Tag Archives: economics

The $2K Stimulus, the 50-Year Mortgage, and the Fiat Trap

Posted on by
Reply

Why Americans Deserve Better — and Why Bitcoin May Be the Only Way Out

President Trump recently proposed a $2,000 payment to every American, excluding “high-income individuals.” The idea sounds generous, but it’s also a symptom of a much deeper disease: a government that spends money it doesn’t have—causing inflation in the process and actually hurting the very people who receive the payment.

The Math Behind the Madness

In 2024 alone, the U.S. government ran a $1.8 trillion deficit.
Let’s put that in perspective:

  • There are 128 million households in the United States.
  • There are 340 million individuals.

If we divided that $1.8 trillion evenly, that’s $14,000 per household or $5,294 per person.

So when politicians talk about sending you a one-time $2,000 check, remember — they’re already spending about 2.5 times that amount per person every single year.
If the government simply stopped wasting and borrowing, you’d already be thousands of dollars richer annually — without a single new program or “stimulus.”

That’s money our government already spent—above and beyond the taxes you and I pay. It wasn’t earned. It was created out of thin air by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve. Every time that happens, the dollars in your wallet become worth a little less. That’s why groceries, cars, and homes cost more every year, no matter how hard you work.

The Mirage of the 50-Year Mortgage

Now the U.S. housing authorities are exploring 50-year mortgages, following the path of Japan and even some European countries.
Japan went so far as to experiment with 100-year mortgages, often passed from parents to children. Did that make homes more affordable? No—it made them more expensive.

When you stretch the loan term, monthly payments drop slightly, but total debt rises massively. Sellers raise prices to match what buyers can “afford” on paper. The result: higher prices, higher leverage, and lifelong debt servitude.

The 50-year mortgage is not a solution. It’s an illusion. It’s another way to avoid facing the real issue: our monetary system rewards debt and punishes saving.

Where Does the Money Go?

When we spend $1.8 trillion more than we take in, where does it all go?

  • To foreign wars and endless “operations” that rarely make Americans safer.
  • To subsidies and bailouts for politically favored industries.
  • To bloated bureaucracies that exist to perpetuate themselves.
  • To interest payments on the national debt—now one of the largest single line items in the federal budget.

Meanwhile, our manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas, first to Mexico and China, now to Vietnam and India. Communities that once built real wealth are hollowed out. Young people drown in debt while imported goods fill our stores. The average American is left with higher prices, lower stability, and fewer ways to build lasting capital.

Why does this keep happening? It’s not just bad policy — it’s baked into the structure of the global financial system.
Because the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency, foreign countries must hold dollars to trade internationally. That means America must constantly send dollars abroad — through trade deficits and offshored production — to supply the world with liquidity.

This is known as the Triffin Dilemma: to maintain the dollar’s global dominance, the U.S. has to export jobs, import goods, and print money. It’s a system that benefits global finance, not the American worker.

A Balanced Budget Is Not Just Accounting — It’s Freedom

If the U.S. government lived within its means, you’d instantly gain purchasing power. Prices would stabilize, wages would go further, and the value of your savings would stop eroding.
You wouldn’t need a $2,000 stimulus check—because your dollar would already be strong.

The truth is simple: either we live within our means voluntarily, or reality will force us to.

Now, to be fair, we probably can’t slash spending overnight without causing serious shock to the economy. But we don’t have to.
What if we simply froze federal spending at 2025 levels and let tax revenue grow naturally with the economy? Within a few short years, the budget would balance itself—no chaos, no default, just discipline.

That’s not austerity. That’s responsibility.
And it’s the only peaceful way to restore faith in the dollar while keeping it as the world’s reserve currency.
The other option—the one emerging whether Washington likes it or not—is Bitcoin.

Bitcoin and the End of Fiat Illusion

“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.”
— F.A. Hayek

Some believe there’s only one peaceful way out of this cycle: a return to sound money—money that cannot be printed at will.

That’s what Bitcoin represents.
It’s not a speculative token or a tech fad—it’s a monetary rebellion against endless inflation, debt-based growth, and political manipulation of money. In a Bitcoin world, politicians can’t quietly steal your savings through inflation. They must tax you honestly or spend less.

