If you own a field, its value is rapidly appreciating in dollars, holding steady in gold, and declining against bitcoin.
Which of these denominators one uses in their head determines the opportunity cost of owning that field versus owning the denominator asset.
If one denominates with the dollar, it’s a no-brainer to own the field instead (whether you need to use it or not). If one denominates in gold, it might be 50/50 (you’ll own it if you need to use it, but maybe not if you don’t). But if one denominates in Bitcoin then it becomes a huge waste to own the field (unless you absolutely need to use it).
Obviously the extreme deflation of Bitcoin prices we’ve seen so far will slow down with time, but it’s designed to always be deflationary. If most people come to denominate with this deflationary asset, their mindset will become deflationary (don’t own things unless you need them). This would remove most if not all of the monetary premium in those other things (because people are not hoarding those things in lieu of the denominator asset).
A world denominated by the dollar: you’d be crazy not to own scarce things regardless of whether you need to use them
A world denominated by gold: you should own scarce things you need, maybe some you don’t, but you’re good owning mostly gold
A world denominated by bitcoin: nothing is scarcer than Bitcoin, so unless you absolutely need to own something to use it, just own bitcoin instead
Money is ultimately a psycho-technology, a tool humans use to denominate value. A weapon is any tool that can inflict damage, and many things can be a weapon. Money is any commodity that can effectively denominate value, and many things can be money. There are typically trade-offs in the characteristics of a weapon, like range vs durability for example. Money always has trade-offs in these properties too, between ease of transaction, fungibility, scarcity, amount of adoption, etc.
You arguing that gold is the only true money is a bit like arguing that swords are the only true weapon.
Bitcoiners are trying to argue that gunpowder has been discovered and although we are currently wielding muskets, the groundwork is being laid for a future AR-15.
Back to the analogy - the denominator a society uses most widely IS their money, and that society’s commerce reflects the realities of that money. Just as the safety and security of a society are the emergent result of the dominant weaponry.
I know from our previous conversations, this analogy is one you’re actually much better versed than I am in. Do you think it holds any water?
