 And so, the future value of money is less than the present value of money. Things that you need tomorrow are going to be way more expensive than they are today, and your money tomorrow will be worth nothing compared to your money today. Hey, folks. I'm Adam Elavine, and this is Speaking of Bitcoin. As always, I'm joined by the other host of the show, Stephanie Murphy. Hi. Jonathan Mohan. Hey. Hey. And Andreas M. Antonopoulos. Hello. So, inflation is back in the headlines, and really, it's living rent-free, as they say in my head these days, pretty much full-time. This isn't just some vacation rental thing either, we just signed a year-long lease on that part of my brain with an option to extend another three, and I'm starting to get complacent. It doesn't matter what the official measures of inflation say, it's getting to be normal, and that's not necessarily a good thing. In a couple of weeks, we're going to have John Williams, the man behind ShadowStats.com on the show to talk about how the government measurements of most important things have changed over time, and what those changes all have in common. But just for today, it's worth noting the way the government measures inflation has changed a lot. Since the 1980s, and when they quietly admit that your money has lost 4% of its purchasing power over this last year, well, I've got some bad news. The way that they used to measure inflation back in the 90s tells us inflation is near 8% today, and in the 1980s, today's data would have told us it was 12% inflation. It's a pretty big deal, actually. So on today's show, we're going to talk about inflation, some of the signs we're seeing, and what it means in the big picture. Okay, so this week, we saw Larry Summers, who was a former Treasury Secretary, and also the chief economic advisor to Obama during the whole TARP situation in the bailouts ten years ago, writing a letter to the Biden administration saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, we are going off a cliff. He said something about red flags or red fires burning or something like he was using really strong language about this inflation and that all of these economic indicators are pointing to that inflation is going way too fast. This is not just a temporary situation, as they all keep saying, and the cause of that is the policies that are being proposed and enacted by the government of just kind of limitless spending and creating more money without really having anything to back it up. So I was just kind of stunned by that, like, you know, one that he's admitting it and calling it out onto the carpet and also like considering what he did and who he was and how he played a role in the massive inflation that accompanied what happened ten years ago, it was really interesting. So this is a sign that we've got a problem and we've been saying this, too. I think everybody knows it. Everybody feels it. It's time for people to sort of start talking about it, but also it's time for people to start connecting it to why is this happening? Well, it's because we have massive government spending and, you know, they don't have any way to finance it. They're not increasing the money that they're taking in. They're just creating more money, which makes all of the money that currently exists worth less. You know, inflation is a topic where the difference of opinion between mainstream economists and kind of the fringe, which includes the gold bugs, the libertarians, the fiscal conservatives or whatever other labels you want to use and a lot of crypto people and all of the crypto people, almost all of the crypto people, it's enormous. So if you read the conversation here, and this is often a talking point that we see from people like Paul Krugman and others, one of the foundational thesis points for Bitcoin and other cryptos is the idea that fiat money is not a reliable long-term store value that we are heading towards increased inflation, possibly hyperinflation. And you see this narrative constantly in the Bitcoin space, especially with the stock to flow model and the kind of Bitcoin maximalist approach to monetary economics, the Austrian economics groups within Bitcoin and others. And many economists who come from more traditional schools of economics say that's nonsense. Inflation isn't coming back. In fact, the amount of stimulus is unlimited. The government is not restricted in how much debt or currency it can issue, especially the US government with the reserve currency. And two decades now, the inflation has effectively disappeared and being conquered or whatever. And it's not something we need to worry about. And we have a completely opposite narrative inside crypto. And it's interesting because, of course, it's very difficult to get facts and data to see which approach is right. I'm skeptic and I'm also very reluctant to take a strong position on this topic, among other things, because I have neither the data nor the training and monetary economics to have an informed opinion on this. I have a tendency for remembering an inflationary environment increase to not believe the idea that monetary stimulus doesn't matter and inflation isn't coming back. But at the same time, I'm confused by all of this. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. And how do we find out? How can we tell the difference? It's made much harder when all of the data on that is being manipulated and used to fit a certain narrative, which is that inflation is not a problem. It's no big deal. Well, yeah, I think a lot of people's lived experiences telling them otherwise. And some people are starting to panic, especially when you look at something like the real estate market right now, where there's housing in short supply, that the low interest rates on mortgages are starting to almost be not worth it because the prices of the homes themselves are rising so fast, it's sort of canceling each other out. So, you know, when you start to feel it in your basic security needs, there's definitely a problem going on and people know it at an intuitive level. And when it's not being openly talked about, that is really distressing. And people start to get the sense that, you know, the government's lying to us, the mainstream media is lying to us. And what else are they lying about? And it raises those kinds of questions. I want to go back to the point that you made earlier about how Larry Summers is out there saying this. Now he played a big role in kind of the last round of all this stuff as the Treasury Secretary, right? So that reminds me of Alan Greenspan. Because Alan Greenspan, again, like there seems to be a rule, which is that when you are in a position of power, you're just going to carry things on, right? Like you get into a position of power. Well, you're not in a position of power to change anything. You're in a position of power to continue things, to keep things going, right? But once you get out of that position of power, I mean, you look at Alan Greenspan and Greenspan was supposedly, you know, Acolyte of Anne Rand, right? Very sort of libertarian mindset around many of these things, very much a gold bug until he got into a position of power. And then during that time, there was none of that. There was all of kind of this status quo, continuation, breaking rules in order to keep things going, keep things going, you know, at any cost. And then he gets out of it. And suddenly he's warning about it, right? Suddenly he's warning Bernanke not to do the things that he actually himself started. Larry Summers, that seems to be almost exactly the situation here is that, sure, yeah, now he's saying these things when he has no power to do them, when the only thing that he can do is kind of, you know, get out in front of what he knows is coming because he was in large part responsible for perpetuating it through as long as it's sort of been going on. So maybe I'm just maximally cynical at this point about people who put themselves into positions of power in this way. But I have yet to see an exception to this role. No, I completely agree with you, Adam. I think you're not cynical enough. I mean, there's one very cohesive reason as to why they would do that. And it's because these are the type of men that say whatever they need to say and construct whatever argument they need to construct to most maximally benefit their career in the moment. And so when they had a government job, they say whatever the government wants to hear. And then the moment they leave the government job, they say whatever it takes in order to get a book deal. And so I don't even think their opinions changed. I just think they're lawyers and even more fundamentally than that, they're soft as and what a softest does is say and construct any argument that their patron wants them to say or construct. And belief is meaningless in the eyes of a softest because it's the argument and the payment for the argument that is what you are. And so when they're in power, they say what their power structure wants to be said. And then when they're out of power, they say whatever the financial system wants them to say. So the question then becomes really simple. Was Larry Summers lying then or is Larry Summers lying now? Or isn't it even a lie? It's just was Larry Summers spinning a narrative that happened to coincide with truth then or is Larry Summers spinning a narrative that happens to coincide with truth now or is neither of those true? Maybe the recent announcement that there is inflation, the book deal announcement is the one that's wrong. Right. I mean, ask yourself with a lawyer. It's like when a lawyer takes a position, is it because it's the side of truth? And then when he's asked to take the other position, is it because that's now the side of truth or is it just whatever the client wishes him to argue is the argument that he makes? Yeah. You see, the thing is, that's the exact same kind of argument and criticism that occurs nonstop in Bitcoin space, which is that when Bitcoiners say sound money matters, inflation is doom, hyperinflation is coming. A lot of people who have a different perspective will say, yeah, but you're only saying that because you're holding off these Bitcoin bags. And if you can persuade enough other people that hyperinflation doom is coming, your purse gets bigger. So you're just pumping Bitcoin with this narrative and you have an incentive to scare people about hyperinflation. Correspondingly, though, that would almost be the argument of someone who doesn't live with integrity because you should be more like me, someone whose everyday actions do not in any way correspond with the values that he thinks are occurring or the way the government's going to unfold. Right? So it's almost this paradoxical moral framework where someone who doesn't live the values that they claim could then attack you for actually living in a corresponding incentive structure with what you're proclaiming will occur. It's almost like that would be the way that someone with no integrity would attack someone with integrity and finance. You know, the question of whether a politician is lying, I think we all know the answer to that. Are their lips moving? Yes, they're lying. Of course, that's a saying for a reason. But this is like people's livelihoods we're talking about. And that's really important to remember is like they're talking about changing the value of people's money. And that really matters if you have any money saved or even if you're just trying to live, it matters how much your money is worth. And especially if you're saving towards some goal like buying a house or having a family or whatever, you know, this is important for you to know that your money is still going to be worth something in the future. And the rug is being pulled out from under people when they feel that sense of security that