okay I'm at my desk;

No I'm not wrong because this is global standards.

Debt facilitates economic growth. If you want to do anything substantial that increases GDP, you require financing. That is the explicit purpose of banks and bankers. To issue financing and debt. Central banks don't do this by the way, only BANKS.

Debt creates enough leeway for real estate, construction, developments, research etc. etc. to be undertaken without explicit risk in moving physical commodities.

example: Joe Soap wants to create a block of new apartments. This development will cost him 500 million. He goes to the bank, pitches the idea and gets approved financing of 600 million. This 600 million is "funny money" or debt, that has a interest yield on it which he is liable to pay back or will have a underlying collateral to pay. The bankers then take that percentage as profit, whilst PAYING BACK the reserve bank for the issuance. The reserve bank will set baseline rates to either allow for liquidity or remove it. That's all they do.

The 2008 financial crisis was simply an over issuance of shitty debt to buy and build houses. China faced the exact same thing in 2022 with Ever-grande.

The current issuance on car debt for second hand cars is a huge signal again, so look into that. Unsecured loans for second hand cars.

Many many many empires and countries have collapsed upon themselves because they did not issue enough debt to facilitate their endeavors, from the Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Romans etc. etc. because in order for them to DO any new GDP-growing developments they first had to acquire the GOLD to do so. If you want to look more modern, look at any European empire, including England and how as mercantilism died, so did their grip on territories, wealth, bullion and influence. Belgium, Portugal, Spain, France any colonial power is a case study.

Example: if the Romans had 200 tons of Gold bullion, which is used currently to run the endeavors of the state, then where to they get the capacity to build (and pay) for new buildings or new sieges? Do they take from their 200 ton bullion to pay the workers or the soldiers? That was the case for a long time.

BUT in order to increase GDP, the reserves need to increase. This is mercantilism; Adam Smith/Classical Economics. In order for say, the Netherlands to prosper, it had to take over the Dutch East Indies and Indonesia etc, extract that wealth back to the Netherlands and then have those reserves to develop and grow.

Hence why Keynesian economics ended up winning and why Classical/Austrian economics is relegated to the hollow halls of social media and podcasts.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Truth, but there are systemic risks, and more importantly, fragility, usually not discussed.

Issuing new debt in a fractional reserve paradigm requires continuous underlying growth in production and consumption to pay the return creditors require.

It also requires continuous underlying growth in government coercive capacity and willingness to enforce the rules of the game.

This ends in tears every time. But is very good while it lasts, for those close to power.

> Issuing new debt in a fractional reserve paradigm requires continuous underlying growth in production and consumption to pay the return creditors require.

No, debtors just needs to produce a few percent more than they consume which is really easy.

well, you keep playing the game really

It's a good game. It works.

If you think this game is working... You are crazy. I'm what sense is this game working for anyone but the people with hard assets that live in the US?

It's working for anyone productive in a civilized society. I'm productive and live in a civilized society. Works for me.

Most of the global population would disagree with you. The numbers would also disagree with you.

I neither care about the numbers and especially not about the global population. I care about myself and the few likes of me. If 90% of the global population doesn't "make it" that's not a bug that's a feature.

Survival is tough. The 21st century will be nothing like the 20th.

Why would you rather have more people needlessly struggle if there is an alternative?

You realize you are just admitting you're a bad person right?

Fractional reserve in the US is 0% and banks create money for loans out of thin air

https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reservereq.htm

This is also the case in Australia (though this was implemented much earlier).

https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2018/sep/money-in-the-australian-economy.html

There are still many regulations including capital adequacy requirements though.

Dude, this is just banker / fiat spiel. Lets break it down and keep it simple.

How does creating money from nothing (diluting the money supply) create economic growth vs having a fixed money supply not based on debt (ie asset based money like Bitcoin instead of debt based)?

Please elaborate what the difference is.

I just explained it though?

No. You buy bitcoin, hodl it forever and golden palaces appear and everyone is happy.

Do you even listen to podcasts?!

No one has suggested that. I've never suggested just hodling. You have to spend money if you want to make money.

I didn’t say you did… I’m just generally talking the piss.

The main difference is liquidity to do the developments. By funding the debt, bankers can repackage that to instituations or pay out an interest rate to saving account holders.

Other than that, the 600 million goes into materials, labour, localised workforce, job creation etc. etc. and when the housing is completed the apartments offer cheaper rents, more accommodation etc. etc.

Society improves off that debt issuance.

It's why Strike is offering loans against bitcoin, something like 100k for 2.5BTC. This is a debt facility that allows you to do things (hopefully that make you a return) and pay off the debt.

You can still have debt in a fixed money system....

well then, what's the difference really?

Promissory note on bitcion == promissory note on gold.

Either way you're holding paper, whilst someone else holds the actually underlying

The difference is when someone makes a bad investment, they cannot get bailed out.

