pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 22 replies \ @daolin 19h \ parent \ on: The New York Times Trump Attack Hits Ross Too Politics_And_Law
I don't know what makes you think chronic deficits are a strategic error unique to US policymakers. The reason any government issues fiat in the first place is to run a chronic deficit.
And that now results in US debt servicing now exceeding military spending.
If UST 10 year price now goes over 5% USA is facing insolvency.
Not sure what makes you think that is a good place to be.
Fiat is not there to enable chronic deficits- it can enable investment in productive infrastructure and capacity- as China mostly uses it- but USA and the corrupt bankster controlled neoliberalised west has squandered fiat debt capital issuance and leverage upon non productive parasitic asset price pumping for decades - that is voodoo economics self destruction 101.
reply
No it can't. Fiat currencies only go in one direction, to zero. That's why neither of us has any interest in holding dollars or yuan over BTC.
When the CCP "invests" in infrastructure, that money is being sourced from somewhere else, no different from the US fiat system. You're assuming the CCP is spending it more efficiently than whoever they took it from. They aren't.
reply
Yes they tend toward zero but on the way down they can either be used to build a stronger more wealthy economy (and fight wars) or wasted in pointless ways such as allowing non productive asset price speculation which only enriches bankers and speculators.
China has and is using its fiat leverage in a wealth creating manner, just as the west once did.
Governments play a crucial role in building and eroding the wealth of nations...depending upon how well or poorly functioning they are.
Sure I hold a good portion of my liquid wealth in sats because its a better bet than dollars, but dollars and because my government and most western governments have so abused their fiat monetary levers I don't want to be part of that however fiat still dominates MoE and so some must be held.
Bitcoin gave us the option to opt out of the corrupt neoliberal bankster capture and control of our governments and monetary system, but Bitcoin may not be able to save us from the decline of western hegemony overall that the banksters have in large part caused.
Bitcoin is a protest and an alternative and a model for a better system, but is it the whole solution to the decline of western civilisation- I am not sure it is or can be.
reply
But why would you assume the fiat system is going to drag on when it now has serious competition in the form of Bitcoin? There was no viable alternative to fiat for international payments in the last century. There is now.
reply
It seems probable that the role of governments will remain central to wealth creation and I dont see China surrendering the power that fiat money gives them to Bitcoin.
I dont see the west doing that either.
It could happen but seems highly unlikely.
reply
Are you and I going to surrender the power that Bitcoin gives us, and trade it for fiat so that the government can decide where to spend our work, instead of us choosing for ourselves? Just because the government doesn't like something doesn't mean it goes away automatically. They have to decide how much of a fight it's worth to take it from me.
reply
Its not a question of what I or you do but what the dominant MoE is and historically that has been determined by the dominant trading nation/s.
Today thew dominant trading nation is China and my guess is they will want to gain the same extraordinary privilege as the US has enjoyed (and squandered).
As individuals we are still to a large extent subject to the governments that we live under and that create the conditions which we experience.
reply
Fiat is a historical blip that has barely lasted 100 years. For most of history, the dominant MoE was negotiated on the market, and the ruling gang/state had no choice but to compete for the same commodity, albeit violently. It was never a matter of securing trade routes and then shilling a token of their choice after the fact. Even fiat was tolerated by the market for it's ability to process transactions over long distances quickly, a feature which is no longer unique to fiat.
The hardness of money (and the inevitable collapse that coincides with any attempt to standardize soft money) has always been a serious limitation on state power.
But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that a CCP supporter would consider the desires of the individual insignificant compared to government mandates.