they can save and have it matter being taken away from them. That affects so many of our decisions. Right? When we incentivize people or the government incentivizes people not to save because your money is not going to be worth anything in the future or incentivizes people to go into riskier and riskier investments because they're chasing a return to try to beat this inflation that's going on. That really changes people's lives. And so these politicians, you know, often throw out statements like really blasé and almost like they don't understand or maybe they do understand and they don't care what they're doing. But this really affects people's lives and people's decisions. So it's really important to remember that. Yeah. So how do people make informed decisions when you have essentially competing authorities, some very credentialed, some not at all credentialed, providing competing presentations of what the world is like? So where do we go for primary data? How do we find out? Is it Paul Crogman who's correct? Is it Larry Summers now or Larry Summers then who is correct? Is it the Bitcoin maximalist in Austrian economics? People who are correct? How do we figure it out? And so if I look at my experience of what's happening in markets, what I see is some things that have a disproportionate impact on my life, specifically healthcare, education and housing have become much, much more expensive over the past two decades. And that's very, very noticeable. It's also starting to become noticeable with food at this point too, just in the last six months or so. People are also starting to notice things like food and gas, you know, the prices going up. Maybe gas isn't all due to inflation, but when you start to hit all of those basic needs, you have to wonder, is there any point in calculating a consumer price index with computers and TVs that are getting cheaper because of technology improving and manufacturing processes? Those statistics lose all meaningfulness when they don't include the basic needs that people need to pay for and are now spending more and more of their budget just to keep buying because they need them to survive. I mean, clearly the point is because it's about narrative, right? So much of life in the modern era has become about narrative because if we can't control reality, but we can control the way that people measure reality, talk about reality, analyze reality, think about reality. That's not as good, but it sort of accomplishes the purpose, which is that we're not getting mad at the right people. There's an apocryphal quote, it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. And I think suddenly we're right back at Larry Summers, right? Like at the point where the paycheck he's pulling relies upon his continuing a system that is inherently going to fail and that is inherently unfair to the vast majority of people who have to live under it. Well, he's not going to understand it, but now that we're out there in book deal land, well, you know, suddenly he's a little bit more in tune with the zeitgeist. And it's just kind of interesting disheartening certainly. And as Jonathan said, perhaps as cynical as I am, I am not yet cynical enough to understand the full scope of kind of what's at work here. So after the break, we're going to come back and we're going to talk about hyperinflation and preconditions for that. Stay tuned. So we don't usually go to Twitter for content, but I saw a tweet today that I thought was really kind of on the nose and I wanted to share it here. So Luke Raman said, the clearest indication that we are going to have a highly inflationary outcome and non-transitory inflation at that is the number of people on financial Twitter or FinTwit that think that using electricity to create a hard store of value like BTC is a waste of energy. Let them eat bonds. And I thought that this was really a poignant statement, right, an interesting way to kind of think about it. And really the takeaway for me here is that we have entered an era of complacency. As I said, kind of at the open of the show, the idea that we have four percent inflation by official measures and 12 percent inflation by the way that we used to have official measures, that feels about right to me. And on the one hand, it's really concerning. And on the other hand, I can think of not a single action that I can take as an individual, whether as just myself or as part of a group of a lot of people who all believe the same thing to do anything to change that. And I think if you look around, what that says to me is that at least as far as the official narrative is concerned, the Fed has won, the government has won. And what that victory means is that nobody believes that anything bad is going to happen as a result of this crazy monetary experiment that we're in because all of the money printing and all of the stimulus. And again, the, you know, we talk about housing prices and how crazy they are. Well, the Fed buys 40 billion dollars worth of mortgages per month. So like, that's why those things are so crazy is because they're creating this demand where there wouldn't be if they weren't there. And they're not doing it with money that they earned. They're doing it with our money and they're doing it with future commitments that we will eventually need to pay back unless they're defaulted on, which is arguably just as bad. So that's kind of where I want to take this conversation now is like, is there any exit from this? Because again, like the Fed can't raise interest rates. Fed doesn't really control this, but they have to do anything they can to keep interest rates low just because of the way that the debt has stacked up. And this is particularly a problem in the United States. But it's a problem globally. And it's not a new problem. It's just a problem where we've now seen kind of like all of the different nooks and crannies that this stuff could flow into, right? To