I always appreciate you taking the time to talk economics with me, even though we don't always agree on it. I have a bigger thought about what you're saying but I got sit on it for a day or two to put it into words, but the general theme is that "shifting who creates wealth and how we create trust in that wealth does not necessarily create an egalitarian economic system." Or I could just say that and leave it at that and hope you trust what I mean. But let me tell you something fascinating I found out that centers around this statement . . . What's interesting about this system is two things. A) It's a trust network which means it's really hard to get into (like you pretty much said) and B) it's really easy to get kicked out of. What's interesting is, that even with currency and credit, we still have a "trust" system baked in, with credit scores. Interesting enough, it's really hard to build a good credit score and it's really easy to just absolutely trash it. I don't have a lot of "running into famous or powerful people stories" and to be quite honest, I'm quite alright with that, for a myriad of reasons. There is one time though, I once was in a room with a man who claimed that he used to be a CEO of a very powerful international company (think Disney, Microsoft, Toyota) type company. I'm not going to say anything good or bad about this person, cause I was only there for fifteen minutes, but I remember very distinctly how he was telling everyone that was listening that the best deals were made at the golf course or over dinner, nor charts, no lawyers, no numbers, just shooting the breeze, sharing ideas, making promises, and shaking hands. Once a promise was made, then all the number crunchers and lawyers got involved. I'm not gonna lie, I thought this man was straight up lying. Who makes business deals for hundreds of millions of dollars like that? Anyone can just straight up renege. It was so unbelievable, that not only did I think he was lying about how business deals were made, but that he was lying about who he said he was. It wasn't until the next day that I Googled him and there was his face and his credentials and it was him. I was flipping baffled. This was about ten years ago, at this point. Long story short, I've learned since then, that from small companies like construction companies and restaurants all the way up to big international firms, almost everyone operates, on some level, on trust networks. I do it to, non-chalantly, all the time, without ever thinking about it. The stakes are just way, way smaller. As in "I'll give you a ride if you buy me lunch" or "I'll cover your shift this week if you cover my shift next week." You know what too? I put way more stock in whether or not I think I can trust someone that I do about money, but in a way I don't know how to put into words.you are Sooki's cousin so I'm going to give you a chicken because Sooki is my friend and she totally helps me out whenever I have a problem and she hasn't specifically warned me away from dealing with you so even if you never help me out in return I know Sooki will.
Got it in one. There's an aggressively libertarian philosophy at the heart of cryptocurrency. And once it's in place and being used there isn't anything you can do about it. Now - granted: you can still pay people in dollars, you can still require stores to take dollars, you can still issue dollars. But the fact that theoretically, there will be another more portable currency that floats based on something other than your central bank means your central bank just got demoted to scrip. This is the fundamental idea behind Niall Ferguson's The Square and the Tower. He and Graeber are polar opposites; I always try to read the two of them back to back to balance out the angry radical leftist academic with a pompous self-assured right-wing academic. "shifting who creates wealth and how we create trust in that wealth does not necessarily create an egalitarian economic system."
Long story short, I've learned since then, that from small companies like construction companies and restaurants all the way up to big international firms, almost everyone operates, on some level, on trust networks.
Is that Niall Ferguson book pretty transparent in its bias and agenda? I ask because I think I might like to read it, because it appeals to me, but I also know immediately that it appeals to me because I think it'll validate some of my classist world views and I'm trying real hard to disabuse myself from such illusions and it's not easy, especially right now. The world is messy, now's not the time to feed personal beasts.This is the fundamental idea behind Niall Ferguson's The Square and the Tower. He and Graeber are polar opposites; I always try to read the two of them back to back to balance out the angry radical leftist academic with a pompous self-assured right-wing academic.
It pretty much launches with a defense of the Bavarian Illuminati and uses as its central argument how awesome Henry Kissinger is. Dude wrote a book called 'Civilization: the West and the Rest.' I appreciate the possibilities cryptocurrency offers the world. I'm fearful of the social darwinism it's likely to engender. Being educated about something doesn't mean you endorse it; you may or may not have noticed that I know a disturbing amount about nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.