Thread

That's exactly why the State has zero in surplus.

Scrooge McDuck on Stagnant Money Earn, Buy, Save, Invest, and Spend your Bitcoin! HODL'd Bitcoin is Worthless, Spend and Replace Gives Bitcoin Value! Left (Short Edited Clip) Right (Full Clip) https://v.nostr.build/giB0cUHH6Wa3lMDJ.mp4 https://v.nostr.build/i22R8LtrcDO26TTm.mp4

New wealth can only only be created from economic activity, if everyone only buys Bitcoin and no one starts companies, hires employees, improves equipment, discovers more efficient techniques, or consumes then overtime the economy shrinks, and the money becomes worthless as no currency circulates. I'm not saying saving for emergencies, the future, or retirement are wrong but what I am saying is hoarding wealth just to never deploy it is worthless. Bitcoin's value comes from its use as a currency that circulates due to Peer-to-Peer Trade, if Peer-to-Peer Trade isn't happening with Bitcoin then it has no value.

Wrong all the things you touted do not operate in a vacuum. Money is NEVER consumable good. You don't eat money, you can't wear money, you don't build houses with money. The money being in the possession of someone means someone else consumed either actual resources of the holder or their time. Any businesses " collapsing" due to price deflation (which remember is a thermometer of ALREADY PRODUCED productivity) means that they didn't have a viable business model and those that have horded their money can now deploy this capital and acquire these resources to better use cases. You need to read this book as your mental model for how things in an economy operate is completely flawed friend. https://cdn.nakamotoinstitute.org/docs/the-ethics-of-money-production.pdf Bitcoins value is not derived from currency like utility. Bitcoins value is forever and always derived from the value that others place upon it and as value is a subjective human phenomena, it can only be known by the holder what value it is giving the holder.

What if someone gets a fiat loan to buy bitcoin to hoarde? Does that take away anything from someone else? I'm not trying to get in a debate since I don't have the answer, but it's something I've started thinking about and you're much more well-read on this stuff than me.

On a different note, I think your idea of money not being consumable is problematic for me. The idea I have about consumption is: "The relatively irreversible change in the essence of a thing towards something less desirable for the owner" In the case you were explaining, money passed from one person to another when they traded. Its essence changed from being "mine" to "not mine" in a somewhat irreversible way. In my opinion, that looks like it was consumed. Is there something I'm missing in this case?

🫡🫡🫡 Actually makes other people better off versus if you “hoarded” other resources people need to live such as food, housing, etc. Money frees up resources for others because you’re choosing to delay consumption (not that there’s anything inherently wrong with consumption, we all gotta eat) .

That's my line of thinking, but I should read Mises' Theory of Money and Credit. All credit debases the dollar. This is the problem Dave Ramsey seems to miss. You can budget dollars, but you can't save them. If you don't use credit, other people(especially people in government) will debase your savings.

I mean in the fiat system...

Oooh. Have you ever been to a libertarian bookstore in meatspace?

Sounds like I should start a Libertarian book store meetup. 😉