We already know what happens when people aren't incentivised to invest - it's called a recession.
Who said 5% sitting on money? I'm talking about a situation where there is basically no real inflation or deflation. $100 is $100. You can still choose to take your money and invest it if you want, but you aren't forced to GAMBLE your money (you can use the word invest all you want, but 99% of the time it's simply gambling).
>How many fewer tech giants and unicorns would we see?
So first of all, you are completely butchering what I said per above.. but in any case, maybe that's a good thing not to see all the tech giants and unicorns? People are so obsessed with doing things so they can "make it big" it's really just sad. HN in particular, I see it all the time here. All most people seem to care about is trying to make the most money possible and less about things that are actual helpful.
Greed is a hell of a drug.
>We already know what happens when people aren't incentivized to invest - it's called a recession.
That is quite a stretch. You will always have people that want to gamble their money. My point is you should not be FORCED to gamble your money to play the game the rich people who set the rules want you to.
Still not convinced that is a good thing. It perpetuates a cycle that rewards people who already have excess income to "invest" and keep making more money. Meanwhile those without any significant income to invest are left even further in the dust.
I'm not arguing for crypto at all here- just commenting specifically on that inflationary point.