"... I thus argue that the United States is headed for collapse."
Paul Rosenberg argues that we are headed for a declining standard of living versus a collapse. Among his arguments are that there are too many productive people who have the skills to do just about anything and that the instructions for doing those things are widely available.
He might well be right. In truth, no one knows. I don't know which would be better. A slow decline creates few incentives for reform. And in the immortal words of Rahm Emanuel, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." It's sad and ironic that this is also true for subversives. Yet a steep, horrible crisis like the Great Depression would hurt a whole lot of people.
Hopefully in the ‘Great Decline’ the US will refocus on solving real world problems and not simply innovating for profit. This should be a restorative opportunity for the US.
I want to thank you for these two pieces arguing from blue and red team perspectives in favour of cryptocurrencies. I remain a crypto sceptic after reading these, but I am to a fair extent an economics sceptic too, so the hill to climb is much higher in my case. 😁 It is still interesting to me to see how these arguments are being advanced, since my connections intersect with crypto libertarians in a few places, and you speak well for your team.
Of the two, I think the conservative argument you advance is more compelling. The progressive argument is vulnerable to the accusation that saving is not something the poor have ever shown themselves capable of practicing or affording, and the related objection that investing that money in another asset that would gain in value (silver, or Magic: The Gathering cards, say) would have the same result, and arguably would be more a better option.
But I think if your goal is to win over the centre to crypto you need a very different tack. The argument that crypto is akin to a Ponzi scheme gained a lot of traction (certain well-funded institutions may well have spent time and money to make this happen). I think the core problem is that what keeps crypto alive is the faith of crypto libertarians such as yourself. This is hardly an original a problem - what do people think allows the dollar to have value...? But there's a credibility gap here that is going to quite tricky to overcome. I don't have any skin in this game, but in so much as the cypherpunks are one of the viable movements afoot, it still matters to me.
First, let me say I bristle at being referred to as a crypto-libertarian. It fits in certain ways, I suppose, but labels can be shackles. Some of the subtleties of this publication I hope will tease out the myriad ways in which libertarianism, narrowly defined, is inadequate. There are also reasons why any given two people can define "libertarian" in different ways. I'd prefer to explore the ideas with subtlety and let them stand on their own, or not.
Now, you write: "I think the core problem is that what keeps crypto alive is the faith of crypto libertarians such as yourself. This is hardly an original a problem - what do people think allows the dollar to have value...?" Passing over the above concern about labels, all value is subjective. All value. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value," outside of business valuation terminology. And there is no such thing as "objective value" as regards market actors.
As with my response to your comment on another piece, "nuh uh" is not much more helpful than "here here!" So while letting readers know you're a centrist who remains unpersuaded is a useful data point, it would be far more helpful to offer hints as to what might be more persuasive to folks under the sway of status quo bias and the powerful network effects of legacy systems (which I suspect describes you). Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are both digital commodities and solidarity assets. When solidarity is enforced by powerful actors, the timid herds will continue to scramble for their monopoly money till a cup of coffee costs $100. It might take just such a catastrophe in the fiat system for ordinary people to overcome the problems of rational ignorance and rational irrationality. Yet adoption is reaching new highs. https://s3.cointelegraph.com/uploads/2023-05/91c3ae3e-92da-427d-965c-172936aa37e1.png So, I might not be able to shake your skepticism. But I might be able to shake another's.
I'll take your criticisms kindly, Max. In deploying the term 'crypto libertarian' I was merely referring to your position in this piece, triangulated via your claim elsewhere that there was no left and right as such, and only libertarian versus authoritarian. It wasn't meant to put you in a box, so much as it was to raise a flag on the map regarding these two specific pieces. I find such co-ordinations helpful as they acknowledge directions in thought. My apologies if this attribution caused offence.
I would normally dispute the rigidity of the objective-subjective divide, but I don't think here is the place to do so. Yet that would be the only way I could respond to your comment that all value is subjective. This is a 'yes, but...' where the 'but' is a tangent that would not be at home on your site, so I'll hold it for now. I certainly am not trying to refer to 'objective value', though. I see this problem quite differently. If I can find a positive way of formulating this issue concisely, I'll append it later, otherwise please accept my apologies for not being able to continue this leg of the conversation under your terms.
I am intrigued by this concept of 'solidarity assets'. I would be particularly interested in any concept of solidarity assets that were not cryptocurrencies.
"...it would be far more helpful to offer hints as to what might be more persuasive to folks under the sway of status quo bias and the powerful network effects of legacy systems"
If I don't think crypto is a viable way to achieve this goal, wouldn't this exceed what would be an appropriate comment in the context of these two specific pieces...? I confess I thought I *had* done what you say here in suggesting that anyone pro-crypto needs to knock the legs out from under the Ponzi scheme argument if they hope to bring people into the fold.
