Straw men argument, the easy way out from the work necessary to form a sound idea. How about you summarize Lyn position in the strongest possible way before attacking it?

New housing starts in the United States, with a trend line overlayed. No account for per capita population growth in these numbers either by the way.

I can pull data on basically any scarce and demanded consumption good and demonstrate why it’s production has been decreasing or stagnating, but I shouldn’t even have to. The argument is from fundamental first principles.

If people have less of their own money to spend on things they want, and if the money they are spending on things they want loses value, we will end up producing less real goods that people actually want, especially compared with an alternate world where people are free to spend and save their money as they please.

Technology advancements have covered for a lot of the destruction created by inflation, high taxation, and government spending, but it can only get you so far. And consider that stasis shouldn’t be the end goal of a society - our advancements should materially be making our lives better, not just keeping them the same in the face of economic manipulation.

Well first I would point out that I didn't use the word "collapse" in my post. I said crisis and trend change.

Sometimes those are collapses, and sometimes they are not. The 1930s/1940s in the US was a crisis and trend change but not a collapse, for example. Whereas Europe did have collapses. I would also consider the late 1970s in the US and parts of Europe to be a smaller crisis and trend change.

I also didn't say much along these lines: "The idea that the “bad money” being used to fuel the armies and weapons will blunt the ability of states to prosecute World War III is pretty much, to me, one of the most naive hopes that I see in these conversations."

So, I'm not really sure if your line there was directed at my post or not.

Now, I do think that central banking fuels war, with UK's involvement in WWI being a prime example, and US's involvement in the Iraq war being a smaller one. With currency dilution comes less transparency and accountability, since things can be funded without 1) taxation or 2) issuing bonds that people voluntarily buy. Currency dilution and debasement is a big factor in fueling war, but by no means the only one. Wars have been fought for millennia, and indeed tribalism is a big part of that. And in this particular case, the biggest weapons of war, the nukes, are already there. It doesn't cost much money to use what is already there.

What I'm saying is that, both based on my reading of economic history and current events, incrementalism causing a monetary/fiscal/economic trend change tends to be uncommon, and rather the trend is usually on a pretty firm path until a crisis occurs. That doesn't mean that nobody should engage in politics, but rather, that this is the realistic cycle that things go through, especially around signs of sovereign debt problems.

For example, I view the current global monetary system to be unsustainable and unsalvageable. It was based on a certain technological and geopolitical era. As the US has to keep exporting dollars to maintain the system, it hollows itself out with an ever-deeper negative net international investment position, and that has a certain limit to it. But I see very low probability that it will be changed prematurely- I think they will push the existing system and its network effects until the breaking point.

Similarly, I don't think many developing countries will develop under the current system either. In the past 50 years, only a handful of countries (mostly in Asia) have gone from developing to developed country status. It's like threading a needle. As long as countries issue their own ever-diluting currencies that their people use, and get funded externally in dollar-denominated debt that can be aggressively hardened or softened without any regard to the conditions in those countries (only the US), I think the rate of development will continue to be low. Ever-more energy usage per capita and the proliferation of semiconductors have been responsible for a lot of development, which offset some of these negative monetary effects, but for energy in particular I think that's going to be harder going forward.

No I think ur projecting

That was 100 years ago- major area in the south didn’t even have electricity then .. different world. We in a depression

The data set is so raw it’s chafing

See swearing works! 😜😂

When the entire globe falls this far off trend lol

I cannot steal your money based on ideological differences, and I have an incentive to let differences which don’t violate the rights of either of us just be what they are.

I honestly don’t even think we have differences big enough that we need mediation, Bitcoin or no Bitcoin, but on the scale of the entire society, Bitcoin does serve as a tool to encourage peace and cooperation.

It’s systemic risk Mike. I think your timeframe is incredibly misleading - liberal democracy has been established since the 18th century. I don’t disagree that we’ve had a relatively peaceful period of history, especially in the Western world, since WWII. But I think it’s undeniable that the structure of the system is cycling back towards chaos and destruction, as you seemed to agree with.

Here’s a chart of the bank failures since 2008. Looks oddly similar to your battle deaths chart. From a structural, foundational perspective, the current monetary and governmental system is designed in a way which creates great death, destruction, and poverty when there shouldn’t be any. I would rather have consistently more localized and individual crimes with slow increases in prosperity over time than massive top down controls causing booms and busts, both in prosperity and in safety.

Deaths do not equal peace. Warfare has changed, bombing drones, satellite surveillance, high altitude and unmanned aircraft. Tank tech, cyber warfare, UN and NATO help, and on and on.

That’s all correct, to an extent. How do you explain the world wars and the constant forever wars we currently have under that framework?

The 20th century witnessed the most mass killing in human history. Some estimates put it close to 200M systematically killed by some form of government action. Around 50M died in WW2 alone.

I’m a fan of the progress made my liberal democracies and rule of law. Historical documents like the manga carta and Constitution are incredibly powerful and important. But if this is as far as we can go towards peace and prosperity, I’ll be very disappointed, especially considering the current potential for another global violent conflict on the horizon. I think we can create social structures which can produce even better results, and Bitcoin is one of them.

So to you believing what govts tell you is a fact? But my use of deductive reasoning from past events is feelings. Interesting.

I want to have a conversation as long as there is something to talk about. If your view on human nature and our capabilities is fundamentally different from mine, I don’t think we can resolve that.

I might be naive, and you could even be right. But I hold a lot of distain for people who think we cannot overcome tribal impulses and the urge to commit group violence on one another. The people who think we are doomed to always follow harmful group ideologies which hurt individuals. If I unfairly assigned that belief to you, I apologize. It likely spilled over from the comments of the OP.

I do believe that. I just think the “role” it will play will be big enough to restructure them beyond their current form, and largely defang them. Nobody wants to pay for senseless war and destruction.

I agree with you there.

We aren’t in a Bitcoin world. We live under a fiat standard. There are only a handful of millions who have adopted a new economic for of communication and culture.

The Bitcoin thesis is that our culture and currency is superior, and will win out eventually and usher in more peace and prosperity compared to the current culture and currency. However, that hasn’t played all the way out yet. We aren’t at a point where we can prevent the unraveling of the old world, and unfortunately we might not make it there before the old world tries to destroy everything that’s been built.

I appreciate you accepting the reality of the current situation. You can both understand the reality of fiat powered global war, violence, and violations of individuals, while also believing in a better future where a new monetary technology makes these atrocities impossible to repeat.