Remember that a person’s name is, to that person, the sweetest sound in any language. Use people’s names often and remember them. It makes others feel valued. #DaleCarnegie

1. What is a Bitcoin-to-Stablecoin Atomic Swap?

An atomic swap is a smart contract-based technology that allows two parties to exchange cryptocurrencies directly between blockchains without needing a centralized exchange or custodian. It’s called “atomic” because the swap either completes in full or doesn’t happen at all — no one can cheat.

So, a Bitcoin-to-Stablecoin atomic swap means trading BTC directly for a stablecoin (like USDC or USDT), peer-to-peer, without intermediaries, using atomic swap protocols.

2. Why Is This Important?

Most stablecoins (especially USDC, USDT) are USD-pegged, meaning they’re digital dollars. If people around the world can swap BTC for stablecoins easily and directly — without using exchanges — it:

- Increases global access to the dollar (via stablecoins)

- Avoids censorship/control from centralized exchanges or governments

- Encourages people in unstable economies to use stablecoins as a store of value or medium of exchange

3. How Could This Play into Dollar Dominance?

Here’s where it gets geopolitical:

Dollar Demand Goes Up: If stablecoins become easier to acquire via Bitcoin atomic swaps, then demand for dollar-backed assets increases, even in regions that can’t access traditional banking.

Bypasses Traditional Financial Rails: People don’t need a U.S. bank account or SWIFT access to hold/use dollars — they just need crypto wallets. This extends dollar influence even further.

Decentralized Dollarization: Countries or individuals can dollarize without official policy or IMF intervention — just by using crypto.

Resistance to Sanctions or Capital Controls: If someone can't access USD due to sanctions or government controls, they might swap BTC for USDT/USDC through atomic swaps, sidestepping restrictions.

Key Implications:

Pros for Dollar Hegemony:

- Reinforces USD’s global use

- Makes the dollar more accessible

- Embeds USD in the crypto infrastructure

Risks for U.S. Control:

- Harder to regulate how stablecoins move globally

- Capital flight from developing nations could accelerate

- Sanctions enforcement becomes tougher

What do the smart folks of NOSTR think about this?

#Bitcoin #BTC

Ludwig von Mises & the Regression Theorem: Why Money Needs a Past

Ever wonder how something becomes money in the first place? Ludwig von Mises answered that nearly a century ago with what’s now known as the Regression Theorem.

The problem is this: For people to accept something as money today, they need to believe others will accept it tomorrow. But where does that initial value come from?

Mises explained it like this: The value of money today comes from the value it had yesterday. That value yesterday came from the day before—and so on. But this can’t go back forever. Eventually, we regress to the point where the good wasn’t used as money at all, but as a commodity with real, non-monetary value.

Gold, for example, had industrial and ornamental value before it was used as money. That prior use gave it a baseline value people could trust—so it could take on monetary properties over time.

Mises’ theorem answers the chicken-and-egg problem of money. Money doesn’t come from thin air. It evolves, rooted in real-world demand, long before it becomes a unit of exchange.

So how does this relate to Bitcoin?

Bitcoin skeptics often argue that it violates the regression theorem because it had no “commodity use” before becoming money. But early Bitcoin adopters did value it—first for its digital scarcity, then as an uncensorable payment network, and eventually as a hedge against fiat debasement. Its utility as a decentralized, permissionless system gave it the spark. Market adoption did the rest.

The regression theorem doesn’t disqualify Bitcoin—it explains how it crossed the bridge from novelty to value. Bitcoin created a new kind of digital commodity: pure scarcity, secured by math and energy.

#Bitcoin

Bitcoin: The Hardest Money Ever Created

Bitcoin’s foundation is proof-of-work—a system where miners compete to solve a cryptographic puzzle. The first to solve it gets to add a block of transactions to the blockchain and is rewarded with newly minted Bitcoin and transaction fees. This process isn’t just about minting coins—it’s about securing the network through raw computational power.

But Bitcoin doesn’t just rely on mining to maintain integrity—it also adapts. Every 2,016 blocks (approx. 2 weeks), the network adjusts the mining difficulty to ensure blocks are found roughly every 10 minutes, regardless of how much computing power is on the network. More miners? The puzzles get harder. Fewer miners? They get easier. This is the difficulty adjustment, and it’s what keeps Bitcoin stable, predictable, and resilient.

