chancakes

@john_at_swan @TXMCtrades @brandon_gentile Not to mention if everyone stopped innovating it would be the market (us humans) saying life is great as is and we have no problems to solve. Obviously, that isn't happening, but it would be a great thing if it did 🤷‍♂️

1) Fixed base money does not create monetary deflation, by definition. If tons of broad credit money is created, and then it collapses down to the base money, you cannot blame the fixed base money for that. Obviously, you should blame the creation of the broad credit money. Can you try phrasing this differently? Unclear what you are trying to say here. "When productivity stalls (as it periodically does) you STILL get deflation from monetary scarcity alone, independent of any efficiency gains." 2) It's not a paradox. And it's not a zero-sum dynamic. Firstly, you ignore how someone was able to hold money in the first place: they produced something of value to others who were willing to compensate them with money. Secondly, your claims could be rebutted much more broadly by looking at human nature. Why does anyone build or invent anything? Do you really believe that humans must experience inflation in order to build and innovate? What a strange assumption. Thirdly, as I said previously, saving money (there is no such thing as "hoarding") in a fixed money supply world is NOT GUARANTEED to grow in purchasing power. That only happens IF there is successful investment & production across the economy. Those who do the production & innovation would receive greater returns than simply holding money. If those who hold money get a purchasing power increase, it's because they ALREADY produced something of value to someone else, and they delayed their consumption. This is both logical and fair. Your concern is like saying "so many people will invest & produce that no one will invest & produce." 3) It's true that elastic broad money has virtually always developed on top of inelastic base money. But you are missing the "why." If precious metals could have been held/sent/verified relatively easily & cheaply, how many market participants would have said, “I don’t want the actual gold or silver; I want fractional reserve bank credit money instead.”? USERS of money did NOT choose to create elastic broad credit money. ISSUERS chose to create it (banks/governments). Just because a user receives an out-of-thin air loan from a bank who created elastic broad credit money, that doesn't mean the user wanted it to be done out-of-thin air, nor does it mean that the user even understood what happened. They just wanted MONEY to use in the economy. If you push back on what I'm saying here, just think how low the % is of the American population today that actually understands fractional reserve banking. And whatever that % is... think about how much lower it would be if not for the bank run scene in It's a Wonderful Life. To the extent that market participants treat the broad credit money as "money good" (no ability to default and go poof), it's because the banking sector has gotten in bed with the government, and market participants expect the govt to bail out the system and prevent broad credit money from going bad. If this were not the case, you can be damn sure that market participants would treat broad credit money much differently than base money. To answer your additional questions directly: Historical attempts at hard money which resulted in elastic layers created atop it was a choice made by BANKS and GOVERNMENTs, not by users of the money. And the banks/govts were able to do this because of flaws with precious metals, i.e. bank credit money offers advantages in portability / verifiability / divisibility. So you must ask yourself "what if the fixed supply base money could be held/sent/verified relatively easily & cheaply?". The answer is that it would change everything about how monetary systems evolved historically. To the extent that there was "economic dysfunction until elasticity returned," again this should not be blamed on fixed base money. The finger should be pointed at the vast quantities of broad credit money that was created, which confused market participants and ultimately causes the eventual bust of broad credit money supply down towards the base. It's quite literally impossible to have a financial crisis in a world of only fixed base money. A financial crisis *IS* the collapsing of broad credit money down to base money. In a hypothetical fixed supply Bitcoin base money world, there might be some small attempts to create elastic credit money on top of Bitcoin, but 2 key things would keep such broad credit money to remain extremely small: 1) Bitcoin itself can be held/sent/verified relatively easily & cheaply, so there is no strong incentive to use bank credit money instead. 2) Without bailouts (money printing), people would be very cautious when using bank credit money that can go poof and cause them to lose everything.

Mike Green: "No, that's not the system that we live in now. This is actually why the inflation that you were describing is somewhat endemic. You need to increase the supply of money in order to allow the resources and credit creation that allows the next generation to buy into the system. That's why there's an inflationary characteristic to it. Again, it could be reduced if we reduce the preference for debt financing relative to equity financing. But the simple reality is is if you look at the population of the United States over the past 100 years, it's grown from about 75 to 100 million people to today 350 million people. If we had been on a Bitcoin standard, that would mean that every single person that was born after the vast majority of Bitcoin was created, which by the way started several years ago, would have no real access to them to that Bitcoin under the same terms. It would prove incredibly deflationary in terms of its underlying characteristic. It would require interest rates that were extraordinarily high to offset the non-recoverability of that Bitcoin. And you're effectively creating conditions under which the system would cease to function. and permanently disadvantage those who were born after the initial round of Bitcoin had been printed. It's just a mathematical property of the system as it's set up." -------------------- Mike Green is yet another confused person who pushes the false narrative that we must increase the units of money in order to achieve economic cooperation & growth. He fearmongers in vague terms about "deflation" causing the system to "cease to function." @allenf32 @sacha_meyers @saifedean you will probably want to see this.