And how does this produce more than with a hard money standard?

Economic growth is the increase in the production of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. It is usually measured by the rise in a country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or Gross National Product (GNP).

https://youtu.be/seqoOnr2ebU

yes, but it requires financing to do so.

Like I said earlier, if you have 200 tons of Gold, you can only do 200 tons worth of value. If the state is using 197 tons of gold to run itself, then you only have 3 tons available to develop or grow.

In order for you to say do 50tons of new work, say build a new Colosseum, you'd need to pay for labour and for materials, before even any economic growth.

Does this make sense?

I don't get your math. How does it produce more goods and services than not using debt and just hard money?

If Bitcoins issuance was doubled, would that produce more economic growth or what would happen?

Read The Wealth Of Nations by Adam Smith. This should help.

Economics is the study of systems. You need to have a holistic point of view and consider all levers of the system to see how it works. It's not complicated, but requires you to have a holistic understanding of finance, stats and economics - and maybe supply chain management, but not so much.

I see the problem. You went to Wealth of Nations before reading basic economics. Your understanding is as flawed as the keynesians. Maybe try basic economics by Sowell first.

Lol I have a degree in business administration bro did 4 years

Appealing to a college degree is not the flex you think it is... Kamala Harris is more "educated" than me too.

it is when I apply for a job, that's for sure.

IDK why you people think education is a farse? People literally get hired from prestigious schools, if American institutions has gone to shit, doesn't mean other global institutions have.

100% guarantee wall and main street are not hiring Hustler University graduates, or Kamala Harris.

I have a better paying job than most college graduates... There are more companies accepting applications without college degrees every day... Your piece of paper to get you a job is on the decline.

if you think so;

Again, you legally can't hire some bum off the street who doesn't have qualifications to do a job where you need qualifications i.e. handling other people's money.

Remember, I don't have an art degree and I'm one off an MBA, so straight C-Suite hire.

Its not my thought, it's fact. And no, not every job requires a degree. SpaceX doesn't and they build rockets... You look at people without a degree as a bum off the street. That's your problem. I do engineering for a living yet I don't have a degree or even a PE stamp. You know what I have? Years of experience and a portfolio to prove I know how to do math. And I do it better than many PEs out there.

bro how can you do engineering at any competent level and have no qualifications? that's just wild.

I'm sorry I spent zero dollars and you spent thousands. You are so bewildered that people can actually learn stuff on their own without having to pay someone to teach them. The fact that you find that hard to believe is the astounding thing.

You just don't want to admit to yourself you wasted your money on an appeal to authority. No wonder you don't know real economics. You were taught by the keynesian system.

you guys live in some place devoid of reality. name one place that uses Classical economics in 2025?

I'm quite fine with my knowledge base, it's helped my this past decade.

New age economics is wild, ngl - and laughable.

I've read it man, but your claim was that using debt produced more economic growth than use hard money.

So far you didn't answer this.

yes, because there is more money created of hard assets than there are hard assets to create growth. It's really not hard to understand, and I have answered this several time already, you're just not seeing it.

This is literally why strike is offering loans in fiat currency against hard asset BTC. Any hard cap coin or commodity will always reach a point where there is not enough reserve to start new projects.

What happened every time someone got fiat loans for their Bitcoin? (Latest Thor chain)

If this is true,.why isn't countries who print money super growing?? Argentina, Egypty Turkey etc?? Your argument doesn't hold up to real life.

because no one wants to hold their currencies in reserve. In fact, it's an illustration of what I am talking about earlier, where certain FX has a premium, not solely based on hard assets, but intangible assets as well. Economic stability, economic outlook, electricity supply, etc. lots to factor in.

Hyperinflation and run-away debt obligations happen all the time. The USA would be in that same basket, however they are not because they print themselves out of a crisis every time. These other countries cannot do that, hence they get relegated. Japan is another one.

I love you Slayer,.but you are a fiat maxi! 😂

Fiat makes the world go around, until it doesn't, I'm going to play the game.

After all, aren't all of you fiat maxi's cause your all concerned about a PRICE in US dollars?

No... I'm not concerned with the USD price of Bitcoin. I'm concerned with the amount of Bitcoin I have relative to other peoples stack of Bitcoin. I'm doing just fine. You're still playing a game. I opted out years ago.

"I'm concerned with the amount of Bitcoin I have relative to other peoples stack of Bitcoin."

ah yes, mercantilism. IDK how you can't see that as you type it out?

I was a fiat maxi until I switched to a Bitcoin Standard. Bitcoin is asymmetric risk protection, why would I hold something that can be created from nothing?

Dollar is a common measurement, but being quicky usurped by pricing in bitcoin and sats.

why don't you own Sex token? If supply dynamics and price is what you're after, there are better coins than Bitcoin.

