Economic growth does not come from issuing more units of money.
It comes from productivity, innovation, and better coordination of capital.
A fixed supply monetary base does not prevent growth — it forces growth to express itself through falling prices and rising purchasing power, not monetary debasement.
Issuance creates the illusion of growth by diluting the unit.
Bitcoin measures growth honestly.
What
Growth comes from debt issuance. Good luck moving the same money around trying to balance the state.
And yes, it doesn't prevent growth but it severely hampers it causing the empire to collapse under it's own growth. Chokehold and bottlenecks form in cash flows.
Issuance against reserves are a real thing you know 😂 not just illusions of growth. I mean you literally see construction sites.
Debt issuance does not create growth. It reallocates purchasing power forward in time.
Real growth comes from productivity gains, better coordination of capital, labour, and technology. Under sound money, growth shows up as falling prices and rising real purchasing power.
Construction sites are not proof of growth. Malinvestment builds things too, until the cash flows fail and the debt must be rolled, inflated away, or defaulted on.
Issuance expands claims, not resources. Eventually the claims exceed what the real economy can support. That is the bottleneck you’re describing, and it’s caused by debt, not fixed supply.
yes, we call that inflation.
Purchasing power fluctuates based on "productivity gains, better coordination of capital, labour, and technology. " - China for one artificially keeps the RMB low in order to oversupply, yet they could and can tenfold their purchasing power. These are all systems.
Debt issuance does and has created growth, please stop being retarded. Maybe you don't understand what I am saying, or what a debt issuance (bond usually, but maybe a reserve asset, placement or other type) that earns a YIELD based of the "productivity gains, better coordination of capital, labour, and technology." of the locale.
What you have stated is factual to some degree, but fixed supply economics has always failed, historically since Babylon.
You’re conflating credit with growth.
Debt can fund growth, but it does not create it. Productivity creates growth; debt merely pulls future output forward and prices it today. When the productivity fails to materialise, the debt still remains.
China is a perfect example of this distinction, not a rebuttal. Suppressed currency + credit expansion produced output and massive malinvestment, demographic collapse, ghost cities, and an unserviceable debt overhang. That is not proof of sustainability.
Fixed-supply money did not “fail since Babylon.” Credit systems failed when claims exceeded real output. Sound money exposes those failures instead of masking them with issuance.
Inflation is not growth. It is a signal that monetary claims have grown faster than real goods and services.
Yes poor fiscal policies are what affect economic outcomes, not the systems or models themselves.
We know GDP creates growth through innovation and actually doing the work, but you need debt to facilitate that without having to balance the books on reserves.
It's not hard to understand, and why El Salvador still requires IMF inputs because they can't operate an entire nation on a fixed supply.
Fixed money supply had failed, have you not read up on history?
Why do you think Egyptians fell or the Assyrians? Or the Romans, Greeks, Persians, British, Portuguese, Spanish, Belgium etc. etc.
Zimbabwe failed through hyper inflation due to sanctions not monetary policy, unable to get global backing and having to restructure their entire system to gold.
Inflation is not growth is a false statement, it is. That's why it's called inflation. The pot increases. Wages and salaries should increase in line with that rate, this creating overall better quality goods and services and quality of life.
This is all first year stuff man
any way, let's not get side tracked with economics,
Bitcoin, in order to function and any viable transactional monetary level on par with competitors, needs to use lighting network, a third party chain.
apart from it's fixed supply, Bitcoin is slow to process and finalise transactions, requiring a third party solution.
So it's an underlying asset, not a 'sound money system'.
If you want that, use Monero - and guess what, it has an inflationary tail emission, allowing for new market entrants, even when coins are lost. The economics of that lean towards "sound money" more than BTC does in it's current knots/core whatever state
Bitcoin is slow by design because it prioritises final settlement and verification, not retail throughput. That does not make it “just an underlying asset.” It makes it base-layer money.
Lightning is not a third-party chain in the custodial sense, it’s an optional second layer that inherits Bitcoin’s security and can be used non-custodially. Optional layers don’t negate sound money; they’re how sound money scales.
Sound money is defined by scarcity, verifiability, and resistance to discretionary issuance, not transaction speed.
Tail emission is a policy choice, not a requirement. Permanent inflation does not make money sound; it makes dilution perpetual.
Anyway, I’ll end this debate here. It’s clear we have different views, which is perfectly fine. These kinds of discussions are necessary for progress, even when there’s no agreement.
Saying "base layer" is the same as "underlying"
Lighting is indeed a third-party chain created independent of Bitcoin but allows throughput. Like how visa and MasterCard and Alipay are used to move USD.
Your just explaining exists finance where promissory notes are issued in replace of cumbersome, slow by design reserves like food, gold, oil etc.
Tail emission allows for economic growth..
Different views? You've said most of what is known in economics in the right sense for the most part. Idk if you studied economics at university or what, but I only know what I know because I had to write exams and qualify so it's just years of it at this point
