Greetings and salutations, my fellow plebs. My name is Walker and this is the Bitcoin
podcast. It's Tuesday, August 15th, 2023. The Bitcoin block height is 803 311 and the
value of one Bitcoin is still one Bitcoin. Today's episode is Bitcoin Out Loud and I'm
going to read you lecture four of Economic Policy, Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow by Ludwig von
Mises. It's a series of lectures given by Mises and published as a book in 1979. This chapter is
about inflation and while I plan to read the remaining chapters at a later time, I think
inflation is a good place to start. It's also a particularly relevant topic for today, August 15th,
because 52 years ago, on August 15th, 1971, Richard Nixon suspended temporarily the convertibility of
the US dollar to gold, marking the end of the gold standard and the transition of the US dollar to a
pure fiat currency. Here's a short clip from Nixon's 1971 announcement. The strength of a
nation's currency is based on the strength of that nation's economy and the American economy is by
far the strongest in the world. Accordingly, I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to
take the action necessary to defend the dollar against the speculators. I have directed Secretary
Connolly to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets,
except in amounts and conditions determined to be in the interest of monetary stability and in the
best interest of the United States. Now, what is this action which is very technical? What does
it mean for you? Let me later rest the bugaboo of what is called defaluation. If you want to buy
a foreign car or take a trip abroad, market conditions may cause your dollar to buy slightly
less. But if you are among the overwhelming majority of Americans who buy American-made products in
America, your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today. The effect of this action,
in other words, will be to stabilize the dollar. Your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow
as it is today. Well, 52 years later, it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that Nixon
was full of shit. Now, for some historical context on the Mises reading today, these chapters were
originally delivered as lectures in Argentina in 1958 at the University of Buenos Aires and later
written up in prose from Mises.org. Mises had urged Argentina to turn from dictatorship and
socialism toward full liberty. So there is a special urgency behind the cool logic employed here.
So, as you listen to the words of Mises, think about Nixon's words as well. Think about the words
politicians use today when they talk about inflation. Think about the completely insane and
unpredictable monetary policy decisions of today's central bankers and governments. And contrast that
with the absolute predictability of Bitcoin's fixed 21 million supply and clearly defined
issuance schedule. With that context, let's get into today's Bitcoin Out Loud Read. Economic
Policy, Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow by Ludwig von Mises. Inflation. If the supply of caviar
were as plentiful as the supply of potatoes, the price of caviar, that is, the exchange ratio between
caviar and money or caviar and other commodities, would change considerably. In that case, one could
obtain caviar at a much smaller sacrifice than is required today. Likewise, if the quantity of money
is increased, the purchasing power of the monetary unit decreases and the quantity of goods that
can be obtained for one unit of this money decreases also. When, in the 16th century,
American resources of gold and silver were discovered and exploited, enormous quantities
of the precious metals were transported to Europe. The result of this increase in the quantity of
money was a general tendency toward an upward movement of prices in Europe. In the same way,
today, when a government increases the quantity of paper money, the result is that the purchasing
power of the monetary unit begins to drop and so prices rise. This is called inflation. Unfortunately,
in the United States, as well as in other countries, some people prefer to attribute the cause of
inflation not to an increase in the quantity of money, but rather to the rise in prices. However,
there has never been any serious argument against the economic interpretation of the
relationship between prices and the quantity of money or the exchange ratio between money and
other goods, commodities, and services. Under present-day technological conditions, there is nothing
easier than to manufacture pieces of paper upon which certain monetary amounts are printed. In
the United States, where all the notes are of the same size, it does not cost the government more
to print a bill of $1,000 than it does to print a bill of $1. It is purely a printing procedure
that requires the same quantity of paper and ink. As an aside, in 2023, they can simply create money
with a few keystrokes, no printing press required. In the 18th century, when the first attempts were
made to issue banknotes and to give these banknotes the quality of legal tender, that is, the right
to be honored in exchange transactions in the same way that gold and silver pieces were honored,
the governments and nations believed that bankers had some secret knowledge, enabling them to produce
wealth out of nothing. When the governments of the 18th century were in financial difficulties,
they thought all they needed was a clever banker at the head of their financial management in order
to get rid of all their difficulties. Some years before the French Revolution, when the royalty
of France was in financial trouble, the king of France sought out such a clever banker and appointed
him to a high position. This man was, in every regard, the opposite of the people who, up to that
time, had ruled France. First of all, he was not a Frenchman, he was a foreigner, a Swiss from Geneva,
Jacques Necker. Secondly, he was not a member of the aristocracy, he was a simple commoner. And
what counted even more in the 18th century France, he was not a Catholic, but a Protestant. And so,
Monsieur Necker, the father of the famous Madame Mestelle, became the minister of finance, and
everyone expected him to solve the financial problems of France. But in spite of the high degree of
confidence Monsieur Necker enjoyed, the royal cash box remained empty. Necker's greatest mistake,
having been his attempt to finance aid to the American colonists in their War of Independence
against England, without raising taxes. That was certainly the wrong way to go about solving
France's financial troubles. There can be no secret way to the solution of the financial
problems of a government. If it needs money, it has to obtain money by taxing its citizens,
or under special conditions, by borrowing it from people who have the money. But many governments,
we can even say most governments, think there is another method for getting the needed money.
