Can we all agree that money was born to overcome barter? if you produce a table for me because you are a carpenter and in return you can ask me for a pair of shoes because I am a shoemaker and the value is similar, there we can barter.
But if you don’t need shoes, then I will pay you with money, in an amount that (today) equals the value of the table I bought. With that money you, the carpenter, can buy shoes or whatever you need.
But if that money, in the time you wait before buying a good that you need (e.g., shoes), loses its value because it is incredibly easy to produce and its abundance devalues the value it represents, that’s when you will no longer be able to buy what you thought you would; therefore it is like you lost a portion of your work. Who stole that amount of your work? Isn’t it true that it is the same entity who printed additional money at no cost?
This is what happens with fiat currency and with “cryptos” in that they are easy to obtain in abundance, with low cost of production and with centralized control that makes the last economic chains get the maximum damage (cantillon effect) compared to those who have actually decided to increase printing.
“Cryptos” have no difference because they suffer from the same problems, namely centralized control and the ease of issuing new currency with low cost. Only Bitcoin fixes the problem for its nature.
Bitcoin is compassionate. In a world that wants to devalue your money and hollow out your savings; Bitcoin respects the measure of your wealth. It cannot be inflated or debased, it is an agreement that cannot be broken; the most compassionate social contract that there can be.
EriK Cason
