Koolaid huh?  Yeah thats cute.  Inflation is currently 2.1%.  Did you pull 6% from your butt or is it based on data?

And why you keep talking about bitcoin when im talking about economics?  You think you buying bitcoin will cause deflation?  Or people actually prefer deflation? LOL.  Theres koolaid here but im not the one drinking it

Its not semantics.   Market forces are very difficult to manipulate.   Inflation/ deflation are measurements.   They are symptoms not causes.

Saving or spending can be reactive.  But how do you mandate that?   Can't force people to save or spend if they don't want to.   The only thing the Fed can do is raise/lower interest rates.  Govt can save or spend if Congress approves budget

A self taught armchair economist doubting people that have studied this subject all their life.  Hmm.   Who should is more credible ?😁

You can sell calls when IV is high.     Or buy put verticals.   Or sell call verticals.

Its only foolish if you don't know how to do it.   I take bearish positions all the time.   The only hard part is the timing.   But usually price crash harder than it goes up.   Escalator up elevator down type thing

There are some traders who mostly short or take bearish positions.   I think they're licking their chops to short bitcoin.  Its got all the ingredients

I can do it w options with defined risk.

You got it backwards.  Inflation & deflation don't drive anything they are symptoms of the economy.  Booms & busts happen as business cycles.

The question is how do you deal w inflation & deflation?

1.04 to the power of 40        or 4% interest over 40 years is alot of growth = 480% I think

I assume if I take it as a decline in value compounded, then 4% less each year or 0.96^40 results in 20% left after 40 years.

Every time they give your gains, they exclude inflation usually.  If you ever wondered why you arent getting any richer, thats probably it.  Hence constant wage increases are demanded by unions which can lead to labour disputes and strikes, production disruption because a company doesnt necessarily have the money just because the workers need it and are poorer.

Thanks. I'm going to try regurgitating my understanding with some new assumptions and hope I'm getting close to truth.

-So banks don't get to sell T-bonds at face value, just market price or sometimes even below for cash. The Fed allows this both to prevent problems with reserve requirements (and everything going along with banks not having enough) and I'd guess to also prevent large dumps on the T-bond market, which in turn makes T-bonds relatively stable, thus more attractive.

Many large banks are members of the Fed (paying both dues and fees), but the profit goes to the Treasury. The Treasury does create money, but it doesn't create wealth -- banks don't get free wealth from the Fed, while benefits are all fairly well-balanced to keep money-creation powers not fully divested to either the market or the government, permitting a semi-market-based approach to money creation. Since Fed profits go to the Treasury (less overhead, losses, etc), the Treasury is effectively allowed to issue T-bonds and not pay interest, but only for T-bonds sold to the Fed at or below market rates. Discounting debt devaluation (in real terms) from inflation, this scheme of doing things prevents the government from just printing any financial troubles away (if they tried, the uncertainty from breaking this unspoken contract risks complete USD and T-bond meltdown, which could bring a ruinous banking crisis). In times of banking turbulence, like now and in recent history, lots of money is created this way, but banks use this money generally to meet reserve requirements (either those set by gov't or those self-imposed) after taking losses or otherwise over-extending themselves, so it doesn't just go right back into the economy, at least not until the banks recover and a healthy (or dangerously over-permissive, maybe "predatory") state of lending resumes. Everything works in a very complex, somewhat balanced way that usually (except in cases of extreme political pressure?) prevents quick and extreme reactions to short-term or mid-term problems. This permits long-term health for the US dollar.

I'm still not sure why M2 increase doesn't eventually mean we'll feel inflation from it when lending fully un-thaws, especially if the effects are suppressed/delayed by low money velocity. It doesn't factor in debts written off by banks for things like mortgages or LoCs, so maybe that acts as a deflationary force, reducing money velocity (lower home prices, less money circulating, especially lent money) and reducing the money supply (houses aren't counted in M2, but banks do have to write off the debts occasionally and usually take large losses in trying to sell the mortgaged property - consumers and businesses taking LoC probably aren't buying CDs, T-bonds, or making demand deposits). -But the housing market's had a huge uptick over the last couple years, unemployment's stabilized, and real wages are on the way up, so if M2 had any impact at all, why hasn't it effectively turned the value of our dollars to ash? Conservative banks?

(side-question: is money for repos also created or even significant compared to Fed T-bond purchases?)

more and more people are realizing 10% interest a month on bitfinex will almost certainly make more than long term btc holding.

At 10%/month (what I've been making at finex), btc would have to be 6000 in 2 years.