The Bob Murphy Show
Bob gives his reasons for why this is not a wise path to go down, as well as the libertarian moral case against it.
53 sats \ 1 reply \ @TheMorningStar 12 Aug
Trump is very talkative. He just keeps on talking without any purpose. Why do Americans like him so much! He's just another bully!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 12 Aug
Some Americans like him a lot, but most don't. He only has about 36% approval amongst the population.
reply
40 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 11 Aug
Bitcoin's beauty lies in its indifference to our opinions. Bitcoin is anarchy and is available to anyone who desires it, governments included.
Should the US government have a Bitcoin reserve? I believe the American people have a say in that matter.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
Maybe they should, but I doubt they will.
I agree with your take about Bitcoin. It's available for everyone and if one party using it can destroy it, then it was never going to work.
reply
24 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 11 Aug
True! Bitcoin can also have scary aspects. Let's hope the PoW and consensus work out.
reply
39 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 12 Aug
If you think a government holding bitcoin is a threat to bitcoin sell all yours while you can. You clearly do not understand what you have and will likely lose it.
reply
39 sats \ 2 replies \ @Akg10s33 11 Aug
I also agree that Bitcoin is freedom... a direct and unregulated form of free sale! I think that the United States as a world power should acquire a considerable amount of Bitcoin and in some way or another try to lower or balance that immense debt... which sooner or later is going to explode!! causing serious damage.
reply
57 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
I don't think holding Bitcoin will all of a sudden make them fiscally responsible. They used to have a hard money and abandoned it, because they don't want that much constraint.
One way or another the US debt will explode (or implode) and it will cause serious damage.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Akg10s33 12 Aug
Yes you're right! It's going to be something inevitable...
reply
37 sats \ 0 replies \ @SatsMate 12 Aug
I definitely don't think it is a wise path to go down, I think it will centralize the holdings - and eventually further influence Bitcoin Core developers potentially.
reply
52 sats \ 12 replies \ @grayruby 11 Aug
They probably should but I hope they don't.
reply
136 sats \ 11 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
I say they shouldn't, but probably will.
reply
44 sats \ 4 replies \ @grayruby 11 Aug
Why do you say they shouldn't?
And I mean what is the logical argument for not doing it, not why you don't want them to do it.
reply
41 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
I don't have a strong opinion about this. I was just being needlessly contrarian.
I do think there are real risks to letting them start investing in speculative assets. That's not about Bitcoin, but there's a slippery slope in that direction.
reply
49 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 11 Aug
I think that's a fair argument. How would you feel if they just established a reserve based on the Bitcoin they already have?
reply
71 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
I would rather they sold it. I want people to have Bitcoin and the State to become insolvent.
From a public finance standpoint, it probably does make sense for them to add Bitcoin to the other monetary assets that they hold as reserves.
reply
51 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 11 Aug
I would rather they sold it too. As bell_curve mentioned and I responded in agreement they will probably end up selling it in a bear market (or maybe in a bull) anyways, but doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good experiment.
reply
46 sats \ 5 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Aug
All it takes is one bear market and there will be political pressure to abandon the bitcoin reserve project
reply
61 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 11 Aug
It would definitely be a big political issue between the party that introduced it and the party that didn't. If Bitcoin was up or down substantially from one term to another I think we would see a push to sell if the non bitcoin party was in power.
reply
41 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
A big part of Bob's case is that there are real risks in holding high volatility assets if you have strong liquidity needs, even if they have a very high expected return.
reply
52 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Aug
Governments have high liquidity and low time preferences. In theory they should plan for the long term but they have daily payroll and expenses.
reply
41 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
Politicians have very high time preference, though, since they have to deal with election cycles.
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 11 Aug
I meant high time preference!
You are right.
Politicians and governments think and act short term because of elections and the media
reply
42 sats \ 1 reply \ @Coinsreporter 12 Aug
In now way this is gonna be a good option for Bitcoin, if it's an option at all!
US can't create monopoly in Bitcoin like its Dollar.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 12 Aug
The proposal is for the US Government to hold about 5% of the bitcoin supply, so not really an attempt to monopolize.
reply
35 sats \ 18 replies \ @Satosora 11 Aug
It sounds like a good idea when you think broadly, because it is finite.
But in the long run, it isnt a good idea.
Think of how many ways bitcoin can be bastardized by the government.
reply
20 sats \ 17 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
What do you think they could do? Holding Bitcoin doesn't give you much power over it, beyond short term manipulation of purchasing power.
reply
39 sats \ 16 replies \ @Satosora 11 Aug
Its becoming so political so quickly.
reply
20 sats \ 15 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
I see. You're worried about something like guilt by association.
reply
35 sats \ 14 replies \ @Satosora 11 Aug
I just have the feeling that stuff is happening so hastily.