Let alone any fork of Bitcoin. The hard currency you claim is also controlled by a small subset of developers; who determine your money, much like new world bankers.

So the question is why Bitcoin? Like i know why I'd take gold; but bitcoin already has so many forks - even this new knots thing is a new thing on "hard currency"

I'm done talking about it. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't? Bitcoin is on version 26 but Gold is still version 1 from like 12500 years ago

let's be real about "hard money".

The problem is you're all in on one asset class. That's your own indaba, but at the end of the day if you can hit a 26.7% CAGR, you'll 100x you investment in 10 years.

I am all in. And it's working better than anything else and I'm outperforming everyone I know...

There aren't. What are you talking about?

2017 there was a fork of Bitcoin, now again too looks like it's going to happen. At some stage, there will be a blackrock fork and they will most likely increase supply

So? What's your point. I told you I'm done talking about it.

We're not talking hypotheticals, we're talking about current reality. Harder money has always superceded less harder money (gold replaced silver etc) Game theory and Nash equilibrium confirms it - even suggests the best action for an individual to take is to adopt it! Playing the fiat game is the losing strategy, even if the majority still use it. Look up asymmetrical gains!

in other words, hard assets, are often cumbersome and slow to move. In fact they are that way because they are hard yielding (aka hard to mine and refine). There is only so much of it as well, thus if you cannot fund with hard assets, you fund with debt. That debt is an IOU issuance with collateral.

Bitcoin isn't hard to move.

to some degree it is, not as hard as gold bullion, and not as easy as cash.

Remember, if you have it in cold storage, you'll have to load it up, move it, check mempool for fees, then move it on chain - these things aren't so easy and are actually quite cumbersome if you think about it.

It would be quicker than me giving cash to you. I would have to go to you physically first of all....

Who says you cannot fund with hard assets?

People with no assets??? So they need to make money from nothing to steal from those who do? Is this the magic formula to economic growth?

History says that you will stagnate. It doesn't mean you can't, but it doesn't mean you will out pace other nations.

I don't give a s*** about outpacing other nations in the short term. That's exactly what it is short-term thinking I want a nation that exists forever. All nations ever have collapsed because of loose monetary policy. If you knew History so much you think you would know that....

Well you can't have it both ways. Either you have a classical economy that only grows when it extracts the wealth of another nation, or you go with localised models that issue debt, without risking reserves.

As mentioned, if you want to pay in hard currency or commodities, that's fine, but you only have a fixed supply of said commodities and when that runs dry, you'll have to seize it from others to facilitate your growth.

Want that new warship? Well if you're not issuing debt, then you're paying with gold, or Bitcoin.

Then you have a depreciating boat, no hard assets reserve and you collapse.

See British, Spanish, Portuguese

Now you are finally understanding, yes, hard money doesn't work for central planning (communism)and government theft - this is why separating money and state is so important - in the US before 1913, the government was no bigger than the post office involved in people's lives.

In a hard money system (which we are returning to) Economic growth can only be actioned by those with hard money or by people doing proof of work. People who actually do the work get rich - that's why the saying pull yourself up by the bootstraps came from and how even people with regular blue collar jobs became quite wealthy still before the 1971 switch from gold.

There is no creating money from nothing to buy hard assets (fraud under contract law)...

Can you prove this?

My reading of history is that golden ages were under a hard money standard - the most prominent was Venice with their Gold coinage which produced the renaissance. It collapsed when the hard money standard fell.

The next way Belle Epoque (beautiful age) which was also a hard money age which like the renaissance saw the peak of human art and music (Beethoven etc).

Look at all the buildings and architecture from these times - this was built on a hard money standard (bitcoiner term low time preference) Vs now... Architecture now resembles more communism than beauty.

Mansa Musa debased Venice when he travelled through to Mecca.

The entire downfall of European mercantilism is a case study. Take your pick from Portugal through to Belgium, France, Germany etc. all had mercantile economies.

The downfall comes in when you don't have liquidity to fund your endeavors. Debt creates liquidity.

The downfall of empires is caused by war - abandon hard money for fiat to create war. Each and every time. And if fiat money was so good, why did they always switch back to a hard money standard?

Also did you read Adam Smith? He didn't advocate for fiat money, only metal coinage and asset backed loans..

You are talking pure Keynesian.

indeed, war to acquire more hard assets. But then unable to sustain the war because the current reserve cannot pay i.e. you paid out all your gold to your soldiers already.

Yes, I have read Adam Smith and other economic works. Not once did I say he did, he is classical economics, aka mercantilism. I already said this though. I'm "talking" Keynesian because it is what works for every government run economy in the world.

But like I said, you can most certainly return to Mercantilism, Trump wanting Canada and Greenland is that basic economic principal. Will they win a war though, or would that end the empire?