@Mayday - bro, you are a smart guy, but you are confusing concepts (and you are not the first do to so).
I'll and explain it simply by using a very simple imaginary hypothetical to explain the concept. Please read below carefully, (and be sure to watch the Jeff Booth video I posted above).
Lets say we have 100 identical people, living in a country, who all annually produce 1 apple each. And lets say the total amount of money in supply is $100, and they only thing they spend money on is apples. The cost of each apple would be 1$ (being 100 apples divided by a total of $100 in circulation).
Now, imagine that the supply of money is fixed. Does that mean that people would all be content just with one apple? No, of course not. They would still be incentivized to be productive, and to get more apples from others, or to grow more. The human desire to be efficient, productive, and maximize returns does not diminish just because the supply of money is fixed.
So, now imagine a scenario where with fixed money supply, everyone has become more productive. Imagine that due to better farming, more hard work, or just the luck of better weather, that they now produce 10 apples each. What happens to the cost of apples as a result of this
increased productivity?
Prices of apples fall! That's right - each apple, now only costs 10 cents.
Increased productivity resulted in DEFLATION.
Similarly, lets now take a scenario where they are just still producing 1 apple (ie no increase in productivity), but the Government increases money supply by 10x. So now we have $1000 in supply, but the same number of apples being produced. Now each apple will cost $10. Now we have
INFLATION in the price, yet there has been
zero improvement in productivity.
Its really a very basic concept.
You do not need money printing to produce economic growth. Try playing monopoly without money being added into the system. You will see the same incentives still apply. Property owners still want to maximize their profits, and the best allocators of capital over time will still thrive over others. All money is, is a ledger. The problem with fiat currencies of course, is that they are all corrupt ledgers (some more corrupt than others), whereas Bitcoin is not. And this is why Bitcoin, over time, succeeds against all fiat currencies. All fiat currencies devalue over time (resulting in inflation, as the same amount of currency purchases less over time), and just because some devalue more than others, it does not mean that the slowest devaluing currency is actually gaining in real terms. Just like if you had 10 horses all running backwards, it does not mean that the least worst running horse is actually running forwards (although in relative terms, compared to the other horses, it may be appearing to do so - which is actually an illusion as over time, none are actually getting any closer to the finish line).
Similarly you do not need inflation or money printing to create productivity. For example, this is why in the US between 1880 and 1914, there was a surge in productivity, yet inflation averaged 0.1% per annum during this period Why? Because they money supply was fixed (ie on the Gold Standard). So its really absolutely absurd to suggest that "if you have a fixed money supply you fail". Give it some thought - you will eventually get it.
You are really confusing real value and productivity with nominal prices when you say that "the largest/fastest property gains come during the money printing inflationary cycles." I'll give you another very basic example. Lets say the average home in a country is worth 100K. How to we make everyone millionaires? We just debase the currency and print 10x the amount of money, and boom, each houses now worth 1 million! If only it were that simple
So yes, everyone is now 10x richer, but that money now can only purchase 1/10 as much. Its like having a perpetual motion machine which defies the laws of physics. Many politicians fall into this trap, and they all realize eventually learn the hard way.
So its really absolutely absurd to suggest that "if you have a fixed money supply you fail".
As for being safe to hold BTC in banks, my view is that anytime you deposit anything with a 3rd party, you are not the owner. Money with a bank is simply a debt owed to you. Its not "your money". Bank goes under, and all you are is a creditor who has a claim against the bank. The ETF's will be highly regulated, so pretty safe, but still, "not your keys not your coin".
I don't think any financial model can be called a "scam" unless you are investing with the creator of that model on the belief that it will produce a promised return. And if you are doing that, then you are not understanding what the purpose of a model is (and again, perhaps some smart people really are confused on this). The purpose of financial models are to guide us in predicting what may occur in the future. And models are of course tweaked as new data constantly impacts the model. But by all means, we should always critically assess any model, use it / reject it. modify it, weight it etc, as we see fit, and incorporate it into our overall predictions along with all other variables as we best see fit. If Plan B said tha "
x WILL HAPPEN", then clearly he was wrong. Any responsible analyst would frame it more carefully and explain that
based on their model, which may or may not be correct, and in the absence of all other variables, x, is LIKELY TO HAPPEN. This distinction should be obvious, but I can see how people in mainstream YouTube-influencer land perhaps took these predictions as statements of fact and followed on blind faith. If so, lesson hopefully learned.