That’s accountability.
That’s discipline.
That’s freedom.

Even some in government see this potential. Senator Cynthia Lummis has proposed that the United States create a strategic Bitcoin reserve, allowing America to hold a real, non-inflationary asset on its balance sheet.
That move alone could begin rebuilding trust in the U.S. financial system—and might be the only peaceful way out of this mess.

My Message to Congress

If you truly want to help Americans:

  • Stop using debt as a crutch for broken policy.
  • Reject gimmicks like 50-year mortgages that only inflate prices.
  • Commit to a balanced budget and an honest monetary system.
  • Bring back real production, not financial engineering.
  • End foreign interventions that waste our treasure and divide the world.
  • Support sound money legislation like Senator Lummis’ Bitcoin reserve proposal.

Let the American worker, saver, and builder rise again—on a foundation of real value, not printed promises.

My Message to Every American

Don’t wait for Washington to fix this.
I urge you to learn about the problems with fiat money—how inflation quietly steals your time, labor, and savings—and to understand why Bitcoin solves these problems at their root.

The path forward is clear: either reform the dollar through fiscal discipline, or transition to a world built on honest, decentralized money.
The choice is ours—but the clock is ticking.

Send This Letter to Your Representatives

If this message resonates with you, copy the following text and send it to your senators and congressperson. You can find their contact info at https://www.congress.gov/members.

Subject: Support Fiscal Responsibility and Sound Money

Dear Senator/Representative,

I’m writing to express my concern about the growing national debt, inflation, and the policies that continue to devalue the U.S. dollar. In 2024, the federal deficit was $1.8 trillion—equal to roughly $14,000 per household. Instead of one-time stimulus checks, we need a long-term commitment to balanced budgets and sound money.

Please support policies that:

  • Freeze federal spending at 2025 levels until tax revenue naturally balances the budget.
  • End inflationary monetary expansion that hurts working Americans.
  • Reject 50-year mortgages and other short-term “fixes” that only inflate asset prices.
  • Support legislation like Senator Cynthia Lummis’s proposal for a Bitcoin strategic reserve, ensuring the United States has a sound, non-inflationary store of value.

Fiscal responsibility and sound money aren’t partisan issues—they’re American values.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your City, State]

The Politics of Envy: How Bernie Sanders Uses Billionaires to Distract from Washington’s Failures — and Keep People Angry

Posted on by
Reply

Blaming billionaires is easy. Fixing bad policy, broken incentives, and decades of fiscal irresponsibility isn’t — so Bernie Sanders keeps the outrage machine running instead.

A lot of people — Bernie Sanders in particular — hate billionaires because they assume billionaires stole their wealth.
But that belief comes from misunderstanding how value is actually created.

💵 Creation vs. Printing

Bernie and the government “create money” by printing it — literally out of thin air — which steals purchasing power from everyone who already has dollars.
That’s not value creation. It’s value redistribution by dilution.

So when that’s your frame of reference, you start to believe that everyone who gets rich must have taken something from someone else. Because that’s how you create “money” in politics — you print it or tax it away.

But wealth in a free market isn’t created by decree. It’s created by building, coordinating, and innovating — by making something others voluntarily trade for.

📈 Value Creation Is Not Theft

Larry Ellison, for example. One day Oracle stock went up, and his net worth jumped by $100 billion. Bernie acts like Larry ran around stealing $100 billion from working people.
But that’s not what happened. That value didn’t exist before — it was created.

Wealth in the market represents new value built through skill, innovation, and coordination, not theft.
If you’re stranded on an island with a billion dollars, it’s worthless. You need resources, tools, and knowledge to turn that “money” into something useful.

The problem is, people who’ve never built or created real value assume no one else can either.
So they see wealth as theft instead of creation. That’s the confusion at the heart of modern politics.

⚠️ Bernie’s Game: Blame, Not Solutions

And that’s where Bernie Sanders comes in.
He isn’t actually helping working people by pointing to billionaires as evil — he’s manipulating them.

By giving people a villain to hate, he distracts from the real causes of economic pain — bad money, wasteful government, and decades of inflation that quietly rob savers and workers.
He rallies frustration around a scapegoat instead of a fix.

