Money has come a long way since its origins. From cowry
shells to crypto, transferable, divisible, and economically sound means
of exchange have been adopted by market actors everywhere. Modern
history has brought us to a dangerous place, however, a cultural climate
where politics and bad economics have co-opted monetary utility in the
name of control and coercive influence. Blockchain and crypto provide
everyone the opportunity to experience clean, sound, peaceful money.
Many,
especially younger generations, are now waking up to this reality.
The Empty Promise of Free Money
A few days ago, 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang released a telling tweet.
Of course, paying $1,000 to someone is never “free,” but beyond his
misinformed promise, what seems most striking about this is the phrase
“money is the answer.” As if money itself, divorced from economic
application, can solve anything. U.S. President Donald Trump has
recently claimed in similar fashion on live TV
that “you never have to default because you print the money…” This is
akin to claiming one never has to starve because food will magically
appear on the table.
What Money Is
Money as a bare, standalone economic concept has nothing to do with
politics, of course. That’s not always easy to tell, however. In a
reality where centralized, government-embedded ‘Federal Reserves’ and ‘Financial Services Agencies’
run the socioeconomic landscape, critical definitions have been lost.
The concept of money has been grossly perverted. Money is a tool for
exchange. A symbol of value. In and of itself it’s not “political” at
all.
The history of money
predates written record, and as such is subject to much contentious
debate. Still, some basic observations can be hazarded. From the cowry shell economies
of ancient times all the way to the present day, monetary utility has
been recognized and celebrated by humans all over, and for good reason.
One man makes wagon wheels. Another, cheese. There comes a time when the
one doesn’t need another wagon wheel. But the other guy still needs the
cheese, creating a very real problem. Trade becomes impossible. A
useful medium of exchange such as tiny shells, bills, or gold coins
solves this dilemma by creating an easily transferable and readily
divisible representation of value.
Money as Political Propaganda
Donald Trump’s recent tariff-slinging toward Mexico and China
has already begun to engender trade war overtones. On the other side of
the statist aisle, Democratic opponents of the president are calling
for more taxation to pay for everything “for free.”
Trump’s tariffs ultimately penalize the individuals they purport to
protect by raising prices and restricting demanded imports. The
“everything for free” cries for endless taxation from Democrats results
in a restricted free trade as well, as capital and resources are
consumed parasitically by the state. Price calculation
becomes clunky, centralized and inefficient. Both methodologies are
intrinsically violent. They both require legislated threats of
aggression to uphold and enforce. Both ideologies are also anti-trade
and anti-money. As money’s development was originally a means of keeping
peace and order between market actors, the current propagandized model
is thus incompatible.
This desperate jockeying for political position is the new “money,” and the cost of the departure from meaning is paid in human lives.
This is manifested in the quality of life and in the erosion of free
trade itself. When finance is leveraged not as a means of free exchange,
but as punitive policy, sanctions begin to starve people. Bombs begin
to fall on non-violent men, women, children, and babies. Trade wars
escalate tensions. And of course, consumers suffer. Voluntary exchange
is made “illegal” in order to ensure that political interests hold sway
over all of us.
Fairy Tales From the Wall Street War Machine
“Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent
out to die … No one told them that dollars and cents were the real
reason. No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going
and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American
soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own
brothers here.”
-Major General Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket.
Most have heard the basic Wall Street fairy tale: the great stock market crash
of 1929 was caused by a huge credit bubble. This was the result of
unregulated, leveraged trading and speculation in the still relatively
new and exciting stock market of the time. If the government would have
stepped in, it could have been prevented. Or at least mitigated.
But wait a minute. These very same issues persist today, in spite of massive economic regulations and new laws. 2008’s subprime mortgage crisis and taxpayer subsidized bailout of huge banking interests is one example. The US Department of Defense being unable to account for trillions of dollars is one more of many. If more state regulation is the cure-all, it doesn’t seem to be working.