not build up in one particular area, right? You think about it like water, you know, like they're all full. And so the water level is rising. And as that water level rises, that's not a good thing. And it's not sustainable. So I'm curious, like, does anybody see any ways out of this like hypothetical or not that could actually work to pull us out of this without some type of terrible ending? Well, I think the first thing that would have to happen for the doom and gloom to not occur is for those in positions of control to no longer subscribe to this nonsense called MMT, which is an economic death cult. It's financial scatology. It's the only way I could describe how grotesque and broken this ideology is and the fixation upon it. It's the bro science equivalent of when you go to New Orleans and someone says if you never sober up, you'll never have a hangover. That's what MMT is. Yeah, that's a really good analogy because it is an economic hangover. Right. And it says that if you denominate your debts in dollars and you can print dollars, you will always be solvent because dollars equal dollars. But the thing that it misses and the thing that it fundamentally under evaluates is that services don't inflate. Obligations for services don't inflate. And so if you look at all of America's unfunded liabilities and the delivery of things like Social Security and health care, those are services. You don't get to debase the dollar value by 10 or 20 percent or 100 percent or 1000 percent and still be able to meet the obligations of those services because services cost stay the same. An hour of a doctor's time is still an hour of a doctor's time. And so the scariest thing with this MMT death cult is sure the Fed will always be able to pay out a bond. FDIC will always be able to print money, give you your money back. But everyone's 401k, their pension, their Social Security, their health care, those services, where are they going to come from and how are we going to afford them? Because every day the dollar goes down, those services go up and you can't inflate out of the delivery of those services. And so what's going to happen is 20 or 30 years from now, no one's going to have health care, no one's going to have Social Security, no one's going to have those services that have been unfunded and have been inflated into impossibility to achieve. And then pretty soon going to a doctor will be seen as as bourgeois out of the middle class as ever owning your own home. Adam, you were saying, is there anything we can do? And, you know, I agree with everything you said, Jonathan, but unfortunately, we have no control over politicians. I guess maybe the only thing we can do is speak out, spread the word, you know, get people to become more aware of what's actually happening and how the statistics are manipulated. And we're trying to do that with the show. But personally, we can take more control over this by one increasing our knowledge. So like we're going to have the awareness that we want everyone to have about what's really going on and how the story is being manipulated to keep us unaware of what's really going on. And then we can actually opt out of the financial system. I'm not suggesting like everyone go live in the woods, although that is an option for some people. You can explore living off the land, you know, you can explore growing your own food or, you know, kind of refocusing on your home life. That's one way to do it. But there's other ways to do it too. Crypto is a giant opt out of the government controlled financial system because it's not controlled by government. It's controlled by software code. And so you can find creative ways to opt out of systems that you don't like. You always have some choices and we're all about that. Everyone being able to exercise their choices and live the best life possible. And when the government makes it hard and crappy for you, hey, you can try to opt out as best you can. I think more fundamentally to your point, Stephanie, and then also to Andreas's point before about having the solution sound to self serving is this isn't like you have to buy Bitcoin type of argument. This is just a you have to understand that the cost of the things that you need to live are going to be going up. And so the future value of money is less than the present value of money. Things that you need tomorrow are going to be way more expensive than they are today. And your money tomorrow will be worth nothing compared to your money today. That also means that if you take out debt, you're going to be paying it back with cheaper money in the future. Right. But the best way to think about it in terms of asset acquisition is, you know, no one ever likes to talk about giving investment advice. I'll give you investment advice right here with a guaranteed return. If you're a normal person and you're thinking how can I make five to 10 percent guaranteed return on investment? And I'm not going to say the word bit shares. The way that you would do it is you look at every proctor and gamble product that you intend to buy this year over the next 12 months and buy them now because proctor and gamble just announced that there's going to be an across the board five to 10 percent increase in every product they make and they make basically everything. And so if you want to know the price of inflation and how to guarantee returns or hedge against it, just right like sit down with your wife or your husband, look at all the proctor and gamble products you'll buy this year and buy it now because you will have a guaranteed return against the devaluation of the dollar and your ability to purchase those goods 12 months from now. The proctor and gamble example kind of reminds me of something very similar that the economists doing for I don't know, 25, 30 years. I certainly remember it since I was in college. It's a long time ago is the big magnex, yeah, which is basically