Bitcoin is another option similar in some ways to gold (in function at least). And to buy a house you need fiat currency so they're somewhat liquid in that sense.
Houses are a pretty "hard" asset in physical reality and with inflation basically they go up in value while also providing utility. You can buy stocks or index funds, but those can lose value and they're definitely not guaranteed to increase in value. I think this is where things like houses becoming collateralized assets start coming into the picture. But it's a terrible store of wealth because it loses at least 2% of its value by intention (this fluctuates - just going off the stated Federal Reserve targets). Maybe the issue is just that we no longer have a store of wealth that isn't tied to a speculative asset? Fiat currency is a fantastic currency - even terrorists who hate America use dollars. I think deflationary economies have bad attributes - like why take risks when you can do nothing and the value of your assets goes up? On the other hand, (and someone else mentioned something related to this) inflation literally destroys wealth so how can someone working a non-high paying job store wealth when the value of that wealth is destroyed at a minimum of 2% per year? I guess you could argue back to your first point that this is what caused wars - you needed to accumulate resources in order to have wealth so you'd start wars and take stuff. Now you can just print money and at least up until some point (which we don't know yet) it works. In the past you could wage war until you ran out of gold and then that was that - you couldn't print money out of thin air.
On the other hand, however, States are no longer constrained by how much gold they have. It's definitely an interesting theory - any particular articles or books you've read on the subject? I find the story of money fascinating. There's a reasonable line of thought that observes that it's no coincidence that the end of the age of European colonialism coincided with the demise of the gold standard. Deflationary value stores have a tendency to cause all sorts of social ills by encouraging hoarding. > Long term I'm bearish because it's a deflationary asset. I would be surprised if within, say, 15 years it's worth that amount and not $0 or $1,000,000 (or something). So I wouldn't be surprised to see $BTC hit $6,000 or even less. Unless something crazy happens, deflationary environments in fiat currency will always be avoided, and if you target 2% inflation every year it's all but guaranteed that $BTC will simply be "worth" a lot of dollars (or $0). Eventually we'll get to the point where, similar to maybe Japan or South Korea a pack of gum costs 1000 units of fiat, which will necessitate $BTC being "worth" hundreds of thousands of dollars (or it's worthless, I don't think there is a middle ground here). Long-term I'm bullish because it's a deflationary asset. It's more of a hedge against low interest rates and the central banks printing money in that environment IMO. Many believe it's supposed to be a hedge, and I think it still is, but it's not a hedge against a high interest rate environment in which the dollar and fiat currency (primary reserve currencies: USD, EUR, YEN, GPB, etc.) are still normalized and valued. It's getting hit from both ends: expensive energy, and high interest rates. I think $BTC is in a bad spot that's about to get worse in the short-term. We invest a small amount of money into $BTC and I feel pretty neutral on the topic and my comments come from an intention of neutral observation. I'd doubt BTC will go to zero, but I wouldn't be surprised if the entire covid rally gets wiped out and we see BTC 6k again.
0 kommentar(er)