Simply to print it. If the government wants to do something beneficial, if, for example,
it wants to build a hospital, the way to find the needed money for this project is to tax the
citizens and build the hospital out of tax revenues. Then no special price revolution will occur,
because when the government collects money for the construction of the hospital, the citizens,
having paid the taxes, are forced to reduce their spending. The individual taxpayer is forced to
restrict either his consumption, his investments, or his savings. The government, appearing on the
market as a buyer, replaces the individual citizen. The citizen buys less, but the government buys
more. The government, of course, does not always buy the same goods which the citizen would have
bought. But on average, there occurs no rise in prices due to the government's construction of a
hospital. I chose this example of a hospital precisely because people sometimes say, it makes a
difference whether the government uses its money for good or bad purposes. I want to assume that
the government always uses the money which it has printed for the best possible purposes,
purposes with which we all agree. For it is not the way in which money is spent, it is the way
in which the government obtains this money that brings about those consequences we call inflation,
and which most people in the world today do not consider as beneficial. For example, without
inflating, the government could use tax-collected money for hiring new employees or for raising the
salaries of those who are already in government service. Then these people, whose salaries have
been increased, are in a position to buy more. When the government taxes the citizens and uses
this money to increase the salaries of government employees, the taxpayers have less to spend,
but the government employees have more to spend. Prices in general will not increase.
But if the government does not use tax money for this purpose, if it uses freshly printed
money instead, it means that there will be people who now have more money while all other people
still have as much money as they had before. So those who receive the newly printed money will
be competing with those people who were buyers before, and since there are no more commodities
than there were previously, but there is more money on the market, and since there are now
people who can buy more today than they could have bought yesterday, there will be an additional
demand for the same quantity of goods. Therefore, prices will tend to go up. This cannot be avoided,
no matter what the use of this newly issued money will be. And more importantly, this tendency
for prices to go up will develop step by step. It is not a general upward movement of what has
been called the price level. The metaphorical expression price level must never be used.
When people talk of a price level, they have in mind the image of a level of liquid which goes
up or down according to an increase or decrease in its quantity, but which, like a liquid in a
tank, always rises evenly. But with prices, there is no such thing as a level. Prices do not change
to the same extent at the same time. There are always prices that are changing more rapidly,
rising or falling more rapidly than other prices. There is a reason for this. Consider the case
of a government employee who received the new money added to the money supply. People do not buy
today precisely the same commodities and in the same quantities as they did yesterday. The additional
money which the government has printed and introduced into the market is not used for the
purchase of all commodities and services. It is used for the purchase of certain commodities,
the prices of which will rise while other commodities will still remain at the prices
that prevailed before the new money was put into the market. Therefore, when inflation starts,
different groups within the population are affected by this inflation in different ways.
Those groups who get the new money first gain a temporary benefit. When the government inflates
in order to wage a war, it has to buy munitions and the first to get the additional money are
the munitions industries and the workers within those industries. These groups are now in a very
favorable position. They have higher profits and higher wages. Their business is moving. Why?
Because they were the first to receive the additional money and having now more money at
their disposal, they are buying and they are buying from other people who are manufacturing
and selling the commodities that these munitions makers want. These other people form a second
group and this second group considers inflation to be very good for business. Why not? Isn't
it wonderful to sell more? For example, the owner of a restaurant in the neighborhood of
the munitions factory says, It really is marvelous. The munitions workers have more money. There
are many more of them now than before and they are all patronizing my restaurant. I am very
happy about it. He does not see any reason to feel otherwise. The situation is this. Those
people to whom the money comes first now have a higher income and they can still buy many
commodities and services at prices which correspond to the previous state of the market, to the
conditions that existed on the eve of inflation. Therefore, they are in a very favorable position.