This combination of proof-of-work and difficulty adjustment creates a system of money that is not only decentralized but also incorruptible. It costs real-world energy to produce each coin—tying digital scarcity to physical resources. That’s why Bitcoin is often called “the hardest money to ever exist.” Unlike fiat, you can’t print more at will. Unlike gold, it’s infinitely divisible, instantly transferable, and provably scarce.

At its core, Bitcoin operates on a principle that flips traditional finance on its head: don’t trust, verify. Every transaction, every coin, every rule—it's all enforced by code, not by central banks or governments. There are no backdoors, no bailouts, and no one you need to trust. Just math, energy, and consensus.

That’s the brilliance of Bitcoin. 100% verification. 0% trust. The first money that is truly sovereign, secured by physics, and governed by code. #Bitcoin

A simple smile goes a long way in establishing rapport and warmth. A smile creates an instant connection. You convey warmth, confidence, and approachability, inviting others to feel at ease in your presence. It is a universal language that transcends culture and linguistic boundaries, signaling kindness and goodwill. #DaleCarnegie 🙂

The Hurdle Rate: From Inflation to CPI and Why It’s the Rate of Monetary Expansion You Should Be Watching

For years, inflation was the go-to measure of debasement. It was a simple and straightforward indicator: how much the value of your money was eroded by rising prices. However, in recent decades, this picture has become more complex, and a major shift has occurred in how we measure and think about debasement—leading to a critical misunderstanding about the true "hurdle rate" we need to beat to grow our wealth.

The Shift from Inflation to the Consumer Price Index (CPI)

Historically, inflation was directly tied to the rate at which your purchasing power would shrink. If inflation was 3%, it meant your money would lose 3% of its value over the year, so you needed to earn at least a 3% return just to stay even. The hurdle rate was therefore straightforward: you had to beat inflation to preserve the real value of your wealth.

However, over time, the way inflation is measured has evolved. Today, most people rely on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as the standard gauge for inflation. While the CPI still tracks price changes, it has been adjusted over the years to reflect only a certain basket of goods and services, which may not fully capture the real costs that individuals face, especially in areas like housing, healthcare, and education.

The CPI has become a much lower figure than the true rate of debasement. Why? Because it reflects a "basket" of goods that might not account for rapid price increases in the things that matter most to most people. In short, the CPI no longer reflects the true rate at which your purchasing power is being eroded. This adjustment has led to a massive underestimation of the real hurdle rate.

The Real Rate of Debasement: The Rate of Monetary Expansion

So, what’s really happening behind the scenes? The true rate of debasement is not simply the CPI—it’s the rate of monetary expansion. Central banks, particularly the Federal Reserve in the U.S., have been printing money at unprecedented levels, especially since the 2008 financial crisis and during the COVID-19 pandemic. This expansion of the money supply leads to inflationary pressures that go far beyond what the CPI shows.

When central banks inject more money into the economy, it creates a devaluation of the currency, which increases the price of assets, goods, and services over time. This means that the rate of monetary expansion—the increase in the money supply—is actually a much more accurate reflection of the debasement you face, yet it’s rarely discussed in mainstream inflation metrics.

For example, if the money supply is growing at 7% annually, this rate of expansion will likely lead to broader inflationary pressures, even if the CPI is showing a much lower rate, say 2-3%. Thus, your real "hurdle rate" should take this monetary expansion into account.

Why Beating the Hurdle Rate is Crucial

If you don’t account for the true rate of monetary debasement (the rate of money supply expansion), you’re likely underestimating the returns you need to protect your wealth. In a world where central banks are continuously increasing the money supply, you need to earn returns that outpace this growth to avoid falling behind.

Let’s say the rate of monetary expansion is 7%, but the CPI is showing a modest 2% inflation. If you aim for a return just to match the CPI, you might think you’re doing well, but you’re actually falling behind the real rate of debasement, which is driven by the expansion of money itself. To truly preserve your purchasing power and grow your wealth, your investments need to exceed the 7% rate of monetary expansion, not just the 2-3% CPI inflation.

