I don't follow. You can have sound money and socialism, the two aren't related at all.
You can have a Bitcoin standard as a stare money and they can tax it and mine it. They can spend it on socialist programs.
What am I missing?
Discussion
Name one socialist country that ran on the gold standard.
A) I didn't say hat one has occured in the past or make that claim.
B) if one cared enough, you could argue Sweden in the 20s was likely 80-90% socialist. Same with the early Soviet union, the Chevronet was backed virtually completely like gold.
C) answer my question if you like. I don't see why you cannot have both.
Now with that said, I believe the 2 sides would never agree on something like that and it would never likely happen, but theoretically? Sure, why not?
Also, he claimed socialism, not socialist country.
Does that mean no socialism? US level socialism? France? China?
They cant spend it on socialist programs without increasing its supply which is how they are abusing fiat.
Lol. Of course they can.
You tax 5,000 Bitcoin to pay for healthcare from citizens.
You now have 5,000 Bitcoin to spend on said healthcare.
Sounds money, spent on socialist program.
Or 100 Bitcoin taxed for roads.
Spend 100 Bitcoin on a new road.
You don't need fiat to tax and spend.
sure, but once its gone its gone....they cant do the fed bank, to bond to retail bank thing.
Huh?
Do you think that the Bitcoin just is sent to a burn address because it is a road or healthcare? 😂
The state or whomever would collect the Bitcoin, and spend it.
By spending it, they are paying direct employees, contractors, road builders, doctors, hospitals, asphalt companies, and on and on.
They now have redistributed the taxed Bitcoin to new people in different amounts. They then buy homes, food, etc .
Listen, I am not arguing this is an effective use of capital or that socialist programs are good or in any way better than free markets.
But sound money absolutely allows for socialist programs, IF the people agree to share and spend and redistribute.
sure, but if the supply is limited and the value is high, why would they just flitter it away on crap they do now. I hope so anyway.
They wouldn't. They would need more direct buy in from the populace.
Like war bonds. Before this insane fiat level, to pay for war you needed to raise money via bonds or taxes over time to pay for it.
We absolutely still had war under gold standard, but they took more breaks to collect money, sold it more to the people, and couldn't just drop bombs in the desert whenever they wanted.
Nevermind the fact we have a socialist experiment for mining/hash happening with Rigly.
A bunch of plebs are giving money to a general fund pot to buy mining hash for a half a day.
If the pool wins a block, the block is shared amongst the plebs. The many joining to win a block in hopes of helping everyone.
Socialism....using sats.
Maybe they are somewhat related in the sense that taxation for social programs becomes FAR harder with a sound money standard.
So the resources you would have to expend to tax this would be enormous and might higher the bar just enough to make it unfeasible.
In that sense it does starve it it seems.
What do you think? nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7cnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqpramhxue69uhky6t5vdhkjmndv9uxjmtpd35hxarn9ehkumrfdejsqgz8905ljfjwagf9fu4j7lxjmgxrr8dwfljv6eylqsjwjs35mjk0juk0rayz
It's not hard or expensive. Imwe had it for thousands of years.
You have a state with sound money.
You have a requirement to pay taxes or threat of death.
95% of people pay.
You build road.