You can never fix corruption, only eliminate it and start over. And the banking system, next to government and big pharma is the most corrupt entity in the world.

Expand full comment

History is rife with massive collapses of what appeared to be brilliant, indestructible civilizations and empires, that led to, for example, the Dark Ages, and there is NOTHING that is readily apparent that this is not in the process of happening again. I sincerely hope that I am wrong...

Expand full comment

I am a physician and recently went to speak with our interim hospital CEO. They presently are trying to purchase our local clinic (this is physician owned and has both primary care and multi sub-specialty physicians). The hospital itself recently set up a primary care clinic, which is in direct competition with this clinic and a community health center that we have. Then they turn around and fire over 100 hospital employees. I told him that these medical monopolies are not wise. He basically told me I am ignorant in the ways of finances and that this is the way things are going around the country. How do you argue with that. I told him he is right that I am not versed in all this financial mumbo-jumbo, but that I have common sense, and when I look at the overall picture and truly after watching the tyranny from Covid, having Medical monopolies is not a good deal. Plus you watch all these banking systems that should have people that are super intelligent in finances continually collapse…🙄

Expand full comment

Ending this corruption will look like the beginning of war.

It will be scary as all hell.

Expectations should match reality or the battle is already lost.

Expand full comment

I have long argued that we must do away with fractional reserve banking (a practice that causes inflation and encourages reckless behavior), and we must stop lending so much money. American society essentially depends in massive debt at every level. It’s unsustainable, as you said. If we had truly sound money, people wouldn’t need to borrow nearly as much as they do now.

Expand full comment

I nearly always agree with the things you say about free markets.

The itch I never get past, which my read of this post doesn't sufficiently scratch, is monopoly.

Monopolies seem naturally emergent in the absence of regulation. Perhaps monopoly isn't the right word here- when I look at it from a consumer perspective (because, realistically, that's all I'll individually ever be), what I really mean is "price fixing."

If given a completely unrestrained climate, why wouldn't purveyors ALWAYS align behind inflated pricing, especially the largest ones that can crush competitive pricing by smaller ones? Especially goods that are difficult to opt out of, like energy?

Aren't guilds or syndicates essentially inevitable in a market that does nothing to restrain them?

What you're talking about in this post is currency, and it all makes sense. But what about that "stuff of daily life" you mention?

Help me see what I'm missing.

Expand full comment

In a capitalist system, no matter if the monopoly is state, corporate or private, perennial crises are a feature, not a bug.

(In a communist system, constant crisis is a feature.)

In a free market system where the actors voluntarily do not strive to create and control monopolies, and also voluntarily differentiates between earning a living with a little extra to set aside for the future, and maximising immediate monetary profit at the expense of all else (aka capitalism: freemarket economy made into ideology), your suggestions might work.

Now then, what are the odds you think of all actors voluntarily working to ensure that said free market doesnot evolve into private monopolies, company towns, indentured servitude where you're paid in company script, total devastation and despoiling of resources, and so on?

About the same odds of communism working as claimed, I'd argue.

You need something more.

Expand full comment

I can’t imagine these private tokens not falling to the same problem that private banks do, who also can already generate money in today’s system by giving out loans. Through concerted behavior they can drive bubbles and crashes, there is simply no keeping a bunch of private parties under control if they are the ones controlling money. There is no underdog to turn to because the big dogs can join together to form a cartel which suppresses the value of the tokens being issued by the underdog, etc.

You should do at least a little bit of thinking about how BTC could actually make your system/proposal *stronger* rather than writing it off. If nothing else, it can live on as the monetary policy and settlement layer. The central bank of all your private bank-like-entities. If all their shit-tokens were actually pegged to sats, then there would not be the risk of non-competitive funny business.

BTC critics have many fair points but the thing they need to remind themselves is that nothing like this has existed in history, and we should not throw it out because of boo-hoo it uses too much energy. Even if it’s a percentage of all the world’s energy, it could be something that changes the course of human history. Even if it doesn’t do a good job at payments and the Layer 2 stuff flops, it is still something incredible to have established true digital scarcity. Work that into your next proposal and see if it maybe turns out better.