the purchasing power exchange rates of different national currencies based on the local currency price of a big Mac in that country, because for the most part, the cost of making a big Mac is a standard unit of measurement. So you can then value the currencies against that. And it's been remarkably good at really giving you a sense of purchasing power. As funny as it seems, at first thought, you can use the same kind of logic with something like proctor and gamble consumer products to estimate inflation. But even that is not going to give you an accurate perspective on the unequal impact of inflation. Going back to the thing I said before, which is does an equality cause inflation? Is inflation caused inequality? How does that cycle work? The bottom line is that when a lot of the inflation is going into assets, if you have assets, if you own assets, then you can ride that and almost, but not quite, neutralize the effect of inflation. And so, yes, houses cost more, health care costs more, energy costs more, education costs more. But the rich have been getting richer at an even faster rate. So it doesn't really matter if you have assets. If you don't have assets and you're in the stagnant middle class or worse in the lower middle class or worse, then you buy Dogecoin. Well, yeah, then you start gambling on high risk, high yield things like lottery tickets and Dogecoin and of course, Bitcoin. And so you try to beat inflation some other way. You don't have access to mainstream investments necessarily. You certainly don't have enough disposable income to make a big difference. So you need even bigger gains to get out of a poverty trap. That's where you really start feeling the inflation of these assets because you don't own any of them. You know, the Big Mac thing you were talking about, Andreas, reminds me of it's a little off topic, but this is something that also happens that hides inflation is this idea of shrinkflation, right? You go to the store, you buy a product, but all of a sudden there's less in the package, right? It's the same package, the same price. It looks the same. The price has not increased, but suddenly you're getting one less roll of paper towels or your ice cream has 20 percent more air in it. Instead of what it was before. So I have two points to make here. On the one side, I think that shrinkflation was a lot more of a thing or certainly it will happen again. But I think we're going to see more straight up price increases. Well, they can't shrink anymore in some cases. Well, first off, it's that they've already done the shrinking. And so they've reached a point in which it's not like it's going to go unnoticed, right? And on the other side, price increases are being accepted. Warren Buffett for Berkshire Hathaway said on May 1st at their annual meeting, we're seeing very substantial inflation. It's very interesting. We are raising prices. People are raising prices to us and it's being accepted. He's talking specifically about the housing markets, cost of steel, cost of lumber, things like that. But just broadly, I think that this is true. We've reached something of an endgame with the shrinkflation idea, because the whole point is that it's easier to make the product smaller than to charge more. I don't think that's true anymore. I think people are getting used to it. That's because everyone's legally compelled to stay home and not go out. And so all of their discretionary income is sitting stagnant. And so the elasticity on their demand is greater and they can afford to pay for more. But what they're not realizing is when the price of everything moves upward that this is now your standard of living. I think that what's happening now is the government realized they got a free 20 to 30 percent increase in the price of everything by making it illegal for people to be American. People didn't realize it because that 20 to 30 percent they would have spent on enjoying their life is now new elasticity on just keeping the standard of living they have now, which is doing nothing, staying home, atrophying and then dying with no joy in your life. And what people don't realize is that when we allegedly go back to normal once the two weeks to flatten the curve has ended that standard of living that they have now, that's the new normal. That's their new reality. Because once these prices reestablished, they don't go back down. So let's talk about what comes next, because I think we are seeing kind of the beginning of the end. And so I think we're going to see a rush of new economic activity. And if you look back at historical examples of this, of course, although it's very difficult to pin down the causation with certainty, it seems like the end of World War One and the Spanish flu led then to the roaring 20s, right? And that was a period when coming out of a global pandemic and a war recession, et cetera, there was a massive increase in productivity and economic activity. So if something similar happens and we have another roaring 20s, coincidentally also the 20s, then that actually is one of the possible precipitating events for very, very strong inflation. So a market's commenter, who I've been reading for a lot of years named Ms. Shedlock was talking about how hyperinflation feels like it should be a monetary event, feels like it should be something that, you know, is maybe caused by a central bank or something like that. But in practice, he said it's always a political event and the monetary policy follows the politics. And that, I think, is another really interesting thing to think about here, because one of the reasons why it's so frustrating to look at inflation statistics, you know, what the official measures are relative to what we experience in our real lives is that the government actually has a responsibility to track this appropriately, because a lot of the services that are provided to citizens are based around how much inflation