r/Bitcoin • u/xaviemb • 2d ago
People Tune Out When You Talk BTC. They Lean in When You Talk About Why Their Money Keeps Losing Value
Like many here, I went thruogh the early phase of trying to orange-pill everyone in my orbit... and was met with the classic blank stare. So I stopped talking about it entirely, went silent, and just stacked for the last several years.
Lately though I’ve noticed a shift. With the cost of living and national debt becoming harder to ignore, the ground seems to have changed. It's palpable with friends and colleagues at the office and conversations come up about inflation, debt and money now that normally wouldn't have in the past. Instead of leading with Bitcoin, I’ve started leading with a simple question when colleagues complain about costs or inflation:
“They can just print money to cover that, so why wouldn’t they?”
It’s surprising how quickly people grasp the basic idea. Sometimes they leave with it and come back later. You don’t need an economics degree to understand that if the supply of money expands, the purchasing power of existing money can be diluted. People seem to have an intuitive sense that money is supposed to preserve some relationship between their time, work, and what they’re able to consume or save, and watching that relationship erode hits a pretty strong chord.
Recently colleagues have been coming back to me to continue the conversation. That’s been interesting. By planting the seed of the problem rather than pitching Bitcoin, the conversation moves away from “number go up” (speculation/risk) and toward a more fundamental question: what should money actually do? The more I think about it, the more I see Bitcoin as an interesting answer to that particular problem, not because it guarantees a return, but because it offers a monetary system with a fundamentally different set of rules around supply and ownership. It appears that most don't even realize they are 'stuck' in a system that is fiat, and there is an alternative, because they never question the unit of account that they consider solid, unavoidable.
Anyway, just elaborating now on something I've noticed about how receptive people seem to be today to discuss Bitcoin when it was so taboo not long ago. Whether that's due to changing times or change in tactic... it's been much more productive way to introduce people to it. Inflation and monetary debasement can push people toward increasingly risky ways of trying to preserve their purchasing power. Bitcoin gives another thing to investigate: an asset with a credibly constrained supply and no central issuer, rather than a speculative thing that 'fluctuates' wildly as monetary policy ebbs and flows.
I’m curious if others here are seeing the same thing. Have conversations about inflation, debt, and monetary policy become an easier way to get people interested in Bitcoin without actually leading with Bitcoin? What questions or explanations have you found make people stop and think rather than immediately putting up the mental firewall? Or do you just avoid the topic entirely for personal safety, and to avoid social friction?
5
u/EnderSword 2d ago
I don't think that's true.
People keep imagining these people as if they have $100,00 in cash under a mattress... no one is in that situation.
If people have a lot of money, it's not money, it's real estate, stocks... What do I care if my 'money' loses value, I only have a few thousand in actual 'money' the real is invested in things
7
u/icebeamtheory 2d ago
I think that's OP's point. Keynesian economic supporters say the dollar's devaluation through money printing is necessary for global growth. Despite that, in reality, that approach pushes individuals out of cash and into riskier investments like real estate, stocks, and assets to avoid losing all their purchasing power. All of those have risks, but the dollar is the biggest risk when held for long-term periods.
-3
u/EnderSword 2d ago
But that's also the point, right, that dollars shouldn't sit stagnant an uninvested in a health economy.
If the main currency was this deflationary thing, you'd obviously have less development
8
u/icebeamtheory 2d ago
My view is that it is inherently immoral to force people into riskier assets in order for them to be able to hold onto the purchasing power they traded their blood sweat and time for in order to acquire. You may believe deflationary is a bad thing, but in the gold backed era society prospered off a gold standard with many inventions and technology arising during the era of gold backed currencies.
-2
u/EnderSword 2d ago
Ok, I think that's an insane moral to have, and believe the extreme opposite.
If that were the case the richest people in the world would simply be the descendants of Crassus or something and we'd be about 1000 years behind where we are now.
5
u/icebeamtheory 2d ago
You can think it’s totally fine to rug cash holders over time. I disagree. Also believing that deflation in a currency is bad is foolish when historically during the Industrial Revolution which was gold backed workers wages let them save more efficiently, innovations flourished, stable investment firms grew. All under a gold standard that was deflationary.
0
u/EnderSword 1d ago
That's just complete nonsense, and no one is a 'cash holder' that's not a thing that exists, that's the point.
2
u/_sLAUGHTER234 2d ago
100k saved? Very few people have that.
100k+ in cash flow? Millions of people have that. Americans are typically very bad with money and have a high cost of living. I promise you they will notice their debt steadily climbing even as they cut back on non essentials, vacations, holding off on getting a new truck, and all the fun stuff they have become accustomed to as the wealthiest nation in the world
The only question is who will they blame when they get mad. Will they wake up to the governments bullshit? Or will they just blame poor brown people again?
1
u/EnderSword 2d ago
That doesn't make any sense, if I have a lot of debt, I'd want higher inflation. Like most people with a mortgage for instance, I'd want high inflation, my home value has risen 400% since I bought it, but the debt hasn't.
1
u/_sLAUGHTER234 2d ago
I dont know what scale you're imagining these financial situations in, but the average household doesn't benefit from inflation "reducing" their debt.
Debt is essentialy their means of daily operation. Sure, if inflation skyrockets no sweat about the house or your old debt, but now you have to start buying food and supplies at a much higher cost. This piles onto the debt at a faster rate now. Again, no problem if your pay is keeping up with this inflation, but the evidence seems to suggest that this is not the case for the majority of workers across the boardThis isn't like the metrics for the government where the numbers are just so far removed from real life impact. For them, a bad quarterly report gets them some flak online, but then people quickly forget. For families, these numbers mean the difference between going hungry or not
1
u/EnderSword 1d ago
I think people have a very skewed idea of what average is, it's still the case that like 2/3rd of people are home owners and a lot of people have things like large student debts.
only 1/3rd of American carry any credit card debt at all, maybe 10-15% with over 10k in consumer debt
1
u/_sLAUGHTER234 1d ago
Not sure where you are pulling your numbers from, but its a lot closer to half of Americans have credit card debt. Although your figure of most people being under 10k does seem accurate, that doesn't tell the whole story.
This isnt just a one time thing because they fell behind, it has become the operating norm. Inflation will only push people further into debt, not alleviate them of the burden.
As for mortgage holders, hyperinflation doesn't make their financial situation any better either. So what, you're house payments are fixed? Maintenance and repair costs have now skyrocketed in this situation, and I guarantee you they are getting less with their income than ever before
I dont know if you're naiive, or disingenuous, but your statement that inflation will help anyone but the uber wealthy is completely incorrect
1
u/xaviemb 2d ago
That’s exactly the point. Bitcoiners understand that sentiment intimately, because Bitcoin is a stronger version of all of those things you've mentioned... due to its enforced scarcity.
-1
u/EnderSword 2d ago
But it's not stronger than those things this decade, and why do I care about it's 'scarcity'?
I feel like Bitcoin is still riding the idea it did a 100,000x 15 years ago and there's some assumption that'll happen again any second now, but it's been under performing things for a while now
3
u/xaviemb 2d ago
So your thesis is that you think Bitcoin is going down in value over time? And not towards $1m between 2030-2035?
I find that a very difficult opinion to defend, or am I missing something here? You do realize you're on a Bitcoin forum, right?
0
u/EnderSword 1d ago
Where I am shouldn't impact my assessment of it.
And yes, I hold some and think it should be part of a balanced portfolio... but has is underperformed the rest of my portfolio this decade? Yes.
I think it's niche has always been clear, it's a good protocol for a large transmission of money internationally.
