I mean, is a pyramid scheme a bad thing if we treat it as a game? In the initial stages it would essentially be a lottery with better odds than the lottery, but in the later stages it would turn into a system that funnels money into the hands of those who are more mathematically capable and can build better and more accurate models of the dynamics of human hype.
Good models of hype is something that I think hasn't really been done well yet. Hype is something we just have to live with because it is human nature, and IMO it is worth modelling so that we can learn to both exploit it and counteract it effectively.
Sure, if you think that individual right to hoard and safeguard value is better than top down tools to help the economic activity of the country as a whole.
To be honest, I would say a good balance of those is right. If a central bank does a good job, then some devaluing of currency is not a problem.
>Sure, if you think that individual right to hoard and safeguard value is better than top down tools to help the economic activity of the country as a whole.
Cantillon effect is real and creates widening gaps in inequality. Printing money and handing it to financiers isn't helping, hasn't helped, and will not help anyone. They're kicking the can down the road.
Not a bad thing at all if everybody is playing willingly. I've been pondering it a lot lately... because I missed out in the beginning. I think it'll just keep increasing in value until the "first derivative of hype" goes towards zero. Then it'll level out and people will exit, and rocket back to earth.
Good models of hype is something that I think hasn't really been done well yet. Hype is something we just have to live with because it is human nature, and IMO it is worth modelling so that we can learn to both exploit it and counteract it effectively.