If Bernie genuinely wanted to help, he’d talk about restoring fiscal discipline, reducing waste, and making it easier for regular people to build wealth — not demonizing those who already have.
But he doesn’t. Because blaming billionaires is politically easy.
Fixing the system would mean questioning the very machine that gives him power.

So instead of solving problems, he feeds resentment — keeping people angry, divided, and dependent on him to express that anger.

🧮 The Fantasy of the “Billionaire Tax”

In a recent Time article titled “I’m a Millionaire. No One Needs More Than $30 Million”, the author argues that a Billionaire Income Tax could raise $557 billion over ten years and “jump-start a permanent safety net.”

That sounds impressive — until you look at the math.

The U.S. government currently runs a $2 trillion annual deficit.
That’s $20 trillion in overspending every decade.
So this “transformative” billionaire tax covers less than 3 % of the hole. It’s fiscal rounding error.

The problem isn’t a lack of billionaire money — it’s a lack of discipline and accountability.

🏛 The Real Problem Isn’t “Too Much Money” — It’s How It’s Used

The Time article goes on to argue that wealth beyond $30 million stops being about living well and becomes about wielding power — influencing elections, buying media outlets, and suppressing competition.

That part isn’t entirely wrong. Money can corrupt politics.
But the author’s solution — capping wealth — misses the point completely.

If the issue is that money manipulates the system, then the answer is to make the system harder to manipulate, not to confiscate wealth after the fact.

We should make elections harder to buy, not success harder to earn.
Reform campaign finance, close regulatory loopholes, stop insider lobbying — that’s how you stop abuse.

The same goes for the “buy, borrow, die” loophole that allows the ultra-wealthy to avoid realizing gains.
If that’s the concern, close the loopholes directly — don’t destroy the entire structure of value creation to fix a tax code glitch.

And even then, no system will ever be perfect.
Smart, ambitious people will always find new ways to optimize around the rules — that’s part of what makes them successful.
Every time you close one loophole, innovation and adaptation create another.
The goal shouldn’t be to eliminate advantage; it should be to keep the playing field open and the incentives productive.

And far from “locking others out,” large pools of wealth are what fund the next generation of builders.
People don’t lose the chance to innovate because billionaires exist — they lose it when regulation, bureaucracy, and bad policy make it impossible to start or scale.
Just look at Europe: it leads the world in regulation, but none of the world’s biggest or most dynamic companies are European.
They’ve made it harder to fail, but also impossible to truly win.
Capital isn’t a finite pie being hoarded; it’s the byproduct of trust, savings, and productive investment.
Destroy that, and you destroy the fuel for future innovation.

Blaming “too much money” is a lazy shortcut that lets broken institutions off the hook.

💥 What Happens If You Actually Take It

Let’s pretend we go full Bernie and seize every dollar of billionaire wealth in America — all $6 trillion of it.

Here’s what happens:

  1. That covers just three years of deficit spending at current rates. Then what? You’re out of billionaires, and the deficit keeps growing.
  2. Most of that wealth isn’t cash. It’s ownership stakes in companies — Tesla, Oracle, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.
  3. If the government forces liquidation, prices collapse. No one can buy trillions in stock without tanking the market.
    • Even a 50 % drop cuts the haul to $3 trillion — barely 18 months of deficits.
  4. Who buys the assets? The next-richest class. Inequality reshuffles briefly, then reforms.
  5. Meanwhile, innovation stalls. Investment dries up. Everyone gets poorer.

You can’t fund a government by destroying the productive capital that funds everything else.

⚙️ The Real Issue Isn’t Wealth, It’s Value

Wealth isn’t evil — it’s a signal that someone created something valuable enough for millions of people to trade their time or money for it.
That’s fundamentally different from printing dollars and calling it “stimulus.”

If we want a stronger, fairer economy, the solution isn’t confiscation — it’s creation.
Encourage building, innovation, and hard work, and you’ll raise living standards for everyone.
Punish them, and you’ll end up with equality through shared decline.

🧭 Final Thought

Bernie isn’t fighting for the working class. He’s fighting to stay relevant to it.
You don’t fix inequality by burning down the factory.
You fix it by letting more people build factories of their own.

Who Gets the Income? Who Pays the Taxes?

