Borrowing and lending require a trusted legal framework; Bitcoins could never pass this test
Firstly, "Borrowing and lending require a trusted legal framework" is just lifted from the article without credit.
Secondly, the full sentence from the article is: "Borrowing and lending require a trusted legal framework, separated from both politics and religion.". I'm not sure such a framework has ever existed.
Thirdly, even accepting the existence of such a framework, by far the most pertinent section of law is contract law. I'm not aware of a jurisdiction with contract law that discriminates against Bitcoin.
Finally, borrowing and lending do not require a trusted legal framework (I disagree with Reuven Brenner here). They do require trust, but reputation is the key driver of trust, not the threat of violence.
First Point - This sentence could be used in everyday usage, credit is not needed especially with the citation above
I could write an abstract but it is way to short and not a concise summary of the topic
A citation note would defeat the purpose as a single sentence especially one so general to any topic is WELL into fair use.
Furthermore this is an opinion it is not a stated fact, I could say person X's opinion is this but its not necessarily relevant to the discussion.
The link to the article and the underlining separates my comments from his and is sufficient for these purposes.
Second Point - Rock Coins and Tally Sticks were not influenced that much by politics or religion
The King may have enforced the value of the tally stick system
The ancients viewed rocks as having value but this was an agreed to consensus that it is valuable not strongly politically based or religiously based.
With any currency system their is a basis in the stability of the government to attribute its value this is invariable tied to politics.
The Romans did not Build Rome in a day but they nonetheless maintained an empire that had a mintage because people perceived its value, based on the security of Rome itself.
I do agree that the full sentence from the article is: "Borrowing and lending require a trusted legal framework, separated from both politics and religion." (as cited by you citing him cough cough) is true but they are not the primary mechanism of trade.
Third Point - Legal concerns are slow to adjust to sweeping changes, it takes time for the legal rules to change and they usually are among the last things to be adjusted.
Finally - I agree with you that borrowing and lending does not need a trusted legal network.
We do this every day in transactions with other individuals and in many respects our ancestors did not have these structures.
Older societies did just fine in regards to finance and transactions, well less serfdom.
So I disagree with his point that we need these deep bond markets he was talking about immediately and that is why Bitcoin is doomed to fail.
Reputation is what matters and mutual trust, violence only makes a fiat currency valueless
If Russian Tanks are in Frankfurt then the Deutsche Mark is Worthless
Financial systems are only as valuable as the security of it as a store of value.
