Discussion about this post

User's avatar
caligolas's avatar

Contrarian view here from someone that did not enjoy this piece (I hope you are not going to remove my comment just because I disagree with you - I still enjoyed it and I am subscribing to your newsletter).

First of all, a good half of this article is about showing off that you know how bonds work because you worked in TradFi. Kudos to you for your knowledge, but this is completely pointless to your final point that "Bitcoin discounting a future, very inflationary global world war situation".

More importantly, this last statement is ludicrous. Bitcoin today is still in the hands of relatively few people, if compared to TradFi. The entire market cap of BTC is less than Apple's. Institutional money is not in BTC yet, and I am sure I do not need to tell you that since you have an idea of the magnitude of how large the bond market is, for example. Thinking that Bitcoin is behaving like a safe haven asset based on a week of data is wishful thinking at best.

I would also be wary of a world where we lose access to monetary policies. As much as the FED has been politicized in the last 10-15 years, the world before the FED and before monetary policy was - economically speaking - not a world you want to live in. It was a world of financial chaos, constant bank runs and wrecking economic cycles. An hyper-bitcoinized world where the prime reserve asset and currency is a deflationary one does not look pretty for 99% of the population. This is how our world looked like for most of the history of humankind, with gold as the ultimate resrve currency - and in that world, wars and inequality where at levels that are WAY higher than today.

So, if monetary policy and the FED suck (they do), they are still the best solution we have today to a big problem ("controlling" economic cycles) - a problem that Bitcoin does not solve. Which incidentally is also my view on your dire take on "Pax Americana" and your view of war: I am not a US citizen, nor I live in the US. I live in Europe, where the public opinion about the US is definitely more negative than positive (despite than what message your media might want to pass, the average citizen of the EU is definitely pro-palestine).

That said, I personally will always prefer and support a US-led world than anything else. As much as you can criticize the stance of the US on human rights and the thousands of contradictions in their foreign policy, I take a US-led world anytime vs. a Russia or China led world. There is simply no better alternative today than a US-led world. And if what it takes to sustain that (imperfect) world is a few wars against bullies, then let it be.

But, I am a very pragmatic person by nature so I understand people might disagree with this.

Expand full comment
Steve Martin's avatar

First finding you in a YouTube interview, this is my first read of your posts, Arthur. I am impressed and waaaay out of my depth and domain here. I have a lot to learn, and it is never ending. But your paragraph above was refreshing in its sentiments and assumptions. I am glad to read someone besides myself who sees the Corporate Nation-State as an illusion, a fiction serving those possessed by the values of Mammon and Moloch.

I've been doing a lot of reading about those spineless charlatans lately ... dark triads, cluster b personality types, pathological narcissists and psychopaths. A good read, though not without its weaknesses, is A. Lobaczewski's "Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil, Psychopathy, and the Origins of the Totalitarian State". Much more illuminating than Desmet's focus on the bamboozled with his "Mass Formation Psychosis".

Cheers from Kawasaki

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts