I’ve always considered myself to be a left-wing progressive type… or, to my mind, someone who prides itself on putting everyday needs over corporate interests or something wealthy.
I grew up in a coastal town with liberal parents, went to progressive schools, and you can take Marxist criticism about whatever they throw at me. For as long as I can remember, the distribution of wealth among all classes – and bridging the wealth gap – has been at the fore of my political consciousness.
Fast forward to my learning about bitcoin and I quickly began to understand the economic injustice of the present. Fiat monetary policies, and how government controls over the US dollar have been used to “make the rich rich”, at the expense of everyone else.
When countries are in financially hot water for whatever reason – from irresponsible use of debt to unforeseen challenges like a pandemic – they will print new currency (aka expanding the money supply), which they see fit. Usually creditors or capital assets. Holders, aka the current rich people.
In the process, the purchasing power of the average person’s paycheck decreases. When there is more money in the economy, everything becomes more expensive, especially things that are difficult to make more – like real estate and commodities.
I didn’t until I started learning about bitcoin. Actually understand what was the reason Rapidly rising prices of properties such as real estate. All I knew was that it was happening, and it was happening much faster than it was.
Certainly, younger generations are disproportionately affected by these policies – as even high-income millennials will struggle to afford homeownership in the cities where they are employed.
Most millennials will remain permanent renters because the price of real estate has outpaced wages, all but killing the American dream.
Thankfully though, and very uniquely, there may be a relatively simple solution to this particular economic problem: one that is not dependent on the results of an election, an unorganized legislature or any other governing body outside of our personal control.
Enter bitcoin – a digital money that has been engineered to be inflated (that is, no one can “print” much of it) and uncontrollable by a central governing body. The network operates on thousands of independent computers without any single primary authorization.
Unlike other inflation-resistant assets, such as gold or real estate, bitcoin is also incredibly accessible. There is no minimum investment to buy bitcoin and you can store as much or as little of it as you want on thumbdrive in your studio apartment. You don’t even need a bank account to buy bitcoins. Go to your local “Bitcoin ATM” with some cash in hand and boom – you have scarce financial assets that cannot be inflated. Of course, if you Doing Have a bank account, no need to get out of bed. It takes less than a minute to buy bitcoin on any of the exchange mobile apps.
Yes to the “common man”, isn’t it?
A great equalizer for the average working person, bitcoin immediately felt aligned with the values I grew up with… until I suffered cognitive dissonance to learn that “my people,”— Elizabeth Warren and other left-leaning people—most obviously Democrats—seemed to hold a strong negative bias. From the right against bitcoin.
“Why Do Democrats Hate Bitcoin?” I thought to myself.
After doing a little research and talking to some smart economist friends, what I learned wasn’t all that surprising.
First, from a straight-up political theory perspective, left-leaning people are ideologically more apt to rely on the central government to distribute “fair” wealth rather than rely on free-market economics. The Left is generally pro-government (especially when it comes to finance) and bitcoin was deliberately designed to oppose government control.
Bitcoin was essentially born out of a libertarian ethic – a term that many on the left listen to with skepticism.
After all, it was “free capitalism” that led to the subjugation of the working class and the subsequent riots in the era of Standard Oil and US Steel. Without government intervention and the advent of antitrust laws, it is quite possible that today’s capitalism might have looked more like feudalism than the relative financial freedom we have today.
Skepticism aside, there is also a pragmatic argument for government control over currency – an argument most bitcoiners don’t like to talk about – and that is, government-controlled currency allows us to avoid or minimize economic contraction. .
It would be difficult to avoid a full-blown pandemic depression, or a full-fledged banking recession like in 2008, if the government was not able to “bail” anyone with freshly minted money.
In theory, this type of printing would save jobs (the most important quality determinant of life for most of the country) and in some cases, the new money would be distributed directly to working and low-income people. That was in the case of covid- era incentive check.
Taking a deeper look into this reality, however, the lion’s share of the money printed during the pandemic was No Go to save jobs or pocket the pockets of average citizens, but instead to protect the stock market and other asset-holder interests.
According to the Washington Post, only a fifth of US incentives distributed during the pandemic went to individual citizens, while the majority went to businesses that were not required to show whether they were affected by the pandemic nor had access to funds. was required to do. hiring people.
In 2008 the incentive was being used to protect the wealthy rather than the working class, when the incentive was used to bail out banks (creditors) who prefer predatory loans rather than using the incentives to bail out borrowers. used to issue – ordinary working people who were the victims of such predatory debts in the first place.
All this to say, if someone is going to claim that the government should be able to control the money supply, they must also be held accountable for how those dollars are distributed. Unfortunately, neither side of the corridor has a proven track record in this regard.
When you look at the history of money – all the way back to ancient Rome – over the centuries, government control over currency has almost always been used to widen the wealth gap, not narrow it.
Roman emperors often debated silver coins by adding more bronze or tin to increase the money supply – and unexpectedly spent on wars of conquest and grand architectural projects. Similarly, Henry the VIII was famous throughout Europe for destroying gold bullion with copper to enhance his personal lifestyle and fund siege.
The history of currency depreciation has a very clear relationship with irresponsible spending by governments at the expense of citizens, with very few, if any, examples to the contrary.
this makes me sad. actually i to like To live in a world where wealth can be properly distributed by a trustworthy government. But I am understanding more and more why so many people think hope is naive. This is because currency devaluations have been used by governments over thousands of years to be in the best interest of the few rather than the many.
If there’s anything I’ve learned from hanging out with bitcoiners, it’s millennials, many of whom are generally progressive voters, joining this chorus after learning how current monetary policy is helping us to accumulate wealth faster. destroying possibilities.
I recently heard a friend say at a bitcoin meetup, “I’m a vegetarian environmentalist — and I’m suddenly agreeing with Ted Cruz on Elizabeth Warren.”
Until we see a legal monetary policy that actually benefits us (which I don’t expect), I want to store my money in an inflation-safe asset that I can easily afford, maintain I am and can self-detain.
In other words, I am buying bitcoin.
This is a guest post by Isabel Foxon Duke. The opinions expressed are solely their own and do not necessarily represent those of BTC Inc. either . reflect the thoughts of bitcoin magazine,