Author Archives: hooglanda

Post Labor Econonomics Videos – David Shapiro

Posted on by
4

Update 7-27-2025 – He added a 5th video Post-Labor Economics Lecture 05 – “Bridging the Gap” (2025 Update)

as well as a long podcast – Full Post-Labor Economics Deep Dive and Book Preview! Interview with Dalibor Petrovic

I am looking forward to the book.

original post below

Over the past couple weeks, I’ve been diving deep into David Shapiro’s Post-Labor Economics lecture series (linked below — all around 40 min). I’ve listened to each one twice, and then used a mix of ChatGPT, Copilot, and Grok to create four 10-point summaries — one per video. Then I asked ChatGPT to synthesize those into a single meta-summary of the core ideas.

Here are the 4 videos. Each about 40 minutes long. 

Post-Labor Economics Lecture 04 – “Day 1 Implementation & Solutions” (2025 Update) 

Post-Labor Economics Lecture 02 – “Economic Agency Paradox” (2025 update)

Post-Labor Economics Lecture 03 – “That which gets measured gets managed!” (2025 update)

Post-Labor Economics Lecture 04 – “Day 1 Implementation & Solutions” (2025 Update)

ChatGPT – Here is a 10-bullet-point meta-summary that synthesizes the key themes and insights from all four “Post-Labor Economics” video summaries:

  1. Automation is Inevitable and Transformative: AI and robotics are displacing human labor across all sectors, making wage-based employment increasingly obsolete while simultaneously threatening consumer demand and economic stability.
  2. Economic Agency is the Core Concern: Individuals require labor rights, property ownership, and voting rights to retain agency. As labor rights erode, property rights become the cornerstone of financial autonomy.
  3. The Demand Paradox: Businesses want to automate to cut costs but still need paying customers. Without jobs, people can’t spend—creating a structural contradiction that leads to economic collapse unless resolved.
  4. Rethinking Metrics: The EAI: Traditional KPIs like GDP and unemployment are no longer sufficient. The Economic Agency Index (EAI) measures household income sources (property, wages, transfers) and highlights the need to prioritize ownership income.
  5. UBI: Helpful but Not Enough: Universal Basic Income is necessary as a safety net but inadequate on its own due to inflation risk, governance issues, and centralization. It must be paired with decentralized, property-based income streams.
  6. Ownership is the New Wages: Future economic resilience depends on expanding access to trusts, wealth funds, co-ops, patron equity programs, and digital tokens to replace lost labor income with ownership-based dividends.
  7. Counties as Innovation Labs: With 3,100 U.S. counties, local governments are ideal sites for experimenting with and scaling post-labor economic models, offering granular data and tailored policy solutions.
  8. Banks as Economic Interfaces: Banks will evolve into the primary economic hubs, managing dividend flows, investment portfolios, and identity verification, replacing the role of traditional employers in financial life.
  9. Guardrails Against Technofeudalism: Preventing elite capture and concentrated corporate control is critical. Transparency, participatory governance, and broad-based ownership are essential safeguards.
  10. Market-Driven, Not Ideological: Post-labor economics distinguishes itself from socialism and communism by preserving markets and private property. Its goal is not wealth redistribution through state control, but wealth inclusion through distributed ownership and market-based tools.

I continued to have a conversation with ChatGPT to understand further. 

I asked it “”How does post-labor economics differ from individuals simply investing in the stock market to generate passive income?”

It gave a very nicely formatted response, below. 

🧩 TL;DR: It’s Not Either/Or

Buying stocks is one tool — a good one — for individual financial freedom.

But post-labor economics is about designing an entire economy where capital income is as normal, widespread, and accessible as having a job once was.

It’s not just you winning the game — it’s everyone getting a seat at the table.

Great question — and an important one.

🤔 At first glance, post-labor economics might sound like:

“Just buy stocks and live off dividends — problem solved.”