Posted on by
Reply

Data gathered from this link – https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/

When we talk about taxes in America, the debate often gets sloppy. People use “income” and “wealth” almost interchangeably, but they’re very different things.

  • Income is the flow of money earned each year — wages from a job, dividends, or realized capital gains.
  • Wealth is the stock of assets someone already owns — businesses, real estate, stocks, Bitcoin, etc.

Our tax system is built mainly on income, not wealth. And when commentators conflate the two, it clouds the conversation about fairness and policy.

Income Snapshot

In 2022, the U.S. collected $2.1 trillion in federal income taxes on about $14.8 trillion in total income. That’s about 14.4% of taxable income.

Divide that income across all 153 million taxpayers, and the average income comes out to $95,915, or about $47.96 per hour assuming 2,000 hours of work per year. Of course, averages can mislead — the distribution is anything but equal.

The Top 1%

To qualify for the top 1% in 2022, you needed at least $663,164 of income. On average, these 1.5 million taxpayers earned $2.1 million each.

  • Share of income: 22.4%
  • Share of taxes paid: 40.4%
  • Effective tax rate: 26%

The Bottom 50%

The bottom half — about 76 million taxpayers — earned less than $50,339 per year. Their average income was just $21,000, totaling $1.7 trillion across the group.

  • Effective tax rate: ~4%
  • Many pay no federal income tax at all, often due to credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or child tax credits.

Wealth Snapshot

If we shift from income to wealth, the picture looks even starker. As of mid-2025, U.S. billionaires hold over $6.2 trillion in wealth, spread across only about 813–867 individuals.

But here’s the catch: the U.S. government is adding about $2 trillion in deficit spending every year. Even if you taxed billionaires at extremely high rates, it might cover only a year or two of deficits. After that, the wealth pool would shrink — and most billionaires would likely relocate to avoid such aggressive taxation.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t debate fairness, redistribution, or even wealth taxes. But it does mean we need to be realistic about the math.

Why This Matters

The key takeaway is that income and wealth are different conversations. Most tax debates focus on income flows, yet the loudest arguments are often about wealth concentration. If we mix those together, we miss the real tradeoffs.

I’m happy to debate how much each group should earn, or whether a wealth tax makes sense (though I personally think it doesn’t). But if we want an honest conversation, we have to separate what we’re actually measuring.

Because when we ask, “Who should pay more?” the first step is being clear: are we talking about annual income, or about the stock of wealth built up over decades?

Data – https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2025/

You will notice myd ata is slightly different than from the website. The website continually aggregates so their “top 5%” data includes all the income & people from the top 1% + the 2%-5%.
I have broken it down so you can see how much income is in each bucket. I think my method is much more useful.
It also allows you to see how much income, taxes, average income, is in each bucket.

When the data is aggregated it always is skewed due to the higher amount of income above it.

Wealth Inequality: The Quiet Apocalypse… and What Comes After

Posted on by
1

I recently watched a powerful video titled “Wealth Inequality: The Quiet Apocalypse.” It’s honest, emotional, and brutally accurate in describing what it feels like to live in a system that seems to squeeze you harder every year. I found myself nodding along for much of it—but also wanting to widen the lens a little.

Before offering my response, here are five key points I took from the video:

Five Core Points from “Wealth Inequality: The Quiet Apocalypse”

  1. The system isn’t broken—it’s working as designed. It extracts time and value from most people and consolidates wealth at the top.
  2. Capital outpaces labor. Referencing Piketty: when the rate of return on capital exceeds growth, wealth concentrates.
  3. The American Dream is largely a delusion. Doing everything right doesn’t mean you’ll get ahead.
  4. Wealth inequality creates spiritual and psychological harm. It hollows out people’s sense of identity and worth.
  5. What we need is a cultural shift—not just policy. Minimalism, rest, and meaning are antidotes to hustle culture and economic extraction.

Here’s my reply, point by point.

1. The system isn’t broken—it’s working as designed

Yes, the system is designed to reward capital—not labor. But that doesn’t mean we need to burn the whole thing down. In fact, we should want capital to outperform labor—because that means more productivity with less effort.

The real problem? Capital is too concentrated.