And thus inflation continues step by step from one group of the population to another.
And all those to whom the additional money comes at the early state of inflation are
benefited because they are buying some things at prices still corresponding to the previous
stage of the exchange ratio between money and commodities. But there are other groups
in the population to whom this additional money comes much, much later. These people
are in an unfavorable position. Before the additional money comes to them, they are forced
to pay higher prices than they had paid before for some or for practically all of the commodities
they wanted to purchase, while their income has remained the same or has not increased
proportionally with prices. Consider for instance a country like the United States during the
Second World War. On the one hand, inflation at that time favored the munitions workers,
the munitions industries, the manufacturers of guns, while on the other hand it worked
against other groups of the population. And the ones who suffered the greatest disadvantages
from inflation were the teachers and the ministers. As you know, a minister is a very modest person
who serves God and must not talk too much about money. Teachers likewise are dedicated
persons who are supposed to think more about educating the young than about their salaries.
Consequently, the teachers and ministers were among those who were most penalized by inflation
for the various schools and churches were the last to realize that they must raise salaries.
When the church elders and the school corporations finally discovered that, after all, one should
also raise the salaries of those dedicated people, the earlier losses they had suffered
still remained. For a long time, they had to buy less than they did before to cut down
their consumption of better, more expensive foods and to restrict their purchase of clothing,
because prices had already adjusted upward while their incomes, their salaries, had not
yet been raised. This situation has changed considerably today, at least for teachers.
There are therefore always different groups in the population being affected differently
by inflation. For some of them, inflation is not so bad. They even ask for a continuation
of it, because they are the first to profit from it. We will see in the next lecture how
this unevenness in the consequences of inflation vitally affects the politics that lead toward
inflation. Under these changes brought about by inflation, we have groups who are favored
and groups who are directly profiteering. I do not use the term profiteering as a reproach
to these people, for if there is someone to blame, it is the government that established
the inflation. And there are always people who favor inflation, because they realize
what is going on sooner than other people do. Their special profits are due to the fact
that there will necessarily be unevenness in the process of inflation. The government
may think that inflation, as a method of raising funds, is better than taxation, which is always
unpopular and difficult. In many rich and great nations, legislators have often discussed
for months and months the various forms of new taxes that were necessary because the
parliament had decided to increase expenditures. Having discussed various methods of getting
the money by taxation, they finally decided that perhaps it was better to do it by inflation.
But of course, the word inflation was not used. The politician in power who proceeds
toward inflation does not announce, I am proceeding toward inflation. The technical methods employed
to achieve the inflation are so complicated that the average citizen does not realize
inflation has begun. One of the biggest inflation in history was in the German Reich after the
First World War. The inflation was not so momentous during the war. It was the inflation
after the war that brought about the catastrophe. The government did not say, via proceeding
toward inflation, the government simply borrowed money very indirectly from the central bank.
The government did not have to ask how the central bank would find and deliver that money.
The central bank simply printed it. Today, the techniques for inflation are complicated
by the fact that there is checkbook money. It involves another technique, but the result
is the same. With the stroke of a pen, the government creates fiat money, thus increasing
the quantity of money and credit. The government simply issues the order and the fiat money
is there. The government does not care at first that some people will be losers. It
does not care that prices will go up. The legislators say, this is a wonderful system,
but this wonderful system has one fundamental weakness. It cannot last. If inflation could
go on forever, there would be no point in telling governments they should not inflate.
But the certain fact about inflation is that, sooner or later, it must come to an end. It
is a policy that cannot last. In the long run, inflation comes to an end with the breakdown
of the currency. It comes to a catastrophe, to a situation like the one in Germany in
1923. On August 1st, 1914, the value of the dollar was four marks and twenty fennigs.
Ten years and three months later, in November 1923, the dollar was pegged at 4.2 trillion
marks. In other words, the mark was worth nothing. It no longer had any value. Some
years ago, a famous author, John Maynard Keynes, wrote, In the long run, we are all dead. This
is certainly true, I am sorry to say. But the question is, how short or long will the
short run be? In the eighteenth century, there was a famous lady, Madame de Pompadour, who
is credited with the dictum. Après nous les deluges, after us will come the flood.
