in other words, hard assets, are often cumbersome and slow to move. In fact they are that way because they are hard yielding (aka hard to mine and refine). There is only so much of it as well, thus if you cannot fund with hard assets, you fund with debt. That debt is an IOU issuance with collateral.
Discussion
Bitcoin isn't hard to move.
to some degree it is, not as hard as gold bullion, and not as easy as cash.
Remember, if you have it in cold storage, you'll have to load it up, move it, check mempool for fees, then move it on chain - these things aren't so easy and are actually quite cumbersome if you think about it.
It would be quicker than me giving cash to you. I would have to go to you physically first of all....
Who says you cannot fund with hard assets?
People with no assets??? So they need to make money from nothing to steal from those who do? Is this the magic formula to economic growth?
History says that you will stagnate. It doesn't mean you can't, but it doesn't mean you will out pace other nations.
I don't give a s*** about outpacing other nations in the short term. That's exactly what it is short-term thinking I want a nation that exists forever. All nations ever have collapsed because of loose monetary policy. If you knew History so much you think you would know that....
Well you can't have it both ways. Either you have a classical economy that only grows when it extracts the wealth of another nation, or you go with localised models that issue debt, without risking reserves.
As mentioned, if you want to pay in hard currency or commodities, that's fine, but you only have a fixed supply of said commodities and when that runs dry, you'll have to seize it from others to facilitate your growth.
Want that new warship? Well if you're not issuing debt, then you're paying with gold, or Bitcoin.
Then you have a depreciating boat, no hard assets reserve and you collapse.
See British, Spanish, Portuguese
Now you are finally understanding, yes, hard money doesn't work for central planning (communism)and government theft - this is why separating money and state is so important - in the US before 1913, the government was no bigger than the post office involved in people's lives.
In a hard money system (which we are returning to) Economic growth can only be actioned by those with hard money or by people doing proof of work. People who actually do the work get rich - that's why the saying pull yourself up by the bootstraps came from and how even people with regular blue collar jobs became quite wealthy still before the 1971 switch from gold.
There is no creating money from nothing to buy hard assets (fraud under contract law)...
Can you prove this?
My reading of history is that golden ages were under a hard money standard - the most prominent was Venice with their Gold coinage which produced the renaissance. It collapsed when the hard money standard fell.
The next way Belle Epoque (beautiful age) which was also a hard money age which like the renaissance saw the peak of human art and music (Beethoven etc).
Look at all the buildings and architecture from these times - this was built on a hard money standard (bitcoiner term low time preference) Vs now... Architecture now resembles more communism than beauty.
Mansa Musa debased Venice when he travelled through to Mecca.
The entire downfall of European mercantilism is a case study. Take your pick from Portugal through to Belgium, France, Germany etc. all had mercantile economies.
The downfall comes in when you don't have liquidity to fund your endeavors. Debt creates liquidity.
The downfall of empires is caused by war - abandon hard money for fiat to create war. Each and every time. And if fiat money was so good, why did they always switch back to a hard money standard?
Also did you read Adam Smith? He didn't advocate for fiat money, only metal coinage and asset backed loans..
You are talking pure Keynesian.
indeed, war to acquire more hard assets. But then unable to sustain the war because the current reserve cannot pay i.e. you paid out all your gold to your soldiers already.
Yes, I have read Adam Smith and other economic works. Not once did I say he did, he is classical economics, aka mercantilism. I already said this though. I'm "talking" Keynesian because it is what works for every government run economy in the world.
But like I said, you can most certainly return to Mercantilism, Trump wanting Canada and Greenland is that basic economic principal. Will they win a war though, or would that end the empire?