Has any bitcoin/Austrian person written a good analysis of Bitcoin in light of Graeber's debt thesis?
As I understand it, a key point of his theory is that inequality grows over time and so you need some sort of reset every 100 years or so in the form of a debt jubilee.
As I understand it, a key point of his theory is that inequality grows over time and so you need some sort of reset every 100 years or so in the form of a debt jubilee.
This is because economics ultimately becomes political.
When .1% have everything then everyone else just comes to kill them and take their stuff so the wealthy end up either forgiving the debt or letting it be inflated away.
When .1% have everything then everyone else just comes to kill them and take their stuff so the wealthy end up either forgiving the debt or letting it be inflated away.
Is there a good refutation to this point?
If it is true, what are possible futures? Some Diamond Age/Snow Crash city-state future with high levels of inequality? Something else?
If it is true, what are possible futures? Some Diamond Age/Snow Crash city-state future with high levels of inequality? Something else?
I think this is my biggest sticking point with the Austrian/Bitcoin view in general.
Sure, for the sake of argument, let's just say that taxation and inflation are theft are moral wrongs.
Does it matter practically when people are beating down your door?
Sure, for the sake of argument, let's just say that taxation and inflation are theft are moral wrongs.
Does it matter practically when people are beating down your door?
E.g. The Aristocracy of the Ancien Regime clearly thought they were morally superior and in the right, but in retrospect, shouldn't they have just reformed and given up some of their power and not gotten their heads cut off?
I suppose it is a logically coherent argument to just say, no, it is a moral question and worth dying over. But is that the argument?
Also, my line of argument here also allows the belief that current government actions are, in fact, increasing inequality via the Cantillon Effect and how money enters the system
To maybe try and boil it down, my question is
1. Historically, Wealth inequality grows over time
2. Failure to remedy that (e.g. Debt Jubilee) leads to political consequences (e.g. French Revolution) or some form of extreme suppression.
1. Historically, Wealth inequality grows over time
2. Failure to remedy that (e.g. Debt Jubilee) leads to political consequences (e.g. French Revolution) or some form of extreme suppression.
Are one of those two points demonstrably untrue?
If not, what does that imply?
If not, what does that imply?