Expand full comment

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Brilliant essay. I am all-in. The transition will be rough. So, off I go to buy more pallets of grain alcohol, cigarettes and ammo.

Expand full comment

The prerequisite for decentralized private bank currency would be constitutional amendments (1) banning government money and (2) forbidding government banking regulation and deposit guarantees.

Without (1), the federal or state government will simply bludgeon and force everyone to use their currency with various legislation. Without (2), the first time a private bank fails (and they most certainly will - complete with sob stories of entire life savings lost) it will become a call for deposit guarantees all over again as politicians fall all over themselves to get back into bank regulation / guarantees.

How would we get politicians in DC to agree to give up enormous amounts of power and influence and campaign donations and pass those amendments? They'd have to be forced.

I have yet to see in my lifetime any significant rollback of federal government power in any domain. Even the critics of such power seem to become awfully timid once they get sent to DC. Even the most egregious and blatant abuses like warrantless, secret court wiretaps have not even been pruned at the edges, just whined about.

The best idea I have to get anything like this done is to push hard into education and take over school curriculum to spread solid ideas about freedom and decentralization (a reverse bezmenov.) Maybe the next generation or the one after can make enough headway to get new, real limitations on government power before the authorities resort to prison camps to cover for their failed ideas.

Expand full comment

I've been playing around with different money. In my practice, I accept dollars but also metals, Goldbacks, and BTC. Goldbacks have been remarkably durable so far - people are accepting them AND spending them, and the manufacturers keep selling out. It's fun to watch.

When a system has existed (private banking) and then we end up here, I ask myself, "how did we end up here, and can that be avoided in the future?" One argument I've heard for BTC is NOT that it is useful as a layer 1 or even layer 2 transactional instrument, but that, because it is fundamentally constrained by physical laws, it serves as a type of "trust hedge." Governments, or private banks, are constrained by the competitive pressure it creates because people can always move large sums of money from one to the other. Now, the existence of gold *should* be able to do the same thing, but the portability issue and the ability to physically control the stock has made that market too manipulable.

That the government might be able to corrupt BTC would just add to everything else that they already corrupt, and it seems more difficult to corrupt. The goal, in my mind, is dynamic decentralization that creates constant tension and naturally checks the system; a little bit of chaos is better than too much order, even in money. Too much order in money gave us the combination of sclerosis and chaos we are about to descend into.

Expand full comment

The solution is simple... stop fiat currency. Until Government loses its monopoly on money, then there is no fix. Whilst Government sets interest rates (Central Bank independence - don’t make me laugh) for purely political reasons, cheap money will mean mis-allocation of resources and high risk business adventures with the inevitable problems once rates go up... as they will due to Govt created ‘Boom-Bust’ economic cycle. As for Fractional Reserve Banking - it played an important part in the Industrial Revolution and still does in funding economic activity. Adam Smith favoured it, but said it was risky and lenders should stick to short-term loans. Back then there was no banking insurance and people knew the risks; today they don’t. I wonder how many people know that when they put money in the bank, they cease to own it, it becomes the bank’s property and the depositor becomes a creditor to the bank and only has a lien on the money they deposited, not a property right?

Expand full comment

This is like “make banking great again,” without acknowledging that, even if it was better before, it evolved into what we have today. So, burden is on you to show how it won’t just repeat.

Expand full comment

“Implies that if banks made loans everyone would honestly pay off their loans. It would be nice, but they don’t. Utopian wishful thinking”. My 80 y.o. Retired banker’s reply to this article

Expand full comment

I wish The Cat who runs things at our house was half as smart as you. She has your contentious nature tho. But she is still twice as smart as any Fed bureaucrat. I think your ideas are brilliant. May they catch fire🔥.

Expand full comment

This was a good piece. So--for those of us now past the high noon of life, it ain't gonna come in time. Moreover, looking at all the people who still, for unfathomable reasons, have accounts at bastards like Wells Fargo, moving the sentiments of the populace to good ideas is gonna require quite a lot of real heavy equipment, metaphorically speaking. But we must live in hope, right?

Expand full comment