Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
8r0ck3feller | 2 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 If done quickly, the immediate local economic implications would be massive. So many towns are built around the funneling of government dollars into communities that otherwise (1) would be much smaller or (2) wouldn’t exist.

Middle America would be unrecognizable from what it looks like today. 

Texas would be relatively among the strongest because of their energy abundance. Florida would suffer from Social Security reform. Lots of the Midwest and Deep South would get absolutely wrecked.

Immediately, home valuations would plummet, supply chains would be disrupted, and society would likely decay rapidly.

Longer-term it’d all work itself out but the detox period would be pretty bad and last a few years.
▲ ▼
TheGuySwann | 2 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 To the contrary society would not decay, it would finally stop funding the things that are the actual *source* of its decay. 

It would feel bad for a short period of time, but the change itself would literally be the defunding of that which is literally *destroying* society today. And the middle class, after a temporary shock, would immediately go into a huge recovery and growth period.

Following the initial capital reallocation, we would experience the most profound period of aggressive growth that we’ve likely ever seen. We would have the technological landscape and acceleration while *actually* aligning it to investments that benefit society. It would legit be a renaissance.
▲ ▼
8r0ck3feller | 2 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 I disagree. The chaos of unemployment and mass migration would absolutely wreck huge parts of the country. Societal unrest like modern Western economies haven’t seen.

I agree with you in theory … and I agree with the long-term forecast that growth would be sustainable and healthy. But I think millions of people probably wouldn’t make it through the transition period. Not trying to be hyperbolic.

And I mean that as a condemnation of the current system and the inefficiencies / bad infrastructure they’ve built. Not blaming the sound money standard we’d return to…at all.

But still, the implosion of the central bank credit system would be an incredibly disruptive shock to civilization. And because it literally might happen in a year or two vs. historical financial collapses that took decades to fully transition, the pain would be exacerbated.

And from another angle, we’ve built bad, poor quality, non-productive capacity for 50+ years … the overhang of non-productivity of those assets would also hinder growth (i.e. tearing down infrastructure that is no longer useful to replace it with something more useful). 

Further, sound money reduces consumption by raising the hurdle rate. That would lead to an extensive period of hodlers hodling until we clear the overhang of bad assets. During that period, I’m not sure you’d see a lot of physical real infrastructure being built…at least in developed nations. Also, bitcoin will only be able to be earned, not bought … and we won’t “need” as many things as we do today … so that’s another overhang.

I’m a libertarian, bitcoin maxi so don’t get me wrong…I think the transition is SUPER painful. And it’s going to be widespread.