Cryptocurrency: Booth's Theory Of Everything

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Wed May 10 21:33:37 PDT 2023


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


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list