So I just watched "The Secret of Oz" () recommended by @guyfawkes in k00b's green-pilling-his-wife thread.
I was watching it in the background, and at some point it got me really curious.
Apparently the author says that when the power to circulate money was in the hands of the state, and printing was not based on debt to private banks, but rather assets, the US and other nations prospered; even in the times of Lincoln and the American Civil War.
I've been under the impression that governments would still print a lot more than they would say (IE: they promise to only print 2% a year but end up printing for war, covid, climate change shenanigans, etc).
But one big point that does makes sense is that at least they would be held accountable if printing went out of control and that it will at least be SO much better compared to the current debt-based system where the FED is controlled by private banks.
Thoughts on this, as opposed to Satoshi's view?
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust."
Also, a lot was mentioned that the Gold Standard was a disaster because it allowed banks to reduce circulation dramatically and ban other metals such as silver. What would the difference be if most Bitcoin ended up in the hands of the government? Of course, the amazing part of Bitcoin is that they can't confiscate it easily, but they could hoard it and make it even more scarce.