But post-labor economics goes beyond that in a few key ways. Here’s how it’s different from individuals simply investing in the stock market:

🏛️ 1. System Design vs. Personal Strategy

  • Stock investing is an individual solution — you build capital and income for yourself.
  • Post-labor economics is a system-wide redesign — it’s about building structures where everyone can participate in ownership, even if they don’t have savings, brokerage accounts, or financial literacy.

💵 2. Barriers to Entry

  • The stock market requires:
    • Disposable income
    • Access to financial tools
    • Risk tolerance
    • Education
  • Post-labor models focus on lowering those barriers by:
    • Distributing residency-based dividends
    • Creating local trust funds
    • Offering non-transferable community equity (you don’t have to “buy in”)

🏘️ 3. Ownership of Local, Tangible Assets

  • The stock market mostly involves ownership of national or global corporations.
  • Post-labor economics emphasizes ownership of local assets: businesses, land, water rights, data, energy — things that create direct, community-level income streams.

Owning Amazon stock ≠ owning the gas station, solar field, or rental housing in your own town.

🤝 4. Shared Governance & Resilience

  • When you buy stock, you have no governance power, unless you’re a billionaire activist investor.
  • Post-labor structures are built on shared governance — resident voting, dividend boards, and community stewardship.

💬 5. Not Everyone Can or Will Invest

  • A huge portion of the population has no stock market exposure. About 45% of Americans own no equities at all — and among the bottom 50% of income, it’s more like 10–15%.
  • Post-labor economics seeks to bake ownership into the system so that even non-investors receive income from capital.

🧠 6. Ownership as Policy, Not Privilege

  • Stock investing is optional and personal.
  • Post-labor economics treats ownership as infrastructure — like roads or clean water. It should be available to all by design, not just those who planned ahead or got lucky.

🌐 7. Resisting Elite Capture

  • The stock market concentrates wealth — the top 10% own over 85% of equities.
  • Post-labor models try to decentralize ownership — giving communities a stake in the economy before everything gets bought up by private equity or mega-corps.

🛠️ 8. Designed for the Age of Automation

  • Stock market investing was never intended as a wage replacement for the masses.
  • Post-labor economics is explicitly built to answer:

“What happens when jobs disappear, but people still need income?”

My next question. 

“What mechanisms does post-labor economics use to avoid the tragedy of the commons when assets are collectively owned?”

✅ TL;DR:

Post-labor economics avoids the tragedy of the commons by turning shared access into structured, incentivized, accountable co-ownership.

It’s not a free-for-all — it’s a designed economy, where people are rewarded for taking care of what they collectively own.

Excellent question — and one of the core design challenges of post-labor economics.

The tragedy of the commons refers to a situation where a shared resource is overused or neglected because no one feels personal responsibility. In a post-labor economy — where ownership is distributed rather than concentrated — this is a real risk. But it’s not unsolvable.

Here’s how post-labor economics intentionally designs around the tragedy of the commons:

🧩 1. Move from “Common” to “Co-Owned”

  • The key shift is from open access (commons) to structured, governed co-ownership.
  • Think: community trusts, resident shares, dividend boards — where everyone has skin in the game, not just access.

📜 2. Define Clear Rights and Responsibilities

  • Successful post-labor models include smart governance charters:
    • Who can vote?
    • Who maintains assets?
    • How are profits used?
    • What happens if you leave?
  • This clarity prevents freeloading and aligns incentives for stewardship.

💰 3. Tie Participation to Rewards

  • Dividends aren’t just handed out — they can be tied to local contribution:
    • Show up to meetings
    • Volunteer hours
    • Local residency
    • Use the service or shop locally
  • This ensures that ownership feels earned, not distant or abstract.

📊 4. Transparency and Dashboards

  • Many models propose using public dashboards to show how community-owned assets are performing.
  • When people see the numbers — usage, revenue, maintenance costs — it creates accountability and pride.

🧑‍🤝‍🧑 5. Decentralized Governance Structures

  • Rather than one central authority, post-labor systems push decisions downward:
    • Counties manage their own trusts
    • Co-ops elect local boards
    • Banks help automate compliance and distribution
  • Local control = stronger stewardship.

