I say yes, because they always have the option to sell it. T...

Comte de Sats Germain

npub12h6h8dj3ale4rk6hkpsp6gcz9kx9xtucyhd3pftn86lnn0j25gdsa9qpsf

hex

49dbf713acca1a58c0cc940bc25b061c9ff1cae9f0bafa8f5bed4e0584404da1

nevent

nevent1qqsynklhzwkv5xjccrxfgz7ztvrpe8l3et5lpwh63ad76ns9s3qymggprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgs9tatnkeg7lu63mdtmqcqayvpzmrzn97vztkcs54ena0eehe92yxcsursmk

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2025-12-11T18:58:24Z

↳ 回复 David II (npub183ks336sqr7mwgnqzns70c22h7d9rd3g7h0xp7yjkwdf48newa6qncssxn)

What about inheritance? Can one family say hold land forever?

I say yes, because they always have the option to sell it. The unfairness of that situation arises from their ability to use it as collateral for debt and get both more debt and debt at a lower interest rate. But that alone isn't the problem, since no one has a right to tell others who/how to lend. The problem is that any debt increases the money supply, even if the money is perfectly finite. If its perfectly finite, then it won't matter past a certain extent because debt will close out at the same rate that its opened, but in a system where the base money can expand, the debt can grow forever, which favors the borrower by constantly devaluing service payments. So the problem isn't inheritance - its the money. If you fix the supply of money, it will be impossible for families to retain ownership of things forever. They will still try, though, and that's good.

原始 JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "49dbf713acca1a58c0cc940bc25b061c9ff1cae9f0bafa8f5bed4e0584404da1",
  "pubkey": "55f573b651eff351db57b0601d23022d8c532f9825db10a5733ebf39be4aa21b",
  "created_at": 1765479504,
  "tags": [
    [
      "e",
      "28e8077e130519db74ec712d7875f32a02fafeed9081446c831137014c915d4d",
      "",
      "root"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "7e5737578245584631587343732a34533dab350910000af850c37b37238e7d95"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "0972d0c8db3a676380cb4618c2ee203c2d7f5be634b56f61337a9e10e1d8fadb",
      "",
      "reply"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "9a21569255d0a3a9e75f1de2e4c883c9be2e5615887f22b2ecf6b1813bcd587d"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "55f573b651eff351db57b0601d23022d8c532f9825db10a5733ebf39be4aa21b"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "4c800257a588a82849d049817c2bdaad984b25a45ad9f6dad66e47d3b47e3b2f"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "16d76f262b689bb1a33faa2df954dbe7ac717937fad4765a05ddfae3dac92856"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "3c6d08c75000fdb7226014e1e7e14abf9a51b628f5de60f892b39a9a9e797774"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "I say yes, because they always have the option to sell it. The unfairness of that situation arises from their ability to use it as collateral for debt and get both more debt and debt at a lower interest rate. But that alone isn't the problem, since no one has a right to tell others who/how to lend. The problem is that any debt increases the money supply, even if the money is perfectly finite. If its perfectly finite, then it won't matter past a certain extent because debt will close out at the same rate that its opened, but in a system where the base money can expand, the debt can grow forever, which favors the borrower by constantly devaluing service payments. So the problem isn't inheritance - its the money. If you fix the supply of money, it will be impossible for families to retain ownership of things forever. They will still try, though, and that's good.",
  "sig": "84ebf7fe93e641ab8ef416f04fc0455125da5903782a34875c65100241a94bd72e46a73acc18806ff3979ef461f12678696578d40c18a6882726aeaf1a4e6dd3"
}