Jason's or the LP's stance on money creation

[Swammerdami]

Just a simple transaction like paying $1500 rent is difficult because we don't have a $1000 dollar bill which means a big wad of hundreds has to be carried.

Fifteen banknotes is NOT bulky or difficult to carry. I usually have about this many banknotes (mostly small denomination!) in my billfold. A far bigger concern with a sum that large, if the paper money is "bearer" paper, is THEFT.

This problem -- if it even is a problem -- has nothing to do with FedRes money, mostly accessed via debit cards, as presumably its replacement would also be. Blaming the "problem" on Fed's inflation is just silly: IIUC one reason the U.S. prints no banknotes larger than $100 is to make cash payments more difficult for drug-dealers who often transact MUCH more than $1500.

It is even more easy to do so today.

Check your privilege. What you describe is great for those of us rich enough that banks can make a profit by selling us financial services, and for those of us in countries like Australia that still have postal banking; but the decline of the cash economy has been a big problem for the poor in the U.S.. Our postal banking system was shut down back in the 1960s when having to use cash all the time instead was still relatively feasible. Nowadays it's typically hard to get your boss to pay you in cash, so the poor often have to use check cashing services, which is one of the reasons "It's expensive to be poor." People keep introducing bills in Congress to turn postal banking back on, but unfortunately they never seem to go anywhere.

This may be valid and useful, but has little or nothing to do with money definition or creation. Anyway I think government should ensure access to simple banking for all. Instead of a cheap cell-phone, even just an account and piece of plastic might be enough.

Bomb#20's remark reminds me of problems with recent stimulus programs in Thailand.

To stimulate small businesses and funnel money to the desperately poor, the Thai government introduced a short-term program about 3 years ago. People with low income were eligible for apps on their phone which would match payments to small local businesses. But the very poor lacked the phone; and even if you gave them a phone they wouldn't know how to use it. The "small local business" was also stupidly thought out (though I don't remember details). A different Covid-related program had similar problems.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

At first there may actually be 179 different flavors [of money], but ultimately a few will win out over the others. It wasn't because daddy said so that the kids wound up choosing mini-snickers as their medium of exchange during candy trading. Nor was it because they all sat down and said "okay, which of these will we use to decide how to trade candy?" It just evolved during the trading as it was noticed that there were enough of them to facilitate trading and most kids liked this particular candy.

Even if this approach would work out eventually, would not this promote a chaotic period? If I'm in California planning a trip to Oregon I'll need to know whether they're currently using dollars, bollars, follars, collars, or wollars.

ETA: Anyway, wouldn't the mandate of the tax man -- which currency HE wants to be paid in -- have a special priority? Or are we to take for granted that taxes are all abolished in any post-FRB utopia?

I don't think it will be as chaotic as you seem to imagine. The currencies you mention are particularly important to know if you are intending to do business with the government of the area you are planning to visit. That is something I had to keep in mind while I was in the military and having fun traveling all over the pre-Euro Europe. Each country had its own currency, and it wasn't difficult at all as the individual people in the individual countries had little problem accepting Lira, Franks, Marks, Pounds, Dollars, whatever I had with me when trying to buy something small such a from a food vendor.

I also anticipated the need for local currency at times and made an effort to acquire some. It wasn't difficult.

The only problem I see is if in your scenario the state of Oregon passed a sort of "reverse legal tender" law and forbade the acceptance of California currency.

 

[Swammerdami]

I'm trying to visualize the scenario. Libertarians come to power in 2028, in a double-backlash. They expect to be thrown out of office in 2030 and 2032, so they must act quickly. I'd like to hear plausible scenarios.

I suppose the existing U.S. coins and banknotes will be one sort of popular money -- call that LegacyDollars. Before being dissolved will the FRB issue banknotes to reimburse member banks for the Trillions they have on deposit? The FRB owns several trillions of government bonds and MBS's: will these be sold, or just transmitted to Treasury? If these LegacyDollars become the default money, would that be good? Similar to the present system but with no central bank; would there be bank regulaters? Of course with LP controlling Congress the LegacyDollar might lose its legal-tender status. Would Congress dictate another legal tender, or just defer to money-changers somehow?

Perhaps the LP would choose among Euro, Swiss Franc, or some other established money deemed less corrupt than FRB's dollar.

I suppose, with proper incentives, CryptoCoins will spring up hoping to compete with LegacyDollar or Euro; is that good? Faced with a choice of MuskCoin, TrumpCoin, and JohnDoe_Coin, I'll guess JohnDoe_Coin will be least popular and Musk and Trump will become richer than ever.