🏦 6. Hybrid Ownership Models

  • Some assets are shared (like land or solar arrays), while others are individually owned (tokens, local equity).
  • This creates a blended structure where people benefit both as individuals and collectively, reducing the temptation to abuse shared goods.

🛡️ 7. Guardrails Against Elite Capture

  • Ironically, many “commons” in the modern economy (like housing or water) have already been captured — just not by the public.
  • Post-labor models bake in protections: voting caps, local-only ownership, anti-speculation rules, etc.

It’s a powerful framework. Personally, I’m still focused on achieving my own financial freedom — and I encourage everyone to do the same. But once we secure our own foundations, we’re in a much better position to help build a freer, more equitable world for everyone.

The Intellectual Stagnation in Academia: Ignoring the Corporate Shift to Bitcoin

Posted on by
1

Introduction In recent years, the corporate world has witnessed a historic shift in treasury strategies, with several prominent companies incorporating Bitcoin into their reserves. Despite these significant changes, many finance professors continue to dismiss or ignore the implications of this trend. During my MBA studies, I have personally discussed or emailed with six finance professors over the last three years about Bitcoin. None of them have shown any curiosity or willingness to engage in meaningful discussions about this topic. While I cannot speak for all finance professors, this has been my experience with those I have interacted with. This paper aims to highlight the lack of intellectual curiosity among academics in the face of obvious transformations in corporate and global environments.

The Corporate Shift to Bitcoin The adoption of Bitcoin by companies such as MicroStrategy, Tesla, and Block Inc. marks a pivotal change in how corporate treasuries manage their assets. These companies view Bitcoin as a strategic asset, providing a hedge against inflation and currency debasement. MicroStrategy, for instance, has aggressively acquired Bitcoin, making it the largest Bitcoin treasury in the world. This trend began around 2020 and has continued to gain traction, signaling a shift in corporate treasury management.

In the last month, several other companies have also announced Bitcoin treasury strategies:

  • Genius Group: An AI-powered education group that has committed 90% or more of its current and future reserves to be held in Bitcoin 1.
  • Worksport: A U.S.-based provider of pickup truck solutions that is adding cryptocurrency to its corporate treasury strategy 1.
  • Rumble: A video platform targeting a conservative audience, planning to invest up to $20 million of surplus cash in Bitcoin 2.
  • Metaplanet: A company with clearly stated strategy reserve asset goals and reasoning 3.
  • Strategy (previously MicroStrategy): Continues to lead the way with its Bitcoin treasury strategy 3.

Government Recognition of Bitcoin The U.S. government has also acknowledged the significance of Bitcoin by establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile. This move underscores the growing acceptance of Bitcoin as a store of value and its potential role in national economic strategies.

Personal Experience with Academic Dismissal Over the past three years, I have personally discussed or emailed with six finance professors during my MBA studies about the topic of Bitcoin. Despite the clear and significant changes in corporate treasury strategies, none of these professors have shown any curiosity or willingness to engage in meaningful discussions about Bitcoin. This lack of interest is particularly surprising given the relevance of Bitcoin to contemporary financial practices and corporate strategies and the fact that there are not many innovations in Corporate Treasury operations. When a new idea comes along you would expect people to be interested to consider if it has any value.

The Importance of Intellectual Curiosity Intellectual curiosity is a cornerstone of academic excellence. It drives innovation, fosters critical thinking, and encourages the exploration of new ideas. The reluctance of finance professors to engage with the topic of Bitcoin reflects a stagnation in intellectual curiosity that is detrimental to both students and the broader academic community.

Conclusion The corporate shift to Bitcoin represents a significant change in treasury strategies that warrants academic attention. Professors should embrace intellectual curiosity and explore the implications of this trend, rather than dismissing it. By doing so, they can provide students with a comprehensive understanding of the evolving financial landscape and prepare them for the future.

