forwardsteps 🧡

Hmmm, then I guess I'll never ascend. How to not be triggered by this kind of thing is a challenge! https://primal.net/e/nevent1qqsw8jul0dqxshrz6kku8mclag727v5djqzhavjs0e9dw50scek4yjgplz63t

Woohoo! Freo beat the Pies. Neither are my team, though I live in WA (Freo's state). I used to live in Melbourne and we loved to hate Collingwood. 🤣😆🤭 https://blossom.primal.net/329e6458cd9f2148d04f49437d21b698511ba25c3774c6618ef92eddefe49034.jpg

It's late at night and I don't have energy tonight for answering so I got this from ChatGPT instead (see below). Also, listen to a bunch of Jeff Booth interviews. 🧡🧡 Here's my AI assisted response: This is a very thoughtful question — you’re touching the core tension between **fixed money supply** and **growing economic output**. Let’s break it down clearly. --- ## 1️⃣ How could a fixed-supply asset (like Bitcoin) work in a growing economy? Bitcoin has a **hard cap of 21 million coins**. If it became the global standard: * The **money supply would be fixed** * The **economy (goods, services, productivity) would continue growing** ### What would happen? If output grows but money supply doesn’t, then: > Prices fall over time (deflation) Example: * Today: 1 BTC = 1 house * In 20 years: 1 BTC = 5 houses (because productivity increased) So instead of inflation (prices rising), you'd get **increasing purchasing power** of money. This is not mathematically impossible. It’s how gold-standard economies partially functioned in the 19th century. --- ## 2️⃣ The real economic tension The main issue isn’t "there isn’t enough money." Money is divisible. Bitcoin can be divided into: * 100 million satoshis per BTC * Potentially even smaller units in software So supply divisibility is not the problem. The deeper concerns are: ### 🔹 A) Debt becomes harder In a deflationary system: * Debts become more expensive over time * Borrowing is riskier * Credit-based expansion slows Modern economies are built heavily on debt expansion. --- ### 🔹 B) Hoarding incentive If money increases in value over time: * Saving is rewarded * Spending is delayed * Risk-taking may reduce Some economists argue this slows innovation. Others argue it forces smarter capital allocation. --- ## 3️⃣ Your idea: money reflecting natural resources You said: > "We should have an asset that reflects the actual state of natural resources — which enable production." That’s a powerful concept. Let's analyze it. ### What you're proposing sounds like: * A **resource-backed currency** * Or a **production-capacity indexed currency** Something like: * Energy-backed money * Carbon-capacity backed money * Land/resource basket standard * GDP-indexed token * Commodity basket currency --- ## 4️⃣ The difficulty with resource-backed money It sounds intuitive — but here are the structural challenges: ### 🔸 1) Resources change constantly * New discoveries * Technological efficiency improvements * Substitutions (e.g., solar replaces oil) What exactly would you peg it to? --- ### 🔸 2) Measuring “real resource capacity” is hard Natural resources: * Are geographically distributed * Have extraction costs * Are politically controlled * May be environmentally constrained You’d need: * A global authority * Real-time measurement * Agreement on valuation That introduces governance and trust issues. --- ### 🔸 3) Production ≠ resources alone Production depends on: * Technology * Human capital * Institutions * Energy efficiency * Knowledge Japan has few natural resources but massive production. Congo has huge resources but low production. So resource-backing doesn’t directly equal economic output. --- ## 5️⃣ Deeper philosophical divide Your question really touches this: ### Should money reflect: A) Scarcity? (Bitcoin model) B) Production capacity? (Growth-indexed model) C) Resource base? (Commodity model) D) Political policy? (Fiat model) Each system optimizes different values. --- ## 6️⃣ Can a fixed asset work in a growing world? Yes — but the economy would look different: * More savings-driven * Less debt-leveraged * Slower credit expansion * Possibly lower boom/bust cycles * Stronger purchasing power over time It would likely be: * Less inflationary * More volatile during adjustment phase * Structurally deflationary The real issue isn’t “not enough money.” It’s whether society can operate without: * Continuous credit expansion * Monetary stimulus * Inflation as a political tool --- ## 7️⃣ Your intuition is very interesting You’re thinking in thermodynamic terms: > Production depends on physical constraints (energy, materials). That aligns with: * Energy economics * Ecological economics * Biophysical economics Some economists (like Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen or Herman Daly) argue exactly this: > Money should reflect energy and entropy constraints. --- ## 8️⃣ Big insight Bitcoin reflects **digital scarcity**. Natural-resource money reflects **physical scarcity**. Fiat reflects **political authority**. Each anchors value differently. The real question becomes: > Do we want money to represent scarcity, production capacity, or governance power? There is no purely technical answer — it's philosophical and political.