Am I way off? Help us here please; give us an idea of what sort of "new money" might evolve, and how. Without specific plausible scenarios, the whole matter is VERY unclear to me.

 

[RVonse]

I'm trying to visualize the scenario. Libertarians come to power in 2028, in a double-backlash. They expect to be thrown out of office in 2030 and 2032, so they must act quickly. I'd like to hear plausible scenarios.

I suppose the existing U.S. coins and banknotes will be one sort of popular money -- call that LegacyDollars. Before being dissolved will the FRB issue banknotes to reimburse member banks for the Trillions they have on deposit? The FRB owns several trillions of government bonds and MBS's: will these be sold, or just transmitted to Treasury? If these LegacyDollars become the default money, would that be good? Similar to the present system but with no central bank; would there be bank regulaters? Of course with LP controlling Congress the LegacyDollar might lose its legal-tender status. Would Congress dictate another legal tender, or just defer to money-changers somehow?

Perhaps the LP would choose among Euro, Swiss Franc, or some other established money deemed less corrupt than FRB's dollar.

I suppose, with proper incentives, CryptoCoins will spring up hoping to compete with LegacyDollar or Euro; is that good? Faced with a choice of MuskCoin, TrumpCoin, and JohnDoe_Coin, I'll guess JohnDoe_Coin will be least popular and Musk and Trump will become richer than ever.

Am I way off? Help us here please; give us an idea of what sort of "new money" might evolve, and how. Without specific plausible scenarios, the whole matter is VERY unclear to me.

Almost everyone agrees that there is no way the federal US government can or ever repay its debt at this point. And almost everyone also agrees that there are only 2 ways that excessive debt can be resolved, either by default of the debt or the inflation or hyper inflation route. The only real question is how much longer the "can" can be kicked down the road. Just how many more monetary tricks will the fed come up before credit markets freeze or something else extremely bad happens with this system so our ATM's, credit markets, and banks stop working.

Most libertarians like Ron Paul would prefer an honest default as opposed to hyper inflation. Because an honest default punishes the speculators and other people who over borrowed and preserves the savings of people who have been responsible. Zombie companies who should be out of business will be out of business and the strong companies will take their place. That is how true free market capitalism is supposed to work and why it has been so successful. Over extended speculators will instantly become poor but the responsible people like Warren Buffet would still have their swim suits on when the tide withdraws.

More than likely, everyone except Ron Paul including you and all the current politicians of both party's will choose the inflation route and inflate this debt problem away. They will keep the fed in place and manipulate monetary policy until our dollar is completely worthless. This will be their easy way out since inflating the problem away will punish everyone equally but at a higher overall cost to society. When the hyper inflation occurs pricing in a free market becomes almost impossible so meaningful production halts. I do not know what number comes after a $trillion dollars but we will soon find out. Just the fact the fed has normalized inflation (at any percentage rate) tells us all we need to know. This is what happened to Germany after they inflated their currency and it resulted in World War 2.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm trying to visualize the scenario. Libertarians come to power in 2028, in a double-backlash. They expect to be thrown out of office in 2030 and 2032, so they must act quickly. I'd like to hear plausible scenarios.

I suppose the existing U.S. coins and banknotes will be one sort of popular money -- call that LegacyDollars. Before being dissolved will the FRB issue banknotes to reimburse member banks for the Trillions they have on deposit? The FRB owns several trillions of government bonds and MBS's: will these be sold, or just transmitted to Treasury? If these LegacyDollars become the default money, would that be good? Similar to the present system but with no central bank; would there be bank regulaters? Of course with LP controlling Congress the LegacyDollar might lose its legal-tender status. Would Congress dictate another legal tender, or just defer to money-changers somehow?

Perhaps the LP would choose among Euro, Swiss Franc, or some other established money deemed less corrupt than FRB's dollar.

I suppose, with proper incentives, CryptoCoins will spring up hoping to compete with LegacyDollar or Euro; is that good? Faced with a choice of MuskCoin, TrumpCoin, and JohnDoe_Coin, I'll guess JohnDoe_Coin will be least popular and Musk and Trump will become richer than ever.

Am I way off? Help us here please; give us an idea of what sort of "new money" might evolve, and how. Without specific plausible scenarios, the whole matter is VERY unclear to me.

Almost everyone agrees that there is no way the federal US government can or ever repay its debt at this point......

