colloredbrothers he's great. I love his diction.

Both men are very rare today. Now we have people pampered in the unreality of Socialist economics.

+cerebral23 It's the false perception that things only get "better" as time progresses. Also, the youth have experienced no other time period, so have nothing to compare today to. History is highly manipulated and, in the States, is fixated on racial/gender issues (social history of egalitarian movements). This leads many kids to see the past merely as a "dark age" of inequality.

I think it is pretty obvious why the youth would view the inequality of our past as dark. You don't need to have been there to realize that slavery, segregation, gender inequality, as you cited, are an embarrassment. I think it is reasonable to state things are still "getting better" for the youth. As technology advances and society becomes more inclusive, we do have better access and freedom to things you did not before. We can now access information in seconds that can direct us to the nearest recreational area if we think that our utility would be maximized by doing so. We can partake in most all of the activities that you have had available your whole life. Not only that, but we can be gay, straight, black, white and have a far higher inclusion of access to everything. There is greater access to food, water, health services, etc. So on the microeconomic level that I think you were suggesting, we now have greater access to utility maximizing activities (some that we didn't and would never have known existed without the progression we have seen) and can therefore participate more frequently as well. There is more capability to pursue one's self interests

yared94 skeptical*

Better yet, replace the fed with nature --- gold and silver.

Nope. We had gold and silver. It was too cumbersome too work without the "trusted" 3rd party of the government or fed (they really are the same even if in name different). It still is. And the 3rd party turned out to be not trustworthy. And it will not be in the future. Bitcoin fixes this by having no need for the 3rd party. So in this way the nature will not infact be better.

Tenebrousable Bitcoin cannot be printed in a case of deflation, it's useless as a currency.

SauberC10 It doesn't really matter one way or the other, if the deflation argument is right or wrong. Because If there is two currencies to choose from, and another is guaranteed to lose value (like ALL government fiat currenies are), and the other one is not, people will start to buy in to the one that does not have that guarantee regarless the intellectual arguments, eventually. It sucks to take out loans in that currency. Well we'll still have the fiat for that. If you are so worried about that and are convinced it's good. Deflation being harmfull is fiction and speculation by the treasonous Keynes, in my humble opinion. It has not been demonstrated. Government is the biggest debt taker in any economy. Deflation kills the spending ability of the government. This reduces the power of the elected officials, and they can't have that. So they start printing. Everything bad that happens when deflation is near, is the result of out of controll money printing in attempt to fight it. Because, when people see the value of their money going down, they start saving even more and stop buying things. That's what kills the economies like Japan. When the purchasing power of the money in my pocket goes up, I afford to buy more, not less, and so I will. So will you and everyone else. Deflation propaganda is designed to protect government power. Atleast, that's my argument. We should buy houses when we can afford them, not in the hopes the value will go up. My car doesn't appreciate, that investment goes down like a stone, still I'll buy a new one when I need it, not because I'm afraid of inflation. Same with all electronics. Electronics sales alone should prove the deflation argument to be a hoax.

Tenebrousable, Precious metals weren't out-competed by fiat, they were made illegal to use as money by government. Attempts to bring it back has been made (look up "Liberty Dollar") but were shut down by the feds. I suggest picking up Rothbard's book "What Has Government Done to Our Money?" if you want to know why precious metals stopped being used. It's free both as a PDF and audio book at the Mises Institute's website. In a free market scenario I have no idea whether precious metals, cypto, something entirely different (or a combination of several of them) would be used as money. In any case I would prefer to see the market figure this out, instead of bureaucrats. "What Has Government Done to Our Money?": mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money

literally thought same thing

He also could have meant that a computer/advanced AI program would do the job of the Fed better than its human counterparts could possibly do, to prevent the sort of mismanagement its been responsible for in the past.

That said, we could consider going to a "Bitcoin Standard," much like we had the Gold Standard

Jalreal Actually it was Bernanke primarily. Greenspan warned against the continuation of the policy after he left. Bernanke just didn’t listen.

Perhaps it was to not insult Greenspan and his position?

+tonyhuynhtwo It deregulated

@tonyhuynhtwo It allowed demagogic socialists to point their fingers at the free market and create ridiculous claims such as "people blamed the poor". I have yet to see somebody actually seriously blame the poor for anything, to be honest...