Madame de la Pompadour was happy enough to die in the short run. But her successor in
office, Madame de Belly, outlived the short run and was beheaded in the long run. For
many people, the long run quickly becomes the short run, and the longer inflation goes
on, the sooner the short run. How long can the short run last? How long can a central
bank continue inflation? Probably as long as people are convinced that the government,
sooner or later, but certainly not too late, will stop printing money and thereby stop
decreasing the value of each unit of money. When people no longer believe this, when they
realize that the government will go on and on without any intention of stopping, then
they begin to understand that prices tomorrow will be higher than they are today. Then they
begin buying at any price, causing prices to go up to such heights that the monetary
system breaks down. I referred to the case of Germany, which the whole world was watching.
Many books have described the events of that time. Although I am not a German, but an Austrian,
I saw everything from the inside. In Austria, conditions were not very different from those
in Germany, nor were they very much different in any other European countries. For several
years, the German people believed that the air inflation was just a temporary affair,
that it would soon come to an end. They believed it for almost nine years, until the summer
of 1923. Then finally, they began to doubt. As the inflation continued, people thought
it wiser to buy anything available instead of keeping money in their pockets. Furthermore,
they reasoned that one should not give loans of money, but on the contrary, that it was
a very good idea to be a debtor. Thus, inflation continued feeding on itself. And it went on
in Germany until exactly November 20, 1923. The masses had believed inflation money to
be real money, but then they found out that conditions had changed. At the end of the
German inflation, in the fall of 1923, the German factories paid their workers every
morning in advance for the day, and the working man who came to the factory with his wife
handed his wages all the millions he got over to her immediately. And the lady immediately
went to a shop to buy something, no matter what. She realized what most people knew at
the time, that overnight, from one day to another, the mark lost 50% of its purchasing
power. Money, like chocolate in a hot oven, was melting in the pockets of the people.
This last phase of German inflation did not last long. After a few days, the whole nightmare
was over. The mark was valueless, and a new currency had to be established.
Lord Keens, the same man who said that in the long run, we are all dead, was one of
a long line of inflationist authors of the 20th century. They all wrote against the
gold standard. When Keens attacked the gold standard, he called it a barbarous relic,
and most people today consider it ridiculous to speak of a return to the gold standard.
In the United States, for instance, you are considered to be more or less of a dreamer
if you say, sooner or later the United States will have to return to the gold standard. Yet
the gold standard has one tremendous virtue. The quantity of money under the gold standard
is independent of the policies of government and political parties. This is its advantage.
It is a form of protection against spend-thrift governments. If, under the gold standard,
a government is asked to spend money for something new, the Minister of Finance can say, and
where do I get the money? Tell me first how, and I will find the money for this additional
expenditure. Under an inflationary system, nothing is simpler for the politicians to
do than to order the government printing office to provide as much money as they need for
their projects. Under a gold standard, sound government has a much better chance. Its leaders
can say to the people and to the politicians, we can't do it unless we increase taxes.
But under inflationary conditions, people acquire the habit of looking upon the government
as an institution with limitless means at its disposal. The state, the government, can
do anything. If, for instance, the nation wants a new highway system, the government
is expected to build it. But where will the government get the money? One could say that
in the United States, and even in the past under McKinley, the Republican Party was more
or less in favor of sound money and of the gold standard, and the Democratic Party was
in favor of inflation. Of course, not a paper inflation, but a silver inflation. It was,
however, a Democratic President of the United States, President Cleveland, who at the end
of the 1880s vetoed a decision by Congress to give a small sum, about $10,000, to help
a community that had suffered some disaster, and President Cleveland justified his veto
by writing, while it is the duty of the citizens to support the government, it is not the duty
of the government to support the citizens. This is something which every statesman should
write on the wall of his office, to show the people who come asking for money.
I am rather embarrassed by the necessity to simplify these problems. There are so many
complex problems in the monetary system, and I would not have written volumes about them
if it were as simple as I am describing them here. But the fundamentals are precisely these.
If you increase the quantity of money, you bring about the lowering of the purchasing
power of the monetary unit. This is what people whose private affairs are unfavorably affected
do not like. People who do not benefit from inflation are the ones who complain. If inflation
is bad, and people realize it, why has it become almost a way of life in all countries?