That claim is untrue The federal US government has the ability to redeem its debt over time. There is no doubt about that. No rational observer doubts that capability. There is doubt that the US people are willing to endure the tax burden and spending cuts necessary to repay the debt in a short period of time. And then there is the fundamental point that there is no consensus that the debt should be completely eliminated.

Your comparison to Germany after WWII is unconvincing. We are not rebuilding a country that is saddled with huge external repayment obligations to hostile debt owners.

Where are you getting this crazy ideas?

 

[RVonse]

That claim is untrue The federal US government has the ability to redeem its debt over time. There is no doubt about that. No rational observer doubts that capability. There is doubt that the US people are willing to endure the tax burden and spending cuts necessary to repay the debt in a short period of time. And then there is the fundamental point that there is no consensus that the debt should be completely eliminated.

The interest payment alone on the debt has become nearly equal to the department of defense budget. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio surpassed 100% in 2013 and currently stands at 123%, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

What country in the history of the world has ever recovered from more than 100% debt to GDP? It has never happened before and the fed is not going to make it happen today.

 

[RVonse]

s.

Where are you getting this crazy ideas?

Successful business people like Peter Schiff, Jeffery Gundlach, and Ray Dalio. Also Denielle DiMartino Booth of Quill Intelligence is worth researching since she was actually was a high ranking fed employee for a period of time. Knows the fed inside and out.

 

[Swammerdami]

I'm trying to visualize the scenario. Libertarians come to power in 2028, in a double-backlash. They expect to be thrown out of office in 2030 and 2032, so they must act quickly. I'd like to hear plausible scenarios.

I suppose the existing U.S. coins and banknotes will be one sort of popular money -- call that LegacyDollars. Before being dissolved will the FRB issue banknotes to reimburse member banks for the Trillions they have on deposit? The FRB owns several trillions of government bonds and MBS's: will these be sold, or just transmitted to Treasury? If these LegacyDollars become the default money, would that be good? Similar to the present system but with no central bank; would there be bank regulaters? Of course with LP controlling Congress the LegacyDollar might lose its legal-tender status. Would Congress dictate another legal tender, or just defer to money-changers somehow?

Perhaps the LP would choose among Euro, Swiss Franc, or some other established money deemed less corrupt than FRB's dollar.

I suppose, with proper incentives, CryptoCoins will spring up hoping to compete with LegacyDollar or Euro; is that good? Faced with a choice of MuskCoin, TrumpCoin, and JohnDoe_Coin, I'll guess JohnDoe_Coin will be least popular and Musk and Trump will become richer than ever.

Am I way off? Help us here please; give us an idea of what sort of "new money" might evolve, and how. Without specific plausible scenarios, the whole matter is VERY unclear to me.

Almost everyone agrees that there is no way the federal US government can or ever repay its debt at this point. And almost everyone also agrees that there are only 2 ways that excessive debt can be resolved, either by default of the debt or the inflation or hyper inflation route. The only real question is how much longer the "can" can be kicked down the road. Just how many more monetary tricks will the fed come up before credit markets freeze or something else extremely bad happens with this system so our ATM's, credit markets, and banks stop working.

Most libertarians like Ron Paul would prefer an honest default as opposed to hyper inflation. Because an honest default punishes the speculators and other people who over borrowed and preserves the savings of people who have been responsible. Zombie companies who should be out of business will be out of business and the strong companies will take their place. That is how true free market capitalism is supposed to work and why it has been so successful. Over extended speculators will instantly become poor but the responsible people like Warren Buffet would still have their swim suits on when the tide withdraws.

More than likely, everyone except Ron Paul including you and all the current politicians of both party's will choose the inflation route and inflate this debt problem away. They will keep the fed in place and manipulate monetary policy until our dollar is completely worthless. This will be their easy way out since inflating the problem away will punish everyone equally but at a higher overall cost to society. When the hyper inflation occurs pricing in a free market becomes almost impossible so meaningful production halts. I do not know what number comes after a $trillion dollars but we will soon find out. Just the fact the fed has normalized inflation (at any percentage rate) tells us all we need to know. This is what happened to Germany after they inflated their currency and it resulted in World War 2.

Your comments, whether right or wrong, have NOTHING -- absolutely nothing -- to do with the questions I posed to you and which you quoted.

 

[Swammerdami]

What country in the history of the world has ever recovered from more than 100% debt to GDP? It has never happened before and the fed is not going to make it happen today.