Elon Musk’s Vision Still Matters for Tesla

Posted on by
Reply

On a recent episode of the Sanity Podcast, hosts Dave Briggs and Allison Camarada sat down with Ross Gerber, an early Tesla investor who once held nearly 500,000 shares. Gerber’s take? Elon Musk’s political stances, his Twitter antics, and his role in slashing government spending via DOGE have turned Tesla into a “pariah brand,” tanking its stock and alienating owners. He’s sold off much of his stake and wants Musk out as CEO, pointing to a board he claims is overpaid in stock options and lacks independence. As a Tesla shareholder who’s voted twice to back Musk’s compensation, I’ve got a different view—one that sees Gerber’s complaints as shortsighted and the hate for Tesla as misplaced. Here’s why Musk’s vision still matters, and why Tesla wouldn’t be Tesla without him.

Stock Options Align Incentives, Not Greed

Gerber griped about Tesla’s board getting rich off stock options instead of flat pay—$600 million for chair Robyn Denholm, he says, versus the $400k norm at companies like Disney. But isn’t that the same deal Musk has? Back in 2018, when Tesla was a $50 billion company, shareholders like me voted for his pay package: for every $50 billion in value he added, up to $650 billion, he’d get a payout. The media called it absurd, saying Tesla would never hit that mark. Guess what? It did, and then some—12xing my investment. We voted again in 2024 to reaffirm it, with 75% approval. So why’s Gerber mad when the same stock-based incentives that rewarded Musk also rewarded him 20-fold? The board and Musk win when shareholders win—when Tesla provides value to the world. That’s not a flaw; it’s the point. The only ones whining are Gerber and an activist lawyer pushing a BS lawsuit with a guy who owns nine shares. Most of us aren’t mad—we’re counting our gains.

Tesla’s Success Isn’t Luck—It’s Elon

Gerber wants Musk gone, but look at the alternatives. Ford’s stock has been stuck at $9 since 1989. GM went bankrupt in 2008, wiping out shareholders like me (I lost $100—not much, but still). Meanwhile, Tesla’s the only new U.S. car company to thrive in a century. Why? Musk’s vision. He’s not just churning out cars—he’s pushing grid-scale Megapack batteries, humanoid robots, and electric semis. New EV players like Fisker and Canoo crashed and burned; Tesla didn’t. People think CEOs micromanage daily ops, but that’s not the gig. A CEO makes a few big calls a year to set the course. Compare Musk to GM’s Mary Barra—stock flat since their bankruptcy—or Ford’s latest CEO, whoever that is. Musk sees where tech and the world are headed; they don’t. Without him, Tesla might coast for 10-15 years on Model Ys and 3s, but the visionary spark would die.

Apple’s Lesson: Visionaries Matter

Take Apple. People see it as a juggernaut now, but in 1998, it was nearly bankrupt. They’d kicked Steve Jobs out in 1985, and for over a decade, the company floundered—until they brought him back in 1997. Jobs turned it around with the iPod, iPhone, and more, making Apple a titan. Since his death, though? They’ve coasted—new iPhones, sure, but nothing revolutionary. Tesla could follow that path if Musk were axed: profitable for a while, but stagnant, no longer dreaming big. Gerber might not care, but I do—because that’s where the real value lies.

The Hate’s Misplaced—And It Hurts the Wrong People

Yes, Musk’s dive into politics stings for Tesla owners. I get it—nobody likes being hassled for driving one. But the pain isn’t from Elon; it’s from people attacking us for his views. I don’t see folks boycotting Amazon over Jeff Bezos, or GM over Barra. Why Tesla? Gerber notes Musk owns just 13% of the company—87% is us: shareholders, pension funds, workers. Protests at Tesla stores, keying cars—that doesn’t hit Elon; it hits regular people. Tesla owners now have to worry their cars will be vandalized every time they go oujust because they drive a Tesla. It’s unfair, and it’s missing the point: Tesla’s still fighting climate change, even if Musk’s tweets rile up the culture wars.

