pull down to refresh

This may be obvious to bitcoiners, but perhaps not everyone interested in individual freedom gives it the attention it deserves. I watched Larken Rose's video Tariffs for Dummies and while I agreed with everything he said, he didn't bring up the role of the USD in this.
The US trade deficit is only possible because of the hegemony of the cuck buck.
If you treat money as a market good (which praxeologically it is), then there is no trade deficit: the US manufactures green pieces of paper and trades them for clothing, cars, electronics etc. manufactured in other countries. The trade is perfectly balanced.
(And in light of value being subjective, a trade deficit doesn’t even make sense as an objective concept. If I give you a basket of eggs in exchange for a bucket of apples, did I get more from you than you got from me?)
The US is just a massive exporter of dollars, issued as debt, whose “full faith and credit” guarantees can only be met by perpetual debasement. Good for the US as long as there are suckers to take its funny money, but may not be so good when the music stops.
On a sound money standard, if you only exported money you'd eventually run out of it and you'd have to start exporting other stuff to get some of it back.
Fiat is hidden statism and perhaps the most insidious form thereof. One that can fly under the radar of the non-aggression principle, not only because "inflation is only X%", but also because of the complexity of the subject of money as an emergent market phenomenon: the (Sorosian) reflexive instabilities (perception affects fundamentals and vice versa, and small inputs can lead to disproportionate outcomes), temporary reflexive equilibria (e.g. beliefs sustained by global coordination games and reinforced by social trust), game-theoretic path dependencies etc. inherent in the dynamics driving the flows of monetary premia and ultimately what money the market converges on.
In other words: you may be on the receiving end of screwing for a long, long time without realizing it. And then you may feel "They've been stealing from me all along!" while at the same time not being able to put your finger on a single instance of theft and having to admit it was all consensual.
in light of value being subjective, a trade deficit doesn’t even make sense as an objective concept
It only makes conceptual sense in instances of coerced transactions, of which I'm sure there are some.
I've been trying to hammer home these same points. I'm not sure why it's so hard for people to see.
reply
The trade deficit as far as i'm concerned... results from the US consuming more than it produces. it's not a 'trade' deficit so much as a fiscal deficit... because the excess consumption is funded through borrowing.
fix the fiscal deficit... fix the trade deficit can't have one without the other
reply
One of my points was that it produces dollars. So from that perspective it doesn't really consume more than it produces.
However, since those dollars are money, they may be grossly mispriced, and the market may keep them mispriced for a long time.
reply