Mother Nature is not a counterparty, to consider her one is to torture the meaning of the term - counterparty risk refers to exposure to other economic actors required to perform
Mother Nature presents risks, but they are “acts of God” in the law, for example.
And again, savings is not an absolute sovereignty thing. It’s a spectrum.
It sounds like you’re trying to say the only thing that can be called “savings” is something that is absolutely risk-free. Nothing, of course, is totally risk-free. And the existence of risk has nothing to do with whether something is savings, just whether it is a *good* tool for savings
You hold your gold, but you have risk that someone will shoot you and take it. Your control is contingent on others’ respect for your property rights. You can be secretive about the amount of gold you have, but only until you spend it. Then, you are relying on the other party’s respect for your property rights - that they don’t just rob you.
I concede that gold has different trade-offs that might appeal to a particular risk profile, but I would be a little silly to pretend that, because it isn’t my preferred savings tool, it *isn’t* a savings tool at all.
It's not about whether or not there is risk, it's about whether you have a resource or some future plan to acquire a resource
By this definition, if you don’t have your gold in your hand right this exact second, you don’t have gold, you just have a plan to get gold
It is within my control, not necessarily my possession.
With an investment you give up control of the resource itself.
Investment is sacrifice.
Saving = keeping money safe and handy
Investing = putting money at some risk in order to grow it
You are suggesting “safe” is a simple binary, I am saying it’s a spectrum, and honest people can disagree about what is “safest”
Holding Bitcoin, for example, is not an investment, because it has no chance of growing. Holding it in self-custody means that is handy and safe (no other person can reassign it without the private keys)
I get that you feel holding gold is the safest form of savings, and that’s a totally valid opinion. But pretending it’s the *only* form of savings that can be considered “saving” when billions of people are actively using other things to save is just retrofitting definitions to fit your opinion
It's not about risky vs safe. It's about whether you choose to relinquish control.
Control is not in fact part of the dictionary definition of either word.
The distinction between savings and investment, according to the dictionary, appears to turn on intent - conservation/preservation versus growth/return
If you think gold is the best tool for saving, that’s perfectly reasonable and you’re free to argue that point, but is there really a need to redefine words in the process?
From your own definitions
saving - setting something aside for the future
investing - expending resources/money in hope of a reward
either the resources are set aside (not expended) or they are expended
It really is black and white, it really is what I'm saying (although the exact wording is slightly different)
You are adamant that bitcoin is an investment and not savings, but held in self-custody, it is not expended, and there is no possibility of growth
These definitions, which are not mine, they are the dictionary’s, are not the same as yours
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
The only thing that can be savings is something you save
If you haven't got a thing saved, you haven't got savings
The value / purchasing power is the thing saved
If you still have the purchasing power later, you have “savings”
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