Even some of the richest countries suffer from this disease. The United States today
is certainly the richest country in the world, with the highest standard of living. But when
you travel in the United States, you will discover that there is constant talk about
inflation and about the necessity to stop it. But they only talk. They do not act.
To give you some facts, after the First World War, Great Britain returned to the pre-war
gold parity of the pound. That is, it revalued the pound upward. This increased the purchasing
power of every worker's wages. In an unhampered market, the nominal money wage would have
fallen to compensate for this, and the worker's real wage would not have suffered. We do not
have time here to discuss the reasons for this. But the unions in Great Britain were
unwilling to accept an adjustment of money wage rates downward as the purchasing power
of the monetary unit rose. Therefore, real wages were raised considerably by this monetary
measure. This was a serious catastrophe for England, because Great Britain is a predominantly
industrial country that has to import its raw materials, have finished goods, and food
stuffs in order to live, and has to export manufactured goods to pay for these imports.
With the rise in the international value of the pound, the price of British goods rose
on foreign markets, and sales and exports declined. Great Britain had, in effect, priced
itself out of the world market.
The unions could not be defeated. You know the power of a union today. It has the right,
practically the privilege, to resort to violence. And a union order is, therefore, let us say,
not less important than a government decree. The government decree is in order for the
enforcement of which the enforcement apparatus of the government, the police, is ready. You
must obey the government decree, otherwise you will have difficulties with the police.
Unfortunately, we have now, in almost all countries all over the world, a second power
that is in a position to exercise force, the labor unions. The labor unions determine wages,
and then strike to enforce them in the same way in which the government might decree a
minimum wage rate. I will not discuss the union question now, I shall deal with it later.
I only want to establish that it is the union policy to raise wage rates above the level
that they would be on an unhampered market. As a result, a considerable part of the potential
labor force can be employed only by people or industries that are prepared to suffer
losses. And, since businesses are not able to keep on suffering losses, they close their
doors and people become unemployed. The setting of wage rates above the level they would have
been on an unhampered market always results in the unemployment of a considerable part
of the potential labor force. In Great Britain, the result of high wage rates enforced by
the labor unions was lasting unemployment prolonged year after year. Millions of workers were
unemployed, production figures dropped, even experts were perplexed. In this situation,
the British government made a move which it considered an indispensable emergency measure.
It devalued its currency. The result was that the purchasing power of the money wages upon
which the unions had insisted was no longer the same. The real wages, the commodity wages,
were reduced. Now the worker could not buy as much as he had been able to buy before,
even though the nominal wage rates remain the same. In this way, it was thought real
wage rates would return to free market levels and unemployment would disappear. This measure,
devaluation, was adopted by various other countries, by France, the Netherlands, and Belgium. One
country even resorted twice to this measure within a period of one year and a half. This
country was Czechoslovakia. It was a surreptitious method, let us say, to thwart the power of
unions. You could not call it a real success, however. After a few years, the people, the
workers, even the unions began to understand what was going on. They came to realize that
currency devaluation had reduced their real wages. The unions had the power to oppose this. In many
countries, they inserted a clause into wage contracts, providing that money wages must go
up automatically with an increase in prices. This is called indexing. The unions became
index conscious. So this method of reducing unemployment that the government of Great
Britain started in 1931, which was later adopted by almost all important governments,
this method of solving unemployment no longer works today. In 1936, in his General Theory of
Employment, Interest, and Money, Lord Keane's unfortunately elevated this method. The emergency
measures of the period between 1929 and 1933 to a principle, to a fundamental system of policy,
and he justified it by saying in effect, unemployment is bad. If you want unemployment to
disappear, you must inflate the currency. He realized very well that wage rates can be too
high for the market, that is, too high to make it profitable for an employer to increase his
workforce. Thus too high from the point of view of the total working population. For with wage
rates imposed by unions above the market, only a part of those anxious to earn wages can obtain
jobs. And Keane said in effect, certainly mass unemployment prolonged year after year is a very
unsatisfactory condition. But instead of suggesting that wage rates could and should be adjusted to
market conditions, he said in effect, if one devalues the currency and the workers are not clever
enough to realize it, they will not offer resistance against a drop in real wage rates,
as long as nominal wage rates remain the same. In other words, Lord Keane's was saying that if a
man gets the same amount of sterling today as he got before the currency was devalued, he will not
realize that he is in fact now getting less. In old fashioned language, Keane's proposed cheating
the workers. Instead of declaring openly that wage rates must be adjusted to the conditions of
the market, because if they are not, a part of the labor force will inevitably remain unemployed.
