A note on the dangers of socio-technical determinism in analysis of monetary policy. 

This was a very interesting WBD episode that I believe almost everyone can learn something from.

Peter McCormack talks to Nicholas Bowick about the fiat and bitcoin systems from a technical design and engineering perspective. 

Nicholas also lines out some of the key principles of modern engineering, which I found illuminating. 

The reason I write this, however, is because he said something related to "the designers" of the fiat system, which probably resonates with many people, but which IMO isn't on point, and which can have unintended and not-so-positve consequences. 

This note shouldn't be read as a critique of Nicholas. 

Instead, I cite a passage of what he said because I think it articulates well what many people think, plus it makes it a useful launchpad for my comment. 

Here it is: 

“People get conspiratorial about this, they observe ‘I’m getting fucked by the system everywhere I turn’...I think the far scarier reality is there’s just no one in charge at that level, we’ve absolutely not designed this thing at it’s highest level of operation.” 

As I got the impression that Peter didn't disagree with this viewpoint, I feel it's important for me to argue that the statement isn't a fair representation of what has actually happened. 

The assumption that the fiat system and the economy "emerged" with these flaws, leading to a design that operates somewhat suboptimally, and since "there is no one in charge" then people "get conspitorial," isn't a viewpoint that I share. 

If you study the history of monetary policy, you see that monetary monopolies controlled by rulers from the outset were designed by them to centralize wealth and power, without any consideration of economic efficiency or social fairness 

In Fraudcoin - 1000 Years with Inflation as a Policy, I describe the important transition from monetary freedom to monetary monopoly in Norway. 

It analyzes why the king acted like he did, what he did and how he did it. 

In other words, it presents "the original conspiracy." 

Fraudcoin also demonstrates how the concept of central banking based on paper and debt money developed in Sweden, and how this caused a knock-on effect as other nations swiftly copied this terifying innovation. 

The mint used in coin monopolies and the central bank had the same function - to centralize and control the only production of money that was legal tender, for the benefit of the ruler and a political class consisting of powerful and wealthy people, and at colossal costs to the rest of civilization. 

Everything that has happened after the kings established their coin monopolies are IMO just minor details, a technical evolution of something that always was and will be purely political. 

It's the original abolishing of monetary freedom and the establishing of the monetary monopoly that is the only conspiracy that interests me. 

All the other conspiracies are in comparison mere details. 

The way this policy evolved, had the intended consequences, as the technical innovations in monopolization of money served the rulers' interests, by enabling them to continue to amass more wealth and power. 

For instance, the adoption of issuance of paper money controlled by a central bank, made it easier and cheaper to achieve their objectives. 

This wasn't a design flaw.
It was designed this way so that it could function at its "highest level of operation" from the viewpoint of the ruling class, to use Nichola's words while formulating the exact opposite conclusion.
Today the 1%-ers own half of the global wealth. 

This is a result of the original conspiracy, when the king set up his mint, and the "elite's" subsequent investments in protecting their privilege by introducing innovation. 

As we show in our most recent book, UNBAR, these developments were probably related to an evolution in people’s belief systems where they lost faith in their ability and obligation to stand up for themselves to fight the rulers. 

It’s necessary for me to refer to another important political development.
The people in the Netherlands and in the colonies in North America rose up and reclaimed their monetary freedom. 

After I had written Fraudcoin and UNBAR, I became aware that the same had happened in Argentina in 1816. 

And what was the cost of this victory for the people of Argentina? 

1200 men died.

"Only 1200," as I think it is fair to say that the number is extremwly low, when we consider the social and individual value of reclaiming the right to use the money people like best. 

Next, I learned that the Irish probably protected their monetary freedom until as late as the 17th century, which to me was downright mindblowing. 

How many of the Irish people know about that today? 

Very, very few, I assume, and I just stumbled over an article about it (I'll see if I can put the link in a comment here.) 

These historical lessons demonstrate that it is possible to protect and to fight and win back monetary freedom. 

However, they also teach us important what and who to fight, which is necessary to understand if we want to win. 

The monetary monopoly was from day one designed to have the redistributive effects that it still has. 

And it's being maintained by today’s political class for the exact same reason. 

To say that people are "conspi" if they point to the root cause, may make many say to themselves: 

"It's the system, it just happened, it was an evolution, it just "emerged." 

"And because it doesn’t have a root cause, as it hasn't been designed or maintained with deliberate actions, I cannot fight it and I cannot change it." 

Which might lead some people to say: 

"The only thing I can do is to stack sats." 

In this way it also makes them believe they don't have a moral obligation to fight it, "because it's impossible." 

This line of thinking removes people's feeling of a responsibility to fight to reclaim their freedom, and this is what I consider to be the worst disease in today's society. 

We need to move away from this type of thinking based on what I call socio-technical determinism, simply because it reduces our potential as human beings. 

People must become aware of the need to fight for freedom, including fighting for the right to use the money we like best. 

Just like we have done on several occasions throughout history. 

It's a moral obligation. 

We owe it to our ancestors who themselves fought to be free. 

And most of all, we owe it to the next generations. 

(Disclaimer: When I use the word "fight" I don't necessarily argue that we should use violence. Peaceful resistance might be a lot more efficient.)

https://open.spotify.com/episode/48PyH8Ow2ocLO3apDN08iB?si=r22AiVMNSCCEoZBxcwqFyA