Lets prove to the world that money is an addiction on non-scarce things

[EggShells]

One problem is embedded in the uncertainties of life: no one really knows how much saving is really needed for retirement, even if you knew exactly what you wanted to buy in retirement, and how much they would always cost.  So people chase money for security.

Money in the economy provides many benefits, including making division of labor possible, giving individuals the flexibility to make all kinds of personal tradeoffs, etc.

The real problem is that modern money isn't really market-based but centrally planned.  This central planning is advertised to stabilize the economy but is really designed to benefit the elites who receive "free" wealth and power by issuing money and related assets, and using state power to prop up their values artificially.  When the over-valued assets eventually crash, economic pain goes to everyone, and central planning is further justified as the only way to stimulate the economy and save everyone's jobs.

For this system to sustain itself, the elites must somehow make money valuable, for most people (or they would derive little power from issuing money and debt.)  This is a major side effect of the system and seems to be what you're mostly talking about.  The fundamental mechanism for "achieving" this was already noted by Thomas Jefferson, who said that, with a central bank in place, the elites would be able to exploit the public through both inflation *and* deflation.

[1714827993]

1714827993

[1714827993]

1714827993

[n2004al]

Money is a great tool to organize scarce resources. Its such a great tool for that, people started using it for things there's already enough of, like owning ideas (patents), ...

I think that your conception about the addiction from money on non-scarce things may be right but only for the few which have it in abundance and think only to find ways or create new ones how to spend it. But it is not addiction for someone which count every cent to arrive the end of the month. the second one use its money every day for the everyday bread which is a non-scarce thing. But I cannot call him addicted and I cannot call its behavior addiction. Without its everyday bread he and his family probably will be dead.

Then, I cannot accept for meaning about the importance of the owner if ideas and the value given to the idea depending from the being patented or not. First, patent or not patent its idea, the owner and creator of ideas is the most rare and precious kind of human being. There it will be no any kind of development or normal and civilized life without this "race" of people. They must be protected and honored in every possible form. Never and never this kind of beings will be in excess. More are, more must be and more rare are. They are the beginning of something new not imagined by no one before. They are the begging of a new life, new qualitative life.

You may think that Satoshi Nakamoto (to name one example near of both of us) is a scarce thing because have not patented its idea. And for sure you think that Bill Gates is not a scarce thing because has patented its ideas. For me are the same because everyone has given to the world great inventions. But what would tell you if the first of those, which have not taken any patent for its idea, act or acted as the second one? In this case its invention will be not more scarce? So the value of bitcoin as scarce or not scarce thing depends from the fact that if this invention is patented or not? You can understand yourself that is not so. Bitcoin have the same value with or without patent. So the owner of ideas (with or without patents) are never something "already enough". Are always few, very, very few. The most scarce thing in this world. Always it will be so.