there is, right? If you're on Social Security or something like that, that is indexed to inflation. Or what they say is inflation. Exactly, the official measures of inflation. And so if inflation is really, you know, 10 percent, but they say that it's 4 percent, well, then that means that you're actually losing 6 percent that year. And this is kind of true across the board. So it's interesting to look at, you know, I mean, for a long time, wages were really, really sticky in the United States, especially at the lower end of the scale. And these recent pushes sort of towards that $15, irrespective of whether it actually makes its way into law, which I don't think it did, did it? No, I don't think it did either. But it's just happening naturally as a result of, well, depending on who you ask, it's more difficult for employers to hire workers if they don't pay that much. Right, exactly. Because cost of living really is higher. And so it requires more. And I mean, there's other factors that come into play here. This is obviously a more complex topic. Yeah, there's the issue of unemployment as well. But bottom line, it doesn't make sense for people to work for less than about $15 an hour in most places. Right. So, you know, I've been looking around at, you know, this was a couple of months ago at this point, but looking around locally, you know, like all of the fast food places are actually like the most prominent signage they have is competing with each other for how much they pay at a starting level. And that level at, you know, like a Taco Bell or a McDonald's or something, you know, has gone as high as, you know, between $13 to $16 per hour as a starting wage. These were not normal kind of rates years ago. Right. And it's again, not that it's a more valuable job to work there. It's that that's how much is required in order to even just like have that subsistence level existence. So again, like, it's interesting to me as we go through all of this to see that the government kind of finds itself trapped in this situation of its own creation, right? Because they don't want to let the illusion go. They are on the one hand lying to us about how much inflation there is. And on the other hand, they are lying to us about the reasons why they are lying to us about it. So we're just kind of trapped in this stupid cycle, right? Like in crypto, we have silly season in kind of the rest of the real world, right? We just have like stupid all year round. And the way that they got out of this in the 80s was with what 13, 14, 15% interest rates. And it was hard and it was painful. And it was a really meaty sandwich. But they ate it. And then they got out of it. Because guess what? Interest rates deal with inflation. Unlike that in Turkey, what did you to believe, which by the way, we should do a topic on that because he's the first person in charge of a country who says that increasing interest rates increases inflation, which is why Turkey is currently in the middle of a collapse. I don't think like I'm just at the age where to me, it's impossible to think about a world where interest rates were 6%, where that was considered normal. For me, two to one and a quarter makes sense. But I can't even conceive or think entrepreneurially within a framework of what 6% rates look like. And I don't think we're ever even going to get to 6% again. I've heard a new phrase, and this is another way that you know that inflation is coming. It's whenever the goalpost gets moved in the conception of what reduction looks like. So you knew that America would never repay the debt when the Republicans and the Democrats went from arguing about reducing the debt to arguing about how much to reduce the increase in spending as a cut. And so if you only increase the amount that we give Social Security by 50 million instead of 300 million next year, you cut Social Security by 250 million. Right. And that's how you knew America was fiscally. Right. I am now hearing the phrase repeated over and over again about this new term. I haven't heard before. Maybe I just don't know that much about economics, which I'm sure some people listening will agree with. But it's called disinflation. Yeah, I've heard that too. And also reflation. And it's the fear not of deflation. It's the fear of the decrease in inflation. So God forbid if inflation is at 5% and then well, what if the federal government wants inflation to go back to 2%? Well, that's a deflationary 3% Delta. We had 3% deflation. How can the economy deal with 3% deflation? Do you want 3% deflation disinflation? Excuse me. Oh, see how I did that right there? Whoa, got really scared. And so just as in physics, there's no concept of deceleration. It's just acceleration against the different vector. I guess the economists thought that sounded right. Yeah, I was actually thinking of that, Jonathan, it's like the difference between velocity and acceleration, right? Yeah, but it's like we're going into the La La Land where I don't even think we're ever going to see 2% again. I think in the same way that you defunded social security because you're only increasing it by 50 million instead of 300 million. When I have a kid in Feast 15, the concept of 2% inflation will be seen as insane because that would mean that there had to have been a disinflationary event of 10%. This is obviously a conversation we are going to be returning to on a fairly regular basis going into the future. There's more, I think, to say about it, but I think this is probably a good place to end our conversation for today. This episode is speaking of Bitcoin featured Andreas M. Antonopoulos, Stephanie Murphy, Jonathan Mohan and myself Adam B. Levine. Our music is provided by Jared Rubins and the show is edited by Jonas. If you enjoyed this episode, send us an email at adamatspeakingofbitcoin.show or just leave a review on your favorite podcast player. And until next time, thanks for listening.