The (powerful and solid) anti-Bitcoin logic

I finally understood. Whenever I tell someone close to me for the first time about Bitcoin (the internet's native digital currency), their first question is “And who supports Bitcoin?”

The origin of the question is easy to imagine, it is something like: if a currency does not have support from 'a who' then it does not exist, it has to be a scam, it has to be the same as pieces of paper from the game Monopoly, in any case 'little lies'.

And that 'who' of course is the Bank of the Republic, the 'Issuer', which: 1) prints and puts the cash into circulation in the economy, and/or 2) by clicking on an electronic ledger enables the State and the Fractional commercial banks so that they can circulate credit in the economy, which is not cash but which we all accept as if it were.

Thus the State becomes indebted and can spend (invest and/or consume) immediately (even when the amount collected from taxes in the period is scarce) and the fractional commercial banks finance the investments and consumption of individuals and companies.

So far so good, in theory: when as a result of the above, the growth in the production of wealth (accumulation of all types of capital + deflationary production, thanks to technology, of consumer goods and services) is in line with the growth of the production of the circulating currency.

Stated more precisely: when the above results in enabling decisions (on the part of the State and fractional commercial banks) of both investment and consumption that create wealth: not arbitrary enabling decisions, not guided by ideologies, not that favor and disfavor to such another; that is, neutral enabling decisions, that is, neutral in everything, except in the economic calculation.

And of course, who if not the citizens democratically elected to the Senate, the House of Representatives, the other bodies, to do the task well? Who if not the professionals - with more merits - of law, economics and finance, elected or not, officials of the bureaucracy and of the fractional commercial banks? Who if not the so-called 'cacaos' of politics and fractional commercial banking?

Task? What homework? That of supporting the country's currency (fiat) of course. Which means that it does not lose its value due to mismanagement or mismanagement in enabling investment and consumption decisions.

Who but the State and the fractional commercial banks to reach the most patriotic agreements for the nation? Who but the State and the fractional commercial banks to debate and investigate and seek above all things the common good of this generation and the following ones? Who but the State and the fractional commercial banks to promote freedom of commerce, expression, association, and private property from their 'economic planning'?

Crystal clear: whoever says that civilization needs Bitcoin (cash digital currency native to the Internet) has not understood anything (but nothing) about the benefits, the truth and even the beauty of the State and fractional commercial banking; I finally understood.