I can’t see the flagged post, so don’t attack me here, I’m just going to explain the bitcoiner view.
Your presumption that inflation is good and that bitcoin needs to be able to support whatever “social policies” governments decide is antithetical to the purpose of bitcoin.
Bitcoin was created to escape currency debasement because it is how the people are impoverished. Currency debasement is the engine that creates wealth inequality. The Catillion effect means that people who get the newly printed money (eg wall street) benefit from it, while the regular people only pay the cost via reduced purchasing power.
Bitcoin is really a savings technology that allows people to escape debased currencies, like the zimbabwe dollar or the Venezuelan peso.
It also has censorship features and other useful properties, but this is the aspect most at odds with the assumptions in your post that the other user apparently disliked.
> currency debasement ... is how the people are impoverished
I agree that's the heart of the Bitcoin thesis, but I am convinced the evidence does not support that claim. In fact, quite the opposite. Much of the original Bitcoin discussion had its roots in von Mises' theories and beliefs, one of which was the rejection of empiricism. It's tough to fruitfully discuss a topic when the conversants disagree over epistemology. We can try nonetheless.
I see it the other way. The government can print money and distribute it uniformly, such as with this year's CARES act (which is about as uniform as one can ask for in this political climate).
Regardless of government policy for how it distributes newly created currency, inflation is fundamentally beneficial for debtors and bad for creditors. Are "the people" predominantly creditors or debtors?
> The government can print money and distribute it uniformly, such as with this year's CARES act (which is about as uniform as one can ask for in this political climate).
It can, but it almost never does. Usually it just subsidizes or bails out businesses.
> Regardless of government policy for how it distributes newly created currency, inflation is fundamentally beneficial for debtors and bad for creditors.
If the inflation rate is stable/predictable (which is the goal for the USD) it makes no difference for creditors/debtors, it gets baked into the interest rate spread.
In the US, we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and countless other programs. Yang got mildly popular this election season with a basic income plan.
Your presumption that inflation is good and that bitcoin needs to be able to support whatever “social policies” governments decide is antithetical to the purpose of bitcoin.
Bitcoin was created to escape currency debasement because it is how the people are impoverished. Currency debasement is the engine that creates wealth inequality. The Catillion effect means that people who get the newly printed money (eg wall street) benefit from it, while the regular people only pay the cost via reduced purchasing power.
Bitcoin is really a savings technology that allows people to escape debased currencies, like the zimbabwe dollar or the Venezuelan peso.
It also has censorship features and other useful properties, but this is the aspect most at odds with the assumptions in your post that the other user apparently disliked.