The Bottom Line

Understanding the hurdle rate isn’t just about beating inflation—it’s about beating the true rate of debasement, which is tied to the rate of monetary expansion. As the money supply continues to grow at a rapid pace, it’s more important than ever to calculate your returns against this broader and more insidious form of currency devaluation. If you’re only targeting the CPI, you’re underestimating the true risk to your wealth.

In today’s economic environment, simply beating the CPI isn’t enough. To stay ahead, you need to focus on the rate of monetary expansion and ensure your investments outpace that expansion. Failing to do so means you’re not just standing still—you’re losing ground, and that’s a real risk to your financial future. #Bitcoin

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: A Dark Chapter in American Medical History

I know that this one is more widely known, but I think it’s important that it’s also captured in this protocol. From 1932 to 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service conducted what is now known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study—a 40-year-long medical experiment on 600 Black men in Macon County, Alabama, without their informed consent.

The study involved 399 men with syphilis and 201 without. The participants were told they were being treated for “bad blood,” a vague term used to describe a variety of ailments. In reality, they were not treated at all—even after penicillin became the standard cure in 1947.

Doctors withheld treatment and instead tracked the progression of the disease, even as men suffered from severe complications, blindness, mental deterioration, and death. The goal was to observe the natural course of untreated syphilis in Black men.

The men were misled, denied proper medical care, and even prevented from accessing treatment elsewhere. Dozens died, and many of their wives and children were also infected.

The study was exposed in 1972, leading to national outrage and the eventual establishment of stricter ethical guidelines for human research. In 1997, President Bill Clinton formally apologized to the survivors and their families, acknowledging the deep violation of trust and human dignity.

The Tuskegee Study has left a lasting legacy of mistrust toward the healthcare system in many Black communities.

Operation Wetback: A Forgotten Chapter in U.S. Immigration History

I know what you’re thinking, that this can’t be real but in 1954, the U.S. federal government launched Operation Wetback, a large-scale immigration enforcement campaign aimed at deporting Mexican nationals who were in the country illegally. The operation was driven by rising anti-immigrant sentiment, pressure from white labor interests, and a desire to assert stricter control over the southern border.

Spearheaded by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) with the backing of the Eisenhower administration, the program led to the mass deportation of over 1 million people—though official numbers vary and are often disputed. Many individuals were rounded up in aggressive raids, often without due process or time to gather personal belongings or notify family. Some U.S. citizens of Mexican descent were also swept up and deported unlawfully, due to racial profiling and lack of documentation.

Deportees were frequently transported in inhumane conditions, with reports of overcrowded buses, ships, and trains. One tragic example was the “Hotbox Incident,” where over 80 people died of heatstroke in a repurposed military plane.

Critics of Operation Wetback point to its racial targeting, civil rights violations, and lasting impact on Mexican-American communities. Despite its name—now widely recognized as a slur—the operation is rarely discussed in mainstream conversations about U.S. immigration history.

Understanding Operation Wetback is essential to grappling with the complex legacy of immigration policy, border control, and civil liberties in the United States. #Bruh

The Bezzle and the Illusion of Modern Wealth

John Kenneth Galbraith coined the term “the bezzle” to describe a peculiar and revealing phenomenon in finance: the magic interval between an embezzlement and its discovery. During this time, both the thief and the victim feel richer. It's an illusion of prosperity, a kind of economic hallucination.

Today, a good portion of the global economy is operating in something much like a perpetual bezzle—not through outright fraud, but through the pursuit of fiat wealth: government-printed money, channeled through stimulus programs, credit expansion, speculative bubbles, and financial instruments that seem increasingly divorced from productive labor.

Rather than building things of value—housing, infrastructure, healthcare, innovation—a significant slice of economic energy is devoted to getting closer to the money printer. Lobbyists, hedge funds, consultants, compliance officers, central bankers, and tech firms all circle the same flame: not how to serve society, but how to position themselves next to the issuance of currency and the rules around it.

In Galbraith’s terms, this isn’t progress—it’s theater. An economy can appear vibrant while growing more hollow, as more minds chase rents rather than returns on real work. The bezzle has expanded from a quirk of fraud to a systemic feature of modern capitalism.

The danger is not just inefficiency—it’s disillusionment. When people sense that real work is undervalued and financial games are rewarded, trust collapses. And when trust collapses, the bezzle ends—not with a bang, but with a very expensive audit.

