I tried to read the Minneapolis' Fed's paper about bitcoin. 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.
"Imagine an economy" - I actually like this start. I'm nerdy enough to enjoy a good thought 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.
"in continuous time" - I think, "Huh?" Continuous time? As compared to time that is not continuous? Time that morphs back and around? Is this to 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 is elitist, 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 words and phrases anyone can understand. In my view, this paper would not do this.
"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" from the government is what's called "taxes". 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.
I go by @crrdlx or "CR" for short. See all my links or contact info at https://linktr.ee/crrdlx.
Non-negative dividends is such a weird term.
Possible could mean dividends which doesn't affect the stock price??
Or they dont hold any oil or tobacco? xD
Weird indeed. Sometimes I've heard of a negative tax rate, which of course is money given government to a person (subsidies or direct payments or handouts), but never heard non-negative dividends or negative dividends. Pretty sure they're just making stuff up.
@crrdlx, I paid out 0.173 HIVE and 0.031 HBD to reward 1 comments in this discussion thread.