> a thing that goes up in value is not a good medium of exchange because people don't want to spend it, they want to hoard it.
So... traditional money is good because it forces poor people to spend it? Rich people have no problem converting cash into assets that go up in value and holding onto them converting back at need. It's only poor people that have to hold comparatively high percentage of their assets in something that loses value.
Yes it is good to have currency that is distinct from an investment asset. It allows you to do currency things with one, and investment things with the other.
Yes, exactly. It forces the poor (and the rich) to spend it.
When you take out a mortgage on a house its partly because someone took cash they received and deposited it in the bank. If they kept the cash the bank would not have reserves to loan.
You don't even need to do anything to deposit money in the bank anymore. Most people automatically receive their salary in the form of direct bank deposits. And if the value of your money grows, why would you want to do anything with it? You would just let it sit there in the bank.
So... traditional money is good because it forces poor people to spend it? Rich people have no problem converting cash into assets that go up in value and holding onto them converting back at need. It's only poor people that have to hold comparatively high percentage of their assets in something that loses value.