An intriguing exchange for me, anyway. Thank you for your time!
I welcome the exchange, Chris. Truly, I do. None of this can proceed without smart people interrogating these ideas. My hope is this community will be stronger with detractors and critics finding the weak spots. And to the extent that we "criticize by creating" this nascent community will be even more powerful as it grows. So, yeah, I'm absolutely inviting both criticism and creativity.
I also remembered (falsely) that I had linked "Ponzi scheme" to an excellent article by Lyn Alden, but it turns out I had linked to another piece. Here's the Alden piece: https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/ Perhaps in the future, I'll write my own defense, but it'll hard to do better than she does here.
Finally, a solidarity asset (my term) is an asset that is highly liquid, so subject to greater volatility, particularly in a Gresham's Law environment such as in the context of the dying dollar. The term 'HODL' captures the idea that when enough people refuse to sell the asset in short-term speculation, it's market price will remain high and the indication of its intersubjective value persists in the future. So defined, anything that is both scarce and highly liquid could be a solidarity asset--so long as its holders see value in its properties.
Thanks for the link. This hits all the points I would expect, but therefore inevitably runs into all the problems, especially in terms of (correctly) identifying how other investment strategies parallel the same accusation. (I use gold as a pre-modern historical example quite often because it really was utterly useless except for ye old bling, being too soft to do anything with it.) When I encounter these objections, it all means something quite different to me but this tangent isn't relevant here.
Honestly, I encourage you to write your own defence, and I further encourage you to make the attempt in 700 or 1400 words, rather than the 7000 Alden uses (i.e. 10% or 20% of her length). You have hers to link to for 'the full story' - but what crypto defenders need most of all right now are strong defensive metaphors that can travel - ideally ones that can be summarised within a slogan. I suspect you'd be good at crafting such metaphors, and you might open the door for the slogan. Something to consider, anyway. Perhaps wait six months and see whether the Ponzi scheme objection remains salient...? If it is, it's probably worth engaging here in a more agile defensive play.
Well said.
"... I thus argue that the United States is headed for collapse."
Paul Rosenberg argues that we are headed for a declining standard of living versus a collapse. Among his arguments are that there are too many productive people who have the skills to do just about anything and that the instructions for doing those things are widely available.
https://freemansperspective.com/why-you-shouldnt-believe-in-a-full-spectrum-crash/#more-11979
I would also add that options like Bitcoin make it harder to block transactions between productive people.
He might well be right. In truth, no one knows. I don't know which would be better. A slow decline creates few incentives for reform. And in the immortal words of Rahm Emanuel, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." It's sad and ironic that this is also true for subversives. Yet a steep, horrible crisis like the Great Depression would hurt a whole lot of people.
Hopefully in the ‘Great Decline’ the US will refocus on solving real world problems and not simply innovating for profit. This should be a restorative opportunity for the US.
Hey Max,
I want to thank you for these two pieces arguing from blue and red team perspectives in favour of cryptocurrencies. I remain a crypto sceptic after reading these, but I am to a fair extent an economics sceptic too, so the hill to climb is much higher in my case. 😁 It is still interesting to me to see how these arguments are being advanced, since my connections intersect with crypto libertarians in a few places, and you speak well for your team.
Of the two, I think the conservative argument you advance is more compelling. The progressive argument is vulnerable to the accusation that saving is not something the poor have ever shown themselves capable of practicing or affording, and the related objection that investing that money in another asset that would gain in value (silver, or Magic: The Gathering cards, say) would have the same result, and arguably would be more a better option.
But I think if your goal is to win over the centre to crypto you need a very different tack. The argument that crypto is akin to a Ponzi scheme gained a lot of traction (certain well-funded institutions may well have spent time and money to make this happen). I think the core problem is that what keeps crypto alive is the faith of crypto libertarians such as yourself. This is hardly an original a problem - what do people think allows the dollar to have value...? But there's a credibility gap here that is going to quite tricky to overcome. I don't have any skin in this game, but in so much as the cypherpunks are one of the viable movements afoot, it still matters to me.
Hope these remarks are helpful!
Chris.
First, let me say I bristle at being referred to as a crypto-libertarian. It fits in certain ways, I suppose, but labels can be shackles. Some of the subtleties of this publication I hope will tease out the myriad ways in which libertarianism, narrowly defined, is inadequate. There are also reasons why any given two people can define "libertarian" in different ways. I'd prefer to explore the ideas with subtlety and let them stand on their own, or not.
