pull down to refresh
@denlillaapan
1,346,749 sats stacked
stacking since: #724606longest cowboy streak: 269npub1y0gaj...zdlsf5jxa0
102 sats \ 11 replies \ @denlillaapan 10h \ on: Where are the Bitcoiners? Where are the Spenders? Where are the Users? bitcoin
there are none. We abandoned the dream, and went with Saylor's "digital credit/digital energy" BS.
He looks so good and talks so smooth
so the first premise is just off: under fiat (i.e. USA today) isn't paying with new money.
- M2 is flat
- Fed balance sheet is shrinking
- and Fed seigniorage revenue to Treasury was always minor (and in the last 3 years has been negative).
There IS NO MONEY PRINTING FOR BONDS
So, fiat needs taxation to avoid debasement, which I think was my original point.
Even so, that doesn't work/answer OP's question...
OK, making progress... but then there's still no connection to fiat, since what you describe works perfectly fine on hard money too, and indeed did during the GS.
(I would even quibble a little bit from the ZIRP era, when people were willingly buying negative-yielding bonds not caring about that, but only USTs useful in collateral + ability to shove off to next sucker)
BEAUTIFUL,
~econ is in good hands now that the Stackers are taking and sharing all my open, unread tabs.
excellent, excellent.
and no, this is a convo about a faulty analogy: a universally objective, tangible entity (kilogram, speed, feet), and the services that money renders.
well summarized, sir.
Point seemed very lost on the half-dozen low-IQ peeps I engaged with in the comments section here.
Solidified my belief that Bitcoiners are, on average, total craptards.
totally beside the point. We're not arguing the merits of fixed-supply vs flexible supply monetary systems. Go read the article again, jfc.
We're arguing what MONEY PRICES do, and whether equating money to a "measuring stick" or a physical property makes sense. (conclusion: it doesn't.)
you clearly don't have the cognitive capacity to hang out in these parts, do you?
Come back when you've reassessed.
taxes are not in any way "part of fiat" (unless you, Saif like, redefine everything bad to equal "fiat")
just saw that, courtesy of Jeff Luse (https://reason.com/2025/10/28/bill-gates-admits-that-climate-change-will-not-be-the-end-of-civilization/).
"Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization"
"Health and prosperity are the best defense against climate change."
fucking beautiful: The world is healing
WONDERFUL, thanks for recommending.
I (narrowly) declined starting an econ PhD in 2018... I would have been roughly in the middle of this mess. #1010983
Very grateful I went with my rebellious non-establishment spirit and went elsewhere
This is pretty damning, too (but there were plenty of decent economists speaking up at the time):
first the confident insistence that government spending wouldn’t fuel inflation, then the soothing claim that inflation was merely “transitory,” and finally the outright gaslighting that prices weren’t rising at all. Each step was wrong, and each was delivered with smug certainty. Ordinary people—who watched their rent, groceries, and gas bills skyrocket—saw a profession more invested in protecting Democratic policy narratives than in telling the truth. The result is a self-inflicted torching of trust.
what's your mechanism for why continued shutdown -> not lower rate...?
By traditional macro, shutdown (marginally!) means less gov activity/spending, so lower GDP, pushing Fed more toward a rate cut
More critically: don't think the Fed takes the shutdown into account (it's minor, does almost nothing)