Think about it. In crypto-land, Tether is the unit of account and the medium of exchange. Bitcoin is used a long-term store of value like gold, but Tether is money.
Tether is a free bank (because it prints its own dollars) that engages in fractional reserve banking (because its dollars are not actually backed 1-for-1 by USD asset reserves). It is the reinvention of the way we did money in the 19th century.
The "New Bretton Woods" global financial system uses U.S. Treasuries as the reserve asset instead of gold, with the Fed's commitment to fighting inflation as the artificial scarcity mechanism instead of the difficulty of gold mining. Tether piggybacks on New Bretton Woods.
Tether is money in crypto-land. Bitcoin, increasingly, is not. But nor is it the reserve asset in crypto-land, as gold was the reserve asset in 19th-century free banking. Treasuries, and Treasury substitutes, are still the reserve asset.
So Tether = fractionally-backed privately issued dollars, issued by a gray-market free bank. Treasuries and quasi-Treasuries are its gold equivalent, backed by Jerome Powell's credibility. So where does this leave Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is post-1973 gold.
Post-1973, gold's value has been determined by investors' belief in gold's value, NOT by its use in the global financial system. Bitcoin, increasingly, is in the same place. No one uses gold as money OR as bank reserves. It's just an investment asset. Bitcoin will be the same.
In terms of Bitcoin's eventual price (the relevant thing for investors), this puts it at far less valuable than the maximalists hope, but far more valuable than the minimalists expect. Gold's global value is ~$10 trillion. That's a lot.
And as for Tether, whether it can survive as a free bank depends on A) whether regulators crack down, B) whether the New Bretton Woods system survives the rise of China, and C) what a bank run looks like in the ae of crypto.
I guess I should write a post about this...
(end)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Instead of canceling math because we think Americans don't have the IQ to handle it, how about we copy the math education systems of countries who do it better than we do?
The frustrating thing about these math education debates is that the people trying to cancel math (yes, this is a loose figure of speech) seem to believe deeply and instinctively that American kids are dum-dums who can't learn math, so we should give up...
...But trying to convince these education policy people that IQ isn't the most important thing when it comes to math education (which is true) isn't super effective, because they already seem to spend all their time trying and failing to convince *themselves* of this very thing.
This guy isn't a tankie, but this kind of thinking -- we all have to just let (insert communist empire here) conquer whatever they want, because anything else equals full-scale nuclear annihilation -- pretty quickly leads to tankie conclusions.
The tankies themselves are this tiny irrelevant cabal of sickos. But there are a much larger number of leftists out there who are susceptible to the idea that the U.S. is the source of all conflict, that conquest by "communist" empires is actually resistance or liberation, etc.
Ideology is an intellectual muscle suit that people can strap on to feel smarter than they really are.
There are several reasons for this.
First, ideologies are group endeavors. When confronted with something you can't explain, you can usually find some co-ideologue who has "explained" it in ways that support the ideology. So you have a ton of off-the-shelf arguments.
Second, ideology provides psychic comfort that's similar to the feeling of actually getting something right. So you don't have to think too hard about stuff in order to get that good feeling of understanding it; you just repeat the catechism, and everything seems warm and truthy.
I mean, partly this is tankie ideas infecting mainstream socialism, but also partly this is the general American tendency to analyze foreign policy like a 12-year-old, saying "Hee hee, wouldn't it be cool if country X invaded country Y" because to you they're just lines on a map.
"Oh of course I'm antiwar, because all my friends are antiwar, and war is, like, so lame, you know, but like, wouldn't it also be cool if Country X totally invaded and conquered Country Y? I mean, Country Y has weird food, they kinda deserve it. Anyway let's go to the mall!"
29% of Americans are either Hispanic, Asian, or Middle Eastern -- more than double the percentage of Black Americans and about half the percentage of White Americans who are neither Hispanic nor Middle Eastern.
This third of America constitutes a "third race" that does not fit cleanly into America's traditional racial schema. It would be a grave mistake to assume that these folks will eventually become White; instead, I am betting that America's racial schema will bend and change.
Our media and our national narratives tend to ignore this "third race", except in very circumscribed cases. If anything, the push is to disaggregate each of these groups into their constituent ethnicities, instead of aggregating them as a big group that will change America.