[Swammi raises his hand] "I know, I know, teacher!

The -- guess who? -- United States of America which in 1946 had a Gross Federal Debt to Gross Domestic Product ratio of 119% but which debt had fallen to 31% three decades later.

What do I win?"

 

[Swammerdami]

Almost

I've crossed off portions of RVonse's post which are OFF-topic. We already know that he hates American money. The QUESTION is, what does he expect it be replaced with, and how will that transition happen?

everyone agrees that there is no way the federal US government can or ever repay its debt at this point. And almost everyone also agrees that there are only 2 ways that excessive debt can be resolved, either by default of the debt or the inflation or hyper inflation route. The only real question is how much longer the "can" can be kicked down the road. Just how many more monetary tricks will the fed come up before credit markets freeze or something else extremely bad happens with this system so our ATM's, credit markets, and banks stop working.

Most libertarians like Ron Paul would prefer an honest default as opposed to hyper inflation. Because an honest default punishes the speculators and other people who over borrowed and preserves the savings of people who have been responsible. Zombie companies who should be out of business will be out of business and the strong companies will take their place. That is how true free market capitalism is supposed to work and why it has been so successful. Over extended speculators will instantly become poor but the responsible people like Warren Buffet would still have their swim suits on when the tide withdraws.

More than likely, everyone except Ron Paul including

you and all the current politicians of both party's will choose the inflation route and inflate this debt problem away.

Out of curiosity, WHY are you putting words in MY mouth?

They will keep the fed in place and manipulate monetary policy until our dollar is completely worthless. This will be their easy way out since inflating the problem away will punish everyone equally but at a higher overall cost to society. When the hyper inflation occurs pricing in a free market becomes almost impossible so meaningful production halts. I do not know what number comes after a $trillion dollars but we will soon find out. Just the fact the fed has normalized inflation (at any percentage rate) tells us all we need to know.

This is what happened to Germany after they inflated their currency and it resulted in World War 2.

Nitpick: The hyper-inflation for which Weimar Germany is famous was ALL OVER by 1924, years before the Nazis came to power. Economic problems of Germany in the early 1930's were instead primarily due to -- need a hint? -- the World-wide Great Depression.

 

[bilby]

This is what happened to Germany after they inflated their currency and it resulted in World War 2.

I don't even know where to begin with this. Clearly your understanding of early twentieth century history is as woeful as your grasp on twenty first century monetary policy.

This commentary is roughly on a par with "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor??" for confused conflation of a bunch of half-remembered historical highlights.

 

[Swammerdami]

Panics in pre-Fed America in the late 1800's. Why the Federal banking
system was created in 1913.

.....
At the time, like today, New York City was the center of the financial system. Between 1863 and 1913, eight banking panics occurred in the money center of Manhattan. The panics in 1884, 1890, 1899, 1901, and 1908 were confined to New York and nearby cities and states. The panics in 1873, 1893, and 1907 spread throughout the nation. Regional panics also struck the midwestern states of Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in 1896; the mid-Atlantic states of Pennsylvania and Maryland in 1903; and Chicago in 1905.

Two reasons for the panics:
(1) Private banks were not stringently regulated. Even when solvent, lack of liquidity can lead to lack of confidence. Providing liquidity when needed to prevent panics is a major function of central banks. (Before the FRB was established J.P. Morgan -- a private banker -- often helped solve panics personally. More recently Buffett and Jamie Dimond have played a similar role a few times, often prodded by "sweetheart" offers from the U.S. gov't.) Securities markets were also badly regulated, with shenanigans provoking further losses to confidence and liquidity.
(2) The need for money -- as measured by economies' production or income -- was increasing much faster than the supply of gold. This INCREASED the need for bank-created money, while DECREASING confidence in future redemptions.

(Is it coincidence that these panics became more prevalent as silver's (intrinsic!) worth declined relative to its monetary value (and silver coins thereby became just fiat money)? Are the attacks on me going to flame up yet again as I am branded a "bimetallist bug"? )

I'm not saying bank panics were good.

I believe the words you said was that "the country did just fine" prior to Wilson. You didn't say the economy was susceptible to runs on gold and bank panics.

But the panics were still better than the wealth disparity problem we see today.

JFCoaS! Wealth disparity and the late 19th century? Are you kidding me?! Musk is worth a small fraction of what Carnegie was worth.

