While my conviction in sound money and the free market has remained strong on an individual basis, I am currently being challanged in my understanding of its application at the level of nations (primarily as a result of reading Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley)
These are not critiques or concerns on libertarian ethics, but rather considerations about their application to real world geopolitical finance and industry.
The first issue comes from a perspective on outside aggression by a foreign power (these always exist to some degree). A geographical region which is fragmented into small sovereign enclaves would have a disadvantage against an invading force which is larger and better organized.
Given that is the case, the first country to balkanize while foreign powers do not, stands at a disadvantage to those powers. In this sense, the disintegration of governments cannot happen in a piecemeal fashion, but must occur globally in a relatively short time period.
Second, regarding sound money, countries who maintain the ability to expand credit can basically time travel into the future to steal from future generations and trading partners. Like it or not, this is a superpower. In the longrun it erodes everything that matters in life, but in the short run it allows governments to mobilize power projection on an unbelievable scale. The scope of their ability to do this depends upon the faith of their citizens and the market to continue this process, so that could change any day, but it seems somewhat unlikely that the whole world will realize this simultaneously; unless perhaps the next halving does that.
In the meantime, any country which surrenders the ability to expand credit is at a huge disadvantage to a country which does not. It is literally a financial arms race, with all the same implications. There is a lot of game theory involved in the potential of 'first mover advantage', but I haven't heard anyone talk about the first mover disadvantage; something I personally feel somewhat familiar with as a bitcoiner 😂
Anyway, this has been on my mind lately and I would be curious to hear your thoughts. There are many arguments presented in Tragedy and Hope that are challenging my assumptions and I think it could be worth bringing that book into broader consideration.
These are not critiques or concerns on libertarian ethics, but rather considerations about their application to real world geopolitical finance and industry.
The first issue comes from a perspective on outside aggression by a foreign power (these always exist to some degree). A geographical region which is fragmented into small sovereign enclaves would have a disadvantage against an invading force which is larger and better organized.
Given that is the case, the first country to balkanize while foreign powers do not, stands at a disadvantage to those powers. In this sense, the disintegration of governments cannot happen in a piecemeal fashion, but must occur globally in a relatively short time period.
Second, regarding sound money, countries who maintain the ability to expand credit can basically time travel into the future to steal from future generations and trading partners. Like it or not, this is a superpower. In the longrun it erodes everything that matters in life, but in the short run it allows governments to mobilize power projection on an unbelievable scale. The scope of their ability to do this depends upon the faith of their citizens and the market to continue this process, so that could change any day, but it seems somewhat unlikely that the whole world will realize this simultaneously; unless perhaps the next halving does that.
In the meantime, any country which surrenders the ability to expand credit is at a huge disadvantage to a country which does not. It is literally a financial arms race, with all the same implications. There is a lot of game theory involved in the potential of 'first mover advantage', but I haven't heard anyone talk about the first mover disadvantage; something I personally feel somewhat familiar with as a bitcoiner 😂
Anyway, this has been on my mind lately and I would be curious to hear your thoughts. There are many arguments presented in Tragedy and Hope that are challenging my assumptions and I think it could be worth bringing that book into broader consideration.
592❤️6♡1🎯1👍️1🤙1🧡1
