Bitcoin, Capitalism, Democracy and Decentralisation

[brainactive]

Governments have copped a lot of flack ever since the start of the pandemic, with gasps and finger-pointing as they printed trillions of stimulus.

Is the idea of money-printing by centralized authority bad? When does it make sense to have a centralized leadership and when doesn't it? And more importantly, if the world was on a bitcoin standard when the pandemic started, what could have been done better? These are some of the questions I want to discuss.

The argument against money-printing is that it can lead to monetary mismanagement and currency debasement, both of which are bad for the general public. However, if we are faced with an emergency (such as global pandemic), what's the alternative? Let the markets sort it out? Let the general public decide how fiscal spending should be allocated? Allow the general public to decide and vote on outcomes via a Decentralised Autonomous Government? Give power back to the individuals and hope they can decide what's best in the midst of all the chaos? I just don't see how that's any better to be honest.

Sometimes there are merits to centralized control. For example, what would happen if Tesla was a Decentralised Autonomous Organisation and didn't have a central authority? Would the general public be able to create self-driving electric cars with their token votes? That just seems ridiculous.

Unpopular opinion, but I think the same applies to government. Yes, there are some shady people there (with their own incentives), but again what's the alternative? Under a bitcoin standard, you can argue that incentives are more aligned to general public. Ok so what does that mean? Well, we allow markets to crash and let markets do their thing and things will naturally sort themselves out. We have more wild swings in the cycle. Is this better than the current system which artificially smooths things out? It's hard to say. It's sort of like home insurance. Most of the time you pay premiums and your house s fine, but when your house collapses, then with insurance you're at least got a safety net. But over time, the insurance premiums will eat away at your savings (just like how money-printing will eat away at your savings over the long term).

[mk4]

Definitely not an economics expert, but yea I think this pandemic is one of those "events" where money printing is actually justifiable. But idk, maybe they're doing it a bit too much? If I understand it correctly the stimulus money is for the jobless lower class to have money to continue living; but then I've been hearing statements about people refusing to get jobs because they receive money "for free" anyway.

[pooya87]

However, if we are faced with an emergency (such as global pandemic), what's the alternative?

Governments should never hand out money ever, facing pandemic or not. That is the recipe for disaster in the future. Look at what most people did with the money they received. A lot of them invested it in something including bitcoin.
If they want to solve people's problem then solve the problem instead of creating more problems. For example we say people can't afford to pay for groceries during pandemic so open a line of credit for certain people in big grocery stores so that they can only go there and purchase groceries. Then the government can handle the payment with that store in some way without having to print more money. Like not taking taxes from them for a year.

Under a bitcoin standard, ~ Well, we allow markets to crash and let markets do their thing and things will naturally sort themselves out.

Keep in mind that you can't use the current market state as an argument. So far bitcoin market has been very tiny despite all the growth it had and prone to manipulation which is why the "crashes" happen. In a bigger market with mass adoption it won't happen like this ever.

[NotATether]

Definitely not an economics expert, but yea I think this pandemic is one of those "events" where money printing is actually justifiable. But idk, maybe they're doing it a bit too much? If I understand it correctly the stimulus money is for the jobless lower class to have money to continue living; but then I've been hearing statements about people refusing to get jobs because they receive money "for free" anyway.

A crapton of that printed "stimulus" money was laundered away by various criminal groups masquerading as fake American citizens so yeah, they could've done by with much less money printed since a lot of it just ended up being stolen (or wasted on leisure by real claimants) anyway.

I doubt a bitcoin standard could've changed anything about this, especially considering nobody enforced lockdowns or vaccines harshly enough (I mean come on, it's a pandemic we're talking about not some different strain of influenza).

[StanleyBoyle]

Take my uncle’s pizza restaurant, which closed all stores after the pandemic. Although his savings are enough for his son and his grandson to lead a superior life, he faces the crisis of the epidemic. , He completely retired, and the family’s main business came to an end.

Then, if there will continue to be disasters, and continue to print banknotes, the uncle’s money will continue to depreciate and lose money.
So even if Bitcoin becomes the standard, what should our government do if it encounters such a disaster? How should it be solved?

[Wexnident]

The idea of stimulus was nice, but it was definitely used the wrong way. There were a lot of holes and issues with the system and it didn't really help in general the people who were hit the most when they lost their jobs. Not to mention that the security with regards to the pandemic was handled quite badly ngl, not to mention the Karens that kept popping up, they even protested at one time iirc.

As for the question of centralization and whatnot, it isn't bad as you say imo. It brings convenience, regulation, rules, and other stuff that makes life a lot easier IF implemented right. Sadly, it isn't most of the time. It has both it's merit and demerit as you said, but having the option of being able to choose a decentralized and centralized option seems to be the better option.

[Wendy Simth]

The central bank’s slogan of stimulating the economy’s monetary release is essentially a kind of wealth plundering of other people or other countries.

They compare the large-scale outflow of funds to a large amount of money in the trading market for no reason. However, the corresponding products have not increased. Therefore, the result of this is inflation.

As the US dollar is currently the world’s most widely used reserve currency, is such a release unfair to other currencies with which it is exchanged? Yes, it is unfair. This is because as long as the government and the central bank make the decision to print money together, they can exchange it with other countries. They are equivalent to being able to exchange huge wealth without capital. This is a naked robbery!

[kryptqnick]

What's terrible about hyperinflation is that the people who suffer most are those who are already most vulnerable. The riches tend to remain rich even during the economic crises because the govs bail them out or because they lose a lot of money but still have more left than most can make in a lifetime. Then again, I agree with you that centralized control is required to manage everything efficiently, it's just that there should be less power in the hands of the authorities and more mechanisms of controlling what they're doing by the people.
With Bitcoin, I don't think that printing money would have been necessary, as it recovered quite quickly during the pandemic and then started growing a lot. So people could benefit simply from the increased purchasing power this way, but that's merely hypothetical because there are many things that could've gone wrong (extremely high fees the merchants raising the prices a lot, among other things).

[caryoscar]

Keep in mind that you can't use the current market state as an argument. So far bitcoin market has been very tiny despite all the growth it had and prone to manipulation which is why the "crashes" happen. In a bigger market with mass adoption it won't happen like this ever.

The reason why the regulators have been reluctant to give the green light to digital currency all the way is because they are worried that the digital currency market will be manipulated and become a tool for certain institutions and individuals to plunder everyone’s wealth.

This is a stage where Bitcoin must go in its growth path. I personally think that the essence of Bitcoin's decentralization is to establish a balance and trust mechanism. I know a principle: Existence is justified, not without reason.

[Ucy]

There can be leaders in decentralized communities/networks... It won't be a centralized leadership though, they will be monitored by both the network members and their representatives. So, a leader in a decentralized network can print money under certain circumstances if the law allows it, but again it will be done according to the law else the community removes/penalizes the leader.

The problem with Centralized control is that it runs contrary to the ideals of decentralization ... It'll likely not encourage transparency, censorship resistant, accountability, permissionless, etc.
Leaders should be accountable to the people, that's probably why they have to speak to an assembly of the people before important decision are taken in ancient times. They need concensus from the crowd, and the crowd can't do much if the leader is following the law... the best they can do is to offer better alternative that isn't contrary to the law and the leader will need to accept the alternative if it has little/no fault


In regards to Tesla, it can work effectively as a decentralized company if the leadership is transparent, bounded by set rules/principles (which participants in the company can judge the leadership with), etc. So, in this case the leaders at tesla wont have unrestricted powers or powers to do what they want.

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

Definitely not an economics expert, but yea I think this pandemic is one of those "events" where money printing is actually justifiable. But idk, maybe they're doing it a bit too much? If I understand it correctly the stimulus money is for the jobless lower class to have money to continue living; but then I've been hearing statements about people refusing to get jobs because they receive money "for free" anyway.

It's justifiable to a point but there should be a time that they think of other solutions. For me, the best response would be to deal with the food shortage, unemployment rate and the response to the pandemic first to help with the prevention and at the same time satisfaction of the people with having their needs fulfilled. I don't think that bitcoin could've done any better because it's only a financial tool, it's not like bitcoin can create a cure for the virus.

[leea-1334]

Is the idea of money-printing by centralized authority bad? When does it make sense to have a centralized leadership and when doesn't it? And more importantly, if the world was on a bitcoin standard when the pandemic started, what could have been done better? These are some of the questions I want to discuss.

Not always so,,,  in fact if you look at most of the world right now, they are not ready for decentralized money. And this is not through their own faults. Education, development, poverty, all are problems to overcome, and having a state take care of their money for them makes a lot of sense for most people.

As you point out simply having Bitcoin standard does not solve problems. What if people needed money and you cannot print cash? You cannot print Bitcoin either, so people will just make "Bitcoin IOUs".

[DannyHamilton]

Printing more money is just a hidden form of taxing everyone.

If the government doubles the amount of money in circulation, then nearly everything ends up costing twice as much.  In other words, you can only buy half as much stuff with the exact same amount of money under your control.  How is this any different than just taxing everyone 50%?  Just take half of everyone's money, and don't print more, and you get the same result (everyone can only buy half as much stuff).

The difference is, inflation reduces the purchasing power of EVERYONE's money, whereas with taxes the government can pick and choose how much to take from each individual (or group of people).

So, if bitcoin was the sole currency, a government could choose to implement a sales tax on luxuries to increase revenue from those that have and can afford to spend it. They can implement an income tax on higher incomes. They can implement an inheritance tax and property taxes.

In either case, the government is stealing purchasing power from the citizens and using that stolen money to try to improve the lives of themselves (oh, and also some of the worst off perhaps).

Here's another idea though...

What if the government DIDN'T try to help the citizens at all?  What if the government solely performed the duties of national defense, protecting property rights, and adjudicating disputes?

Would individuals step up to help their fellow man?  Would you?  Would charity groups and religious groups be able to step in and fill the roles of helping those in the community that need the help? Would those charity groups and religious groups have more volunteers and more donations BECAUSE the citizens understand that that's the only way that their community can get the help that's needed?  If so, then there's no need to steal from the citizens.  Instead those citizens can voluntarily help out their communities, their friends, their neighbors, their families.

[Darker45]

I am not a fan of absolute decentralization. Neither am I a fan of anarchy. And I believe that with human beings, there will always be a kind of central authority or government. So when a government collapses, even if a certain degree of anarchy will follow, it is definitely temporary. It's just a matter of time before a sort of a central power will surface.

Anyway, as regards economics, any government cannot just create a kind of direction if all control is taken away. The entire government would end up inutile. So while it may be prone to abuse, I guess it is equally absurd to deprive the government of any control.

Absolute freedom is not to be desired.

[BlackHatCoiner]

One merit, because I like it and another one because I agree with it. In a nutshell, Bitcoin is highly anarchistic and we hate anarchy, but we love Bitcoin. We think that this world needs it to be “rescued” by the bad financial system! In the end of the day, it makes us richer overtime and it's also nice incredibly fascinating as a concept. That's pretty much all of it.

Keep in mind that you can't use the current market state as an argument. So far bitcoin market has been very tiny despite all the growth it had and prone to manipulation which is why the "crashes" happen. In a bigger market with mass adoption it won't happen like this ever.

It is inevitable to happen. When this “mass adoption” occurs, there'll be more money into it, but still, individuals will control the market. At the moment we're talking a guy owns 108,000 BTC and he plans to hold them as far as I've understood; by the way, he's the same guy who told his followers to sell their houses and buy Bitcoin.

Only if those coins were owned by governments around the world its market value would stop being so fluctuating. Gold beats it here.

[Gyfts]

Seems like you're taking economic theory and blending it with governmental philosophy. Laissez faire capitalism can have components generally don't include components of centralization, but any good capitalistic society has regulations. That doesn't necessarily mean governmental control is needed over the currency system or central banking system. You can still have a decentralized currency with economic regulations, although it is a bit counter intuitive for any government to give up that much control over their economy, so we'll never see it in practice.

[just_Alice]

Excellent point. I believe that’s why Bitcoin should never substitute the existing financial system, too many things can go wrong and there are benefits to the centralized control, e.g., as you said, acting in emergency situations, or fighting the crisis.

Bitcoin shouldn’t be a full substitution, because it could never fulfill some of the fiat functions, but rather it should be a perfect complement to it. Then people will have more freedom, but, in the general matter and in extreme situations the government would be able to act on its own.

[suzanne5223]

Is the idea of money-printing by centralized authority bad?

The idea of printing more money by the centralized authority is not bad if the money is printed when needed not in the season when the economy is melted already and need some rebuild, printing money during this state will only encourage the meltdown and instead of printing more fund the centralized authority ought to use the money for any purpose that will boost the economy.

When does it make sense to have a centralized leadership and when doesn't it? And more importantly,

There shouldn't be a specific time for every organization must have leadership.

[franky1]

the high school economics think double the money in a country is a tax as it doubles the price of goods..
but this is not true

there is no single circulation
much like bitcoin. there are a hoarder allotment. and an exchange orderbook allotment
bitcoins price changes only by the orderbook allotment

in fiat.
there is the M1,M2,m3,etc different allotments
most of the printed money did not go to the general circulation of citizens.
it ended up in the investment allotments of derivatives.
so it has not cause any real huge 'inflation'

yep thats right. governments can create money and hide it away in the elitists pockets and not affect the citizens circulation(part of trickle down economics. flood the reservoir then trickle down streams slowly)

now here is the other part of why they print money.
if china had GDP of say $14trill. and US had GDP of $20trill  (china 70%)
if china added $3 trill.. that alone affects the forex exchange rate(china 85%)

US then would have to jump the GDP up by a little over $4.3trill just to bring the balance back to 70%.
oh and ofcourse to keep america declared as the economic/top superpower by a nice margin of 30%

so what you find is yes america mostly printed money to stay ontop of the superpower list and hid that money away in the upper tier economy so that it would not cause a massive 20% inflation  

[yhiaali3]

Yes, centralization is sometimes necessary, but the most important thing is consultation first and then consensus. If there is absolute decentralization, this may cause chaos. But if there is absolute centralization, this leads to dictatorship and tyranny. There must be a kind of balance between centralization and decentralization, meaning there must be A consensus among the majority to agree to an appropriate decision, but the decision in the end must be in the hands of a central authority so as not to lead to chaos. Consensus is a prerequisite for decision making and thus decentralization and centralization can be combined through consensus.