Bitcoin can survive by itself, even without the politicians being involved.
reply
20 sats \ 13 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
Absolutely, but I also think it will survive even if politicians get involved.
@kepford has made this point a bunch of times: there's no way bitcoin succeeds without attracting the attention of people we don't want involved with it. If bitcoin is what most of us think it is, then they won't be able to hurt it.
reply
39 sats \ 12 replies \ @Satosora 11 Aug
Right, I can understand that.
But it would have been nice if it wasnt a huge political platform.
By people who dont even understand the ecosystem.
reply
20 sats \ 11 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
People talking about bitcoin a lot will happen prior to people talking about it accurately, especially if it becomes highly political.
view replies
42 sats \ 7 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 11 Aug
Such a move both admits the imminent collapse of the USD and virtually compels other central banks to also start stacking sats.
reply
21 sats \ 6 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
Not necessarily. They have historically held various monetary assets, so it's more of an admission that Bitcoin is a valuable monetary asset.
reply
24 sats \ 5 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 11 Aug
The USDs global reserve currency status was built upon the unique ability of the USD to retain its gold backing and the post WW2 dominance of the US economy globally.
Bretton Woods established USD dominance globally premised upon the gold backing of the USD.
Since Nixon decoupled the USD from gold and the USD went full fiat the USDs dominance has largely been maintained by the lack of any credible alternative.
Bitcoin at least theoretically presents a viable alternative to the USD.
As potentially does the Chinese CBDC Yuan.
For the US to start stockpiling Bitcoin would imply the USD is an inferior store of value to Bitcoin and would be a signal for other central banks to start also stockpiling Bitcoin.
This would accelerate the decline of the USD.
reply
21 sats \ 4 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
Maybe, but that logic cuts both ways. If the dollar is "backed" by bitcoin to some extent, then that lessens the need to get away from the dollar.
Take it to the extreme where the US buys enough bitcoin to fully back the dollar with 100% bitcoin reserves. Why would other countries ditch the dollar, in that case?
reply
40 sats \ 3 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 11 Aug
There is no proposal to enable conversion of the USD into Sats. There was once the right to convert USD to gold.
Any proposal short of enabling conversion of dollars to Sats is an admission that Bitcoin is a superior SoV to USD...and thus accelerates devaluation of the USD.
The only thing supporting the USD for decades has been the need of other Central Banks to hold USDs for access to SWIFT and as reserves. If the USD declares it now sees BTC as a superior SoV the USD would very swiftly, collapse.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
My point is that if holding some bitcoin would accelerate the dollar's decline, then holding even more should be worse. However, if we go far enough, it seems clear that it would do the opposite and actually inspire confidence in the dollar.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 11 Aug
If you were to go to the extent of making the dollar redeemable for Bitcoin you are then admitting Bitcoin is a more secure and reliable SoV than the USD...
ie that the dollar needs such backing to maintain trust and faith in it.
Such an admission would undermine the dollar as its current status depends upon it being seen as a strong, reliable and highly liquid SoV.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
Who cares about "admitting" anything? Such a backing would clearly make it a stronger currency, given your other assumptions.
The rest of the world, if they see Bitcoin as a superior store of value, is not going to abandon the dollar because it's got too much Bitcoin backing it.
reply on another page
23 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 12 Aug
Haven't listened to this yet but Bob is a great mind and is one of the most fair even handed people I've every listened to. I'm sure he has some.Interesting things to say.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @ssaurel 12 Aug
The big question for me is: with what money?
If the goal is to buy Bitcoin by stealing from the people a little more by printing fiat money out of thin air, then no.
If the goal is to buy Bitcoin with a budget surplus, which has never happened in America for years and years, then why not...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 12 Aug
Bob has the same view about taxing people to buy bitcoin. Printing money (issuing bonds) to buy bitcoin, would essentially just be Saylor's business model.
It would be a better proposal, if it linked buying bitcoin to running a budget surplus, basically just saying to hold savings in bitcoin.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @riberet19 11 Aug
I also believe that this movement has to do with the imminent collapse of the dollar, I hope I am wrong.
reply
16 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 11 Aug
I doubt it's entirely unrelated.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @bature_ 12 Aug
Drastically reduce the size and powers of the federal government, then acquire a bitcoin reverse.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BitcoinAbhi 12 Aug
They shouldn't otherwise they will use it to manipulate us accordingly.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Msd0457890 11 Aug
I believes that Bitcoin is one of the best economic decisions that the US government should make in order to improve the economy and avoid recession and rising unemployment.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @f0af8b8b11 13 Aug freebie
?
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @5e5d0604a5 12 Aug outlawed
stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.