Again I fail to see how that makes BTC superior. Wouldn’t an asset that loses its value over time (USD) encourage spending — which is necessary for a capitalist economy to function?
No and there are plenty of books/articles written about this if you're looking for a more formal answer. An inflationary economy is not necessary for capitalism to function. There are hundreds of years of history where our country and others were tied to something like the gold standard. The economy and society did not collapse due to a lack of inflation. If you're looking for a book, I'd recommend The Bitcoin Standard by Ammous. Here's a brand new one that approaches the issue through the lens of technology: edit: The Price of Tomorrow by Jason Booth (since Amazon links don't seem to work). And a chart just because:
Sure, but people spending money is necessary and a depreciating asset like the USD encourages spending. I assume you're not spending your BTC to buy pizza and ice cream. If the modern capitalism doesn't grow, then it collapses. The CPI graph is amusing as if showing the increased CPI of today compared to 1804 is in anyways useful other than showing it requires more goods and service to participate in our current economy.
The entire technology market is deflationary. Wait until next year to buy a TV or a computer and your money a year from now will buy you more TV or computer than your money today. Explain to me why that deflationary industry, which I assume you think does not encourage spending, has not collapsed. The Jason Booth book is about this exact point. If you want to listen to him on a podcast instead, try this: I think you're ultimately questioning the idea of saving versus spending. Do I think it would be better for society if people could work for their money and then save that money such that it did not lose its spending power due to inflation every year? Yes I do. Would that society ultimately cause people to think a bit harder about what they were willing to buy, invest in, fund for a business start-up, etc.? Yes I think so, and I don't view that as a bad thing. Would the price of capital in that society be more expensive (versus something like zero or negative interests rates, which are insane)? Yes I think so. In today's world, we ask people to not only be good at whatever job they have in order to make money, but we expect them to be investment experts also, such that they can make enough money in their investments year-over-year simply to keep pace with inflation. I think that is far from an ideal structure.
Ha there is an awful lot of overlap in thought between bitcoin people I follow and themes in the Trump and now Covid threads. You should honestly read the Ammous book. It addresses in great detail many of the things that you seem to be thinking about.
Ahh yes our country would be in much better shape if the fed wasn't able to print more currency to bail people/companies out. Fuck em, let them starve and go bankrupt.
You're so close. Try this one: we wouldn't be in this position in the first place if the fed didn't do what it does.
Ahh yes, millions have no income coming in bc of the fed. Fuck those poors. Let them starve. All these small businesses were forced to close bc of the fed. Let them go bankrupt. Fuck em. You're entire outlook on currency is idiotic. Have a good night.
Also I'm super confused on your position/straw man here. Are you supporting the bailing out of companies/shareholders? Or the fed printing money and giving it directly to individuals? On the former, yes fuck those companies and let them go bankrupt. I'd love to hear the capitalist argument to the alternative. On the latter, I am not morally opposed to the government giving money to people that it has ordered to stay home and stop working. But I do find your defense of what is currently happening to be humorous given the vast amount of money that is being handed out to corporations in comparison to the pittance being given to the normal American.
Are you going to bed?!? Also please present any rational/logical position for the fed creating money out of thin air to hand out in discretionary fashion to certain businesses, individuals, etc., but not others (with many of them receiving it as a grant that does not even have to be paid back: see the airline bailouts). Does COVID qualify? I assume you say yes. To what extent should each business receive money? Why? And what is the logically consistent way in which you decide that? Some businesses don't need any money at all, so how much do they get? Some were poorly run and need to fail, why are they being bailed out? What other naturally occurring events qualify? Why? Why is your position that the US government should be giving grants to public companies to bail out shareholders who took risks investing in companies? There is no logical consistency to your position. And if the fed can just print money as it so pleases to make businesses, individuals, and anyone else whole, then why do they need any money in the first place? Why do you pay taxes?
I must've missed the capitalism 101 lesson where businesses are not allowed to fail and it's the government's job to debase the currency to bail them out because "NUMBER GO UP" is the only principle that matters. In what world is this normal: "Over just the last ten years, the US dollar has lost 16% of its purchasing power." Source:
I can be for printing money to help people while also not being a fan of how the Senate decided to distribute those funds. More should have gone to the people and small business, much less to corporate. That's not a hard concept to grasp. Your obsession with bitcoin is weird.
I thought you were going to bed... "printing money to help people." Ummmmm I guess that's a monetary policy stance. Plenty of people need help though, so go ahead and draw your line in the sand on who gets access to the fed's magical money printer and for what reasons. I'll wait. Also I'll let you in on a little secret, but the fed printing money never benefits the "people." It does the opposite, and makes the difference between the haves and the have nots that much bigger. If you'd like to read about that, then Google the Cantillon Effect. And if it's weird to be curious about something that is a once in a lifetime technological monetary discovery that has created a $120+ billion market cap in just 11 years, separates state and money, and potentially has massive global implications, then so be it. I'd offer that it's weird not to be obsessed with, or at a minimum thoroughly educated on, something like that.
You forgot to say that it cures cancer. Your personal investment makes you comically biased. You're worse than a homer sports fan.
You can't help yourself with the straw man arguments. Kinda pathetic. Let's put aside my own money, which you are oddly obsessed with. Have a go at attacking these people: Is Jack Dorsey weirdly obsessed with btc? His company makes a lot of money off of it, and he's alluded to autobuying $10k per week (https://cointelegraph.com/news/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-alludes-to-spending-10-000-a-week-on-bitcoin). Are the Winklevoss twins weirdly obsessed with btc? They own quite a bit (OMG BIAS!!!), and own/invest in many companies in the space. Are the global macro hedge fund guys like Raoul Pal, Dan Tapiero, Mike Novogratz, weirdly obsessed and comically biased when they know a shitload more about btc than I do and have large positions in their funds/personal holdings? Is billionaire Marc Andreessen and his investment fund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreessen_Horowitz) weirdly obsessed for raising a $450M crypto investment round literally this week: https://cointelegraph.com/news/andreessen-horowitz-looks-to-double-down-on-crypto-with-new-450m-fund Is this New York energy company stupid for using its excess power to mine bitcoin? https://www.coindesk.com/a-new-york-power-plant-is-mining-50k-worth-of-bitcoin-a-day Are you aware that this is happening across North America right now with energy companies? Is billionaire Chamath Palihapitiya weirdly obsessed? He owns a ton of btc also.
A proposal of helicopter money of $2k per month to every American is relevant to crypto for reasons that should be painfully obvious to people who aren't stupid or purposefully obtuse.
What is it that you enjoy about being thread police for this? Monetary policy is directly related to bitcoin, and there's zero point engaging you in any discussion if you can't acknowledge that. And when are you going to put some shoe money behind your mouth and short BTC and Tesla? Or is the end game here to tell me what specific posts have to go in what thread?
My shoes have appreciated more than BTC and Tesla this year. But by all means, continue to shit post in this thread instead of the one that was made for your weird economic theories.
Lol at "weird economic theories." Yes I'm totally just over here making up economics on my own and not reading widely known authors and books who have published things on these topics for decades. No one gives a shit how much your shoes have appreciated. I asked if you were going to short BTC and Tesla instead of popping into each thread to vomit on the keyboard while living vicariously through Gallant Knight's investments. We get it. You think both will go to zero. Stop being scared and place your bets. Or try to use your words to explain why you think BTC is worthless. Because here's a thought for you: in a $100+ billion market, there are people far smarter than you who have already addressed whatever it is that you'll come up with.
Where have I said both will go to zero? Or where I said BTC is worthless. Please quote that or shut the fuck up. Thanks.
You don't have to. It spills out of the worthless drivel you add to both threads. Short it. Put your money where your opinion is. People who believe in BTC are quacks with weird economic theories that you definitely know more about in your infinite monetary wisdom of the fed should print money to help people (deep stuff really). Meanwhile in more quacky news of people throwing around $500M and facebook pushing deeper into the digital currency game... -Grayscale Says It Raised a Record $500M in First Quarter: In a record first quarter, Grayscale reports many institutional investors took advantage of market turbulence to increase their exposure to cryptocurrencies. The crypto-focused investment firm raised a total of $503.7 million in Q1 2020, nearly double the previous quarterly high of $254.8 million reached in Q3 2019. While bitcoin-weighted trusts continue to be the company's most popular product, the report noted that ether trusts also received record inflows in the same quarter as investors added multiple Grayscale products to their portfolios. Link: https://www.coindesk.com/grayscale-says-it-raised-a-record-500m-in-first-quarter -https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/16/fac...pto-offering-backed-by-just-one-currency.html
Jack Dorsey buying $10k a week of BTC is like me spending like a fraction of a penny a week on BTC. I wouldn’t call that a strong endorsement.
You know he owns the Cash app right? https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-drove-half-of-squares-cash-app-revenue-in-the-4th-quarter And that he recently did this: https://cointelegraph.com/news/jack-dorseys-square-publicly-launches-grants-for-bitcoin-development
I've never said BTC will be worthless. I'm just not 100% sure it'll be the end all be all of crypto. I've said this multiple times. Maybe it's the one. Maybe the US govt makes one that everyone adopts. I don't feel confident enough either way to bet on it. I just laugh at people like you that can't grasp BTC not becoming the global currency. I do think crypto is the future. That doesn't mean BTC will be the one universally adopted. Sorry you can't grasp that.
Ok great you've stated your position on this. It is in no way novel, creative, researched, supported by any facts, or anything beyond a gut feeling that you have. Move along. Or if you're actually curious, it's been addressed by probably 100+ different articles and books on the topic. The notion of a US govt crypto is laughable. Awesome that there will be US schrute bucks that are identical to the current system, that people can send digitally (hello this already exists), and that the US can still print whenever it wants. It's like you miss the entire point of all of this. Here do yourself a favor and read something: https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-cant-be-copied/ Then ask yourself why in the past 11 years there have been thousands of cyptocurrencies, but none have ever done anything. When you have a coherent answer beyond your gut feeling, you should add it to the thread.
And you sound like a clueless moron with nothing of substance to add to any conversation. Move along back to the shoe thread. The intelligence needed to discuss that topic is more up your alley.
Thousands of crypto currencies have never done anything? How so? They’ve scammed many people, that’s certainly something.
That and this quote tell you all you need to know about the author. Even before the global shutdown (i.e. government-accelerated panic)... Yea the global shutdown due to CV19 was simply a government accelerated panic and not the result of a virus sweeping the world killing 10s of thousand of people in couple months.
Pretty good read on the impact of miners on price: https://www.blockwaresolutions.com/research-and-publications/2020-halving-analysis