I'm not sure what Musk has to do with this topic. Your weird obsession... If fiat worked so well, why is inflation one of the most routinely talked about subjects in every election?
Just giving you an example of the benefits of fiat.... Elon Musk. Is it the most routinely subject talked about every election? Maybe the recent elections, but not every. Are you actually suggesting inflation somehow goes away with a fixed currency system?
His point is important, but not in the way he thinks. Fiat has enabled and empowered a lot of bad actors and bad decisions. Amazon and Tesla absolutely benefitted from soft money, very possibly at the expense of more deserving and responsible competitors. A shitty fiat monetary system that rewards mediocrity and artificially keeps failing organizations alive is bad for everyone. On the plus side, @dmoneybangbang finally put a stick in the ground for what bitcoin "winning" looks like to him. See you in 23 years I guess?
Why wouldn't it? Natural disasters and wars notwithstanding, the natural state of economies is deflation. Humans produce better goods, more of them, faster and more efficiently as time and tech advances. There will always be periods of scarcity and market turmoil due to unforeseen crises, but on the whole, prices fall forever in a sound monetary system.
Every system has it's pros and cons. To paraphrase what I said earlier: "Can you really with a straight face look around and say "fiat doesn't work"? Are there consequences to fiat? Absolutely, but it certainly works." You can hand wave away all the modernization and progress that has taken place under the Fiat system....just seems ignorant and something a zealot would do.
How convenient.... you can't hand wave away scarcity and turmoil. Supply and demand doesn't work how you want it to in the real world. In a fixed currency system hyperinflation occurs because the monetary system isn't the only thing to determine supply and demand. A deflationary world is a world of ultra low growth with it's own pros and cons. And the biggest jump occurred under fiat. Based on what? Hopes and dreams? Why is a deflationary monetary system sound?
I can handwave them away for the simple fact that creating extra monetary units (i.e. an unnatural inflationary event) does not alleviate the problems caused by naturally occurring inflationary events, nor does a fixed monetary system exacerbate those same issues. If a new crop disease hits tomorrow and the price of bread skyrockets, printing more dollars won't stop anyone from starving, nor will having a capped supply currency cause more people to starve. "Ultra low" is subjective. Growth for the sake of growth is not a good thing. Meaningful, honest growth is what we want. Nope. The biggest jump occurred in the late 19th century, under a gold standard. Even the gains of the early 20th century were still in a relatively gold-based system. Based on math. If the money holds and accrues purchasing power, prices in the aggregate must fall. Unless you think humans are somehow going to get worse at producing things. The same reason a square has four sides, the definition is inclusive.
Of course it does.... In your example of new crop disease for wheat (you mentioned bread), new dollars could shift to more rice production which means more irrigation/water infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, and scientific research into the wheat crop disease. That's a very big deal.... having a monetary system that can quickly respond to events. You can quantify growth....How do you quantify, "meaningful honest growth"? I certainly won't disagree that cheap money can lead to bad behavior, but your system has it's own pros and cons as well. What type of jump/gains are we talking about? Between $2-$4.5 trillion has been annually spent on global infrastructure since 1980 modernizing the globe. Is a huge chunk of the world supposed to just live in primitive housing with unreliable drinking water because Donnyboy wants to edgy? The late 19th and 20th century was a whole bunch of growth in Europe and America. I'm talking about global growth under the USD Fiat system. What math? Geometry since you mentioned squares? You are just making a bunch of wild assumptions and then claiming "math".
