Hey, do you mind if I use this in my deck? Fellow #austrich doing some education work with Noobs. I use a different slide to illustrate this exact point however yours would help drive the point home.
Not if I needed to ask this question.
If you need to ask this question you need to study money, Bitcoin and Austrian economics. Once you are more knowledgeable there is no question to be asked.
Nice revelation and you are 100% spot on. The idiocy about an emerging monetary technology needing to fulfil all 3 functions of money upon inception is ludicrous and completely ignores the ‘emerging’ part.
One function will always preceded the other 2 and it makes complete sense that the new emerging monetary technology will fulfil the function that the incumbent money is failing to fulfil.
In this moment in history the incumbent money fulfils its role as a MoE and UoA adequately but fails as a SoV. So Bitcoin naturally emerges only because it fills the void created by the corruption of the incumbent.
However, as we are seeing with the BRICS nations, once entities (individuals /nation states etc) through necessity to maintain purchasing power, need to adopt the emerging monetary tech it doesn’t take long until the next natural evolution towards that monetary tech becoming a MoE and eventually a UoA occur.
Title of the article says it clearly:
"Michael Saylor doesn't [want to] understand #Bitcoin"
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/takes/michael-saylor-doesnt-understand-bitcoin
He’s been tapped on the shoulder. Saylor knows exactly what Bitcoin is… he’s just toeing the line ‘or else’.
Well it’s clearly failed and you should definitely sell ALL your BTC.
I think the weirdest, coolest looking shroom I’ve ever seen.
nostr:npub1neyp0qu50uz398w30fefhl92f9sjf5cyy9mn2l9dm7sj7dadk00s8ltsud
Here it is said better than I managed 👇 nostr:note18r6mzzp5n9t55g842zcwyyuxuhe3w4032ffvxugspzl4ex23lp4qn6fqh4
Hey, thanks for the zap. No doubt wages are sticky in an inflationary world… can they be sticky in a deflationary world with a fixed supply token… maybe, maybe not.
However, every person on this planet has the opportunity to create more value than they consume. They reality is with all of our technology gains over the past thousand years we can catch more fish than we immediately need to consume to survive today and we have the ability to ‘save’ the extra fish.
Aside from parts of the planet where the populations are not yet enjoying those technological gains purely because our global economic system keeps them poor on purpose. Everyone has the choice to save. We currently suffer a distribution issue. I’m confident Bitcoin and other communication technologies fix this. I honestly believe we are moving towards a future where the hardest and smartest workers are the most rewarded. Thus everyone willing to put in effort has the opportunity to save.
There will always be lazy and nilhistic people that will do the bare minimum or maybe not even that. Ayn Rand would call these people the non thinkers or the non living. They are anti life… their own and sometimes those around them.
I don’t see a utopian future, I see a Darwinian one where ‘fittest’ is not determined physically but cognitively… and the competition is based around providing the greatest value.
I’m not concerned with nation states or blackrocks accumulating, none of these organisations know how to ‘make’ money only how to acquire it. When you can no longer acquire it without adding value all of their acquired Bitcoin will eventually be paid to those who keep them alive (the producers).
I believe Saylor knows this. His narrative has recently changed… either he is pumping his own bags in the short term or more likely he’s realised the potential political risk to himself from his original narrative. As Julian Assange discovered the hard way… directly and publicly fighting the establishment comes with significant personal risk… Julian went in a young fighting man and came out an old broken man. The establishment has time on its side (for now). On this metric alone it can beat any critic. The smart person, on the surface, looks to be upholding the current system whilst quietly undermining its foundations. Is this not exactly what Saylor is doing?
A long way of saying, when everyone realised what the ‘best’ money is, if you are a producer, why would you accept anything else as payment? Fiat goes the way of Silver or Copper against gold because they don’t do the job as well as gold.
I think we are forgetting that debt/credit is a 2 way street. As a lender, lending must be both profitable and preferably low risk. The more sound the thing I am lending, the less inclined I will be to risk it on a high risk endeavour. Houses that decline in value over time will be high risk vs the Bitcoin being risked against them.
Lending and credit in a fiat system is much more practical because the ‘money’ you are lending out/borrowing is trash and houses appreciate compared to trash but not compared to sound money (BTC).
It is a challenging paradigm shift.
Let’s workshop this idea.
Assume we are on a Bitcoin standard. Everyone has realised Bitcoin is the best money in the world and thus will accept nothing else in exchange for their other scarcest asset, time. That time is converted into products or services.
Also assume technology does what technology does under a hard money standard, reduces the cost of everything to the marginal cost of production and increases production output whilst reducing input.
So you want to get a loan (mortgage) to buy a house. That loan is only available in Bitcoin or in something pegged to Bitcoin thus the ‘money’ is ever increasing in purchasing power. Because it realises the technology gains (these are currently being stolen by inflation but will not be on a Bitcoin standard).
Meanwhile the value of the house is going down against Bitcoin (reduces to the marginal cost of production). But is also the collateral that the loan is secured against (hence the term ‘mortgage’)
Who will give you that loan?
Money go up in purchasing power whilst collateral go down against money. As the lender you’d end up with an unsecured or a lowly secured loan. Any lender doing this would very quickly find themselves out of business and any borrower would find themselves in a worse predicament than they are in the current system.
He looks like a genius… definitely something to aspire to… NOT!
The purchasing power of your money, on a Bitcoin standard, should forever go up as the price of everything you want to purchase comes down. So as your stash of Satoshis increase as you save across time, the number of Satoshis needed to buy a house will decrease over time. If we were to plot on a graph, the increasing line indicting your savings will cross the decreasing line showing the price of a house. So as long as you save to buy your house outright vs attempting to buy your house with debt, a home will forever continue to become closer to within reach across time.
No, that is not what my reasoning is suggesting. In fact, quite the opposite. Following my reasoning, houses will deflate in value faster than your wages will go down. Wages are sticky. House would be subject to the naturally deflationary pressures of efficiency gains due to ever improving technology.
What will you live in? Who else will be ‘shortsighted’ enough to buy the house you will want to rent?
I think either way, buying or renting ( if renting even were an option) you will need to exchange Bitcoin for a roof over your head, no?
Maybe renting is not an option on a Bitcoin standard??? … when money holds its value and realestate gets cheaper across time against that money, what would be the purpose of owning an investment property? And thus who would own one? Therefore, what property would be available for you to rent?
I guess we’ll see… that was initially where I was at in my paradigm transition, now I’m doubtful. However it is very hard to see a new paradigm from within our existing paradigm.
If a house cost equivalent to 2 years wages (utility value) which was the average house price in 1920. I reckon you’d save up for your house and buy it outright. Particularly if your wages were going to decrease over time as were house prices and house prices would likely decrease faster than wages.
It’s a complete mental shift from everything we’ve known.