pull down to refresh

This is a topic a lot of Bitcoiners think about: How exactly can I save, stack away more sats, so that my kids will have enough or could live good lives?
Mainstream media has gotten hold of this idea too, with parents stacking their 529 collage savings plans with bitcoin-products:
While few financial advisers would recommend going all-in on crypto, putting a portion of a baby’s portfolio into Bitcoin arguably aligns with certain aspects of standard financial wisdom. Investors with longer time horizons can afford to take on more risk, and a small amount of crypto could be a part of a diversified strategy
Some parents are turning to crypto to supercharge their college savings. Returns on traditional stocks just won’t cut it, the thinking goes
Reasons?
  • stock markets don't have enough returns
  • bitcoin outperforming everything
  • college is/will remain expensive
a subset are eschewing the old ways, pushing instead to pile up enough Bitcoin to help their children in the years ahead. Some say it’s because stock gains aren’t good enough. Others view it as reasonable diversification.
Not that surprising that the logical outcome stares them in their faces: diversify into higher risk
Also, this is the cutest:
Bobay’s kids, now four and seven, each have their own wallets. The seven-year-old asks each day what his Bitcoin is worth, and wants to use his money from the Tooth Fairy to buy Bitcoin.

Now, everybody wants to "get rich" by being early to the "next bitcoin thing," whatever. And some of that involves siphoning off real wealth from the (dying?) fiat system: I wrote this in a MONEY CLASS about a month ago (#839329):
A panacea for the world bitcoin might be, but the more people make this wealth journey by riding bitcoin's monetization phase, the less far that journey will take you and the fewer people it can carry. Getting on bitcoin isn't a universally applicable fix for getting the whole world rich. The reward gets smaller and smaller for each additional person until all the monetary premia is drawn from every other asset (#830458) Not repeatable. Bitcoin's success is wrapped up with a lot of people seeing their fiat money balances dwindle to nothing, their fixed-income streams dwindle to pittances, their overleveraged real estate holdings collapse in (real) value.
Matt Levine, of Bloomberg Money Stuff fame and whom I quote here quite a lot, had this to say about bitcoin in college saving funds:
magic internet money cannot be a source of general prosperity. Not everyone can get rich by being early to crypto. Sometimes you have to work and save and invest in economic activity, or at least in casinos, to pay for goods and services.

This isn't quite right.

Rich, no; and everyone, of course not, but a world using bitcoin for money _achieves the same thing as the stock market productivity redistribution, but in a more direct, non-roundabout way. Here's Levine:
if you put aside, uh, frankly kind of a lot of money every month, and if the economy (or, rather, the equity value of publicly traded companies) grows at a faster rate than college tuition does, then you will have enough money to pay for your kids’ college educations.
This is not a particularly inspiring vision or anything. It requires (1) economic growth, (2) college tuition not outpacing growth by too much and also (3) you putting aside kind of a lot of money anyway, because college is expensive and stock market growth is not a magic cure for that. But it is a sensible vision. It links your ability to pay for college with some use of your money, some productive activity in the economy.
Money does that too---in a more general, broad-based, fairer and less distortionary way; money demand, stacking sats on top of each other when those sats are used in the real economy, makes relative prices of goods and services lower than they otherwise would have been. The "wealth" effect/productivity boost from savings get distributed to all money holders rather than to (financial) capital owners 1. That's good.
Using the stock market for that is a strange, fiat, late-20th century type of thing (#830458) that was really a wrong turn in economic history.

