There's a saying popular in the btc ecosystem that 'bitcoin fixes this'. It's always rubbed me the wrong way, because history is full of examples of tyranny and misery at massive scale through decades and centuries, on monetary standards of all kinds, under all types of governance. How good or bad the world seems is, to lage degree, a function of where you choose to allocate your attention, as the US Presidential campaign season will shortly demonstrate at nauseum.
Given that context, this paragraph was striking:
“Almost without exception, if you look around the world for regions with persistent double-digit money supply inflation, those regions are not very economically productive. Instead, they tend to be in disarray. In that type of inflationary environment, it is hard for businesses to plan for the long run while remaining profitable, and it’s hard for workers to maintain wages that keep up with the cost of living. All negotiations become harder and more frequent, especially if they involve a lot of people, such as unions and large contracts. Investors want to get their capital out to easier jurisdictions, which increases the cost of capital for local businesses, which makes them even less organized, less profitable, and less competitive. In this context, the public ledger is broken, and by extension everything becomes broken. It risks becoming a vicious cycle, because disorganization leads to inflation, and inflation leads to disorganization.”
The social dynamics that result when something as foundational as money is perverted seem hard to argue with. I've been in places and in situations that look just like this, from corrupt countries where trust has eroded and nothing works, to companies pulling themselves apart in civil war. In all cases, gridlock and dysfunction. Nothing flows.
It makes me think again about the scope of how much bitcoin does and does not fix.
Maybe we should start saying 'bitcoin changes this' (and implicitly 'this sucks as is and the least we can do is change it in some way') because it's more intellectually accurate.
reply
I'd certainly prefer that, but I suppose the branding is too strong to be stopped.
I do think that there's a human universal of ignoring the base case. The arguments around nuclear power are a great example: the critics talk about how dangerous it is. They never talk about how dangerous the current thing is -- we have completely internalized those dangers so they don't seem like dangers at all; and yet a shit-ton of people die of things due to coal combustion. Those are actual human deaths, to say nothing of chronic disease and other issues.
But we can't see it -- it's already factored into our expectations. So the new thing is always at a disadvantage, regardless of what the new thing is.
reply