Musk’s Not Perfect, But He’s Proven His Worth

Is Musk distracting? Sure, sometimes. Twitter was a wild move, and his Trump endorsement after the assassination attempt raised eyebrows. But Gerber’s wrong that it’s all downhill. Musk’s quirks—political or otherwise—come with the genius. He took Tesla from a cash-strapped EV geek dream to a global force. When Biden snubbed Tesla for GM and Ford in that EV summit, Musk fought for the credit he’d earned—because he built the industry they’re now riding. And DOGE? If it’s slashing waste, I’m not crying over it—especially when Gerber admits the SEC’s understaffed anyway. Musk’s not “taking his eye off the ball”; he’s juggling more balls than most CEOs could dream of.

The Bottom Line

Gerber’s selling because he’s cashed out his 20x gains and doesn’t like Musk’s vibe anymore. Fine (we, other Tesla Shareholders, don’t like him! Go start your own company Ross!)—he’s free to buy Ford or GM instead. But for me, and plenty of other shareholders, Musk’s the reason Tesla’s not just another failed startup—or a coasting has-been like Apple post-Jobs. The stock’s down 40% from its peak, sure, but it’s still worth more than Ford, GM, and Stellantis combined. BYD’s cheaper cars don’t touch Tesla’s software edge, and robo-taxis? Good luck finding a better bet. Tesla’s not dying—it’s evolving, and Musk’s the one steering it. If you don’t like it, nobody’s forcing you to buy the stock—or the car. Me? I’m still in, because vision beats complacency every time.

Essay: Why Gary Stevenson Should Rethink Bitcoin

Posted on by
Reply

@garyseconomics

Gary, your crusade against inequality is spot-on—the rich hoard wealth, wages stagnate, and housing slips out of reach. You’ve nailed how the system’s rigged, profiting off disparity as you did at Citibank. But your dismissal of Bitcoin as a “scam” or “musical chairs” misses its point. Let’s break it down through your lens. You see value in what’s tangible—property, bonds, cash flows. Bitcoin’s different: it’s digital scarcity, forged by energy-intensive mining, not free “points on the internet.” It costs real resources—miners burn electricity rivaling small nations to secure it. That’s not hype; that’s a backbone. You’ve said wealth concentration tanks demand, keeping rates low. Bitcoin flips that script. It’s not controlled by banks or governments printing money for the elite—it’s capped at 21 million coins, a hedge against inflation you’ve seen erode workers’ lives. You fear Satoshi’s a shadowy puppetmaster, selling off a million coins to dupe the masses. Check the blockchain—those wallets haven’t moved in 16 years. No secret dump, no conspiracy. Bitcoin’s transparent; anyone can verify it. You’d spot a scam in derivatives a mile away—apply that here. It’s not a rich man’s toy; it’s open to anyone with a phone, from East London to Lagos, leveling a field you know is uneven. You’re right about speculative bubbles, but Bitcoin’s survived crashes—$20K in 2017 to $3K, now thriving in 2025 with institutional buy-in. It’s not about quick riches; it’s a store of value, like digital gold, for a world you’ve seen fail the poor. You’ve bet against broken systems before. Bitcoin’s a bet for one—decentralized, fair, and tough as nails. Give it a trader’s eye, Gary. It’s not the enemy; it’s a tool.

@satmojoe

@Jcastweet

@PeterMcCormack

@HawkMcFlipster

@Oriflamme87

Iowa – House File 246  – Bitcoin Investment Bill

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote this to my State Senator, Dave Sires to express my support for Iowa House Bill 246. You can copy and paste to send to your own senator or state congress person.

Senator Sires

I am writing to express my strong support for House File 246, the proposed bill that would allow Iowa’s state treasurer to invest up to 5% of public funds into Bitcoin. As a constituent deeply interested in financial innovation and the economic future of our state, I believe this legislation could mark a pivotal step forward for Iowa.

The Bitcoin, has shown remarkable growth and stability, with a market capitalization now exceeding $1.9 trillion. This bill would not only acknowledge Bitcoin’s legitimacy as an investment asset but also position Iowa as a forward-thinking state in the realm of digital finance. By investing in Bitcoin, Iowa could diversify its portfolio, potentially benefiting from the high returns that Bitcoin has historically provided over the last decade.