Sorry, no. New dollars would do nothing other than dilute purchasing power of the holders of older dollars. In this scenario demand dictates how market participants behave, not dollars. In a world where the wheat supply is eradicated, money would naturally flow to both alternative food source production AND research to combat the problem due to the financial incentive created for those two behaviors. Pushing a bunch of liquidity into the system would not change that, it would only make food more expensive and therefore hurt those at the bottom of the income distribution via the Cantillon effect. Growth that results in better outcomes for society. Longer life expectancy. Less social disorder. The prudent get rewarded. The careless get punished. Hard to quantify obviously, but fiat world and money printing are the opposite of that. Savers get punished and the wreckless get rewarded. You keep saying this, but you never actually articulate a point. The second industrial revolution is often cited as a golden age for a reason. Massive leaps forward in tech, medicine, quality of life, etc. 1850-1950 or so. The first industrial revolution was important, too, but I think the turn of the last century was the real sweet spot, particularly in America. Ever since we went full fiat it does not seem like the rate of change/innovation has kept the same pace. Quantifying that is not a project either of us have time for, but it does make me chuckle to look back at early 20th century Americans and how they thought "the future" would look vs. what Americans today envision the future to be. It feels like their world was changing/advancing so rapidly that their forecasts ended up being wildly off-base, lol. I've already explained to you as simply as I know how. If my money retains/grows its purchasing power, given a sufficient timespan, prices of goods and services would have to fall as those goods are services become more abundant. The only way you can disagree with this is if you think goods and services will become less abundant in the future, which is a bet that has never paid off in all of recorded history (humans are pretty damn good at making things better, faster and more plentiful over time). If this does not make sense to you, then there is nothing I can do for you to make you understand it.
I thought I would add some context to this - While we like to claim fiat hurts the United States, the reality is the country that controls the GRC benefits the most. Its everyone else who gets hurt the most. We have seen this play out multiple times. A country becomes extremely powerful while its leaders abuse the system to stay in power. Productivity gets washed away while money floods the markets. The money filters to the top giving the illusion of great wealth and prosperity when in reality productive as a whole trends down, along with (relative) standards of living. Here in the United States, we will not see a massive industrial boom (just in certain sectors) because productivity/money tends to get wasted away to unproductive means. The country who produces the most (exports) tend to set the stage to become the next country to control the global monetary system. Currently, this appears to be China. Americans want to believe we will rule for a millennia and Bitcoiners believe this time will be different.
In Feb, i posed this question The most recent edition of the Bitcoin Magazine addresses this existential threat !
BTC Bulls Must Hold $74K to Avoid Bigger Drop Price Could Retest $71K Support as BTC Pulls Back From Channel Top
Question: Is the government buying at a 30% discount or is the miner getting a 30% increase? insert:theyareboththesamepicture.meme
The Fed is best known for setting monetary policy through interest rates and money creation. But it also plays a major role as a banking regulator. With 16 of the 25 largest banks in the U.S. already building Bitcoin products, the Fed could have a major impact on Bitcoin’s role in the financial system. Under Warsh, the Fed could promote Bitcoin adoption through policy changes such as encouraging banks to custody bitcoin and offer Bitcoin products, and develop a Bitcoin-specific regulatory framework that distinguishes Bitcoin from crypto and stablecoins.
Bitcoin Stuck In Limbo As Gold Outshines Crypto Bitcoin just ain’t bitcoin anymore. The digital currency – supposedly independent of the predators of Wall Street, untraceable and a panacea of all the poor man’s ills – is no longer a way to stick it to the man. The man in fact, is a fan – BIGLY! technically, BTC is forming a "triangle of death" ! T I M B E R !
Bitcoin is "dying"—not from regulation, not from competition, but from mathematics, thermodynamics, and economics Bitcoin faces simultaneous, mutually reinforcing pressures that have never co-occurred: Monetary Velocity approaching zero violates all monetary theory Marginal energy cost approaching zero marginal utility Fee-based security model mathematically impossible Developer/user migration to more functional / efficient chains Pseudonymity eliminated, taxation imposed Bitcoin suffers from multiple organ failure. It's not experiencing a business cycle downturn—it's demonstrating systemic incompatibility with economic laws, network theory, and geopolitical reality. The only question remaining: will the collapse be a whimper (slow bleed to $8-12K over 24 months as institutions quietly exit) or a bang (liquidity crisis triggering cascading liquidations)? Either way, we're not watching a bear market. We're watching an extinction event.
willful ignorance on your part. Global powers manipulate M2 on a daily basis, in the US this is how it works
