Did get a chance to listen to this.

I suppose you did at least share your viewpoint, though it doesn't seem any different from what I was gathering.

It does mean though you've heard most of what I would have to say on the matter, so I'll spare you the repetition.

The one thing I didn't hear Jimmy address was something I'd point to regarding the early history of ledger money. Lending seeds and receiving back more seeds. There's a few points of context here: one is that the recourse against these debts literally involved slavery if the borrower's crop failed and could not be paid back, which does perhaps seem like a good reason why debt was so abhorred by later civilizations in the region.

Another is what these debts are denominated in. This gets to the @Jeff Booth thesis of the natural state of the free market being deflationary, because the supply of goods and services are ever expanding due to human activity.

These agricultural debts were not in an abstract or hard money -- they were denominated in goods themselves. This does, to an extent, limit the damage the practice would have had to a sector of the economy rather than the whole thing, as with broadly used money.

It's worth noting that while agricultural loans in this manner were credit and interest based, other financing across Sumerian society did involve an equity based approach, wherein the financier takes on the risks and gains of those they finance.

I personally would view this state of affairs relative to gold in the same way I view flat relative to Bitcoin. That is, it was a form of trade that could be somewhat standardized, but had quite a few drawbacks. Trade is definitely better than no trade, so it most certainly was an improvement over prior arrangements.

That we've moved back in this direction from a more sound money does seem to be rooted in high speed long distance communications as many have covered, so it's not a surprise that gold's physicality gave out, resulting in a backslide toward this less equitable and inflationary practice of debt based financing. I would certainly hope, however, that now that we have Bitcoin, the movement away from it for a more equitable approach to money.

But again, I'm not here to be holier than thou. I have credit cards and a mortgage. We're not starting from an even playing field, and if our way of conducting a revolution involves a little more debt and a few less guillotines than in France that's probably progress. We live on Earth, not in Ancapistan.

Most of us probably, if we're being honest, engage in more forms of theft on a regular basis than we care to admit. But theft happens in different ways, and while none of them are great, some prevent other forms. If you steal a murderer's knife, you've stolen, but prevented theft of life.

I do think, or at least hope, than most Ledn loans move the world in this direction. There's all sorts of room here to address Utilitarian vs Kantian ethics among others which I'll not even attempt to cover, but we can at least agree that it may sometimes be better to steal food today and live to save the village tomorrow than to righteously starve today and doom the community thereby.

I do tend to see this pragmatic streak in you, and can't be surprised given your background. Hope our conversation at least lets you get perspective on some of the pushback you receive, and perhaps thoughts about framing the marketing.or at least gives you something to ponder.

Cheers in any case on the chat.