The classic line is there were too many backroom deals and a
systematic private sector gaming of the market in 1929. This is not the
whole truth. Politicians and representatives of the state—in conjunction
with the Federal Reserve—were also making these secret negotiations and
implementing reckless financial policies.
The disaster would eventually plunge America into the deeply
impoverished period known as the Great Depression. The market did
exactly as expected, economically speaking. It corrected itself.
War Is Not the Cure-All
The words of Smedley Butler ring true today. As the world’s leading
military arms dealer, and seat of exactly half of the world’s biggest
defense contractors, killing in America is big business. U.S.-based arms
companies sold an estimated $226B in arms in 2017. One of these
companies—Lockheed Martin—sold a bomb to Saudi Arabia which would later destroy a school bus in Yemen. The blast killed 51 people—mostly children. A recent Cato report notes that it’s not uncommon for American soldiers to face enemies wielding U.S.-manufactured weapons on the battlefield.
It would be beyond the scope of this article to trace the complete
history of the war-money racket. Suffice to say that Keynesian
economists usually point to World War II as “solving” the Great
Depression. This isn’t true. According to Richard W. Fulmer, freelance
author for the Foundation for Economic Education:
“Contrary to popular belief, the “public works program”
known as World War II did not end the Great Depression; it ended the New
Deal. The end of the war brought federal spending and tax cuts and the
repeal of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.”
Fulmer is far from alone
in his assessment. Boosting GDP statistically, wartime economies do
demonstrate remarkable growth. But the production focuses on munitions
and other wartime necessities, not items critical to sustaining a
flourishing, peacetime economy. There is always a shortage of these
goods. Keynesians love the myth, though. It justifies unlimited spending
and firing up their beloved Federal Reserve printing presses. The true
cure for economic despair, however, is not war, but less centralized
interference in markets.
A Return to Concept and Consent via Crypto
If holding vast amounts of money equates to a significant influence
in a given society, then controlling the money supply itself would be
something akin to godhood. As such, government-backed centralized banks
like the Federal Reserve reign supreme. To question them is to question
the “almighty,” as it were. To exercise financial autonomy and hold
one’s own money directly, and without interference, is the new
“blasphemy” for the old guard.
Notwithstanding, this is the return to sound concepts which blockchain and cryptocurrency are providing to many. A property and self-ownership based
view of monetary tools. It’s also why so many—especially younger
generations—are taking a newfound interest in economics and financial
literacy.
The New Cowry Shell Generation
According to Financial Post
“Four percent of millennials have owned bitcoin —twice as many as the
general population…30 percent said they would prefer to own $1000 of
bitcoin over the same value in government bonds. More than a quarter (27
percent) said they considered bitcoin more trustworthy than big banks.”
Young people are beginning to look at money differently.
Paying for war with taxes, funding criminal bankers, police, and
politicians who harm and kill others, with no say in how one’s money is
allocated, is becoming less and less popular. This is not only true for
young people, but individuals of all ages and backgrounds. In fact, U.S.
public trust in government is now near historic lows,
with just 17% trusting the government. Individuals are disengaging from
a paradigm rapidly losing any real meaningful relevance to their lives.
In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a whopping 43% of Americans
didn’t even show up to the polls.
Great revolutions are philosophical ones. Ideas, and not the
initiation of force and violence, have historically been what bring
about lasting innovative change and improvements. Information available
at the click of a mouse, or the swipe of a smartphone screen is changing
society; individuals are questioning the very economic premises once
thought to be unshakeable.
A sense of dread and unease has pervaded the fiat system for many,
though perhaps they couldn’t pinpoint why. Now they can. Crypto affords a
clean, sound means of exchange. A new cowry shell. No inflationary
printing, no degrading “percentage of theft” charged under threat of
violence, and no ties to war machines destroying human life.
Will new monetary technology like blockchain and
cryptocurrencies bring about a philosophical revolution? Let us know in
the comments section below.
OP-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed
article. The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.
Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy
or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due
diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com
is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss
caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or
reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.
source link
