Leading Democrats are continuing their criticism of cryptocurrency. A few weeks ago, the tyrant Queen of the big banks and Federal Reserve, Elizabeth Warren, spewed lies about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in a Senate meeting on central bank digital currency (CBDC) and continued to spew lies in interviews for the lying media afterward. Now, Maxine Waters and other House Democrats want part of the action too. This follows from Brad Sherman’s (D-CA) 2019 call for banning Bitcoin.
For a party that supposedly bills itself as progressive and favoring equity, it is ironic that they are targeting the greatest advancement of progressive enhancement and wealth equity in the world. Cryptocurrencies and their blockchain technologies not only represent a technology of freedom (something Democrats don’t really care for though they claim to), it is the technology of progressive and wealth redistribution. Cryptocurrency, more than any regulatory body or government, will facilitate the greatest wealth redistribution in the history of the world. And, by the way, it is the developing world that will gain the most from it. Unbanked people around the world, the middleclass, and the working class can finally have a fair and honest shot at improving their lives without global financial institutions and intermediaries keeping them sealed out of the cathedral of wealth. No more high fees for remittances among foreign workers. No more fiat devaluation and inflation. No more dependency on developed economies and gangster institutions like the IMF and the World Bank.
The problem that Democrats have over the rise of cryptocurrency is that it is not the government that will get rich and gain greater control to facilitate wealth redistribution (not that the government really does that to begin with, it rather keeps the poor poor and the powerful powerful cloaked in a veil of self-righteous virtue while claiming to help the poor to stay in power). Since the Democrats are really the party of government control, instead of government assistance, anything that exists outside of their control that will steal their thunder over wealth redistribution gets them angry. Hence they clamor for regulation, control, even bans! Just because people take their own destiny and progressive enhancement into their own hands, the petty tyrants in the Democratic Party get mad. Wealth redistribution in a decentralized manner is anathema to the Democrats.
Cryptocurrency is a once in a generation, once in a century, opportunity to actually empower the disempowered, disrupt the status-quo, and facilitate greater global interconnectivity. For the party that talks the most about helping the disempowered, confronting the status-quo, and defending international globalism, it is truly rich (pardon the pun) that they are now the most antagonistic toward cryptocurrency. Yet this isn’t surprising for those not blinded by the servile media and the deceptive deceit of so-called liberal parties. The problem, as stated, is that individuals—free from government bureaucracy, free from institutional banks, free from centralized policy-making—are advancing their own personal enhancement without the constrictive “help” of a political party or a bureaucratic apparatus. If it’s not the government who facilitates “progress,” well, we cannot have progress! It is good, however, that so many Democrats are revealing themselves to be hacks for the legacy financial and warfare-welfare state which they always have been despite the public belief to the contrary.
________________________________________________________________
Hesiod, Paul Krause in real life, is the editor of VoegelinView and a writer on art, culture, literature, politics, and religion for numerous journals, magazines, and newspapers. He is the author of The Odyssey of Love and the Politics of Plato, and a contributor to the College Lecture Today and the forthcoming book Diseases, Disasters, and Political Theory. He holds master’s degrees in philosophy and theology (biblical & religious studies) from the University of Buckingham and Yale, and a bachelor’s degree in economics, history, and philosophy from Baldwin Wallace University.
________________________________________________________________
Support Wisdom: https://paypal.me/PJKrause?locale.x=en_US
My Book on Plato: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08BQLMVH2
Discourses on Minerva 
Do you think that one day States can stop cryptocurrencies?
LikeLike
The explicit answer is no. I don’t see how you can stop a technology, which is all cryptocurrency is despite its name implying something entirely different. You will see, and are seeing, attempts to suppress crypto. Obviously China is in the news again a lot though that story is more complicated because the CCP sees the benefit of crypto and blockchain tech and simply wants to prevent its people from benefiting — they only want the party and government to be the beneficiary. Your own country has seen some strong action against crypto too with certain banks stopping transactions to various exchanges and the BoE Chairman claiming crypto is intrinsically worthless (entirely untrue). I find it amusing in the US that the strongest antagonists of crypto are from the party supposedly supportive of greater wealth redistribution, equity, and support for the developing world. Here comes a technology and economic ecosystem that will actually benefit the middle class in the West which has been stagnate in wealth for 40 years and dramatically improve the lives of people in Latin America, Africa, and SE Asia, and the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, The Squad, etc. have come out so forcefully against crypto. As I explain, it’s solely because it is a non-governmental way to help and improve peoples’ lives. (Not that I think “the left” really cares about that as much as they simply care about more govt control over peoples lives masked in the veil of helping.)
