I think I figured out why a country might have its own local currency. It's the idea of having shared prosperity. That is, if a country makes progress, its currency becomes more valuable. But it also is a double-edged sword that includes the possibility of shared misery.
Today's global economy has local fiat currencies floating against each other. A strong economy leads to a strong currency that allows its citizens to pay less for imported goods.
Fiat currencies are intrinsically inflationary. Human needs can never be satisfied and we continue to demand more. Fiat currencies are printed to address ever increasing demand for goods.
Printing or minting new money does not always imply devaluation of money. That's because economies also grow and therefore more money is needed to facilitate transactions within that economy.
What is actually broken in the US system is that when they print money it goes first to the top and trickles down to the masses. It's not bottom up. It's a very inefficient way of distributing wealth and prone to corruption.
It's centralized money distribution. I guess analogous to the Soviet's command economy. That is, the people at the top are the best positioned to know how to 'properly' spend money.
Modern civilization still borrows the coordination mechanisms that originate from medieval society. Hierarchical coordination mechanisms are less important today with computers and networking.
This brings us back to the original inquiry about local currencies. Are nation-states relevant in the context of a global interconnected economy and civilization?
What we see today are multinational companies that game different nation-states seeking out favorable tax laws to more efficiently manage their financial assets. Companies are not beholden to nation-states, they are beholden to their stock holders.
What then does it mean to have a shared-prosperity via the mechanism of a shared national currency? Do citizens truly share in prosperity by virtue of a shared currency?
Central banks do want a local currency. This is their only mechanism for controlling an economy. Minting money accelerates an economy at the expense of inflation. Higher interest rates decelerates an economy by having more money parked in banks.
But one has to wonder if this is not just an illusion of control. The global economy is so intertwined that intervention measures by central banks have to be coordinate and cannot be effectively done through unilateral action.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Carlos E. Perez

Carlos E. Perez Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @IntuitMachine

11 Jun
Existing models of neurons or even single cells are woefully inadequate to simulate what's going on in the brain. Standard models are based on toy models that are conveniently easy to simulate. Scientific research has a bias toward the tools it has at its disposal.
However, we also should not underestimate the complexity that simple components can generate. Conversely, we can't ignore the consistency of behavior that a collection of complex parts generate.
The truth about general intelligence like the brain lies somewhere in between. Humans are complex beings, yet there exists a consistency of how collections of humans behave. Civilization would not be possible if not for common behavior that leads to emergent behavior.
Read 15 tweets
10 Jun
Partially true, but if you want to develop a framework for understanding the latest new knowledge, you have to go back in time and read the thoughts of great thinkers. We make the false assumption that people in the past don't think as well as people today.
Too many people today are building up their knowledge using very shaky foundations. So it does not matter if you watch the latest youtube videos and blogs, to get a deeper understanding requires an investment in books.
Information overload is what limits one's acquisition of knowledge. We make the false assumption that we are also like computers that can take in an infinite amount of information. Where we value speed of acquisition over the slow process of knowledge osmosis.
Read 18 tweets
9 Jun
The average *daily* wage in El Salvador is $10. The average transaction fee on Bitcoin is $23. I guess only the wealthy Salvadorans need to concern themselves with Bitcoin.
However, the El Salvador government could issue notes and coins that are backed by BTC. This will allow for BTC to be transacted at zero cost at the physical layer (technically also at layer 2!).
BTC could be moved electronically using any of the wrapped BTC approaches employed on other blockchain networks.
Read 4 tweets
9 Jun
HODLing is already encouraged by US tax law. If you cash out on your crypto holdings then you deserve to be taxed.
So what should you do if you need income? Well, you could always stake your coins. Wait... Bitcoin has no staking?!
You can always hand custody of your Bitcoin to a centralized exchange and earn interest. Good luck with taking that risk!
Read 9 tweets
8 Jun
A representation in the mind is useful only when it stands in for the actual object that it represents. So as an example, if a representation depicts a room and the placement of the objects in it, it is useful to reason about navigating the room.
If the representation is a spoken sentence, then it is useful to reason about the correctness of the structure (i.e. grammar) of the sentence.
If it is music or choreography then that representation is useful to understand the internal consistency of the structure. Therefore, representation is only relevant if it has utility for subsequent cognition.
Read 5 tweets
8 Jun
Indeed, one shouldn't expect that people think in the same way. nytimes.com/2021/06/08/sci…
It's analogous to some people being aware of verbalization in their heads and is completely absent in others. It is surprising that people are too often surprised that this is true.
So are verbalization and visualization just unnecessary representations in our minds? I suspect they are useful in some kinds of tasks and not others. These are mechanisms for your mind to validate one's thoughts.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!