He said in effect, full employment can be reached only if you have inflation, cheat the workers.
The most interesting fact, however, is that when his general theory was published, it was no longer
possible to cheat, because people had already become index conscious. But the goal of full
employment remained. What does full employment mean? It has to do with the unhampered labor market,
which is not manipulated by the unions or by the government. On this market, wage rates for every
type of labor tend to reach a point at which everybody who wants a job can get one, and every
employer can hire as many workers as he needs. If there is an increase in the demand for labor,
the rate will tend to be greater, and if fewer workers are needed, the wage rate will tend to
fall. The only method by which a full employment situation can be brought about is by the maintenance
of an unhampered labor market. This is valid for every kind of labor and for every kind of
commodity. What does a businessman do who wants to sell a commodity for $5 a unit? When he cannot
sell it at that price, the technical business expression in the United States is, the inventory
does not move. But it must move. He cannot retain things because he must buy something new.
Fashions are changing. So he sells at a lower price. If he cannot sell the merchandise at $5,
he must sell it at $4. If he cannot sell it at $4, he must sell it at $3. There is no other choice
as long as he stays in business. He must suffer losses. But these losses are due to the fact that
his anticipation of the market for his product was wrong. It is the same with the thousands and
thousands of young people who come every day from the agricultural districts into the city trying
to earn money. It happens so in every industrial nation. In the United States, they come to town
with the idea that they should get, say, $100 a week. This may be impossible. So if a man cannot
get a job for $100 a week, he must try to get a job for $90 or $80 and perhaps even less.
But if he were to say, as the unions do, $100 a week or nothing, then he might have to remain
unemployed. Many do not mind being unemployed because the government pays unemployment benefits out of
the taxes levied on the employers, which are sometimes nearly as high as the wages the man
would receive if he were employed. Because a certain group of people believes that full
employment can be attained only by inflation, inflation is accepted in the United States,
but people are discussing the question, should we have a sound currency with unemployment or
inflation with full employment? This is in fact a very vicious analysis. To deal with this problem,
we must raise the question, how can one improve the condition of the workers and of all other
groups of the population? The answer is by maintaining an unhampered labor market and thus
achieving full employment. Our dilemma is, shall the market determine wage rates or shall they
be determined by union pressure and compulsion? The dilemma is not, shall we have inflation or
unemployment? This mistaken analysis of the problem is argued in England, in European industrial
countries and even in the United States. And some people say, now look, even the United States is
inflating, why should we not do it also? To these people, one should answer first of all,
one of the privileges of a rich man is that he can afford to be foolish much longer than a poor man.
And this is the situation in the United States. The financial policy of the United States is very
bad and getting worse. Perhaps the United States can afford to be foolish a bit longer than some
other countries. The most important thing to remember is that inflation is not an act of God.
Inflation is not a catastrophe of the elements or a disease that comes like the plague. Inflation
is a policy, a deliberate policy of people who resort to inflation because they consider it to
be a lesser evil than unemployment. But the fact is that in not the very long run, inflation does
not cure unemployment. Inflation is a policy and a policy can be changed. Therefore, there is no
reason to give in to inflation. If one regards inflation as an evil, then one has to stop
inflating. One has to balance the budget of the government. Of course, public opinion must support
this. The intellectuals must help the people to understand. Given the support of public opinion,
it is certainly possible for the people's elected representatives to abandon the policy of inflation.
We must remember that in the long run, we may all be dead and certainly will be dead. But we should
arrange our earthly affairs for the short run in which we have to live in the best possible way.
And one of the measures necessary for this purpose is to abandon inflationary policies.
And that's a wrap on this Bitcoin Out Loud episode. You can listen to all the episodes of
The Bitcoin Podcast at bitcoinpodcast.net or wherever you get your podcasts. You can find
me on Noster by going to primal.net slash Walker. If you want to follow The Bitcoin Podcast on
Twitter, go to atwalkeramerica and at titcoinpodcast. You can also find the video version of this
podcast and others at youtube.com slash atwalkeramerica. Bitcoin is scarce. There will only ever be 21
million. But Bitcoin podcasts are abundant. So thank you for spending your scarce time to
listen to another fucking Bitcoin podcast. Until next time, stay free.