exp said:
I believe you're thinking inside the recency box bias. I'm not saying a money transition will be easy or clean but in a deglobalizing world there will be a demand for trustless commodity money. Bitcoins properties as a digital bearer instrument with no counter party risk and absolute scarcity make it ideal for global trade when global trust is lacking.
IMO the BTC as global reserve crowd simply lacks an understanding of the world we live in, the history of reserve currencies and a flawed understanding of how deglobalization is likely to unfold. My biggest gripe about my fellow libertarians is that we have a "in a perfect world" perspective but lack an understanding of how things really are. I said I wasn't going to go into a lengthy post on this but here we are. You must understand the facts of the world we live in and how we got here to figure out where it goes in the future.
I don't see a clear understanding that the #1 element of globalization is the physical security of shipping lanes and goods in transit in those shipping lanes. I keep beating this drum and for some reason it gets dismissed out of hand but it is critical. None of this matters without physical security. First the definition of globalization is all nations being able to trade with all other nations without concern for the physical security of those goods in transit anywhere in the world. Prior to Bretton Woods there was no globalization. Instead we had a world of mostly Europe-centric rival colonial systems whose reach was limited to exactly their ability to protect trade vessels on the open waters. In that era Britain, France, Denmark, Spain, Portugal and Japan all had sufficient naval capacity to provide physical security within their colonial system so that goods moved within their systems but trade between systems was unusual and often looked like war. "Reserve currency" during the colonial era was based on the strength of that currency which was based on a lot of factors both social and economic. When it changed it was a reflection of the perception that another colonial system was stronger and thus that currency was seen as a safer investment. At no time during this era was "all trade" conducted in Pounds or Lira or whatever was the reserve at that time because there was no trade between colonial systems.
Another major component of the current world is that currencies are traded against each other but all currencies are traded against the USD and no other nation-backed currency is preferred over the USD. So for all of our hand wringing about the devaluation of the dollar literally every other nation-backed currency is worse. In the colonial era currencies were not traded against each other and capital simply shifted from one currency to another.
Simply put the colonial system that existed prior to WWII does not exist and no lessons learned from that period with regard to "reserve status" matter. This world has never existed and as it unwinds we don't have a clear understanding of what's going to happen. Historically the primary job of governments is to provide physical security both at home and for goods being traded into and out of the country and right now all other nations are incapable of doing the latter. We do that for literally everyone and part of that "service agreement" is that trade is going to be conducted in dollars. We've yet to see it happen but I expect to see a day where we don't protect products in or out of Russia or China or some other BRICS nation as punishment for not playing the game by our rules. Is it really crazy to think that we only protect trade for our trading partners? I mean that's all of history prior to WWII.
With the understanding that nobody but us is capable of providing even their own physical security you have to understand that in a world where the USD is no longer the "global reserve" there is no globalization. We are not going to provide security if it doesn't benefit us and once we're done it's done. That's a simple fact. Physical security is the #1 element of all of this. It's the #1 element of all of life. Everything breaks down immediately without it and at that point the world has significant food and/or energy problems in Africa, China and the Middle East at a minimum and quite obviously a population that is starving in the dark is not going to be interested in a currency reliant on stable energy supplies. It's quite possible deglobalization is very violent and very disorderly and looks more like Mad Max in some places than what we have today. At a minimum BTC as reserve requires a world that's stable and the next 10-20 years will definitely not be stable. Until stability returns on the other side people are going to be more worried about physical security and their ability to eat than they are about their wealth being stolen due to devaluation of their currency.
The world is breaking down in much bigger ways than just currency devaluation, that's the point here.