Ramon_kmf

Addressing some of the key points: > the scenario doesn’t fit with anything we know about macroeconomic history It does, because it's the redenomination into digital gold rather than gold. The 20th century was the exception; gold previously limited the ability of states to wage wars. > he’s betting that thanks to digitization, a U.S. hyperinflation would happen faster than any hyperinflation has ever happened in any country in recorded history Yes, because that's what happens on the internet. ChatGPT signed up 100M people in weeks. 400M people hold crypto worldwide. $42B moved out of SVB in one day. Once people see that the Fed has presided over banks that have countless chaotic bank runs, they'll lose confidence in the dollar system and try to find a safe haven they can trust. And that's what Bitcoin represents. > rate hikes haven’t yet been nearly enough to make most banks insolvent. The Fed admitted 333 banks insolvent[1]. FDIC admitted $620B in unrealized losses[2]. WSJ confirmed 186 banks like SVB[3]. Fed just had to reiterate banks were solvent[4]. Fed also just bailed out foreign banks[5]. In other words, hundreds of banks are insolvent. > if the Fed is unwilling to tighten monetary policy further in order to fight that spiraling inflation, out of fear of collapsing the banks Haven't you seen? Tightening monetary policy has been abandoned and BTFP[6] is exactly this: a program of essentially unlimited lending[7] to the banks, which went from $25B to $2T in days.[8] The new swap facility appears similar.[9] All deposits are now effectively "FedDIC" insured, but the environment is one of enormous instability. That's why we already have 2008 levels of money going to the discount window[10]. So many will hedge from their bank accounts into Bitcoin. And that will mean a feedback loop. > the longer-term impact Prior to ringing the fire alarm we were on course to print trillions of dollars, see a series of bank runs, followed by consolidation into a few giant banks, and then issuance of the FedNow CBDC in July. Particularly if extreme devaluation happens, that level of centralization will be bad for civil liberties. I think the fundamental difference may be that @Noahpinion thinks of this as just another issue for the Fed to manage, while I see this as the big one — the "suddenly" at the end after 15 years of "gradually". If the Fed does what they've said, and prints money to infinity to ensure that every withdrawal goes through, then they're doing a stealth monetization of the debt. And then the basic question is what succeeds the dollar. Because USD is no longer too big to fail. And when it fails, the unfortunate alternative for us all would be RMB. Getting enough people into Bitcoin to avoid both the digital devaluation of the dollar and the dominance of an unleashed China is the ideal longer-term impact. That gives us a long-term chance to protect freedom. [1]: archive.is/1QA4q [2]: archive.is/yxd1u [3]: archive.is/MTGuh [4]: archive.is/ahpbI [5]: archive.is/GPGJ8 [6]: xitter.cf/BitMEX/status/16… [7]: entrepreneurshandbook.co/kai… [8]: xitter.cf/balajis/status/1… [9]: xitter.cf/CryptoHayes/stat… [10]: qz.com/the-feds-discount-win…