you have trouble with? I'll gladly explain :)
jschell wrote:
The Euro, like every other first world nation currency has a specific government agency tasked with keeping it stable.
No, the ECB is not a government agency; our government here is Dutch, not European. There is no European law, no European passport, no European army.
jschell wrote:
What? Reasonable inflation which occurs in first world nations is expected and required.
CPI might sound like it is in a reasonable range, but it still cuts your savings in a few years. Monetary inflation (M3) is a lot more than CPI. I'm not going to explain the difference between those forms of inflation, as I can safely assume you already know everything about them :)
jschell wrote:
Deflation or no inflation would negatively impact the economies.
Strange, we had posters in school that claimed the opposite - google, and you'll find them too. The idea that I am going to stop eating and save my money for a year because bread will be cheaper by that time is academic nonsense.
jschell wrote:
And if you are referring to hyper inflation that doesn't happen in first world nations. Or at least not in ones that remain a first world nation.
Of course, the Americans are multitudes more intelligent and financially enlightened than the Germans. :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, the ECB is not a government agency; our government here is Dutch, not European
The ECB is not private and it is not a charity. So pick what ever word you find suitable to define it. Doesn't alter the reality that it is used to facilitate stabilization but the independent governments of the EU also do that.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The idea that I am going to stop eating and save my money for a year because bread will be cheaper by that time is academic nonsense.
Since I didn't say anything all even remotely related to that I will ignore it.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Of course, the Americans are multitudes more intelligent and financially enlightened than the Germans.
You are claiming that the Germans are seeking to encourage hyper inflation? Or are you claiming that Germany has no inflation? That certainly is not true. It does and has had a nominal inflation rate for a long time. Historic inflation Germany – historic CPI inflation Germany[^]
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, the ECB is not a government agency; our government here is Dutch, not European
The ECB is not private and it is not a charity. So pick what ever word you find suitable to define it. Doesn't alter the reality that it is used to facilitate stabilization but the independent governments of the EU also do that.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The idea that I am going to stop eating and save my money for a year because bread will be cheaper by that time is academic nonsense.
Since I didn't say anything all even remotely related to that I will ignore it.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Of course, the Americans are multitudes more intelligent and financially enlightened than the Germans.
You are claiming that the Germans are seeking to encourage hyper inflation? Or are you claiming that Germany has no inflation? That certainly is not true. It does and has had a nominal inflation rate for a long time. Historic inflation Germany – historic CPI inflation Germany[^]
jschell wrote:
The ECB is not private and it is not a charity. So pick what ever word you find suitable to define it.
"Bad idea" would be descriptive enough.
jschell wrote:
You are claiming that the Germans are seeking to encourage hyper inflation?
No, just implying that you're too intelligent to make the same mistake.
jschell wrote:
It does and has had a nominal inflation rate for a long time.
A targetted loss, before they handed inflation-targets to the ECB. With the Germans being part of the Euro-currency, their inflation is now equal to that of Spain and Italy - because according to some people, they're all alike :D
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
jschell wrote:
The ECB is not private and it is not a charity. So pick what ever word you find suitable to define it.
"Bad idea" would be descriptive enough.
jschell wrote:
You are claiming that the Germans are seeking to encourage hyper inflation?
No, just implying that you're too intelligent to make the same mistake.
jschell wrote:
It does and has had a nominal inflation rate for a long time.
A targetted loss, before they handed inflation-targets to the ECB. With the Germans being part of the Euro-currency, their inflation is now equal to that of Spain and Italy - because according to some people, they're all alike :D
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
"Bad idea" would be descriptive enough.
Irrelevant. My point remains that there is a specific group whose goal is to insure the stability of the Euro.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, just implying that you're too intelligent to make the same mistake.
Same mistake as what? Understanding that a moderate amount of inflation is natural and expected in a thriving economy? I do not see a mistake in that and nationality has nothing to do with it.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
their inflation is now equal to that of Spain and Italy - because according to some people, they're all alike
Which appears to having nothing to do with what is being discussed.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
"Bad idea" would be descriptive enough.
Irrelevant. My point remains that there is a specific group whose goal is to insure the stability of the Euro.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, just implying that you're too intelligent to make the same mistake.
Same mistake as what? Understanding that a moderate amount of inflation is natural and expected in a thriving economy? I do not see a mistake in that and nationality has nothing to do with it.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
their inflation is now equal to that of Spain and Italy - because according to some people, they're all alike
Which appears to having nothing to do with what is being discussed.
jschell wrote:
Same mistake as what?
"Whom", and the Germans. A question which happens to be answered by the pricing of our topic.
jschell wrote:
Understanding that a moderate amount of inflation is natural and expected in a thriving economy? I do not see a mistake in that and nationality has nothing to do with it.
Nothing natural about it, and nothing natural about the 2% target.
jschell wrote:
Which appears to having nothing to do with what is being discussed.
Do I really need to explain that the German inflation is linked to the Euro? :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
jschell wrote:
Same mistake as what?
"Whom", and the Germans. A question which happens to be answered by the pricing of our topic.
jschell wrote:
Understanding that a moderate amount of inflation is natural and expected in a thriving economy? I do not see a mistake in that and nationality has nothing to do with it.
Nothing natural about it, and nothing natural about the 2% target.
jschell wrote:
Which appears to having nothing to do with what is being discussed.
Do I really need to explain that the German inflation is linked to the Euro? :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Nothing natural about it, and nothing natural about the 2% target.
I did not make any claim that goals were being realistically maintained nor even that target goals were appropriate.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Do I really need to explain that the German inflation is linked to the Euro?
Apparently I need to explain that this sub-thread started with my point that national currencies are not as volatile and crypto currencies. And that includes the Euro.