Reality is government's should not fear competitive private money like bitcoin, if they're a confident in their state-issued currency. I don't really take a position on the inevitability of the end of state-issued currency. I do take a position on the inventively bitcoin becoming one of the most important currencies in the world, and acting as a significant competitive monetary force in the world, which will change incentives dramatically.
Discussion
The separation of church and state didn’t end either it just changed the relationship. Governments will have to run efficiently or they will fail!
I'd argue the separation of church and state is not even as strong as people make it out to be. Being a practicing Christian basically remains a prerequisite for the presidency in this country, as an almost unspoken rule, even if the constitution says otherwise!
Bitcoin is the first time we’ve had money. Everything that came before was a proxy. Anything can monetize, but there is only one absolutely scarce money. ⚡️
I don't quite agree with the way you're defining money. But I think I at least understand the sentiment you're trying to convey.
I do have my own definition of money. Just like we all have our own definition of what is valuable. It’s individual. ❤️
I think the most interesting part is how it could change the relationships between nations as far as international trade is concerned. A neutral money for trade between nations seems like the most obvious outcome for bitcoin, no? Not saying it will happen overnight, but it just seems like an inevitability.
Yes. This is one of my core theses about the future of bitcoin.
Credit is such an important part of international trade, maybe credit and bitcoin will become the primary two. I wonder if that credit will ever be based in bitcoin though because of its volatility. What I’ve read is that it’ll stay volatile (not quite so much as now though lol)
One of the reasons I have doubts that hyperbitcoinization will ever happen, and bitcoin will instead become like a super-gold, is because I don't agree that people are going to ever en masse come to reject the welfare state. In most of these arguments, there's this libertarian/anarcho-capitalist assumption that people are going to "wake up" and realize that taxation is theft, the welfare state is authoritarian, and they're going to embrace a world of radical self-sufficiency and market maximalism. I don't see the political incentives ever aligning in that direction. I also disagree that such a future is mechanically inevitable, as many people claim.
It’s also quite possible that governments will try to ensure their survival by acquiring large amounts thorough coercion and still continue to issue centrally-controlled digital currencies for the masses. We’re a very long road from everyone adopting sats their common unit. I’m not counting on seeing this happen in my lifetime, but I’m not going to give up on the dream.
I'm making a stronger argument than that, though. My argument is not about what "governments will want to do" but what "people will want governments to do". The social safety net is *incredibly* popular. Even among the political right, a majority of Republican voters in the United States, support higher taxes on the rich, for example. This sort of belief that most people have anarchistic tendencies, doesn't seem to pass any smell test.
Here is a citation to support my point: https://www.newsweek.com/more-half-republicans-support-tax-hikes-americans-earning-over-400k-poll-1630303?amp=1
And that’s because no matter what political party people belong to, they know they’re getting screwed over by the well-connected fiat wealthy who can navigate the impossibly complex tax code to their advantage. The social safety net, as weak as it is in the United States, still keeps a lot of people from ending up on the street. The downside, of course, is that it’s designed in a way to keep people dependent, because if their income level rises even by a small amount, they would lose their benefits and have nothing to fall back on.
I would be somewhat wary of these claims. You have no idea how the survey was worded in order to get thoses results. It's like the political compass test. Damn near everyone becomes Bernie Sanders (left libertarian) just because of the way questions are phrased.
As societies become richer, they demand more government. The relationship is so reliable and robust, it’s about asclose as social science gets to a “law”. https://www.niskanencenter.org/cant-make-government-smaller/
I clicked a link in your article...
Don't hurt yourself trying so hard!
Excuse me, what?
Sorry, it was showing this linked to a different comment. I actually didn't get a chance to read the article you wrote as I had to run out for the day. Just glanced briefly at the wikipedia and thought that was funny considering how you said it was as close to a law in the social sciences and the link you provided said the exact opposite. Don't read too much into it.
What if people want the government to do things that are impossible to do? Like maintain a large safety social net, but also simultaneously keeping taxes low?
What if, “What the people want governments to do” is exactly derived by what the government want them to do through the media & Propaganda machine? :)
I love spending OPM. That society has told us that it’s morally acceptable makes it even easier 😜
Adopters of a Bitcoin standard will coalesce into a new self sustained society. It is inevitable because there is literally no better alternative once the fiat standard goes away. Money is our life energy. It must be preserved and Bitcoin is the solution tool for this. Gold is too analog for our digital world. It can’t work. So what’s the alternative?
Well, my argument isn't that bitcoin is exactly like gold. But that it will play a role of a new kind of money that has gold-like properties in the sense of its supply constraints and ability to hold independent of state authority.
They’re definitely not confident in state-issued fiat lol
They don’t allow fully reserved banks because they know that will cause a run on the fractional reserve banks. We will reach a point where enough people equally realise the difference between bitcoin and fiat - only I’m not sure they can truly stop bitcoin
I'm not sure that I agree that the existence of fractional reserve banks are a creature of the state. In fact, it seems to me, that the time preference arbitrage, is a pretty seductive and powerful incentive for fractional reserve banking, even in the purist of unregulated free markets.
It also seems to me, that the possibility of returns and yield on even bitcoin, from trading time preferences for interest, would persist, even in a world of hyperbitcoinization.
I feel like when people make this argument, there's quite a bit they're taking for granted about what they view as people's innate ability to practice restraint based on a normative principle, such as the ethics of such a thing.
What are your thoughts on democracies adding the right to freedom of choice when it comes to money?
I think that should become a fundamental right for keeping federal reserve systems in check.
Yeah. I would argue that bitcoin is a tool of democracy in this very regard. Because it returns power to individuals and gives them an option that isn't merely the currency the government has on offer.
#[1]