In 1901 Carnegie sold his holdings in Carnegie Steel for about $226 Million, almost exactly 1.0% of the then-GDP ($22 B) of the U.S.A.
In 2023 the richest Americans each have about $200 Billion, about 0.7% of the GDP ($27 T). 0.7 is a "fraction" but not really a "small fraction."

I'm sure there are a variety of other ways to view those numbers.

How do people acquire such HUGE wealth? Carnegie managed major innovations which lowered the cost of steel: his methods served a public purpose. He was also a VERY active philanthropist. It would take many paragraphs to summarize his philanthropies; I'll mention just one anecdote.

Carnegie strongly opposed the idea of American colonies. He opposed the annexation of the Philippines almost to the point of supporting William Jennings Bryan against McKinley in 1900. In 1898, Carnegie tried to arrange independence for the Philippines. As the conclusion of the Spanish–American War neared, the United States purchased the Philippines from Spain for $20 million. To counter what he perceived as American imperialism, Carnegie personally offered $20 million to the Philippines so that the Filipino people could purchase their independence from the United States. However, nothing came of the offer.

Henry Ford is another example of a billionaire from the previous century who (despite severe faults) earned his wealth by increasing productivity.

Let's start a new thread to compare the contributions of the present-day hyper-rich -- Bezos, Zuckerberg, Walton, Gates, Musk, Buffett -- to those of "Gilded Age" super-rich like Carnegie.

Wealth disparity is a HUGE issue approaching disparity we saw during the late 20's. Such wealth disparity represents a serious societal problem fully capable of bringing down our country into civil war.

The alt-right wants to fight a war over CRT, LGBT, and pizzeria basements. Not because their parents are scraping by on Social Security.

Furthermore, during all those panics the US was doing very well.

Especially during the depressions in the 1820s, 1850s, 1870s, 1890s.

 

[laughing dog]

That claim is untrue The federal US government has the ability to redeem its debt over time. There is no doubt about that. No rational observer doubts that capability. There is doubt that the US people are willing to endure the tax burden and spending cuts necessary to repay the debt in a short period of time. And then there is the fundamental point that there is no consensus that the debt should be completely eliminated.

The interest payment alone on the debt has become nearly equal to the department of defense budget. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio surpassed 100% in 2013 and currently stands at 123%, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Totally irrelevant to the issue of whether US gov't can redeem its debt over time.

What country in the history of the world has ever recovered from more than 100% debt to GDP? It has never happened before and the fed is not going to make it happen today.

Um, the US did after WWII. Japan has been living with 200% for a number of years, and their rate of inflation is historically high for them at 2.6%! In fact, they have declared the end of deflation.

 

[laughing dog]

s.

Where are you getting this crazy ideas?

Successful business people like Peter Schiff, Jeffery Gundlach, and Ray Dalio. Also Denielle DiMartino Booth of Quill Intelligence is worth researching since she was actually was a high ranking fed employee for a period of time. Knows the fed inside and out.

Ah, successful business people. What makes you think that anyone who is apparently as misinformed as they are (if you are accurately representing their views) should be listened to?

As for Ms. Booth, she was an advisor to the head of the Dallas branch of the FRS. That is not a high ranking employee. But, she is entitled to her views which are not novel nor news to anyone who knows US monetary history. There has been and will always be a debate over the efficacy and political desirability of a central bank.

 

[RVonse]

s.

Where are you getting this crazy ideas?

Successful business people like Peter Schiff, Jeffery Gundlach, and Ray Dalio. Also Denielle DiMartino Booth of Quill Intelligence is worth researching since she was actually was a high ranking fed employee for a period of time. Knows the fed inside and out.

Ah, successful business people. What makes you think that anyone who is apparently as misinformed as they are (if you are accurately representing their views) should be listened to?

As for Ms. Booth, she was an advisor to the head of the Dallas branch of the FRS. That is not a high ranking employee. But, she is entitled to her views which are not novel nor news to anyone who knows US monetary history. There has been and will always be a debate over the efficacy and political desirability of a central bank.

Does it not make more sense to listen to the people who have successfully made vast sums of wealth. The same people who were (and are)basing their decisions on the macro-economic fed led decisions? As opposed to listening to highly educated professor's with no actual business track record.....the same people who could be basing their opinions on who is donating to their collage?

I think it does make a difference who you should be trusting based on individual motivation where and how they make a living.

 

[Swammerdami]

Almost everyone agrees that there is no way the federal US government can or ever repay its debt at this point....