@john_at_swan @brandon_gentile To use an extreme example to show how nonsensical his argument is. He's essentially arguing someone being born with lots of dollars before electricity or the wheel would be better off than someone being born with no dollars, but has access to electricity and the wheel.

@chancakes13 @brandon_gentile thank goodness we have inflation to allow future generations to buy into the system (according to Mike Green)

@doc_brown2 @TFL1728 That cheesy intro into his 15 minute talks always irked me for some reason. And the fact, somehow, no matter what the U.S. always loses

@TFL1728 💯% ...i've gotten this vibe from luke way before the 🇮🇷 war ever started....spidey sense said something not quite right there

Or. Iran is lying and Luke is a smirking dumb grifter

@amlivemon A lower prices solves the problem. The price of technology decreases and people still buy tvs and etc. You don't need an inflationary monetary system. Bitcoin will eventually solve issue, because it's better than gold.

“Price oil in gold, do not use Dollar as a foundation of value…” I posed this economic riddle to a X user, and I should explain why. My snarky fundamental riddle of using gold as a reserve currency, specifically when pricing a vital, high-volume commodity like oil, lies in the Triffin Dilemma and the "Inelasticity Trap." When you remove the dollar as a foundation of value, you expose a math problem that gold simply cannot solve without triggering global economic collapse. The global supply of gold grows at roughly 1.5% to 2% per year. If the global economy or oil demand grows faster than 2%, there isn't enough "new" gold to facilitate the transactions. This leads to chronic deflation. In this system, the value of gold rises so rapidly that people stop spending it, oil producers hoard it, and global trade grinds to a halt because the medium of exchange is more valuable than the energy it buys. The "Everything Bubble" and modern debt-based economies rely on elasticity, the ability to expand the money supply to meet the needs of a growing population. Gold is inelastic: You cannot "print" more gold during a liquidity crisis. The Riddle Answer: If oil is priced in gold, the "Reserve" becomes a prison. To keep the price of oil stable, you would have to artificially suppress global economic growth to match the slow rate of gold mining. You cannot have a 21st-century high-tech energy economy built on a 14th-century physical constraint. This is only a few issues of many for gold reserve currency advocates.

@BitPaine They think it's not fair and choose ignorance 🤷🏻‍♂️

Do people really have this much trouble understanding basic arbitrage math? $MSTR equity holders capture $BTC price appreciation plus new $BTC acquired. The premium to NAV is justified because $MSTR is acquiring new $BTC and $BTC per share is increasing. This ensures that new equity can be sold at a premium to pay dividends to pref holders. The prefs fund new $BTC acquisition without diluting common equity holders. In exchange, common equity holders fund the dividend through share dilution. The equity structure strips the volatility from the underlying and accrues it all to the common equity holders. As long as $BTC appreciates faster than the APY of the dividends over the long term, this is accretive and profitable to common equity, with massive, intermittent volatility. Like - which part of this is hard? Are these people just low IQ and bad at math? Like I get that this is an unconventional use of these equities, but it’s not conceptually that hard to understand unless you are really, really low IQ.

@BartHanson On second thought I think it's 900.

@BartHanson 1,000

I asked this at my Harvard lecture and none of the students got it: In a $100 pot we have 65dd on btn after calling a UTG preflop raise. Board Ks7c3h. UTG pots $100. We know he has AA and will stack off. What is the min eff stack on the flop before the bet to make a call profit

@SantiagoAuFund @Richard_Casey China is somehow batting .500 in the majors and the U.S. is still stuck in single A looking for its 1st hit in Luke's opinion.

@Richard_Casey China always wins…🥱

Doesnt take much thinking ahead to realize in severe disruption of global trade, a country with historically unprecedented mfg trade surplus will be significantly impacted, especially when already experiencing excess capacity and weak domestic demand.

@LynAldenContact @BitPaine How much of stalled job growth is from a change in immigration polices and AI?