Moreover, this move could attract tech-savvy businesses and entrepreneurs to Iowa, fostering a new wave of economic development and job creation centered around Bitcoin. It sends a message that Iowa is open to embracing new economic paradigms that could keep our state competitive on a national and global scale.

I understand there are concerns regarding volatility and regulatory oversight. However, Bitcoin’s integration into state investment strategies has been explored by other states like New Mexico with their Strategic Bitcoin Reserve Act. These examples suggest that with prudent management, the risks can be mitigated while still reaping the benefits of this innovative asset class.

I urge you to:

  1. Support House File 246 in committee votes and on the Senate floor.
  2. Promote education on Bitcoin among your peers to alleviate concerns and clarify the potential benefits.
  3. Advocate for a structured approach to ensure that any investment in Bitcoin includes safeguards against market volatility and maintains transparency in how these funds are managed.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. I look forward to seeing Iowa take this bold step towards the future. Please feel free to reach out if you wish to discuss this further or require any additional information.

Sincerely,

US Government Debt -2024/2025

Posted on by
Reply

$882 billion (2024 interest paid by the US government) is only 2.43% of our $36.3 trillion debt. All debt being currently refinanced is at 4.33% (the current federal funds rate). If the debt is continued to be refinanced at 4% and we end up paying an average of 4% on the debt, the total interest we will be paying could be as high as $1.4 trillion! 

That represents $9,440.83 in interest paid by each of the 153.8 million tax payers, each year!

For this reason, the government has to lower interest rates. The government can’t afford to spend $1.4T on interest each year. 

The total US debt is $36.3 trillion. https://www.usdebtclock.org/#

As of January 17, 2025, the population of the United States was 346,437,156

$36,300,000,000,000.00 debt

346,437,156 people

$104,780.91 debt per person

153,800,000 tax payers

$236,020.81 debt per tax payer

Total Outlays: Up by 10 Percent in Fiscal Year 2024

Outlays in fiscal year 2024 were $6.8 trillion—$617 billion (or 10 percent) more than in 2023. In total, outlays were equal to 23.4 percent of GDP in 2024, down from the recent high of 30.7 percent in 2020, but still above the 50-year average of 21.1 percent.

Total Receipts: Up by 11 Percent in Fiscal Year 2024

Receipts totaled $4.9 trillion during fiscal year 2024, CBO estimates—$479 billion more than during fiscal year 2023. Receipts increased from 16.2 percent of GDP in 2023 to 17.1 percent in 2024, just below the average of 17.3 percent for the past 50 years.

Total outlays (spend) $6.8T – total receipts (taxes) $4.9T = $1.9T deficit. 

 $1,900,000,000,000.00 2024 budget deficit

153,800,000 tax payers

$12,353.71 deficit per taxpayer

Interest Costs on the National Debt

In dollar terms, interest costs reached an all-time high of $476 billion in 2022 and have risen rapidly since then to $882 billion in 2024.

$882 billion is only 2.43% of $36.3 trillion. All debt being currently refinanced is at 4.33% (the current federal funds rate). If the debt is continued to be refinanced at 4% and we end up paying an average of 4% on the debt, the total interest we will be paying could be as high as $1.4 trillion! 

That represents $9,440.83 paid by each of the 153.8 million tax payers.

For this reason, the government has to lower interest rates. The government can’t afford to spend $1.4T on interest each year. 

We can look at Japan as a canary in the coal mine. While the USA’s debt to GDP is about 120%, Japan’s debt to GDP is over 270%. Japan’s interest rate is 0.25%. That is because their debt is so high that they couldn’t afford to pay 5% interest on their debt. This is the future the USA is headed to. 

Below is showing the purchasing power of the Yen to the Dollar. 

If you wanted to buy something in the USA in 2020 and it cost $1 it’d cost 110 yen. 

If you wanted to buy something that cost $1 in the USA in 2025 it would cost $156 yet. 

You need 48% more Yen to buy the same $1 in the USA. 

And that $1 has also lost value over 5 years. The USD also loses about 3% of value a year which over 5 years is 15%. So you’d also need $1.15 to buy today what you could buy in 2020 for $1. 

So things in the USA are getting more expensive for people in Japan. 