What if we built systems that allowed more people to own capital? That would mean more people benefiting from productivity gains, without needing to grind themselves into dust. In the U.S., this is more accessible than we sometimes realize. Low-cost investing tools, like Fidelity or Vanguard, allow everyday people to start building wealth—even with modest means.

I wrote about how just $2,000/year for 10 years can grow to over $365,000 by retirement:
👉 The Power of Investing Early

The system does work—as designed. We just need to make sure more people have a stake in it.

2. Capital outpaces labor

Piketty’s point is mathematically true: capital grows faster than wages, and that concentrates wealth. But instead of treating that as a death sentence, let’s treat it like a map.

If labor will always lose, then we need to stop relying on labor alone. We need to become capital owners.

That’s the core of Post-Labor Economics: a future where AI and automation do the work, and human beings benefit from ownership rather than employment. That’s only dystopian if ownership remains exclusive.

I broke this down further here:
👉 Post-Labor Economics – David Shapiro Video Summary

The real answer isn’t to slow capital—it’s to distribute capital.

3. The American Dream is a delusion

We agree: doing everything “right” no longer guarantees success. Degrees, hard work, and even smart money habits don’t always lead to stability.

But here’s the truth: that level of frustration is itself a luxury in global terms. If you’re in the U.S., have internet, clean water, and access to banking—you are already in the global top 10%, maybe even the top 1%.

I say this not to invalidate anyone’s struggle—but to widen the perspective. There are billions of people who would love to have the problems you have. That realization isn’t meant to inspire guilt—it’s meant to highlight opportunity.

You don’t have to “win” the American Dream to live a meaningful life. But if you understand your relative position in the world, you can use it to lift others up while building your own path.

4. Wealth inequality creates spiritual and psychological harm

Yes. When everything becomes transactional, identity collapses into productivity and income. And when we don’t measure up, we blame ourselves.

But here’s the twist: even while critiquing this system, you might still be letting it define you.

There are other ways of living. You don’t need to win the game. You can just stop playing—and focus instead on living intentionally, giving what you can, and creating meaning through service or simplicity.

Some books that shaped my thinking:

Even if just 5% of your life is dedicated to helping others, that’s enough. That’s opting out of the culture in a way that matters.

5. We need a cultural shift—not just policy

Yes. A shift away from hustle culture, productivity obsession, and materialism is overdue. Minimalism, rest, and meaning are powerful forms of resistance.

But there’s another layer: you don’t just have to escape the culture—you can help reshape it.

That might mean:

  • Raising your kids with different values
  • Giving consistently, even in small amounts
  • Choosing a simple life so others can simply live

You don’t need to be an influencer or a billionaire to change the culture. You just need to stop waiting for permission—and start living by a better scorecard.

Opting out is good. But opting into something better is even stronger.

Final Thoughts

Wealth Inequality: The Quiet Apocalypse is a powerful wake-up call. But let’s not stop at diagnosis. Let’s ask: what comes next?

You don’t need to be rich to make a difference. You don’t need to have all the answers to start living a better one. And even in a rigged game, you can still choose your own values.

In a collapsing world, the most radical thing you can do is refuse to collapse with it.

And if you’re someone with a platform—as the video’s creator clearly is, with 80,000+ subscribers—then that gives you not just a voice, but a real opportunity. You can lead. You can educate. You can help people see a way forward.

Not everyone has that kind of reach. So if you do, I hope you use it.

If you want to learn more about effective giving, post-labor economics, or investing with purpose, browse around MyWheelLife.com.

Why I Support Bitcoin: A Personal Journey Through the Global Failure of Fiat

Posted on by
1

For most of my life, I’ve worked with businesses and nonprofits trying to make the world better. I’m a mechanical engineer by trade. I like building things that work. But the more I’ve worked across systems, the more I’ve realized something deeply broken sits at the root of almost every failure: fiat money.

A Friend, a Business, and a Broken Economy

A few years ago, a friend of mine was helping advise a small, sustainable clothing business in Sri Lanka. They used natural dyes and traditional techniques to create jobs for locals—especially for people who often couldn’t access the formal economy. It was working. Until it wasn’t.