Non-paywalled here: https://archive.md/rzpi9

Footnotes

  1. No Such Thing As Socially Harmful Financial Market Speculation (TDE,Joakim Book) #867043
177 sats \ 6 replies \ @Satosora 4h
Now this is an interesting subject.
The problem is, if you save it for them and they inherit it without any consequences, will they understand the value of it? That is the problem that I will have to face in the future. But I will stack sats regardless, but it may not go to them. We will see as we approach the future, and hopefully it doesnt come for a long time.
reply
Education is one of the things I am willing to pay for as a parent. I want to show them that I value it and that I want them to have a good education.
Obviously, this also requires that you take an active interest in their education. If you're just one of those parents that doesn't care what they do, but just give them money, then that's probably not gonna work out.
reply
53 sats \ 4 replies \ @Signal312 2h
What kind of education do you consider worth the money?
I have a serious issue with colleges nowadays. They really seem rotten to the core, not to mention astronomically expensive. It all just screams FIAT.
reply
Support pretty much unconditionally: math, engineering, computer science, physics, chemistry, economics or finance
Support conditionally: biological or environmental science, philosophy, history, political science, art, music, film and theatre (these subjects will depend on the school and the child's personality and goals)
Probably wouldn't support: literature, journalism, anything ending in "studies"
reply
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @Signal312 1h
There's a public university close to where I live. They spend an insane amount of money sending out flyers in mail about what they're doing, all kinds of puff pieces about how great they are.
I wonder about the finances of all this. It sure feels like something is off.
I just got an expensively produced magazine from the university yesterday, with all kinds of pieces about the different types of research that the university is involved in. Some of it had to do with nutrition, very advanced high tech stuff, supposedly.
But I was thinking to myself...if the government (and also lots of universities) didn't promote the crappy food that they're promoting, we wouldn't have 80% of the health issues that we have now.
reply
I wonder about the finances of all this. It sure feels like something is off.
Do they have a big athletics program? A lot of the money for this stuff comes from athletics, in the U.S. at least. I don't like it, but people like sportsball... that's just how it is.
But I was thinking to myself...if the government (and also lots of universities) didn't promote the crappy food that they're promoting, we wouldn't have 80% of the health issues that we have now.
Yep that's why biological sciences (which includes nutrition) are fields that I'm more hesitant about. I forgot to mention psychology & behavioral sciences, which would include Education. That's also in the maybe category.
Nice breakdown.
I would hope that my kids were wise enough to find another path; travel, start business, trade school, interns, maybe Peterson Academy etc
reply
92 sats \ 1 reply \ @Shugard 4h
I will also supercharge my daughter's future!
reply
Here to help out, my dude!
reply
23 sats \ 0 replies \ @LowK3y19 2h
Setting stacks of sats for my kids when they get older maybe it can help them buy a house or car in the future
reply
Can Bitcoin remain functional if it is primarily used as a SoV/speculative commodity? If it does not become widely used as a MoE/P2P payments protocol?
It is only when used as a MoE that Bitcoin adds value external to itself by enabling the trade and exchange of value. Bankers and governments at least in most western liberal democracies have allowed Bitcoin to be used as a speculative commodity, but have strongly discouraged its use as a MoE.
As a speculative commodity Bitcoin does not substantially challenge the basis of fiat power- MoE hegemony. As a primarily speculative commodity Bitcoin is increasingly captured and controlled by US financial institutions who custody it and in so doing reduce the amount of Bitcoin that can be used as a MoE.
As a primarily speculative commodity Bitcoin fails to provide a significant alternative to fiat MoE hegemony because there are so few options to use Bitcoin as a MoE. On current trends Bitcoin looks like it could become a stranded asset- prevented from realising its full potential value as a revolutionjary censorship resistant P2P payments protocol. It is reduced to being a speculative plaything largely managed by bankers.
reply
All this is assuming the USD and USA remain the predominant forces in the global economy. That in turn ignores Chinas incredible rise and the fact that today the wealth of all nations hinges to an unprecedented extent upon their relationship and trade with China, not the USA. The USA continues to dominate militarily and monetarily - ie the tertiary levels of global power- but China has already won the trade war, every year since the 1990s with growing trade surpluses while the USA suffers chronic and growing trade deficits. Wealth is built over time via the production of real goods and services- short term the USA maintains dominance via control of institutions and protocols, and military strength, but all of those ultimately rely upon economic strength and the productive USA economy is increasingly uncompetitive as admitted by Trumps trade obstructing tariffs. Assuming China continues its long march of economic growth it will logically assume dominance at the tertiary levels and that leaves Bitcoin as a potentially stranded asset.
reply