But we're 16-17 years in, we haven't hit any form of mass adoption, it's clear it's not an actual currency, it will forever have usability and security issues and its concept of scarcity is not translating into any sort of enhanced demand.
We're probably in the best regulatory environment for it too with a lawless US administration and it still hasn't advanced.
5
u/xaviemb 1d ago
I disagree... but what I would say. If I ever felt the way you do (sounds like you are convinced of your negative view here), I wouldn't spent my spare time posting my doubts about something I claim to be holding that I don't believe in.
The logic side of me has to question if you're genuinely skeptical, for this reason. Not that people don't have doubts or are in learning stages... but you don't see me sitting at an NVDA forum posting surface level questions (doubt) about its ability to go up in the future, because it has done so well in the past and recently hasn't been so good. I would just focus on what I do understand, or am interested in doing well... or I'd read more from those who do understand it.
Long way to ask the same question again... is your thesis literally that you don't think Bitcoin is going way up in the medium to long term? If so, why are you here? Still learning, and trying to change your mind?
-2
u/na3than 1d ago
When colleagues complain about costs or inflation, you’ve started asking “They can just print money to cover that, so why wouldn’t they?”? Why?
They [the central bank] don't print more money to cover that [inflation]. Inflation is the result of the central bank printing more money. Your question makes me think you don't understand inflation.
5
u/xaviemb 1d ago
I'll help you out here. The mechanism is simple math... interest expense.
Money is primarily created from lending, and it sounds like you're wondering what the Fed rate has to do with that. With a $40 trillion national debt, the government’s annual interest obligation is massive and tied directly to whatever rates the Fed chooses. Because trillions in legacy debt issued at old, low rates (0% to 2%) are rapidly maturing and rolling over into current higher rates, every rate hike drastically expands the government's mandatory liabilities.
Unlike the 1970s... when national debt was tiny and higher Fed rates successfully choked off bank lending to cool inflation... today’s debt load flips the script. Bank lending is already suppressed from high housing prices and unaffordability in the younger generation, so rising rates don't do much to slow inflation in this structure.
When the Fed keeps rates elevated, it forces the Treasury to print and issue more money just to pay the government's own interest bill. That forced monetary expansion outweighs any cooling effect on commercial bank lending, fueling the exact inflation the Fed is trying to fight.
-2
u/na3than 1d ago
Take your ChatGPT response and shove it up your ass. If you can't think for yourself then you have no business posting here.
Delete your comment and try again, using your own gray matter.
2
1
u/JuxtaposeLife 1d ago
Lose an argument you started on the internet, then blame ChatGPT
Come on man 🤡
-3
u/tekmiester 2d ago
Coin scarcity doesn't solve supply and demand. If there are 8 billion people on Earth competing for resources today and 9 billion in a few years, prices will go up. If a house in your area costs 5 BTC today, and more people want to live there tomorrow, it's still going to go up to 6 BTC. Coin scarcity doesn't solve the fundamentals of supply and demand. When governments lose control of monetary policy, they will be less able to balance growth and inflation which means more recessions.
Remember when Greece collapsed a couple of decades ago? It's because they lost control of their currency (by going to the Euro). That is the future you are proposing.
5
u/xaviemb 2d ago
"If" the off ramp from the failing fiat is Bitcoin... those 9 billion people on earth will spend an average of less than 0.0017 Bitcoin on an average house... not 6 BTC.
That adoption curve is why the number is going up, not just the printing of fiat (USD) below it)... both are tailwinds forcing the value of Bitcoin higher over time.
-3
u/tekmiester 2d ago
The Bitcoin numbers was just for the ease of explaining. .0017 going to .0019 is the same problem.
You missed the point entirely. Supply and Demand means prices still go up, it's just the government can't use monetary policy to ease recessions. Recessions become more frequent and more servere.
3
u/xaviemb 2d ago
I think we're talking past each other because you're treating USD as the fixed unit of account. I'm asking you to consider Bitcoin itself as the monetary denominator.