I would think that this would result in Japanese people traveling less outside of Japan as the world is getting more expensive for them.

Storing your value in Japanese Yen is a bad idea. 

The USD has had a similar trend against gold. You see the same 5 year performance of gold, in USD below. 

Gold went from $1,500 to $2,700. You’d need 1.8x as many dollars to buy the same 1 oz of gold 5 years later!

Bitcoin has done even more! It is up 10x vs dollars in the last 5 years. Why is this? 

Bitcoin has some base value, that we are unsure of, but on top of that there is the speculative value it has. People are betting on it’s future value. 

How to keep your house – Gary Economics

Posted on by
Reply

“ the US government or every government in the world is the largest spender of things and they are pushing the price of things up. For example, all the money that the US spends on buying tanks and airplanes and other things consumes some steel and electronics and such and that pushes the price up when Ford or John Deere or Apple wants to buy steel or electronics for their cars or tractors or phones.”

I like Gary Economics. He has a book and a youtube channel. But his message is just so diluted and garbled and he is blinded by his knowledge that he misses some things. 

To start off with, I don’t hate rich people. But this is probably one of the best descriptions of the actual problem with wealth inequality.

How To Keep Your House – Gary Economics – Youtube

And to note, if you have even $50,000 worth of assets, you are probably in the top 10% of the world. So, well this guy is describing the difference between multi-millionaires and billionaires and the middle class he could just as easily be describing the middle class in the USA out paying for services of people in India. For example, many Indian doctors come to the United States and leaves less doctors in India.

Anyway, his whole message is a little garbled all the time. I’ve read his book and listened to enough stuff that I get it but I feel like he’s not that great of a communicator. In general, his argument is we need to tax the rich because they have too much money and push the price of goods up.

 If you heard the bit where he was talking about the rich buying doctors services to do cosmetic surgeries instead of normal surgeries that does a similar thing to Medical care costs as we talked about house is getting the monetary premium. So his argument is we need to have the rich have less buying power so they can’t push the price of goods up for the average person

You sent

And he is right to some point. But a thing he misses is that the US government or every government in the world is the largest spender of things and they are pushing the price of things up. For example, all the money that the US spends on buying tanks and airplanes and other things consumes some steel and electronics and such and that pushes the price up when Ford or John Deere or Apple wants to buy steel or electronics for their cars or tractors or phones.


The whole world is at competition for goods and services. This is explained in a great book, Economics in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt which you can read here for free or buy here. 

What Problem Does Bitcoin Solve? part 3 Buckminster Fuller, F.A Hayek & Henry Ford’s comments

Posted on by
1

I’ve written a few things about why bitcoin is the solution to many problems. 

Here for What problem does Bitcoin solve part 1 and here for what problem does bitcoin solve part 2 and here for “Why Bitcoin?“

I wanted to share a few quotes from history to highlight that the control and debasement of money by governments has been an issue for a long time. The faster everyone understands this the faster we can all get on the bitcoin standard for value preservation. 

I explain here why we should support the bitcoin experiment. It solves the problem. If it ends up failing for some reason in the future, we need to recreate Bitcoin and address whatever issue made it fail because we need a currency that can’t be debased by governments. 

The Idea of Bitcoin Needs to Succeed, Even if Bitcoin Fails

“It is utterly clear to me that the highest priority need of world society at the present moment is a realistic economic accounting system which will rectify, for instance, such nonsense as the fact that a top toolmaker in India, the highest paid of all craftsman, gets only as much per month for his work in India as he could earn per day for the same work if he were employed in Detroit, Michigan.  – Page 112 Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth, Buckminster Fuller

F.A. Hayek in 1984: “I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take it violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something that they can’t stop.”

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

― Henry Ford

Ford, who founded Ford Motor Company in 1903, told the publication:

“Under the energy currency system the standard would be a certain amount of energy exerted for one hour that would be equal to one dollar. It’s simply a case of thinking and calculating in terms different from those laid down to us by the international banking group to which we have grown so accustomed that we think there is no other desirable standard.”

