The crazy thing is the equating of saving as *taking something from someone else* - when it’s the perfect opposite. Saving literally means to NOT consume resources, and leave what you produce in the economy for OTHER people.

You can always know which is the more honest route by how difficult it is. Saving is hard AF, spending is goddamn easy. It’s easy as shit to get what you want right this instant. It’s hard to turn away from those things, to buy the frugal option, to avoid the frivolous expenditures so you can have something for down the road.

And not consuming is literally the only means by which we can grow capital. Its axiomatic.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Oh no?

Then why does the value sink when someone cashed out?

Who’s paying for that difference?

When someone sells a good, it’s price will fall according to its bid.

Is this an honest question because this could not be a more universal and utterly basic economic principle.

Not quite sure whether the demand and supply argument is valid when a scarce resource.

In regards of basic economics, consumerism is not a valid universal model with spending to be the primary measurement of productivity.

Now, again, we are not discussing the opportunities to make good money by trading bitcoins or any other market dependent currency, to be ahead of the curve, head to the gourd and all that jazz, however, that could be said about any currency or commodity, wouldn’t you agree?

In grand scheme of things, same could be said about other market speculative investments, however, unless a currency is creating the value, I’m afraid the general dynamic of needing to consume, or needing more people to invest in bitcoin for its value to rise. Is not sufficient to serve the interests of people.