The Sri Lankan currency collapsed during a financial crisis. Inflation soared. Imports became unaffordable. And the business, despite doing everything right, failed—not because of bad management or a poor product, but because the foundation it was built on—its currency—was rotten.

This is what fiat does. It breaks systems from the bottom up. And it leaves regular people holding the bag.

How Fiat Hollowed Out America

We often think of developing countries suffering from bad money, but the same decay has hit the United States. The post-WWII American economy was built on sound money and a manufacturing base that rewarded long-term planning and production.

That changed in 1971, when Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard. With no monetary anchor, we entered the era of fiat—the era of cheap credit, endless deficits, and quarterly capitalism. Easy money made it easier to offshore jobs , because capital flowed wherever short-term profits looked best. Domestic manufacturing collapsed (such as in Janesville, Wisconsin). Towns hollowed out. Entire regions like the Midwest were gutted for the sake of Wall Street’s earnings calls.

Short-termism infected everything:

  • Companies spent more on stock buybacks than R&D or wages
  • Governments ran up debt with no repayment plan
  • Individuals chased consumption over savings, just to stay ahead of inflation

Economic Hitmen and Empires of Debt

In Confessions of an Economic Hitman, John Perkins explains how U.S. institutions loaned billions to developing nations for infrastructure that looked good on paper but benefited U.S. contractors more than locals. When those countries couldn’t repay, they were forced into austerity, resource sell-offs, and geopolitical obedience. Debt became a weapon.

Today, China is doing the same through its Belt and Road Initiative. In Sri Lanka, China took control of the Hambantota Port on a 99-year lease when the country couldn’t pay its debts. In Greece, China’s COSCO controls the Port of Piraeus. In Australia, they secured a 99-year lease on the Port of Darwin, now under review due to national security concerns.

This isn’t charity. It’s colonialism with spreadsheets.

Fiat Money Rewards the Few, Punishes the Many

Every time a central bank prints new money, it steals from savers and wage earners. Those who hold fiat see their purchasing power decay. This is especially cruel during periods of inflation, like the 8% spike in the U.S. in recent years.

Bitcoin fixes this.

  • It has a fixed supply: 21 million coins, ever.
  • It can’t be printed or manipulated by any government.
  • It rewards saving, planning, and long-term thinking.

It flips the fiat incentives:

  • Instead of spending now, you’re rewarded for holding.
  • Instead of inflation eating your wealth, deflation preserves it.
  • Instead of trusting a corrupt institution, you trust code and math.

Why I Share Bitcoin With Others

I’ve read the books. I’ve seen the failures. I’ve lived through broken systems and watched people I care about suffer—not from laziness or ignorance, but because the monetary foundation was cracked.

Bitcoin is the best alternative I’ve found to a rigged, decaying system. It’s not just about investment. It’s about dignity. Agency. Fairness. It’s about building something that can last.

This is why I support Bitcoin. And this is why I speak up.

🛑 You Can’t Outgrow a Debt Spiral — But You Can Exit It (or Reprice It)

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. won’t grow its way out of a debt spiral — it’ll inflate, debase, and extract.
The real exit ramp is Bitcoin: a parallel system with hard rules, not political ones.
Opting into BTC isn’t about returns — it’s about exiting a rigged game before the math breaks.

Conventional wisdom keeps hoping that the U.S. can grow its way out of a fiscal doom spiral:

“If GDP just grows fast enough, even the most reckless overspending by Congress won’t matter.”

But that assumes we still live in an age of manageable debt, cooperative politics, and sound incentives.

We don’t.

📉 The U.S. Fiscal Reality

  • $36+ trillion in debt
  • $2 trillion annual deficits
  • $1.1 trillion in yearly interest
  • Interest payments now exceed military spending

We are no longer debating whether the debt matters — we’re just seeing how long it can be delayed before the math breaks. Growth won’t fix this. It hasn’t yet, and it won’t now.

So what’s the plan? Inflate, extract, or collapse?

🇳🇴 But What About Norway?

Norway is often brought up as a model of fiscal sanity — and with good reason:

  • Budget surplus in 2024: 13.2% of GDP
  • Sovereign wealth fund: $1.74 trillion (largest in the world)
  • Debt-to-GDP around 55%, but fully offset by national savings

They even run a structural non-oil deficit, but it’s funded by planned withdrawals from their sovereign fund. In short: they spend with discipline and have assets to back it.

