Logan Bollinger is a lawyer and author of a free weekly newsletter about the intersection of bitcoin, macroeconomics, geopolitics and law.
Part Two: The Big “It” That Bitcoin Fixes
“Politics is the art of finding trouble, finding it everywhere, misdiagnosing and taking wrong measures.” — Groucho Marx
In the first part of this series, I wrote about the first major breakthrough for me in my journey from an ardent Bernie Sanders supporter to a committed bitcoiner, which involved confronting the idea of trust in politics and distrust of bitcoin. How can it be taken advantage of. positive political end through its potential constrained law makers
Now I want to talk about the second great success I have experienced in this journey. I want to start by suggesting something that, at first, is clearly antithetical to some in the bitcoin community, but which I think may resonate with those who are more into bitcoin than the left. Believed or reached-leaning political starting place (like, say, Bernie Sanders/progressive classroom or liberal arts ecosystem): Progressives and bitcoiners both identify and accept a similar slate of problems with the status quo. .
Progressive wealth inequality, unequal financial access, monopolies, a powerful cadre of tech companies, excess corporate power, exploitative (and discriminatory) large banks and, generally speaking, too much influence by a small group of individuals and corporations will be unleashed Will insist. as the main issues. This list is obviously non-exhaustive, but I think it is a fair representation of the major concerns.
Most bitcoiners would agree with most, if not all, of these criticisms, and would probably add to the pursuit of gross domestic product (GDP) growth at all costs and ubiquitous misappropriation, both of which are required and sustained by the current legal system. . , in the list.
(Source)
Progressives and bitcoiners are fundamentally different, however, in the exact location. Source On these problems as well as on the proper solutions to these problems.
These differing views are similar to that of two doctors examining a patient and agreeing on symptoms, but disagreeing on treatment. I want to stretch this medical/physiological metaphor a bit further to extract some additional points as it exemplifies the unique and transformative promise of bitcoin.
Imagine our monetary system as a body. This body remains hard and fast and starts showing signs of poor health. Two doctors examine this body and propose two different treatments. Doctor A suggests giving the patient some medicine, which is to say a targeted pharmacological intervention, and sends him on his way. Then Doctor B suggests that the underlying cause of the symptoms is deeper and recommends fundamental changes in lifestyle. This doctor advocates regular exercise, clean eating, drinking less alcohol, spending more time outside, etc. The patient opts for Doctor A’s easy prescription.
It doesn’t take long for the patient to return to see these two doctors with new and worsening symptoms. It turns out that the drug has side effects, which now need to be addressed. Doctor A suggests additional pills to address these side effects, while Doctor B continues to recommend bulk lifestyle changes to seamlessly address the underlying cause of the patient’s condition.
You can see where this is going. Reactively addressing the symptoms without ever treating the underlying problem or even worse, misdiagnosing/misdiagnosing the underlying issue, results in a sick patient with more problems.
Bringing back bitcoiners and progressives, bitcoiners trace the source of many problems at the monetary level. Money is no longer good and it is the origin of many subsequent societies Symptoms, Bitcoiners can trace the exact time of this problem back to 1971, at which point money effectively became debt and the currency formally became untraceable. From there, problems emerged, manifold and complex. For this reason, bitcoiners propose to fix the money to settle the resulting social distancing lawsuit.
Progressives, on the other hand, tend to congregate around various causal narratives. Sometimes it’s billionaires, sometimes it’s capitalism itself, sometimes it’s corporations, sometimes it’s Mark Zuckerberg, etc. Sometimes the narrative just develops or settles into an amorphous, all-encompassing oppressor/oppressed framework in which every human relationship or realm of human action can (and is) classified by and through this binary. In this environment, scoring rhetorical points often takes precedence over formulating thoughtful, thoughtful solutions. Instead, proposed solutions almost always involve shoveling more dollars into the various parties.
Before I discovered bitcoin, I was a devoted proponent of spending, although a lot of money was needed to “fix” problems like wealth inequality, excess corporate power, unequal access to services, etc. This, I found out, only temporarily relieves pain, while keeping the monetary system intact that caused the pain in the first place. We can see this today with inflation. We infused the economy with liquidity and gave stimulus checks. Looks great, doesn’t it? Nearly two years later, wouldn’t you know that the money had to come from somewhere? And by increasing the money supply so dramatically to undertake these (large-scale) well-intentioned interventions, we ensured the inflation we are now experiencing. The brunt of which has to be borne by the same salaried savers for whom the incentive was meant to help.
IMF; m2 data; Central bank (Source,
Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Board is now in a position to raise rates in an environment of slow growth to curb this inflation, which in itself will lead to a recession – continuing to hurt wage-earners. When the pain reaches a climax, the Fed will step in again with a new painkiller of liquidity, devaluing the currency even more, further enriching wealthy asset holders, while further penalizing wage-earners. Will do We will continue this vicious cycle, failing to solve any of the problems we wanted to address. Fiat solutions cannot fundamentally solve fiat problems.
Jim Bianco / Bianco Research ,Source,
In other words, we will continue to treat the symptoms until they become severe and, eventually, terminal.
On the one hand, I find it interesting that the Western world, with its globally unique concept of pain and its pain-relieving medical culture (as opposed to the more holistic Eastern approach of finding and addressing the source of pain), is trying to treat its monetary system. selects the option. Similarly. The government treats money the same way Big Pharma treats health and gets the same results.
But anyway, treating the symptoms of a dysfunctional monetary system without addressing the cause only has the adverse effect of delaying more serious and potentially terminal future symptoms, while meanwhile exacerbating existing symptoms.
If I hadn’t received bitcoin, I’m not sure I would have ever understood it. And I suspect there is a reason for this. Learning about bitcoin encourages financial and economic literacy, which is neither widely taught nor widely distributed. I don’t think it puts pressure on credibility to suggest that many in Congress accused of making these important decisions about fiscal spending, the budget, and government debt likewise regard the downstream consequences of popular traditional views. Less information is given, a situation that is complicated by a widespread interest in winning re-election. Promising to pay more money, regardless of where that money comes from and any dire future consequences, is a much easier political sell-off to constituents than the pursuit of financial discipline. The former is a pain reliever that temporarily hides its root cause. The latter is a painful withdrawal that, once initiated and completed, offers hope for more lasting long-term health.
I was a Bernie supporter because I wanted to address a list of social problems. I’m a bitcoiner now because I know billionaires, major corporations, “late capitalism” and Mark Zuckerberg – though certainly objectionable – are not. cause of these problems. they all Symptoms Broken money. And attempting to resolve these discrete symptoms will only result in systemic aberrations that allow other traits to metastasize. This is a strange problem-solver.
Simply put, bitcoin made me realize that the problems caused by fiat money are impossible to solve within a fiat framework. In fact, it is impossible to have a legal system in which these problems can be avoided. This is why the true solution, the “big structural change” that progressives like Elizabeth Warren are seeking and demanding, require rebuilding the system on better foundations, which means fixing the money.
Bitcoin’s promise is likely to be fixed This, And anyone who is progressive and serious about addressing all of bitcoin’s issues must confront the root cause of money that is completely, irreparably broken at the base level of society.
This is a guest post by Logan Bollinger. The opinions expressed are solely their own and do not necessarily represent those of BTC Inc. either . reflect the thoughts of bitcoin magazine,
