Ed Murphy wrote: >When was this? Were the amounts larger? 1996-1997. Marks were the basic currency, and they'd inflated such that the fixed awards and penalties were pretty insignificant. The Mil was then defined as 1/1000 of all the Marks in circulation at the beginning of the present month (there was a monthly calculation of this). Awards and penalties were henceforth fixed numbers of Mils. This induced Mark hyperinflation. We had much the same unbalance as before, only now the Mark numbers were stupidly large and we had to keep multiplying and dividing by the latest Mil value.
There was a basic error there that inputs to the economy were made to inflate along with the output prices. You haven't made that error in what you propose, so we wouldn't get the hyperinflation that came from Mils. However, you're introducing an extra entity in the same manner, and that part of the experience is relevant. >Alternatively, the decay rate could be changed from 1-of-every-5 >to (AU formula, max 4)-of-every-5. No need to change it, I think. The money supply just hasn't reached its stable level yet; give it time. -zefram
