Simply saying that it's obviously true is not a valid defence. So according to your superior reasoning of stock-to-flow, if someone owned all the food in the w

Simply saying that it's obviously true is not a valid defence. So according to your superior reasoning of stock-to-flow, if someone owned all the food in the world, with no means of further production, food would be worthless? If not, how is food (commodity with large demand, driven by need to nourish ourselves) different economically to bitcoin (a commodity with large demand driven by need to store value)?