pull down to refresh
It seems like the easy solution for them is to just restrict the set of equities that back the new system to their own companies.
reply
That's already the case to a large degree, the system has been designed to keep companies private at the most lucrative stages and only make them "public" when they need to add leverage for the next thing.
The tippy top doesn't sell equity into public markets, but public markets let them borrow more depreciating fiat to buy more equity. Poors, via retirement accounts, buy that debt and get a fraction of the upside... if any, after inflation.
Saylor seems to get this in the Bitcoin context, let the poors buy the debt, keep the equity (coin).
reply
I think its more than a forcing function rather than appetite.
Even if it was popular before when it didn't happen, that doesn't mean the population for it had any power. It may be shocking, but this isn't a democracy.
The patronage class has a lot to lose in such a move. The current system is free leverage for them, private upside socialized downside, and they will lose some of that. That's the oligarchy effect, they have the resources to defend themselves, but now the cost of defending themselves is higher than making the concession.
What's different now is they have tougher choices, the base of both parties is now populist. This is where culture war comes from, to distract from economic issues. Keep the fight left to right instead of top to bottom:
This is the pitchforks and guillotines outside the castle walls moment, not because people suddenly woke up, but because the system is teetering on collapse and they are forced to. It's gone so far that it has harmed national security, which also brings factions of the state itself into the fight.
Not a peasant uprising against the king, but nobles who defend the king turning on him to save the kingdom itself.