#Bitcoin

John Maynard Keynes: So-Called Economist and Certain Eugenicist

John Maynard Keynes is widely remembered as the father of modern macroeconomics, credited with reshaping economic theory and policy during the 20th century. But a lesser-known—and far more controversial—aspect of Keynes's legacy is his deep involvement in the eugenics movement.

Keynes wasn’t just a casual supporter. He served as the Director of the British Eugenics Society from 1937 to 1944. During this time, he advocated not just for economic reform but also for population control—both in terms of quantity and quality. In his own words, Keynes described eugenics as “the most important, significant, and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists.” That’s a stark admission from a man whose ideas shaped global policy.

To Keynes, managing the economy wasn’t just about markets and spending—it was about managing people. He believed that the state had a role in shaping the future population, favoring selective breeding and other interventions to improve what he saw as the "quality" of the populace. This aligned with the broader eugenicist view that some lives were more valuable—or more "fit"—than others.

These beliefs influenced not only his economic thinking but also broader policy recommendations around welfare, fertility, and social planning. While many celebrate Keynes for his progressive stance on government intervention in markets, it's crucial to also acknowledge how those same impulses extended into disturbing territory when it came to controlling human life.

Remember who these Keynesians really are.

Take a genuine interest in others’ lives, passions, and experiences. People appreciate when you listen. Showing interest, you communicate that the other person matters to you. Ask thoughtful questions and remember what you learn. This builds bridges of trust and connections. #DaleCarnegie #WinFriendsAndInfluencePeople

The Cold Truth About Project Paperclip

After World War II, the United States launched a secret operation that sounds like the plot of a sci-fi thriller — except it was all too real. Known as Project Paperclip, this initiative aimed to recruit top German scientists, engineers, and technicians — many of whom were once part of the Nazi war machine — and bring them to America.

The goal? Gain an edge in the Cold War, especially in aerospace, rocketry, and military technology. The moral dilemma? Many of these scientists had direct ties to war crimes and the Nazi regime.

One of the most famous names to come out of this operation was Wernher von Braun, a former SS officer who had helped develop the V-2 rocket for Nazi Germany. In the U.S., he became a central figure in NASA’s space program and helped put a man on the moon.

The operation was shrouded in secrecy, and documents were often altered to scrub Nazi affiliations. For years, the truth was buried. It wasn’t just about science — it was about winning the ideological and technological race against the Soviet Union, at any cost.

Project Paperclip forces us to ask some uncomfortable questions: Can great achievements be separated from their dark origins? And how far should a country go in the name of national security?

Operation Sea-Spray: When the U.S. Military Sprayed a City with Bacteria

In 1950, the U.S. Navy conducted a secret biological warfare experiment called Operation Sea-Spray—and the test subject was none other than San Francisco.

Over several days, military ships off the coast released clouds of Serratia marcescens, a bacteria believed to be harmless, to test how a biological agent might spread in a real urban environment. The bacteria blanketed the city, infiltrating homes, businesses, and hospitals—without the public’s knowledge or consent.

Shortly afterward, a spike in rare infections occurred at a local hospital, and one man died. Though the military denied a connection, the incident raised serious ethical and legal questions.

It wasn't until decades later that the test was revealed, sparking outrage and reinforcing fears about secret government experiments on civilians during the Cold War.

Operation Sea-Spray is a chilling reminder: sometimes the test subject is you—and you don't even know it.

Operation Gladio: NATO’s Secret Armies in the Shadows of Europe

Operation Gladio was a covert NATO-backed program during the Cold War that established secret "stay-behind" armies across Western Europe. The plan? If the Soviet Union invaded, these clandestine cells would wage guerrilla warfare behind enemy lines.

But Gladio wasn’t just about defense.

As details emerged in the 1990s, accusations surfaced that some of these secret networks were involved in false flag attacks, political manipulation, and domestic terrorism—all in the name of fighting communism. In countries like Italy, Belgium, and Turkey, Gladio has been linked to bombings, assassinations, and a broader "strategy of tension" designed to sway public opinion and suppress leftist movements.

Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti officially acknowledged the existence of Gladio in 1990, shocking the public and fueling decades of debate about the true extent of the operation and its consequences for democracy in Europe.

Gladio remains one of the most controversial and shadowy Cold War programs—a real-life spy thriller that blurred the line between defense and destabilization.

