It doesn't require new debt. It requires luxuries because people like luxuries and so a lot of industry has built around that.

In theory if people wanted to we could remove luxuries from the economy over time to the point that everyone only works in industries that produce essentials and people only buy essentials, but that would be pretty terrible all round.

The problem is that if there's an economic event that causes people to stop buying luxuries suddenly, those industries contract and everyone in them loses money. The rich ones aren't overly affected by this, but all the millions of normal people working in those industries suddenly lose their primary source of income, and that' a pretty huge problem.

The funny thing is you keep telling me I support the billionaires but you're the one supporting a situation that would overwhelmingly hurt poorer people more than anyone else. In your fantasy and billionaires would just buy a shit load of bitcoin to hedge against economic hardship, but poor people living paycheck to paycheck who suddenly have no income would be fucked.

The funny thing is that every time you BTC maxis tend to think you'd be on the OK side of it, more often than not because you're supported by your parents dumping all of your burger flipping money into crypto. Reality isn't something you strive to understand. 

 "It doesn't require new debt"

Stop it, you're killing me!

You do know ALL money is debt, right? 

 That's not what you were alluding to in your previous comment though, this is you trying to wiggle out of being wrong. You've also failed to address any of the other points.

I'd like to say it was a surprise but it's pretty much the standard for BTC maxis, as soon as they start needing to understand more than first grade economics they just star going "lol, you're so wrong it's funny" with no additional explanation. 

 I'm sorry, "an expression of central bank liability" lol