invalidbasis

Fair enough. Peace be with you. And good luck in your work.

I understand your premise of stored value not being realized until the future. However, it isn't some sort of universal rule. There is value in a lot of things, even in failure, and loss; you are only considering the monetary value in your statement. The possibilities of immeasurable value, that which aren't strictly monetary, is all lost in saying, "stored value is bizarre."

If stored value is truly a bizarre concept, then society should completely reevaluate schools, and learning in general. Even this discussion; because what is the point, or value? Is storing any nuance of thoughts pointless? You have a highly cyclical argument, favoring Singularity, and not allowing for any other perspective.

Your attempt to laud your position and derail Austrian Economics with the "Hauling Gold to Mars" example is insulting and disservices your own ability to make a valid point. Already in place, society has a concept that dismisses your absurdity, I.e., "Contracts;" which fully eliminate the need to haul physical resources or commodity around and merely show them on paper. Not too dissimilar to the blockchain.

From a statistical standpoint, statistics are irrelevant when they are put into practice. For they either ARE or ARE NOT and DO or DO NOT come into effect. They are a summation of the past, not its predictor.

In your very own argument, "You can't predict the future." But then go on to argue people would "be idiots" for investing in "consumption" instead of "productive" things or businesses. In a single paragraph you've argued against your own theory. People can't predict the future, but they can somehow tell what is productive versus not? Hah! I think the last business cycle is evidence enough.

Your idea isn't completely without merit in its attempts to reward persons for making good predictions. But again we already have similar systems for that purpose already in place in the stock markets.

From an Austrian perspective, your proposal is garbage. Savings create wealth, period. In your proposal, you describe a system that encourages faster consumption (and thus faster depletion of resources, including the earth, people, etc.) and discourages savings entirely. How do you not see the fallacy in your logic? Why are you proposing reaping the planet's resources faster as an ideal way to do business? At least by hoarding, and slowing production, the world is incentivized to act more cautiously before blindly moving forward with its precious resources. I suggest that the system you proposed would result in the creation of a lot of unnecessary widgets, resources, and false markets. A world that would quickly deplete itself. Trying to solve inequality, by promoting more consumption on everyone's part, seems backwards, in my opinion. There is likely a greater moral wrong in using resources, than saving resources for a more legitimate purpose later on.

Your entire premise that we should reform society to favor consumption (even more than it is already favored now) only exacerbates inequalities, because at the end of the day, all you have to do to increase the value of Bitcoin, or similar crypto-currencies, is incapacitate another user and render their wallet outside of the entire money supply; since, it would be cryptographically locked. The argument against Bitcoin, if any, is (that at some point) it's deflationary mechanics will incentivize the elimination of other users so that the remaining currency holders will hold a larger percentage of the pie. If connected to an AI that was simply hellbent on maximizing its percentage of the money supply, you can easily see how a machine could learn bad ethics.