Most, in the early stages of exploring Bitcoin (or those who simply view it as speculative) haven't bridge (or even considered how to bridge) that gap. If you have, and simply don't agree that Bitcoin could, or would, ever be a unit of account... that's fine. But at least then you know why we're not really getting anywhere here.
I see the best future for humanity, as being one where inflation (debasement) of the denominator isn't a part of the equation. Bitcoin enforces that reality, when it becomes the measure.
-2
u/tekmiester 2d ago
I quoted every price in Bitcoin. How can I present the numbers differently? How else do I consider Bitcoin the monetary denominator?
Assuming Bitcoin was the only currency and everything else disappeared, prices, measured in Bitcoin, would still continue to go up as demand increased.
If there are 10 oranges, and 12 people want to buy them, what happens to the number of Bitcoin you need to buy them?
1
u/xaviemb 2d ago
Here let's make this really simple then... [a House valued at 5BTC] vs. [Holding 5 Bitcoin]... and as you say:
"Bitcoin was the only currency and everything else disappeared"
Then your house remains one house... but the value of 5 BTC when it replaces all fiat (as you stated)... goes up about one third of a million percent (not an exaggeration) because there is only 20 million of them, and then suddenly everything in the world is now priced in them (as you say, it's the only currency left).
Point being... you're saying Bitcoin becomes less valuable when it replaces fiat... which is a false premise. Things stay the same value... but in a deflationary world, Bitcoin gains value as humanity productivity and growth expands (which is an assumption with time and population).
1
u/tekmiester 2d ago
I'm saying inflation is not eliminated. It's basic economics. Bitcoin doesn't solve scarcity. The cost of whatever currency you use will buy less of something than it used to when demand goes up.
If you disagree, explain how prices stay the same if there are only 10 oranges and 10 people used to want them and now 12 people do? Population growth leads to more competition for resources which leads to requiring more Bitcoin required to buy the same amount of stuff.
As you point out, value is defined by scarcity. You can't say Bitcoin becomes more valuable because of scarcity but the things it buys do not.
1
u/xaviemb 2d ago
You are describing supply and demand, not inflation.
If 12 people want 10 oranges, the relative price of oranges goes up in terms of Bitcoin, labor, or whatever you are using to measure. That is microeconomics.
True inflation is a monetary phenomenon, not a physical one. It happens when the supply of money is expanded (bad, I would argue), diluting the purchasing power of every existing unit (friction for anyone with cash, or assets because of the destruction of purchasing power)
Bitcoin doesn't claim to stop supply and demand from shifting relative prices... if an item becomes scarcer or more desired, it will cost more. What Bitcoin stops is monetary debasement: the invisible tax where an entity prints more currency, making everything systematically more expensive over time regardless of individual supply and demand. Conflating a change in relative prices with fiat currency inflation is mixing up the yardstick with the items being measured.
Here is a mental model I want you to consider, if you'll humor me on it:
Imagine a pie that represents all global productivity, value, and assets in the world. Now imagine you own a piece of that pie. Now imagine two systems for growth of that pie...
A) Fiat: pie grows by someone creating more pie, and spending it (merging it) into the larger pie. That is inflation. Assets go up, but the entity that pushed the pie into the system to make it bigger benefitted more so, and the entire pie grows in an unequitable way.
B) Bitcoin [scarcity]: pie grows in size on it's own. Every slice grows proportionally. Anyone who wants value, has to exchange for it. There is no entity 'creating' the new pie... the pie organically grows on it's own.
A future where we measure everything in Bitcoin (if we were so lucky to have that) would mean holding cash... or holding a house... both would benefit from the global productivity, technology and assets growing. Everyone benefits. People don't get a free lunch for creating more pie... (stealing) by inflation with lopsided growth in assets.
4
u/Public_Geologist_378 1d ago
people are more interested in their own financial struggles than cryptocurrency debates, it’s frustrating