You can invest in Gold, which doesn't yield any return. The notion of investment implies a return, whether it is a cash yield or a principal appreciation.
But I would say bitcoins are more similar to fiat currencies than commodities. Commodities have an intrinsic value due to their rarity. You cannot manufacture gold (technically you can but in very small quantities). Which means that if you find a gold coin which ancient romans were buying goods with, you can still buy a suit with it today. You can call that a convention but it is a convention dictated by the laws of physics, not by some white paper.
Fiat currencies instead only have value by convention or law, anyone can manufacture a new fiat currency, like everyone can create a new blockchain. A government can by law change the algorithm behind any of these blockchains. But a government cannot create gold. If someone finds a bitcoin key in 2000 years, long after the western civilisation is gone, it will be an interesting piece of history that can but placed in a museum, but you won't be able to buy a suit with it. With gold you will.
You can invest in Gold, which doesn't yield any return. The notion of investment implies a return, whether it is a cash yield or a principal appreciation.
By my definition, that's not an investment. Nor would buying a rare painting be an investment, but speculation. By buying gold, or a rare painting, and keeping it locked away in your house, you're not making capital available for productive use. You're just speculating that its price, as measured in dollars, will increase. A transfer of value from the next buyer to yourself happens when you sell it, but no value has been produced.
Regardless of the terminology we choose, can't we agree there's a fundamental difference between buying something with money and holding on to that, versus making that money available for productive use (e.g. a producer buying more efficient machinery)? When you buy a bond you're investing, because the issuer can use your capital to increase its productivity, while paying out a part of the resulting profits as a yield. When you buy a lump of gold and gold on to it, all you're hoping for is that the dollar will be devalued sufficiently to make it appear that you can sell it for a profit (in dollars). No increase in productivity needs to take place for the latter to occur, whereas in the former case bond issuers can't afford to pay interest without creating profits.
I am not sure you can define a line between investing, speculation, lending or gambling. They are essentially the same thing. For each of them you take a calculated risk with your capital in exchange for a future profit.
I think I'd view it that either things will have changed so much that the idea of exchanging physical objects for a bit of shiny metal seems ludicrously crude or that we've had a widespread total collapse and nobody is interested in shiny soft metal either (gold seems to have been used from 5th millenium BC which is a long time but definitely not "forever" in terms of human pre-history).
Comments
You can invest in Gold, which doesn't yield any return. The notion of investment implies a return, whether it is a cash yield or a principal appreciation.
But I would say bitcoins are more similar to fiat currencies than commodities. Commodities have an intrinsic value due to their rarity. You cannot manufacture gold (technically you can but in very small quantities). Which means that if you find a gold coin which ancient romans were buying goods with, you can still buy a suit with it today. You can call that a convention but it is a convention dictated by the laws of physics, not by some white paper.
Fiat currencies instead only have value by convention or law, anyone can manufacture a new fiat currency, like everyone can create a new blockchain. A government can by law change the algorithm behind any of these blockchains. But a government cannot create gold. If someone finds a bitcoin key in 2000 years, long after the western civilisation is gone, it will be an interesting piece of history that can but placed in a museum, but you won't be able to buy a suit with it. With gold you will.
By my definition, that's not an investment. Nor would buying a rare painting be an investment, but speculation. By buying gold, or a rare painting, and keeping it locked away in your house, you're not making capital available for productive use. You're just speculating that its price, as measured in dollars, will increase. A transfer of value from the next buyer to yourself happens when you sell it, but no value has been produced.
Regardless of the terminology we choose, can't we agree there's a fundamental difference between buying something with money and holding on to that, versus making that money available for productive use (e.g. a producer buying more efficient machinery)? When you buy a bond you're investing, because the issuer can use your capital to increase its productivity, while paying out a part of the resulting profits as a yield. When you buy a lump of gold and gold on to it, all you're hoping for is that the dollar will be devalued sufficiently to make it appear that you can sell it for a profit (in dollars). No increase in productivity needs to take place for the latter to occur, whereas in the former case bond issuers can't afford to pay interest without creating profits.
I am not sure you can define a line between investing, speculation, lending or gambling. They are essentially the same thing. For each of them you take a calculated risk with your capital in exchange for a future profit.
I tend to agree with this reasoning, but isn't it also the case that people try to give the illusion that commodities are rare? E.g. diamonds
"With gold you will."
I think I'd view it that either things will have changed so much that the idea of exchanging physical objects for a bit of shiny metal seems ludicrously crude or that we've had a widespread total collapse and nobody is interested in shiny soft metal either (gold seems to have been used from 5th millenium BC which is a long time but definitely not "forever" in terms of human pre-history).