Now, you write: "I think the core problem is that what keeps crypto alive is the faith of crypto libertarians such as yourself. This is hardly an original a problem - what do people think allows the dollar to have value...?" Passing over the above concern about labels, all value is subjective. All value. There is no such thing as "intrinsic value," outside of business valuation terminology. And there is no such thing as "objective value" as regards market actors.
As with my response to your comment on another piece, "nuh uh" is not much more helpful than "here here!" So while letting readers know you're a centrist who remains unpersuaded is a useful data point, it would be far more helpful to offer hints as to what might be more persuasive to folks under the sway of status quo bias and the powerful network effects of legacy systems (which I suspect describes you). Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are both digital commodities and solidarity assets. When solidarity is enforced by powerful actors, the timid herds will continue to scramble for their monopoly money till a cup of coffee costs $100. It might take just such a catastrophe in the fiat system for ordinary people to overcome the problems of rational ignorance and rational irrationality. Yet adoption is reaching new highs. https://s3.cointelegraph.com/uploads/2023-05/91c3ae3e-92da-427d-965c-172936aa37e1.png So, I might not be able to shake your skepticism. But I might be able to shake another's.
I'll take your criticisms kindly, Max. In deploying the term 'crypto libertarian' I was merely referring to your position in this piece, triangulated via your claim elsewhere that there was no left and right as such, and only libertarian versus authoritarian. It wasn't meant to put you in a box, so much as it was to raise a flag on the map regarding these two specific pieces. I find such co-ordinations helpful as they acknowledge directions in thought. My apologies if this attribution caused offence.
I would normally dispute the rigidity of the objective-subjective divide, but I don't think here is the place to do so. Yet that would be the only way I could respond to your comment that all value is subjective. This is a 'yes, but...' where the 'but' is a tangent that would not be at home on your site, so I'll hold it for now. I certainly am not trying to refer to 'objective value', though. I see this problem quite differently. If I can find a positive way of formulating this issue concisely, I'll append it later, otherwise please accept my apologies for not being able to continue this leg of the conversation under your terms.
I am intrigued by this concept of 'solidarity assets'. I would be particularly interested in any concept of solidarity assets that were not cryptocurrencies.
"...it would be far more helpful to offer hints as to what might be more persuasive to folks under the sway of status quo bias and the powerful network effects of legacy systems"
If I don't think crypto is a viable way to achieve this goal, wouldn't this exceed what would be an appropriate comment in the context of these two specific pieces...? I confess I thought I *had* done what you say here in suggesting that anyone pro-crypto needs to knock the legs out from under the Ponzi scheme argument if they hope to bring people into the fold.
An intriguing exchange for me, anyway. Thank you for your time!
I welcome the exchange, Chris. Truly, I do. None of this can proceed without smart people interrogating these ideas. My hope is this community will be stronger with detractors and critics finding the weak spots. And to the extent that we "criticize by creating" this nascent community will be even more powerful as it grows. So, yeah, I'm absolutely inviting both criticism and creativity.
I also remembered (falsely) that I had linked "Ponzi scheme" to an excellent article by Lyn Alden, but it turns out I had linked to another piece. Here's the Alden piece: https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/ Perhaps in the future, I'll write my own defense, but it'll hard to do better than she does here.
Finally, a solidarity asset (my term) is an asset that is highly liquid, so subject to greater volatility, particularly in a Gresham's Law environment such as in the context of the dying dollar. The term 'HODL' captures the idea that when enough people refuse to sell the asset in short-term speculation, it's market price will remain high and the indication of its intersubjective value persists in the future. So defined, anything that is both scarce and highly liquid could be a solidarity asset--so long as its holders see value in its properties.
Thanks for the link. This hits all the points I would expect, but therefore inevitably runs into all the problems, especially in terms of (correctly) identifying how other investment strategies parallel the same accusation. (I use gold as a pre-modern historical example quite often because it really was utterly useless except for ye old bling, being too soft to do anything with it.) When I encounter these objections, it all means something quite different to me but this tangent isn't relevant here.
Honestly, I encourage you to write your own defence, and I further encourage you to make the attempt in 700 or 1400 words, rather than the 7000 Alden uses (i.e. 10% or 20% of her length). You have hers to link to for 'the full story' - but what crypto defenders need most of all right now are strong defensive metaphors that can travel - ideally ones that can be summarised within a slogan. I suspect you'd be good at crafting such metaphors, and you might open the door for the slogan. Something to consider, anyway. Perhaps wait six months and see whether the Ponzi scheme objection remains salient...? If it is, it's probably worth engaging here in a more agile defensive play.
With unlimited love and respect!
Chris,.