So why can’t every country do that?

🚫 Because It’s Not Globally Sustainable

Norway is rich in oil, small in population, and extremely disciplined in governance. They:

  • Save during booms instead of spending
  • Use their wealth fund to smooth volatility, not plug holes
  • Issue debt strategically, not out of desperation

For the rest of the world, especially the U.S., that model isn’t available.

Most countries are net debtors. They’ve hollowed out their productive base, offshored manufacturing, and replaced savings with speculation.

You can’t run a surplus if:

  • Your economy is dependent on imported energy and goods
  • Your entitlement promises are growing faster than your tax base
  • Your political class has no incentive to say “no”

Surpluses require restraint, surplus-producing sectors, and trust — all of which are in short supply.

🧱 So What’s the Real Path Out?

It’s not hoping for a miraculous growth surge. It’s not copying Norway. It’s not electing better managers of a broken system.

It’s opting out. It’s repricing trust.

🔑 Enter Bitcoin.

  • A monetary system with hard limits, not political ones
  • No printing. No bailouts. No “emergency exceptions”
  • Open, auditable, neutral — like a global sovereign wealth reserve for the people

Bitcoin is:

  • An exit for individuals
  • A hedge against sovereign collapse
  • And, increasingly, a foundation for new financial instruments — including Bitcoin-backed bonds.

🧾 Bitcoin-Backed Bonds: Repricing Sovereign Risk

Here’s a future worth considering:

Nations issue bonds backed by Bitcoin reserves, restoring credibility and reducing borrowing costs.

Instead of trusting central banks or political stability, investors trust digital collateral — liquid, auditable, incorruptible.

  • Governments get lower interest rates
  • Investors get higher real returns
  • The system regains trust — not by promising growth, but by tying itself to something outside its control

This isn’t sci-fi. El Salvador is already moving in this direction. Others will follow — especially as debt costs soar and trust erodes.

🧠 TL;DR

  • You can’t outgrow a debt spiral.
  • You can’t copy Norway unless you’re already Norway.
  • You can’t reform a system whose core logic is delay and inflate.

But you can exit.

Bitcoin offers individuals, institutions, and eventually even nations a path out — not to escape responsibility, but to rebuild trust from the ground up.

This isn’t about being early to an investment. It’s about being on time to a monetary exit.

From Rome to Norway: What History Teaches Us About Post-Labor Wealth Models

Posted on by
Reply

As we edge closer to a post-labor economy fueled by AI and automation, the conversation around how to distribute wealth fairly is more urgent than ever. Advocates of dividend-driven futures, like David Shapiro and others, propose income portfolios built from public wealth funds, UBI, cooperatives, and residual wages. But are there any historical models to guide us? Have civilizations ever successfully structured systems where wealth flowed to the public without direct labor?

It turns out, yes. And the lessons are mixed.

The Roman Bread Dole: Subsidy Without Structure

Ancient Rome’s grain dole (“annona”) offered a form of basic sustenance to citizens, distributing heavily subsidized or free grain. At its peak, hundreds of thousands of Romans received this support. It was politically stabilizing, popular, and arguably necessary as economic power consolidated into the elite.

But the system was fragile. It depended on imperial conquests, slave labor, and an expansive logistics network that became unsustainable as Rome declined. It also did little to build durable economic agency. The dole kept people fed, but not empowered.

Lesson: Subsidy without economic diversification or civic agency becomes brittle.

Native Tribes and Casino Revenues: Promise and Pitfalls

In the U.S., many Native American tribes operate casinos, with profits funding health care, education, and direct dividends to tribal members. These tribal wealth funds resemble the localized wealth mechanisms proposed in post-labor economics.

However, outcomes vary widely. In some communities, casino revenues have elevated living standards and strengthened governance. In others, benefits have concentrated in tribal leadership, exacerbating inequality and dependency.

Lesson: Without transparency, inclusive governance, and diversified investment, even well-intentioned redistribution can fall short.

The Alaska Permanent Fund: A Modern Dividend Model

Established in 1976, Alaska’s Permanent Fund takes oil revenues and invests them globally. Each year, residents receive a dividend, usually between $1,000-$2,000. It’s simple, durable, and popular.