Operation Popeye: When Weather Became a Weapon

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military launched a highly classified project called Operation Popeye—a secret weather modification program aimed at extending the monsoon season over enemy territories in Southeast Asia.

From 1967 to 1972, U.S. aircraft seeded clouds with silver iodide over parts of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The goal? Make it rain. Literally. By increasing rainfall, they hoped to flood enemy supply routes like the Ho Chi Minh Trail, bog down troop movement, and disrupt logistics.

The mission's motto? “Make mud, not war.”

The operation remained secret until it was exposed in 1971, sparking outrage and leading to international discussions on weather warfare. In fact, it contributed to the 1977 Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), which banned environmental modification techniques for hostile purposes.

Operation Popeye is a fascinating—and unsettling—example of how far military innovation can go when nature itself becomes a tool of war.

Operation Northwoods: The Cold War Plot That Almost Was

Operation Northwoods was a proposed false-flag operation developed in 1962 by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At the height of Cold War tensions, the plan suggested carrying out acts of terrorism *against American civilians and military targets*, with the intent of blaming them on Cuba. The goal? To justify a U.S. invasion of the island and remove Fidel Castro from power.

The proposed tactics included staging hijackings, sinking boats carrying Cuban refugees, and orchestrating violent incidents in U.S. cities. The plan was shocking in its scope and moral implications.

Fortunately, President John F. Kennedy rejected the proposal, and it was never executed.

Declassified in the 1990s, Operation Northwoods remains a chilling reminder of how far elements of government were willing to go in the name of national security—and why transparency and checks on power are essential in any democracy.

Unsound Money, Perpetual War, and the Impact on Trade and Cooperation

In the complex web of global economics, the relationship between unsound money and perpetual war stands out as a dangerous and often overlooked dynamic. It’s a cycle that not only undermines the value of currency but also distorts the very foundations of cooperation, trade, and peace.

The issue begins when a government, empowered with access to a printing press, uses it to finance war efforts, social programs, or other political agendas. This seemingly simple solution allows governments to perpetuate spending without immediate consequences, stretching the value of money across borders and creating trade imbalances. But this is a mirage — a temporary fix that steadily erodes the purchasing power of its currency.

Take, for example, Aunt Cell, a fictional character in a small nation where the government regularly prints more money to finance wars and political promises. Initially, her country may seem to thrive, with seemingly endless currency flowing through trade floors. But the artificial expansion of money without corresponding growth in real wealth soon catches up. Prices rise. Inflation begins to erode savings. What once had value now loses its purchasing power as the government prints more money to fund its perpetual war machine. The effects are devastating, not just for Aunt Cell but for every individual caught in this trap. Trade relationships with other nations begin to break down, as the value of the currency in one country collapses, making transactions less reliable and more volatile.

Perpetual war, fueled by unsound money, creates a vicious cycle. War consumes resources, while the government continues to print more money to fund its endeavors. The expansion of the money supply, paired with the destruction of real wealth through conflict, leads to a devaluation of the currency that isn’t just about running out of money. It’s about destroying the trust in that money, the ability of citizens to use it effectively, and the stability of the economy at large.

But it’s not just the country’s economy that suffers. As the value of money declines, citizens start to notice their own purchasing power slipping away. The government might try to offer temporary fixes or raise taxes to compensate, but in the end, the real issue — the unsound money policy — remains. This creates a ripple effect. Countries begin to turn inward, focusing less on international trade and more on self-preservation. Trust in the monetary system erodes, and trade becomes harder to navigate. The inevitable breakdown in communication between nations over fluctuating currencies only amplifies the conflict. War and instability dominate, as each country tries to assert itself on the global stage, leading to a continuous cycle of violence and economic collapse.

But there is another side to this issue, one that addresses how individuals interact with the system of unsound money. When faced with an unstable economy, individuals develop a lower time preference — meaning they begin to prioritize long-term security over short-term gains. Rather than rushing to spend their money or take part in speculative bubbles, they begin to think about the future. In many ways, a focus on long-term planning fosters a mindset of cooperation over conflict.

Individuals who experience the consequences of unsound money come to understand the importance of stability. They recognize that cooperation — whether through trade, saving, or investment — is the best way to ensure prosperity. In contrast to governments that may seek short-term power through war, individuals seek cooperation for mutual benefit. They begin to build connections and networks that transcend national borders, focused on the long-term rather than the destructive path of perpetual conflict.