Canada and Mexico Tariffs Feb 2025

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump imposed a 25% tariff on goods imported to the USA from Canada and Mexico. I am hoping to do a small experiment tracking a few goods from each country to see how their prices change as well as a few similar goods in the USA as a baseline to compare to track inflation.

I know that John Deere 6E tractors are imported from Mexico, 1 oz Gold Mexican libertads  are also imported from Mexico and 1 oz gold Canadian Maple leaves are imported from Canada. I am interested how the price of these goods changes over the next years. 

I am also going to track a few things that are made in the USA.

One will be a John Deere 8R that is manufactured in the USA and also 1 oz Gold buffalos and 1 oz Gold eagles. 

Base prices on 2-2-2025

1 oz gold maple

Spot price – $2,803.50 Monument metals price, $2,808.03 SD Bullion price

SD bullion – $2,898.02

Monument Metals – $2,852.68 (Sale price)

1 oz Mexican Libertad 

2024 SD bullion – $3,058.03

1 oz American Gold Eagle – random year

SD bullion – $2,878.02

Monument Metals – $2,921.52 (Sale price)

Below is the same data as above but put in a table for quicker reference.

Below are the John Deere tractors that I will be tracking

John Deere 6105E – $89,977.00 (made in Mexico)

John Deere 8R wheel 230 hp – $414,435 (mace in USA)

My hypothesis is that the John Deere 6E made in Mexico might be priced at $125k in 1 year or 2 assuming 25% tariffs. 

I expect the John Deere 8R to also increase in price, but perhaps only about $3%-5% over the year due to inflation. 

If you have any other products you know are made in USA or Canada that might be interesting to track please let me know.

Bitcoin is $100k, Should I Buy It Now Or Is It Too Expensive?

Posted on by
Reply

Bitcoin recently breached the $100k price per bitcoin on December 4th 2024. It has retreated slightly but has continued to hover between $90k -$108k/bitcoin. 

Historically bitcoin has had a performance of 3 positive years followed by 1 negative year. While you can’t expect history to repeat itself, it might!

Looking at the below chart you can see we are on track to repeat that performance so far. While not shown 2024 was also a great positive return year for bitcoin so we have 2 years of positive returns. 2025 would be the 3rd year. 

Due to that expectation I fully expect bitcoin to have a good performance in 2025. It is also possible that it has a negative year in 2026 if it continues to follow the historic trend. 

 Of course it is also possible it has a negative year in 2025! We could break the trend. 

We could also break the trend and see that we have a positive year in 2025 and 2026! The future is unknown and unknowable!

https://twitter.com/CryptoKidcom/status/1746139639809720395/photo/1

When people ask me if they should buy bitcoin now I say that they obviously don’t understand bitcoin. If you don’t understand it then I would say “No” you probably shouldn’t buy it. What I tell people is to continue to learn more about why other people buy it. 

Learn about “What problem bitcoin solves.” I have written 2 articles about that here. 

What Problem Does Bitcoin Solve?

We, every person in the world, is in a fight with their own government to keep as much of the value they create as they can.  The government explicitly taxes you, which we can debate but at least it is obvious.  But the government also stealthy steals value from your bank account or savings via inflation and money printing that you have no control over.

What is Money? (What Problem Does Bitcoin Solve -2)

Bitcoin is not an investment. Bitcoin is a store of value. The value you create. Bitcoin is an agreement between people who create value in the world that they will trade their value for other value. The value you create and store in Bitcoin cannot be debased or inflated away by any government by money printing.
I’ve also created a list of great resources to learn more about bitcoin here. 

Books & Videos to Learn About Bitcoin

What I generally recommend people to do is to buy just a little bitcoin so that they will start creating a little interest with themselves. This is how I did it. I bought just $100 and then that made me interested to learn more about what I had bought and why.
You should not plan to sell the bitcoin you buy. This is true for most investments, in my opinion. You should only be investing money you are ready to have invested for 5+ years. 

You shouldn’t try to time the market. You aren’t smart enough for that and neither am I. 

Just buy things that you understand and continue to do research.