Mises, Hayek and Rothbard rejected government monetary expansion, which means keeping the money supply constant or decreasing.
Rothbard was against the state and didn't know about crypto, so gold was money for him. With a natural upper limit.
Hayek wanted currency competition and was in favor of deflationary currencies becoming dominant in the market.
No saving = no capital.
No capital = no investment.
No investment = no growth.
No growth = stagnation & poverty.
Consumption alone doesn’t build wealth. It burns it.
Exactly, no coercion.
The saver enables capital formation by delaying consumption.
Without savings, those ventures you speak of wouldn’t have capital to operate.
Calling that a free ride is like calling oxygen a parasite for feeding fire.
If hoarders just sit on their stack, how exactly does the purchasing power of their money increase without others voluntarily producing more goods and services?
Who is forcing anyone to produce for them?
You confuse doing nothing with deferring consumption.
Savings provide the capital that makes production possible - no capital, no entrepreneurship.
The helmet is for those who think you can have investment without prior savings.
There’s never a guaranteed return in a free market. The risk is real: time, uncertainty, technological shifts, and opportunity cost.
Savers take risks - the risk of opportunity costs, future uncertainty, and deferred consumption.
Without savers, there is no capital to deploy. Entrepreneurs rely on deferred consumption to finance production.
Calling voluntary exchange "structural redistribution" is absurd - it's basic market coordination, not socialism.
Socialism is forced redistribution.
This is closely related to the marginal utility and marginal costs of the individual.
Ayn Rand is a woman who loves harmony. I believe in Darwinism and survival of the fittest.
You're based, fren. For me, there's nothing negative about the amount of money going down. Most people don't even understand money.
No, capital and money aren’t the same.
Inflation steals purchasing power via dilution, deflation rewards patience as others voluntarily increase production.
Deflation doesn’t siphon - it reflects higher output chasing stable money.
Inflation misallocates capital, deflation corrects it.
The saver earns purchasing power because they delayed consumption and allowed capital to be allocated by others who took the risk.
Without savers, there is no capital pool to finance production at all.
The increase in purchasing power is the market reward for patience and for not consuming scarce resources prematurely.
That’s called time preference, a term in austrian economics, long before bitcoin.
Deflation doesn't deprive anyone of capital. No one is expropriated, no one is exploited.
Well, maybe tortured at some point.
The opposite of sovereignty is hell.
Because the loss of self-determination tears people apart.
Foreign rule is not just a lack of freedom - it is the dissolution of one's own being.
No. You’re confusing incentive with entitlement.
In a deflationary system, holders earn increased purchasing power because they delay consumption, which is itself a form of economic discipline, not parasitism.
Investors have no guaranteed nominal growth. they must create real value, otherwise they simply don’t earn capital at all.
The fact that unproductive capital fears deflation proves its fragility.
Permanent mild deflation driven by productivity is not a bug - it’s the healthiest form of wealth distribution.
And please stop whitewashing Keynes: he was the pioneer of government monetary control, even if today's MMT supporters are now even surpassing him.
You’re not debating Bitcoin maxis - you’re debating economic reality.
∑(hate) = Σ(hateable objects × hate intensity) ⇒ finite
∑(love) = Σ(objects × forms of love × reinterpretations × reproductions) ⇒ potentially infinite
This is Keynesian thinking. Deflation only disadvantages investors who rely on debt and credit-financed expansion, because falling prices increase their fixed cost burden and real debt burden.