Ultimately, unsound money and perpetual war represent a system that destroys more than just wealth; it destroys the potential for cooperation. It fosters division, distrust, and destruction. But when individuals are given the opportunity to engage in sound money practices — where the currency maintains its value and long-term planning becomes possible — they tend to move away from conflict and towards cooperation. This shift in priorities is the key to overcoming the destructive cycle of unsound money, fostering a future where stability, peace, and trade can flourish. #Bitcoin

Focus on what the other person wants and show how the ideas you have align with their desires. Step into their shoes, see the situation from their perspective, and frame your ideas in a way that aligns with their aspirations. Find a mutual benefit. Make others feel their success is as important as your own. #DaleCarnegie

How Central Bank Money Printing Fuels Boom and Bust Cycles

One of the most overlooked causes of economic instability is the role of central banks in manipulating the money supply. When central banks expand the money supply—commonly referred to as "printing money"—it can set off a chain of events that creates short-term economic booms, but often at the cost of long-term busts.

When a central bank lowers interest rates and injects new money into the economy (through mechanisms like quantitative easing or lowering reserve requirements), borrowing becomes cheaper. Businesses and consumers are incentivized to take on more debt, leading to increased spending, investment, and speculation.

Asset prices—like stocks, real estate, and commodities—tend to soar, creating a “wealth effect” where people feel richer and spend more. This phase can feel like genuine prosperity, but it’s often built on artificially low interest rates and unsustainable debt levels rather than real productivity growth.

Eventually, the expansion reaches its limits. Inflation may start to rise, or the central bank may tighten policy to prevent the economy from overheating. As borrowing costs go up, debt becomes more expensive, and speculative bubbles begin to pop.

Businesses that over-leveraged themselves during the boom find it hard to stay afloat. Consumers cut back. Investment slows. What follows is a contraction—layoffs, bankruptcies, and a general economic downturn. The “bust” exposes the misallocations and distortions that occurred during the boom.

Instead of allowing markets to fully reset, central banks often respond to the bust with more of the same: lowering rates and printing more money. This kicks off a new cycle, reinforcing a dependency on cheap money and distorting the economy further over time.

While monetary stimulus can offer short-term relief, using it to artificially fuel growth often leads to deeper, more damaging recessions down the road. True economic resilience comes from sound money, responsible lending, and productive investment—not from endlessly expanding the money supply.

#Bitcoin

Why Socialism Fails: The Economic Calculation Problem

One of the central reasons socialism fails as an economic system lies in its inability to perform rational economic calculation, especially when it comes to allocating capital goods—the tools, machines, and infrastructure necessary for production.

In a socialist economy, the means of production are owned collectively or by the state. That sounds ideal in theory, but it strips away a crucial function of the free market: price signals. In a market economy, prices emerge from the interactions of countless buyers and sellers. These prices reflect relative scarcity, consumer demand, opportunity costs, and resource availability. Entrepreneurs and businesses use these signals to make decisions about where to allocate capital most efficiently.

Without private ownership and voluntary exchange, however, socialism eliminates real market prices for capital goods. Ludwig von Mises, a prominent Austrian economist, famously argued that without these price signals, planners in a socialist system have no way to know how much of any resource should be used for one project over another. They can’t answer basic economic questions: Should we build a school or a factory? Is it worth investing in new infrastructure or maintaining the old one? Should we use steel to build bridges or hospital equipment?

What results is misallocation, inefficiency, and waste—because decisions are made politically, not economically. Resources are often diverted based on ideology, favoritism, or bureaucratic inertia, rather than real cost-benefit analysis. That’s why we see shortages of essential goods in socialist systems, while warehouses might overflow with items no one needs.

In contrast, capitalism—though imperfect—uses decentralized knowledge and profit/loss signals to reward efficiency and punish waste. It’s not just about greed; it’s about feedback and correction. When a business fails, resources are reallocated. When it succeeds, others imitate and innovate.

In short, socialism fails not because of a lack of good intentions, but because it lacks a mechanism for rational decision-making in a complex economy. Without economic calculation, planning becomes guesswork—and the result is stagnation, not progress.

#Bitcoin