The Biggest Lie in Economics | Allen Farrington & Sacha Meyers
Get the full intelligence
Search transcripts, export clips, track mentions, and explore all topics from “The Biggest Lie in Economics | Allen Farrington & Sacha Meyers” inside PodZeus.
In this deep dive episode of 'What Bitcoin Did,' Allen Farrington and Sacha Meyers challenge the foundational myth of modern economics: the necessity of 2% inflation. They argue that the 2% figure is not scientifically derived but a random, arbitrary number from a TV interview, yet it has become entrenched in economic policy due to Keynesian orthodoxy. The hosts dissect the 'paradox of thrift'—the idea that deflation causes people to hoard money and stall economic activity—and counter that deflation is not inherently harmful. Instead, they assert that deflation driven by innovation is a sign of progress, enabling lower prices, greater savings, and more capital for future investment. They distinguish between deflation caused by debt collapse (a systemic fragility) and deflation from technological advancement (a healthy, productive force). The conversation explores how fiat systems, by distorting price signals through inflation, create malinvestment and distort entrepreneurial decision-making. The duo emphasizes that true economic health comes from dynamic, bottom-up innovation, not top-down manipulation. They advocate for a monetary system with minimal noise—where money's value is stable and predictable—arguing that such a system would naturally foster deflation through innovation and be willingly adopted. Though Bitcoin is never named in their essay 'Number Go Down,' the hosts imply it as the only viable path to such a system, while stressing that adoption must be organic, not forced. The episode ends with a call to experiment, to observe, and to recognize the signs when a new monetary order emerges. Key takeaways include: (1) The 2% inflation target is arbitrary and not scientifically grounded; (2) Deflation from innovation is beneficial, not destructive; (3) The paradox of thrift is a flawed narrative that ignores the role of savings in enabling investment; (4) Price signals must remain clean to avoid malinvestment; (5) True economic progress is rooted in innovation, not artificial stimulus; (6) A monetary system that allows deflation through productivity will be self-sustaining and desirable; (7) Bitcoin may be the only system capable of achieving this, but it must emerge organically; (8) We must stop measuring economic health with flawed metrics like CPI and instead focus on real-world outcomes and experimentation.
The 2% inflation target is arbitrary, not scientifically derived, and has become a self-fulfilling myth in economics.
Deflation caused by innovation is a sign of progress and enables greater savings and investment.
The 'paradox of thrift' is a flawed concept that ignores how savings fund long-term innovation.
Malinvestment arises not from human nature but from corrupted price signals caused by inflation.
A money system with minimal noise—where value is stable and predictable—will naturally foster innovation-driven deflation.
…and 3 more takeaways available in PodZeus
The Myth of 2% Inflation
“The 2% figure was literally completely made up. It was in a TV interview. You cannot have deflation unless your labor is worth more.”
Deflation: The Good, the Bad, and the Confused
“You would indeed have a massive issue, but if you think that you can improve the faults of human psychology by adding even more noise on the line, you're deluded.”
The Paradox of Thrift and the Illusion of Stimulus
“The more complex an economic structure, the more obfuscated this becomes... you are either consuming now or saving for later. There's not really any middle choice.”
Malinvestment and the Corruption of Price Signals
The hosts explain how inflation corrupts price signals, leading rational investors to make poor decisions. They argue that even well-intentioned investors can malinvest when the monetary system is distorted.
The Case for Innovation-Driven Deflation
“If you knew it would take you 2% longer to do something next year, would you do it now? That’s logically equivalent to the Keynesian argument for inflation.”
“The 2% figure was literally completely made up. It was in a TV interview.”
“If you don't get that, then I don't know what to tell you... it's almost an ontological difference between what we're doing and what they're doing.”
“You would indeed have a massive issue, but if you think that you can improve the faults of human psychology by adding even more noise on the line, you're deluded.”
Host
Guests
Sacha Meyers
person
Allen Farrington
person
Bitcoin
other
Bitcoin is Venice
book
2% Inflation Target
other
Keynesianism
other
Number Go Down
other
Paradox of Thrift
other
Walrasian Auctioneer
other
CPI
other
Who Controls Your Mind and Your Money? | Bradley Rettler
What Bitcoin Did • 1h 37m • 3/31/2026
The Debt Crisis Is Already Here | Lyn Alden
What Bitcoin Did • 1h 25m • 4/1/2026
Jeff Booth: Everything They Told You About Money Is Wrong
What Bitcoin Did • 1h 11m • 4/7/2026
Is the Quantum Threat to Bitcoin Actually Real? | Alex Pruden
What Bitcoin Did • 1h 17m • 4/9/2026
Why Everyone Is Wrong About Inflation | Ansel Lindner
What Bitcoin Did • 58m • 4/15/2026
Get the full intelligence
Search transcripts, export clips, track mentions, and explore all topics from “The Biggest Lie in Economics | Allen Farrington & Sacha Meyers” inside PodZeus.
Start discovering podcast insights today
Start with a 7-day trial and explore a growing catalog of popular podcasts. No credit card required.
No credit card required • 7-day trial • Cancel anytime