@BitPaine Well that’s why it’s not like a 2% of GDP hit. US better positioned than Europe here for sure. But that 0.5% is hitting right when job creation is already at stall speed for nearly a year.

Half a billion dollars a day is about 0.5% of US GDP. Really not that bad tbh.

@Jason @CaitlinLong_ still patiently waiting on Bitcoin to go to a million

Balaji might seem out there at times, but he’s almost always just 6 months and 60% ahead of the consensus

@baseballcrank @NRO No, if they're bad laws the other party will get voted into power and they can get rid of those bad laws.

For those of you who don't remember what things were like back in 2021-22, Democrats were repeatedly stymied by having to get 60 votes for cloture in the Senate to enact laws. We're supposed to forget this happened, and that it kept multiple bad laws from being enacted?

In other words, you concede my point, which was already obvious to the rest of Washington: bills don't get past cloture without 60 votes under current practice; you propose to enable them to do so. My point stands; the rest is all smoke.

@ckieser13 @gatortebowfan15 It now takes more hours of work for the average worker to purchase a home, healthcare, stocks, or education.

@gatortebowfan15 Literally every single person in this country is better off today than they would be under the living standards of 50 years ago.

As a conservative Notre Dame alum, these guys disgust me.

@jmhorp You didn't contradict anything he said.

Because incidence is always uncertain, by his logic we can not say for certain whether *any* tax is regressive or progressive. But that's being overly strict: we have lots of good theoretical and empirical evidence to suggest tariffs are generally regressive

@PeterSchiff @Vivek4real_ You lost the plot when you are on the side of communists Peter

@Vivek4real_ The Chinese are too smart to lean into Bitcoin. Maybe their leaders know something about Bitcoin that are leaders don't.

🇺🇸 VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE SAID, “CHINA DOESN'T LIKE BITCOIN. WE SHOULD BE ASKING OURSELVES, WHY IS THAT?” “WHY IS OUR BIGGEST ADVERSARY SUCH AN OPPONENT OF BITCOIN?” “IF THE CCP IS LEANING AWAY FROM BITCOIN, THEN MAYBE THE US SHOULD BE LEANING IN TO BITCOIN."

@profplum99 @K0074562714629 Are you saying the money has to be inflationary in order for economic system to work?

It's not the money that is broken. It's the economic system, more accurately the lack of enforcement of competition and redistribution of "luck" proceeds in the current implementation, the money facilitates that is "broken." Economics, like science, advances one funeral at a time. We'll eventually get there.

I disagree with zero. Bitcoin difficulty adjustment means it’s actually a Worm virus that will continue to propagate in various basements, occasionally emerging as a meme asset due to effective low float. But the dream died long ago.

@GeorgeGammon You were surprised a poorer nation wasn't a 1st adopter of new technology?

I drove across Argentina using Bitcoin, filmed it, and put it up on YouTube…does that count bud?

@GeorgeGammon Why does money need to expand at all? Seems to defeat the purpose of all our human advancements.

Fiat currency gets a lot of flack But the fiat currency isn’t the problem, it’s the gov involvement Of you eliminate the gov you’d have a $ that expands (and importantly, contracts) with the economy $ would only expand if there was an offsetting expansion of goods/services

This is good example as to why it’s so hard for the USD to be “dethroned” Most only look at USD from the asset side of the bs But when you look at it from the liability side, it becomes clear why there’s so much demand Assets funded w/USD liabilities = future demand for USD And remember the vast majority of USD wasn’t created by the Fed or Gov, it was created by creating USD liabilities (future demand) IOW, it was lent into existence by banks Grant obviously had variable assets funded with fixed USD liabilities which means (even though he’s a bitcoiner) his business represents 100s of millions, if not billions, in demand for USD And when Grant does accumulate the USD to fund his liabilities (debt) those USD disappear. Why? The USD exists bc of the loan, so when the loan is paid the USD no longer exists This is not a knock on Grant, simply using him to help people better understand the monetary system

@mark_dow Are you super serious this time?

I want bitcoin to go to zero and I want all the grifters who pumped this to rubes on the back of moronic fearmongering of monetary policy and promises of generational wealth to be fully invested as it happens. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

@charlescwcooke How so? The Federal government has slowly gotten bigger and bigger and now takes up almost a quarter of the entire country's GDP (7x larger than it was a century ago) and the deficit is now 120% of GDP.

Absolutely correct. Federalism is the salve, and the filibuster is now the best protector of federalism.