Thoughts on Jeff Booth's hypothesis? (self.Bitcoin) submitted 1 day ago by Treebuneredditor for a day Jeff Booth is a famous Bitcoiner, and as far as I understand it, essentially argues that technological advancement increases the productivity of a society. That is, through technological progress things get cheaper and easier to make. His second point is that in a free and open market, prices should always fall to the marginal cost of production, because competition and market forces will attack them until they do. He then puts these together, to say that as technology progresses, the prices of everything around us should be getting cheaper. There's a lot here, but he then says the reason they aren't is because our current system is being manipulated in order to prop itself up, because the system itself is insolvent, and if there were deflationary forces (which makes debt more expensive), the entire system would collapse on itself. ​ He also says that humans should not be working 40 hours a week, and that it's unnecessary anymore due to technology and the increase in productivity, but again, persists due to the manipulation of the system. Finally, he says and predicts that the prices of everything will continue to fall against Bitcoin, because Bitcoin has a fixed supply, therefore no inflation, and therefore as productivity and technology continue to progress they will drive down prices of everything in comparison to a scarce asset like Bitcoin. ​ What are your thoughts on this? 89 comments share save hide report all 89 comments sorted by: best topnewcontroversialoldrandomq&alive (beta) Want to add to the discussion? Post a comment! Create an account [–]facepalm5000 81 points82 points83 points 1 day ago He's correct Hard money is the missing ingredient in global prosperity permalink embed save report give award reply [–]RHINO_HUMPredditor for 6 weeks 12 points13 points14 points 22 hours ago Yeah, but, what about the corrupt banksters, governments, and politicians? Who will start profit wars and steal our freedoms if they can’t leech wealth via inflation and artificial economic busts?? Their lives matter too!! permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]facepalm5000 5 points6 points7 points 18 hours ago They'll still find people to grift on somewhere permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Fbastiat1850 1 point2 points3 points 5 hours ago They can start a religion. They seem pretty good at dogmatic dictate and compliancy by fearmongering. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]BOkuma 64 points65 points66 points 1 day ago He does a really good interview on "What Bitcoin did" youtube channel. He's right long term, the only thing in question is the timing. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]No-Cardiologist9268 26 points27 points28 points 1 day ago I’ve listened to Jeff a bit now and find him to be one of the leaders in the space. I think op does a good job of summarizing Jeff’s thesis. He’s also highly respected in the community(Larry Lepard and Greg Foss have cool things to say about him and they’re awesome too) and brings a real zen sophistication to the space. I initially got his marginal cost of production argument confused with Menger’s idea of marginal utility. I will keep studying and I appreciate the post op permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–][deleted] 16 hours ago [deleted] [–]ulrik23 1 point2 points3 points 8 hours ago A Gucci shirt is a specific type of luxury good called a Veblen good, these goods sell because they're expensive. The example I believe he used was a supercar, which the price actually does fall (example: modern sportscar outperforms every 80s supercar for a fraction of the cost) Then there are still goods with artificially restricted supply which increases the prices too (limited edition cars / Rolex watch) permalink embed save report give award reply [–]MyCryptoFriend 0 points1 point2 points 9 hours ago You heard it here folks… Gucci shirts are the next bitcoin. Better load up on them! permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Treebuneredditor for a day[S] 8 points9 points10 points 1 day ago Yep, totally agree. That's where I first found him. It was a great interview. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]coinminingrig 3 points4 points5 points 17 hours ago Everyone has a motivation to join a podcast and do an interviewed, remember that. Time and resources are not free. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]etmetm 6 points7 points8 points 16 hours ago Yes, he states his motivation: A better world for his kids, mainly. Also debating and educating others on the link between deflation, technological progress and sound money. Be the change you want to see in the world. Be the glitch you want to see in the Matrix. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]coinminingrig -1 points0 points1 point 12 hours ago I highly doubt that’s all. Remember SBF with his altruism and vegan billionaire video. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]etmetm 1 point2 points3 points 8 hours ago It's not about the person, it's about the message and arguments. SBF never gave signal, it was mostly noise. Lots of signal for Booth, in fact there's a whole article on it: Finding Signal In A Noisy World permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]ElderBlade 19 points20 points21 points 1 day ago Everything he said is correct and just makes sense. Technology increases productivity several hundred times every few years, coinciding with computing power doubling ever 18 months. The Sovereign Individual argues that microprocessing will make most governments obsolete and a thing of the past because they will eventually lose their control over money and have to compete for capital and talented individuals. These individuals can produce goods and services from any location in the world with technology and therefore have the economic mobility to choose in the jurisdictions that tax the least. You can already see it with doctors in London performing surgery on a grape in LA, people making music online, tik tok, etc. It will get to the point where governments dissolve into smaller sovereignties with their own rules and tax arrangements, all driven by technology. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Siiiddharth 8 points9 points10 points 20 hours ago Wow. Without control of the money governments have to compete just like everyone else. I never thought of it that way. Years into this and Bitcoin still blows my mind. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]MuXu96 1 point2 points3 points 17 hours ago Would be so great to see, but I believe change is a pretty long term thing and only really overseeable over generations permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]ElderBlade 2 points3 points4 points 6 hours ago I wouldn't be so sure of that. Technology is accelerating change rapidly. The agricultural revolution took a thousand years and the industrial age just a few hundred. In the information age, we could see these changes in a lifetime. The Internet alone has completely transformed our society in just 20 years. Throw AI and and Bitcoin into a collapsing fiat system and this change could come a lot a sooner than you think. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]AnonTheGreat01 2 points3 points4 points 11 hours ago Once while tripping & being sky high on shrooms, I saw how Bitcoin caused nation states & borders as we understand them today to vanish. Wars would become a thing of the past as the most desirable property can no longer be stolen & trying to do so would be too cost prohibitive as fighting wars on someone else's dime becomes impossible. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]No-Cardiologist9268 [score hidden] 44 minutes ago This is similar to the concept behind Balaji’s book, The Network State permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Capaj 0 points1 point2 points 5 hours ago where governments dissolve into smaller sovereignties with their own rules and tax arrangements why smaller? Isn't the world getting more globalized each passing year? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]ElderBlade 0 points1 point2 points 5 hours ago Smaller because it's easier for the group to manage themselves and they may have specialized desires based on location. One group might like to have their own set of rules near an ocean versus a group that lives in a desert. For example, you always hear that Texas or some other state might secede from the US. Some of these states' economies are large of enough to do that, and at some point in the future it could be a real possibility. Remember Brexit? Britain left the EU. So yeah world is becoming more globalized but at the same time nationalism and the idea of citizenship is also eroding away, giving way to smaller sovereignties. It's already a thing in some parts of the world. Agulhas Bay Concession Free Zone is a 50 square kilometer section of the Sao Tome island near west Africa. It's a private, tax free jurisdiction that negotiated with the government to have their own area where security is provided by a private company, the official language is English, and the currency used is the US dollar. Companies are becoming virtual with no real location, so it's not a stretch to say that multimillion dollar companies become one person operations using AI to assist running the company from anywhere in the world. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]satoshi_69420redditor for 1 week 50 points51 points52 points 1 day ago Jeff Booth is a brilliant thinker and a very compassionate person. One thing he said that blew my mind was that we will vote for people who say they will give us money for nothing, not realizing that these “welfares” are part of the problem. Highly recommend his book, the price of tomorrow. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]mrstoatey 5 points6 points7 points 17 hours ago He is right about the voting I think, but I don’t think the problem is fundamentally welfares but how they are funded. In a hard money system it’s still possible to tax people that do relatively very well (whilst still leaving them very well off) and fund welfare programmes which in some cases do make sense (random chance can play a huge part in some people’s fortunes). The issue is when those programmes are funded by money printing then there is an ever growing number of them and only the rich can outpace the inflation caused by it so they grow ever richer and everyone else ends up on food banks. I don’t recall if Jeff Booth made that distinction or was arguing against welfares in a more broad sense. I do think that his theory was sound though and his position of measuring things from the broken system being inherently both wrong and frustrating is interesting. What’s crazy is how long it can take to play out and how long the current fiat mess can persist despite being clearly broken. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Journey-Destination 23 points24 points25 points 1 day ago I find his arguments persuasive. If you read his book, "The Price of Tomorrow" you'll find that it has held up very well since it was written in 2020. He also talks about how the system cannot be fixed by the system, and how Bitcoin is opting out of that system. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Valence101 8 points9 points10 points 23 hours ago I agree with his thesis. From a young age it made no sense to me that prices didn't go down as filing cabinets and clerks were replaced by a bloke with a PC. As machines allow me to buy groceries instead of cashiers. As farm equipment drives itself via satellite GPS. As genetically modified crop yields balloon. It'll be interesting to see prices continue to rise as AI replaces my job and automation just takes over lol permalink embed save report give award reply [–][deleted] 16 hours ago [deleted] [–]Valence101 0 points1 point2 points 13 hours ago Yeah ☹️ permalink embed save report give award reply [–]yarik2020 1 point2 points3 points 6 hours ago not only they're increasing, they're in fact exploding. Really mind blowing. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]HaveRewengeyredditor for 3 months 9 points10 points11 points 23 hours ago He is correct. We need to focus on efficiency rather than growth, and the fact that have an inflationary system focusing on growth, means we are caught in a hamster wheel. Imagine how high inflation would be if the negative effects of technology were not in play! The delta is humungous. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]standardcivilian 8 points9 points10 points 23 hours ago Yes, that's what happened on the gold standard. The reason prices rise while production increases is due to theft by those that control the money supply. It's amazing none of these evil people are talked about, or in prison. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Alfador8 1 point2 points3 points 7 hours ago Because we're too busy arguing about pronouns permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Pleasant_Theme_4355 5 points6 points7 points 15 hours ago Jeff’s greatest message - Don’t lean into the old system and give it more power and energy.Instead spend your time and energy on living in the new system.Accept the system is changing and move on https://youtu.be/P-IBzMBq8QY permalink embed save report give award reply [–]SunnyDayShadowboxer 5 points6 points7 points 23 hours ago His hypothesis presented in The Price of Tomorrow which he also has articulated across numerous podcasts is a strong argument. I'm glad he is speaking more as he is a strong writer, but initial talks showed he really needed polishing with public speaking. Now that he has had plenty of time in front of mics w/ his ideas solidified, he is doing great work spreading his message. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]ArnzenArms 8 points9 points10 points 22 hours ago There is nothing wrong with his hypothesis. It's something I've been struggling with for the past couple of years. Inflation steals from everyone, but it mostly impacts the poor (non-asset class). The asset holders are relatively unaffected, so there is a wealth transfer from the working class to the asset class. It dawned on me a year or two ago that its not just inflation. Even if there was ZERO inflation, all the productivity gains brought about by society, creativity, and ingenuity are ALSO getting taken and contribute to this wealth transfer. We don't even know how much that represents. Is productivity growing at 2%, 10%, 20%, 50%... who knows? I realize it is different for different industries. Semiconductors is drastic, which is why there's price reductions even with inflation. But even things like farming have had tremendous improvements in productivity over the last 100 years. Even so, the price of bread is up at least an order of magnitude during my lifetime ($0.50 to $5). So how would you feel if productivity is running at 20% per year and inflation is at 2-5%. That's really 22-25% of monetary debasement and wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. Why are there not people in the streets revolting? Wealth disparity has driven many revolutions in the past. I mean it's obfuscated, but it's not complicated. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]5liveR 2 points3 points4 points 17 hours ago bc they have put us in a dark deep cave and took away the candles. Bitcoin and the internet is lighting them back on. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]AnonTheGreat01 2 points3 points4 points 11 hours ago Yep. The problem with the current system is that 2 groups benefit: A) People who are extremely productive & create innovative tech. B) People who already owned all the scarce & desirable assets before the digital production boom started. Group C) is screwed, these are people with barely any assets at all have their wages & purchasing power hollowed out by inflation. While electronics get cheaper, this deflationary pressure has to be offset by additional money printing, causing things like convenience goods to become more expensive. Under a hard currency, group A still benefits but group B no longer benefits as disproportionally (and at the cost of group C) as before, while group C is now also profiting from deflation caused by group A. I realize it is different for different industries. Right. So for farming perhaps 2% efficiency increase per year, while for semiconductors it's 40%. Semiconductors become cheaper because the monetary supply is not expanding at 40%+ per year. But food is not becoming cheaper because the monetary supply is expanding like 7% a year, faster than the efficiency is increasing. If you want to see what the 'true' inflation is, look at prices of scarce desirable assets like houses & stocks. Why are there not people in the streets revolting? Most people are completely clueless about this. Even 120+ IQ people working in finance. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Treebuneredditor for a day[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 hours ago I agree with everything you said, but I have a hard time fully buying in to the "new system" because regardless of the system, it's still true that there's no free lunch. It's easy to see our current system and point out the flaws, but how can we be so sure that a new system would be better or more fair? People get caught up criticizing the current system, which is fair, but I don't know, I just have a hard time accepting that this system is all evil and the next system will be all good. There's tradeoffs to everything and I'm just wondering what those really are in this context. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Wise-Application-144 4 points5 points6 points 15 hours ago I've actually found his book very useful on a personal level. I can run my household a bit like an economy. His lesson is essentially that technology is deflationary but inflation, corruption and artificial bottlenecks distort the effects. So that suggests you should invest in productive technology, using debt if necessary, bypass the debt-distorted market where possible and try and work in an industry where prices get adjusted to keep up with real terms. Basically go long on technology and short on fiat. ​ For me, it gave me the confidence to make some changes. ​ My country offers interest free loans for green home improvements. I got a massive solar array, home battery, EV charger and an EV, all interest free. And inflation is 10-15% where I live, so that debt is shrinking in real terms. My government is subsidising me because I understand inflation and they don't. Meanwhile my government remains determined to get barebacked by global energy markets, but I'm mostly off the grid now. Breakeven for me is something like 7 years, the system has a warranty out to 25 years. ​ I'm switching jobs to a more secure industry that's also hi-tech and should be pretty sturdy in times of economic strife. My partner has done similar. And we bought our other car outright instead of relying on increasingly expensive commercial leases. And the money we're saving is going into stacking sats. Plus some other diversified investments. ​ Basically we've reduced or removed the ability for distorted energy markets, new and used car markets, property prices, interest rates and unemployment rates to hurt us. Our household is run in a way Jeff Booth would approve of. And the best part is it's low risk. If Jeff is wrong and the global economy is fine, I save some money. And if he's right, I save my family from economic ruin. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]AnonTheGreat01 0 points1 point2 points 11 hours ago Basically go long on technology and short on fiat. Pretty much. Just be careful with the amount of leverage because things can become very volatile during hyperinflation & you want to avoid getting wiped out at all costs. Better to live frugally than to dabble in credit too much. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Wise-Application-144 1 point2 points3 points 11 hours ago Yep, I've just finished a book on the Weimar Republic, and something that stands out was that the people that tried to use debt to acquire hard assets were wiped out. THey either got margin called in huge volatility swings, wiped out when the markets finally returned to nroma and the black market for hard assets disappeared, or even wiped out when the government reinstated loans that were paid off in nominal terms. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]5liveR 2 points3 points4 points 18 hours ago The Price Of Tomorrow is one of the greatest book I ever read. What this book does for me is defining the macro landscape and its deepest layer of forces at play. This is a reality that becames obvious immediately to me once reading it, but before it wasn't something I gave much thought to. Deflationary forces are even stronger than inflationary monetary policies. It may give alot of answer as to why the US keeps acting like it wants to create more inflation; it may well be that it needs it and can't get there soon enough to make debt more affortable. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Treebuneredditor for a day[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 hours ago Absolutely! This is his newest video. This one really helped me understand his message a lot better. He really makes it easy to understand. Highly recommend. https://youtu.be/c7G4GfxcJ\_M permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Sportfreunde 1 point2 points3 points 20 hours ago Deflation via technology is not a Jeff Booth concept he just elaborated by writing a book on it. Study Austrian economics and it mentions just this. Deflation is the natural order as technology increases production. So it's not really about whether or not you agree with his hypothesis, his hypothesis is the natural order of what happens without gov't intervention. It's more about whether or not you agree with that gov't intervention which leads to the target 2% inflation even with technological advancement (or often, much higher). permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Zealousideal_Line629 1 point2 points3 points 20 hours ago His theory is correct about societal GDP however this does not automatically translate to being good for the individual. At its simplest terms take 3 McDonalds entry level positions being replaced with robotic type functions. This may in fact increase the GDP of the McDonald's however 3 people are now out of work. Just my thought. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]HighSolstice 2 points3 points4 points 17 hours ago I believe the idea is those three employees time would then be freed up to do something more productive than working at McDonalds thus contributing further to societal GDP. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Zealousideal_Line629 2 points3 points4 points 13 hours ago Understood and agreed for 'today'. And just talking in theory for the heck of it. Initially yes the employees hopefully find other jobs. But play this out further as more and more technology replaces the need for human attendance. I see software eng/dev and mach mechanic jobs created but (in theory) wouldn't eventually the need for human interaction become less of a requirement and unemployment would rise? Creating a potential larger welfare state? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]spid3rfly 2 points3 points4 points 9 hours ago This is one part of his theory that I wish he'd expand on more. It does seem it would increase the welfare state. It seems like I've heard him touch on this but nothing outside of it freeing those people to do other things. That's all great if those people can actually find jobs. I think on the surface that his theory about things decreasing in price makes everyone's life easier(better?)... it seems to me that it would eventually make money not quite as important as it is today but I'm not sure how to construct thoughts around that. I can sort of see it abstractly, but a world where money isn't important seems bizarre... especially in the capitalistic parts of the world. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Zealousideal_Line629 1 point2 points3 points 6 hours ago A fun discussion. We are junior philosophers. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]AnonTheGreat01 1 point2 points3 points 11 hours ago I just think your conclusion is wrong. I don't think this leads to a few people owning all productivity & everyone else poor, jobless and on welfare. I think this leads to many things becoming completely or almost completely free. Like most apps on your phone today. But it's hard to imagine a world with that degree of abundance, based on the fact that we have lived in a world of scarcity that was based on survival for thousands of years... permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Zealousideal_Line629 0 points1 point2 points 6 hours ago Got it. No problem. Just thinking. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]PaulTheMartian 1 point2 points3 points 19 hours ago I haven’t heard of him, but he’s right. Any particular video of his you recommend? I wonder if he’s familiar with the Austrian School of economic thought. As Ludwig von Mises insinuates throughout his works, a free market in banking would inevitably result in the collapse of fiat, fractional reserve currencies. They’d easily be beat when having to compete with currencies of finite supply like Bitcoin, or currencies tied to something like gold. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]KurtiZ_TSW 1 point2 points3 points 17 hours ago Sounds like how I think permalink embed save report give award reply [–]doge_dealer 1 point2 points3 points 12 hours ago It's not a 'hypothesis', more like a common knowledge at this point. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Treebuneredditor for a day[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 hours ago I definitely would not call it common knowledge. If you pick any random person on the street and ask them about any of these things they will have no idea. The vast majority of people are stuck in the system and operate within its paradigm. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Serenityprayer69 2 points3 points4 points 23 hours ago It assumes no price appreciation through premium on new technology. Just because it's cheaper and cheaper to make a TV doesn't mean the Advent of cell phones and tablets totally disrupted how we wanted to be entertained. We are like economic gold fish. The thing just at the top of our financial reach will be what the majority will desire. If there isn't something there it will be created permalink embed save report give award reply [–]gubatron 0 points1 point2 points 21 hours ago that he's wrong on the deflationary part. Bitcoin will keep having inflation at an ever lower halfed rate every 4 years, until it's finished printing. After that it will not deflate. Bitcoin is currently desinflationary, eventually fixed. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]LiveDirtyEatClean 0 points1 point2 points 21 hours ago I think your mixing supply and price, it’s a very common mistake permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]lovegoingdownmelocalredditor for 3 months -1 points0 points1 point 18 hours ago No the supply of bitcoin is inflationary since 900 bitcoins are created every day. Next year this is 450 bitcoins a day, then it halves again to 225 in 2028. So the inflation rate is dropping ever closer to 0 but it won't be 0 inflation until 2140 technically. Price of bitcoin is irrelevant to what the inflation rate of the bitcoin currency is. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]LiveDirtyEatClean 1 point2 points3 points 11 hours ago Sorry you were correct originally. I was just sick last night and brain didn’t work permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]amezibra -2 points-1 points0 points 13 hours ago It is not inflationary as it is capped at 21M whatever happens permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]lovegoingdownmelocalredditor for 3 months 1 point2 points3 points 13 hours ago* Yeah when we reach the 21m point bitcoin will have a rate of 0% inflation, however currently because bitcoin supply is going up every day with block rewards the current bitcoin inflation rate is 1.74%. We won't reach 21m bitcoin until 2140 though so bitcoin is inflationary just very low inflation. Source: https://charts.woobull.com/bitcoin-inflation/ With every halving in block rewards every 4 years we get closer to 0% inflation. Love the downvote 😄 permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Treebuneredditor for a day[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 hours ago Absolutely, this is correct. Fun fact: The stock to flow ratio of Bitcoin will drop below that of gold after the next halving. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]AnonTheGreat01 0 points1 point2 points 11 hours ago You're not wrong, but 99% of all Bitcoin will have been mined by 2035. And technological deflation already outpaces Bitcoins monetary inflation today, so we're already deflationary in practical terms. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]RickJamesB1tch 0 points1 point2 points 23 hours ago only it get cheaper if there is competition. Technology has become really complex to the point that if you need to upstart the next fab... it is impossible as the aggregate knowledge of how to start something like that and gets super expensive to compete at the bleeding edge. Therefore, it is not cheaper because only the ones aggregating that knowledge have control of that tech, and thus can also control the prices. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Seattleman1955 -1 points0 points1 point 23 hours ago I think that he is probably largely correct but that's not a certainty and he also underplays the potential difficulties in transitioning to such a system and it's not a certainty that this is how things will play out. Technology may not always be deflationary and people may not want the deflationary system. Overall, I largely agree with him though. permalink embed save report give award reply [+]Jtex1414 -8 points-7 points-6 points 23 hours ago The reality is that everything will only ever get more expensive. That's what inflation does. Let's take the Dollar for example. How much can you get for $1 today? 20 years ago? 50 years ago? 100 years ago? The US believes inflation is healthy/normal (something like 2% is the target every year I think). Regardless of advancements, prices will always go up - The market expects them to. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]cryptofarmer08 5 points6 points7 points 21 hours ago But inflation isn’t the increase of prices. That is a direct result of inflation. Inflation literally means the expansion of supply, in this case money supply. So if yesterday I paid $100 for an item but tomorrow everyone had double the money, then we’d expect the price to be $200 in an open market. Since Bitcoin isn’t inflated more than on a set schedule for a limited period of time, prices will not rise against Bitcoin just against the dollar or other currencies which print money. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Claytonious 7 points8 points9 points 21 hours ago That is "reality" by deliberate design of the fiat money system that's currently dominant. It's not a law of nature. In fact, it's unnatural. This is exactly what Booth's book is about. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]ElderBlade 5 points6 points7 points 22 hours ago It still remains true that technology is deflationary. Did you know that in 1981 1 MB of storage cost $3500? Today it costs pennies. Microchips have increased our productivity making products and services a lot cheaper than they otherwise would be. Laptops and phones get cheaper if you just wait a year. What you're talking about is keynsian economics. Prices increase in a debt driven system propped up by cheap money and central bank monetary debasement. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]5liveR 2 points3 points4 points 17 hours ago incredible. For me, as Booth mentions in the book, the perfect example is the smartphone: to cover its functionalities today, in the year 2000 you needed a "dumb" phone, a PC, a digital camera, a tv, a dvd player, a radio, a tv remote, a gps navigation device , an altimeter, a bar code scanner, ... just to name some. The price and the physical size decrease could be around -90% to say the least. Well, if you use Apple maybe only -70% lol permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]5liveR 1 point2 points3 points 17 hours ago what you have is a forked price behaviour like this Price Changes: 2000-2022 Its also mentioned in the book. You should have read. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [+]Affectionate_Bad8815 -6 points-5 points-4 points 20 hours ago Yeah, and coz i only work 1 day a week i fly to the tropics for a week. Oh ! But wait, the pilot of the plane only works 1 day a week to, booked up, oh and wait again the hotel where i stay, all the staff only work 1 day a wee....oh well off to the movies at home...oh wait...!!! permalink embed save report give award reply [–]never_safe_for_life 2 points3 points4 points 18 hours ago Different people work on different days?? permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Treebuneredditor for a day[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 hours ago I think he's referring to the top being gatekept. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]MiceAreTiny 0 points1 point2 points 16 hours ago Everybody needs to produce a lifetime supply of goods and services. Some people use technology and do this faster and others do not, therefore, a doctor will have to work less compared to a barber. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]Apprehensive-Bed5241 -2 points-1 points0 points 20 hours ago Bro -i have to work 80 hours just to keep up with life. I dunno where <40 hours is coming from. The more you work the more you produce, should be a personal preference, no? Add work to life responsibilities, and bruh, its more than thosen40 hours. Sure we could consume less, but that takes more will than working hard, and I have more than just my mouth to feed. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Treebuneredditor for a day[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 hours ago I suggest you watch some of Jeff Booth's interviews. The idea is that you would have to work less for more. It sounds crazy in the current system, but all things considered, that is what technology *should* be providing. What's the point of technological advancement if we still have to slave away 60 or more hours a week just to have a decent standard of living? Really, ask yourself that. What is the point? So we can have bigger TVs? No, the point of technological advancement is to make life for humans easier, but the current system is manipulated against that. permalink embed save parent report give award reply [–]QuickAltTab 0 points1 point2 points 13 hours ago A free market, which in these contexts always seem to mean free of government intervention, is a fantasy. They always assume good faith actors who won't resort to the same illegal monopolistic/profiteering strategies that have been used in the past: child labor, indentured servitude, discrimination, company scrip, unsafe practices, etc. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]amezibra 0 points1 point2 points 13 hours ago As long as by freewill some people want/are able to accumulate more wealth than others this remains an utopia. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]liquefire81 0 points1 point2 points 12 hours ago Tech of course does. You can see it everywhere and you can reduce the time you spen “working” because of it However, there is a group who want to make you believe otherwise permalink embed save report give award reply [–]StreetPlenty8042 0 points1 point2 points 11 hours ago Human nature and self interest are even more powerful than hard money. Prices settle at a point that maximizes income for producers and this is not at the marginal cost as producers combine and collide (explicitly or implicitly) as it is in their self interest. The result of this is instead of things getting cheaper, the rich are getting richer. I believe his ideas are correct - IF you ignore human nature. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]AnonTheGreat01 0 points1 point2 points 11 hours ago I think he is right. And the hypothesis explains many phenomenons we've been seeing this past decade. It does not guarantee that Bitcoin is the best solution & will become a success though, but I don't know of anything that's even half as promising. We need currency with fixed supply & with an inalterable monetary policy. We need money that cannot be confiscated & manipulated. Like many others point out, the timing is just very unpredictable. I agree with Jeff it's most beneficial for all if the fiat system does not implode very fast, but does so gradually. We're probably talking 2030s. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]jonesmatty 0 points1 point2 points 11 hours ago His book is astounding. It's hard to comprehend someone that smart is walking around. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]wilber-guy 0 points1 point2 points 9 hours ago A free and open market does NOT provide cheaper and cheaper goods. At some point it doesn’t make senses for producers to compete on a product with little to no margin. In a society like ours, selling luxury goods to the 1% makes more sense than catering to the masses. A free market tries to extract as much wealth as possible, so it entirely ignores the bottom 50% of the population that have no wealth to extract. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]DajngoCat 0 points1 point2 points 8 hours ago Agreed. Only strong manipulation of the national currencies is keeping fiat alive. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Mektzer 0 points1 point2 points 8 hours ago My thoughts are that he is 100% correct. He also said in a recent podcast that he could have actually summarized his book in just one line: Technology is deflationary, deal with it. I would love to hear other economists thoughts because I guess most of them should completely disagree with him. permalink embed save report give award reply [–]dannycheeko 0 points1 point2 points 6 hours ago 1 - have you noticed how public corporations always are required to beat last year's earning by any means possible? Why is that? And notice what happens if they only beat last year's earning by 2% vs an expected 8%... ppl get mad (the main 1% of big time investors). 2 - technology has gotten cheaper, moore's law has played a big impact on this. consider the price of a 10MB disk 50 years ago to the price of your 10GB phone now. 3 - humans shouldn't be working more than 40 hours a week - but we still do because of two major issues: the first being linked to item 1 above, if you aren't beating last year's numbers are you even in business? And 2, society has lost touch with a lot if self identification via hobbies outside of work... hence if we aren't in a productive role, we degenerate into drug addicted psychos. 4 - Booth is a proponent to technology and evolution, and Bitcoin fits HIS thesis as the solution. 5 - What many people fail to realize with a bitcoin standard is that we all move towards a communism type state, but the power IS actually in the people's hands and not a totalitarian government.... this is hard to conceptualize because, well, it's never happened (other than star trek) permalink embed save report give award reply [–]Bastiat777redditor for 7 weeks 0 points1 point2 points 3 hours ago the problem is the governments are getting so ridiculous and batty that they are harming productivity growth. We have 300 years of coal in the USA buried and now practically outlawed from use. Natural gas all over the continent. Hydro generation grew rapidly 30 years no no new hydro. Nuclear power plants shut down in France, Germany, California, New England....while electricity prices have gone up. this is inflationary. Life expectancy in the US is declining the last 4 years. Health care so f'd up that prices are now rising while quality DECLINES. If the government can be so f'd up that it is a bigger negative factor than the obvious positive tech advances then it is possible even bitcoin doesn't get more valuable in real terms. I think it is unlikely, but say the government just starts killing 10 million people a year by outlawing meat production or something stupid like that. permalink embed save report give award reply