Yet, it faces political risk. When Alaska hit budget shortfalls, politicians dipped into the fund. There are debates about whether it discourages work or disincentivizes participation in broader civic life.

Lesson: Popular dividend programs are sustainable, but vulnerable to political raids and lack of reinvestment discipline.

Norway’s Oil Fund: The Gold Standard of Public Wealth

Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global, often dubbed the Norwegian Oil Fund, is the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. Fueled by oil profits, it now exceeds $1.5 trillion and invests in over 9,000 companies across more than 70 countries.

Unlike Alaska, Norway does not send direct cash to citizens. Instead, the fund returns go into the national budget, funding universal services such as education, health care, and pensions. Crucially, the fund adheres to strict ethical guidelines, has world-class transparency, and maintains a 3% spending rule to preserve capital.

Lesson: Long-term sustainability requires diversification, professional governance, limited spending, and a focus on services that boost collective agency.

Designing for the Post-Labor Era: What Must Be Done

The future calls for a blend of these lessons. Post-labor economic resilience depends on:

  • Diversification: Don’t over-rely on a single industry or location (Rome, casinos).
  • Transparency & Governance: Avoid elite capture (tribal pitfalls).
  • Capital Preservation: Limit annual drawdowns to preserve intergenerational equity (Norway).
  • Layered Income Models: Combine UBI, local trusts, cooperatives, and personal assets for resilience.

The past offers both warning signs and inspiration. If we take the best from each model—Rome’s stabilizing intent, tribal localization, Alaska’s dividends, and Norway’s professionalism—we might just build a post-labor economy worth living in.

Is Factory Work Exploitative If It Saves You From Something Worse?

Posted on by
1

In 2012, a Chinese student studying in the U.S. wrote a letter that was later shared by David Pogue in Business Insider. He described how his aunt had worked for several years in what Americans might call a “sweatshop”:

“It was hard work. Long hours, small wage, poor working conditions. Do you know what my aunt did before she worked in one of these factories? She was a prostitute.”

The student emphasized that, despite the difficult conditions, the factory job was a step up—it provided safety, legality, and stability she had never known before.

This story raises a profound moral question: Does an improvement from desperation make an exploitative system justifiable?

Let’s explore why this tension sits at the heart of modern global capitalism.

Better Than Nothing Isn’t the Same as Fair

A factory job may lift someone out of desperation. But an improvement from rock bottom does not equal justice.

The woman in this story is performing the same labor as someone assembling parts in Michigan. She’s not less intelligent or less valuable. She’s just on the wrong side of a global wage arbitrage system.

Corporations don’t pay her less because she’s worth less—they pay her less because they can.

What Is Exploitation?

Exploitation occurs when value is extracted from someone without fair compensation.

You can have:

  • Exploitative jobs that are better than the alternative, and
  • Exploitative systems that improve people’s lives short-term

But the core question is: Who captures the surplus value?

In this case, it’s not the woman. Her labor adds real value to a global supply chain, but she sees only a sliver of it. The rest flows upward:

  • To multinational corporations
  • To shareholders
  • To high-income consumers paying less for products made with underpaid labor

This is exploitation by design—not an accident, but a business model.

Does “Choice” Make It Ethical?

Many people argue:

“Well, she chose the job.”

But choice under coercion of circumstance isn’t freedom. If the only options are wage slavery or something worse, the system isn’t ethical—it’s merely tolerable.

Asking someone to be grateful for a better form of poverty is morally hollow.

So What Can Be Done?

This is where technologies like Bitcoin offer potential.

No, Bitcoin doesn’t magically fix global labor markets. But it creates an escape hatch:

  • A way to store value in a neutral system not subject to local currency collapse
  • A method of payment that bypasses middlemen
  • A step toward economic sovereignty

It lets workers keep more of what they earn. And that alone makes it powerful.

Final Thought

A factory job may save someone from a worse fate. But if it pays unfairly, concentrates profits far away, and denies workers ownership of what they build—it’s still exploitation.

We can be grateful for progress while demanding more. Dignity requires more than survival.

And we don’t have to wait for permission to build something better.

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.

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.