First, let's replace this sentence with

Many observers agree that present-day high debts pose significant difficulties and risks.​

Once we make that change, I might agree with those observers.

BUT, unlike Rvonse I do not see "Abolish the Fed and see what happens" as a good remedy!

Show me I'm wrong! Present a plausible way forward. So far, all I hear from the "Libertarians" is a variant of

"We trust the innate problem-solving power of the American people.​

Let Sean Hannity, Elon Musk et al advertise their new moneys on TV.​

Smart Americans will make a good choice."​

 

[laughing dog]

s.

Where are you getting this crazy ideas?

Successful business people like Peter Schiff, Jeffery Gundlach, and Ray Dalio. Also Denielle DiMartino Booth of Quill Intelligence is worth researching since she was actually was a high ranking fed employee for a period of time. Knows the fed inside and out.

Ah, successful business people. What makes you think that anyone who is apparently as misinformed as they are (if you are accurately representing their views) should be listened to?

As for Ms. Booth, she was an advisor to the head of the Dallas branch of the FRS. That is not a high ranking employee. But, she is entitled to her views which are not novel nor news to anyone who knows US monetary history. There has been and will always be a debate over the efficacy and political desirability of a central bank.

Does it not make more sense to listen to the people who have successfully made vast sums of wealth. The same people who were (and are)basing their decisions on the macro-economic fed led decisions?

It makes sense to listen to those who have mastered the actual facts of the matter. Anyone who spouts falsehoods should not be listened to.

Getting rich is a matter of luck, the ability to spot opportunities to act, and knowledge of a specific industry or product - none of which automatically translates into macroeconomic wisdon,

Like it or not, the specter of hyperinflation is a figment of imagination, not a realistic potential outcome in the near future. Like it or not, the US federal gov't has the capability of repaying the US debt over time. In fact, it could conceivably retire the entire debt now through a combination of judicious selloffs of valuable assets (land, dams, etc....) and a little bit of a temporary tax increase. Of course it would be an economic disaster. The relevant issues are
1) to what extent should the federal debt be retired, and
2) how to go about retiring the debt in the least disruptive fashion.

As opposed to listening to highly educated professor's with no actual business track record.....the same people who could be basing their opinions on who is donating to their collage?

Business records do not translate into governing competence: Trump is a perfect example of that principle.

There are competent and incompetent advisors in every aspect of the world. There are corrupt advisors and pundits, and there are honest ones as well.

I think it does make a difference who you should be trusting based on individual motivation where and how they make a living.

Okay. So you think that those people whom you cited could not be spouting self-serving advice because.......?

 

[JohnG]

Seems odd to me that 401k is tied to the stock market. How does that not skew US politics to the right?

The whole idea of (trying to) make money without providing any value seems like a problem

I've been working for a big corporation for awhile now and it's painfully obvious that we are in the business of making returns on shares. We produce food. The incentives are to produce as much for as little as possible. Managers bonuses are based on cost per product produced.

This isn't without bad ramifications. I believe it's a big reason why we see such a stressed out, broke (or exported) workforce.

 

[Bomb#20]

Seems odd to me that 401k is tied to the stock market.

Do you know a better investment, i.e., one more likely to prevent impoverishment in old age?

How does that not skew US politics to the right?

By "skew politics to the right", do you mean "I wish people were poor enough to convince them they'd be better off even in a socialist police state?

The whole idea of (trying to) make money without providing any value seems like a problem

Every time a country decides investors are parasites and gets rid of them, production falls off precipitously. For some reason, this never seems to cause believers to question their premise that investors are parasites.

In biology, people who think species can come into existence without any cause-and-effect mechanism are called "creationists". In economics, people who think the motivation to produce what other people want can come into existence without any cause-and-effect mechanism are called "socialists". They ought to be called by their right name: "creationists".

I've been working for a big corporation for awhile now and it's painfully obvious that we are in the business of making returns on shares.

"Dog bites man" is not news.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here is one of the most important points of this answer: the lack of a central plan is a feature, not a bug, of not having a central plan. I trust people to work things out on their own, and wonder why few others do.

Which completely misses the point.

Yes, people could come up with alternative currencies. But let's consider the implications:

1) You just made counterfeit detection far harder.

2) You just introduced a huge threat surface of dirty insiders. Look at what's been happening with crypto.

3) You just threw out the primary means the government uses to keep the economy on approximately an even keel. Look at inflation before and after the Fed. The swings were much wider in the past--and those swings cause harm, especially when they swing negative.