crrdlx on Nostr: I tried to read the Minneapolis' Fed's [paper about bitcoin](). I made it through the ...

I tried to read the Minneapolis' Fed's [paper about bitcoin](https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/working-papers/unique-implementation-of-permanent-primary-deficits). I made it through the first sentence before I said, "Forget this."


The paper reads:

>Imagine and economy, specified in continuous time, in which the government issues stock and pays a flow of non-negative dividends.

Three phrases stood out to me in that sentence.

1. "Imagine an economy" - I actually like this start. I'm nerdy enough to enjoy a good though experiment. And, "imagine an economy" is pretty good bait to hook me in. Economists often imagine places like an island or a prison or a remote village, all with limited resources, then go from there.

2. "in continuous time" - I think, "Huh?" Continuous time? As compared to time that is not continuous? Time that morphs back and around? Is this set our imagined economy apart from some science-fiction wormhole? I really have no idea what this term "continuous time" means or why they felt it necessary to specify this type of time up front. Immediately, I have a strong hunch as to where this is going...this paper is intended to be written with a academician's linguistic style that intends to confuse. Frankly, this style of writing is used as a weapon. It linguistic bullying toward a reader. This paper would write in such a convoluted manner where every sentence is contingent on, and qualified by, other statements or phrases. If anyone wishes to convey a point, write simply and clearly to convey that point. In my view, this paper would not do this.

3. "non-negative dividends" - Okay, writing gymnastics aside, now we're just making stuff up. "Non-negative dividends" paid by the government? Never heard it put that way. Usually, dividends to stock shareholders are simply called, "dividends." The very fact that they label them as "non-negative dividends" begs the assumption that there must be "negative dividends." I've never heard it put that way, but "negative dividends" <u>is what's called "taxes"</u>. And, yes, I guess governments do pay out negative dividends all the time.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm all for the government cutting back on its steady flow of negative dividend payments.

#bitcoin #plebchain