Galley on Nostr: #[0] I was listening to you on #[1]'s show with #[2] and I was struck by your point ...
thetrocro (npub1n3s…te5l) I was listening to you on Sam (npub1fpe…vrkt)'s show with Jeff Booth (npub1s05…eyhe) and I was struck by your point about concentration of wealth. Do you think there's a worthwhile idea to explore around the idea that the difference between BTC's wealth concentration and fiat's is that the former's is one-time and the latter's perpetual? Let me try an example.
Imagine someone--someone handsome, with a good heart--buys socks for Bitcoin. He will never be able to replace the equivalent BTC in the future and thus the spend is decentralizing in nature. He will have less money and more socks, and when he goes to buy socks again, he'll find that the price he paid last time is outrageous, but that the new price is very low indeed. He will be happy to exchange some BTC for socks even though he knows BTC will buy him more socks in the future because he needs them now. In this world anything you can save for a future person will be of immense value. A person will never have more Bitcoin than he has now, but ultimately it won't matter because every time he wants or needs something he will find the price to have fallen and the money is ample.
In the fiat world, you buy the socks and next time you go to buy them they're more money. So people with money acquire hard things that rise with inflation, while people without money are forced to work harder and harder thanks to society's difficulty adjustment (inflation). In this world anything you save will be of no value (imagine my grandfather burying his life savings so I could have them today) and so the people who can hoard the hard assets have a perpetual motion machine of continual deception and exploitation.
Do you think this could be a productive area to explore? I really think the difference is once you spend it it's gone, whereas in a debt world the ability to borrow against your hard asset is a true perpetual motion machine that means you never really spend anything that mattered, hence wealth concentration.
What do you think?
Imagine someone--someone handsome, with a good heart--buys socks for Bitcoin. He will never be able to replace the equivalent BTC in the future and thus the spend is decentralizing in nature. He will have less money and more socks, and when he goes to buy socks again, he'll find that the price he paid last time is outrageous, but that the new price is very low indeed. He will be happy to exchange some BTC for socks even though he knows BTC will buy him more socks in the future because he needs them now. In this world anything you can save for a future person will be of immense value. A person will never have more Bitcoin than he has now, but ultimately it won't matter because every time he wants or needs something he will find the price to have fallen and the money is ample.
In the fiat world, you buy the socks and next time you go to buy them they're more money. So people with money acquire hard things that rise with inflation, while people without money are forced to work harder and harder thanks to society's difficulty adjustment (inflation). In this world anything you save will be of no value (imagine my grandfather burying his life savings so I could have them today) and so the people who can hoard the hard assets have a perpetual motion machine of continual deception and exploitation.
Do you think this could be a productive area to explore? I really think the difference is once you spend it it's gone, whereas in a debt world the ability to borrow against your hard asset is a true perpetual motion machine that means you never really spend anything that mattered, hence wealth concentration.
What do you think?