The steelman version of this argument is not that Bitcoin would fail, but that money itself may not be easily able to buy valuable things in a time of serious conflict — like public safety, or other social goods.
That is, we know from recent experience in conflict zones that smartphones and wireless internet are insanely robust technologies.
We know the Bitcoin network has survived many attacks, including the recent Chinese state assault on mining.
And we know private keys work offline.
The real issue in a modern Mad Max scenario is not that Bitcoin fails, but that money itself fails to buy the most useful things you want in a warzone: like an end to war, or a ticket out of there.
If we grant that it’s not easy to put a price tag on things like “the cost to stop this riot”, then we can extend that to other goods that have a community aspect to them.
You can crowdfund electricity, water, roads, even police. But you need social cooperation, not just funds.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Actions speak louder than words. But do they? Words are explicit and often public. Actions are often implicit and unobserved.
This may be why many are "action-blind", analogous to colorblind. They see only the words someone emits, without weighing their track record of actions.
A concrete example is something we take for granted, which is that a politician's promises are non-binding. They can say anything to get elected, then do what they want. Compare to a product that does what it says on the tin.
A convincing actor vs a substantive action.
One way of thinking about this is to make actions more visible. There are sites that do political report cards, though the scores aren't placed next to tweets or ballots.
Relatedly, it is interesting that we have decent book and movie reviews, but not newsmedia reviews.
However, Mearsheimer is realist about everything…other than US capabilities. Rather than fighting an unwinnable war, or surrendering to illiberalism, the right approach is to build an admirable society.
There was a strain in Western culture that wanted to be the best, and a strain in Chinese culture that wanted to copy the West. The conflict is arising because the Chinese no longer want to copy, as the West is no longer obviously the best.
Indeed, the West is no longer building the City on a Hill. It is about equality rather than excellence, and freedom over cooperation.
There is a tension between checking your privilege & checking China's rise. Or assuming the US is the best & all the rest are sh*thole countries.
Everything technology disrupts will see prices fall. Everything the state subsidizes will see prices rise. Like the graph below, but even more extreme.
The state actively prevents automation in the sectors it controls. Baumol’s cost disease doesn’t happen by accident.
Arguments vary — sometimes it’s safety, sometimes explicitly about protecting jobs — but there’s a reason you don’t have free AI medical imaging on your phone.
To be clear, the companies run by non-founders may buckle. I don’t expect Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon to hold any line.
But Zuck & Jack still control their companies. In different ways, they are adopting cryptocurrency. And they aren’t backing down. m.facebook.com/zuck/posts/101…
Good but no traction: angel investment
Bad but no traction: tulips
Good with high traction: new paradigm
Bad with high traction: threat to democracy
The establishment mindset flips between apathy and panic.
Facebook is a fad, then it’s a threat to democracy. COVID is dismissed as paranoia by preppers, then you have to wear a mask even when vaxxed. Bitcoin is tulips, then they start advocating seizures.
Every disruption like this has, so far, been sort of integrated into the establishment — albeit in a reactionary way. Facebook censorship, COVID lockdowns, Bitcoin-motivated CBDC efforts.
But the less the foresight, the greater the cost of that integration. Eventually too great.
But if I think about setting parameters in two-sided marketplaces like Uber or eBay, it is true that you can experiment by varying incentives within different cohorts or geographies.
This is related to the problem of doing “social engineering” without even doing “social science”.
Where is the control group when a new regulation is rolled out? How do you select a representative test cohort? And what do you use to account for time-varying behavior?