Here is a good question to ponder: why has the “money” the world uses like USD been so successful despite proof of debasement? Is proof of debasability somehow a desirable property of “money” in the modern world?
The answer might be yes! Taking a loan backed by collateral creates more of the lent and makes the collateral more scarce while the trade is “on.” Repaying the loan reverses this relationship.
People are more willing to borrow “money” when armed with proof of debasement or at least the possibility of debasement.
Nobody borrows bitcoin long term. That would be ruinous. Maybe somehow debasement as encouragement to take risks and work hard is a useful feature of “money” itself?
This is a bit like arguing that stealing is ok, and obviously stealing is wrong, but is it really stealing when people have a choice to hold dollars or Bitcoin? I mean, I still think it is stealing despite the choice, but I suppose the theft isn’t a pure loss for society: by stealing from the poor to fund the sometimes profitable ventures of the future rich, more goods and services enter the economy…or so they say. Proving this theft buys more productivity than having a fair standard measure of value has never been done — in large part because there never was a good money before.
The desire to borrow and lend is largely about getting more collateral, not more “money” at the end of the day, but people think “rich” means “money” and I’d argue that’s not at all the case.
The answer might be yes! Taking a loan backed by collateral creates more of the lent and makes the collateral more scarce while the trade is “on.” Repaying the loan reverses this relationship.
People are more willing to borrow “money” when armed with proof of debasement or at least the possibility of debasement.
Nobody borrows bitcoin long term. That would be ruinous. Maybe somehow debasement as encouragement to take risks and work hard is a useful feature of “money” itself?
This is a bit like arguing that stealing is ok, and obviously stealing is wrong, but is it really stealing when people have a choice to hold dollars or Bitcoin? I mean, I still think it is stealing despite the choice, but I suppose the theft isn’t a pure loss for society: by stealing from the poor to fund the sometimes profitable ventures of the future rich, more goods and services enter the economy…or so they say. Proving this theft buys more productivity than having a fair standard measure of value has never been done — in large part because there never was a good money before.
The desire to borrow and lend is largely about getting more collateral, not more “money” at the end of the day, but people think “rich” means “money” and I’d argue that’s not at all the case.
5
