Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Matthew Hougan's avatar

Interesting piece, Dave. But, you left out the optimistic vision entirely!

Societies run generally better on fiat systems; the economic data is fairly clear on that. In an average year, fiat economies have slightly higher growth and significantly less volatility than hard money economies, including less volatility in inflation (something hard money advocates rarely recognize).

But the flaw in fiat systems is that they historically end in disastrous failure. They are great, great, great, great, great, and then absolutely spectacularly bad. The flexibility they offer is valuable and helpful during economic volatility, but they are too tempting to abuse, so they end in runaway inflation and debt crises. The US hasn't had one in a while, but people are worried we're getting there, what with the limitless explosion of debt, rising political volatility, the weaponization of fiscal/trade/payments policy, and the disastrous state of DC. And those end-state catastrophes are terrible for people, both short-term and long-term.

If bitcoin grows large enough to offer a viable alternative to the fiat system, by way of its existence, it could create a natural curb on the excesses of fiat abuse. Right now -- particularly in the US -- there is no real force for restraint on fiat abuse because there is no viable alternative. So we trip along slowly ... or, recently, quickly ... until it's too late. A robust alternative might constrain the US from being too egregious in its monetary and fiscal policies and, as such, allow society to reap the benefits of having a flexible fiat system without us ever stepping over into the abuse-failure case. And if we still can't resist the temptation to abuse the fiat system, well then, at least we have an alternative.

Expand full comment
Lara's avatar

I don't disagree with anything you say, yet I can't bring myself to completely discount the idea that some not-insubstantial fraction of bitcoin millionaires/billionaires are quietly putting their thumb on the scales with politicians and governments and quietly funding save-the-planet type ventures. Their silence may be because 1) crypto money may still have some stigma associated with it, 2) many big philanthropists/planet-savers prefer to be anonymous rather than show off how charitable they are., or 3) some combo of both. IDK how much scale tipping they're actually doing, versus buying lambos and so forth. All I know is that the biggest, most influential money usually talks only in whispers.

Expand full comment
19 more comments...

No posts