Alas, confusion will continue to reign supreme on this issue. Obviously anything that threatens the power and control of legacy finance, central banks, and governments will come under increased scrutiny. But the future is unstoppable.
LikeLike
Thank you for this detailed reply. Logically speaking, technology can partially in control of the state but never completely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course! I find cryptocurrency exciting for many reasons; it impacts political-economy, politics itself, has the opportunity to disempower various institutions that I’m admittedly not much of a fan of, etc. Plus it is an opportunity to finally get a leg up for those of us who come from the stagnant middleclass!
More realistically, I think there will be a parity between existing institutions and the new technological order that blockchains and smart contracts bring. And frankly, that probably would be best for all. Though the hyper egalitarians and crypto-anarchists obviously want the idealistic outcome: the total end of the legacy finance system. Well, dreamers can dream! And they’re moderately entertaining when on their rants.
LikeLike
I am not a big fan of institutions either. What is the best cryptocurrency in your opinion? I started recently with Pi.
LikeLike
Well there is much to say about crypto and its relationship to economic outcasts and political economy. I’ll try to keep it brief as someone with an Econ background, but you’ll excuse the fact that this is still quite lengthy since you’re a compatriot and I would like to be thorough enough to you so you can gauge your direction.
Let us first take the most well known: Bitcoin. In my opinion, everyone should own Bitcoin. Doesn’t matter how much (I would personally advocate everyone owning at least 5 cents of a Bitcoin, 0.05 BTC). Why? BTC’s decentralized popular adoption as a transnational currency is all but inevitable. Do we think, in the coming decade(s) more or less countries, businesses, and even local municipalities (especially in countries like the US or Canada where states, cities, and provinces have much independent authority) will be adopting BTC use? The answer is obviously more. As more people own BTC, as more businesses accept BTC use, and as forward looking states and municipalities adopt BTC as an asset and legal tender, this will permit a universally recognized and valid global (digital) currency that can be used with ease anywhere in the world. There will be no need to travel and convert national fiat into another national fiat (like USD to GBP or Euro, etc.), you can just use BTC.
Let us also take the problem of the fiat-welfare economic system that is unstable and the cause of high inflation, fiat devaluation, and the root cause of wealth stagnation contrary to arguments focusing on tax rates and other globalization. The average life of an unbacked fiat currency is just over 30 years. The USD, the world’s current reserve currency, is well beyond that. While backed by the US Govt, military, and global economic order, its purchasing power continues to devalue, its increasingly becoming unstable because of America’s reckless spending policies, and the plethora of new alternatives will further diminish its monopoly as a global reserve currency. This is true, not merely of the USD, but of all major fiat currencies. Japan’s debt-GDP ratio is over 400%. The US, UK, EU, and China are all around 300%. Let us assume that the USD will no longer be the world’s global reserve currency in the future (I’m not saying it will like the BTC maximalists). What will replace it? Certainly not another fiat currency with high debt and devaluation. All the major well-known alternatives are just as bad or worse off than the USD. Personally, I don’t think the USD will lose its standard as the global reserve fiat currency. It will, however, in time, become increasingly weakened and as decentralized alternatives through mass adoption (like BTC) gain steam, the USD will invariably have to share that space simply because of mass decentralized supply-demand adoption. Again, this is to BTC’s benefit.
Now other cryptocurrencies are not angling to be a currency asset like BTC. While they may hold monetary value, their real intention is as the energy for technological ecosystems for smart contracts, NFTs, global digital economic systems (like XRP or XLM, etc.) and super computing databases and storage systems. Like tech stocks, one should view all other cryptocurrencies beside BTC as more volatile tech stock options with great upside movement once mass, or significant, adoption and use is implemented. Obviously there are number of crypto ecosystems with a lot of promise, contracts, and development. The most well-known is Ethereum (which I own). Another that is starting to come into peoples’ radar who may not be well-versed in the cryptospace is Cardano (ADA; which I also own – quite a bit TBH).
When dealing with these “alt-coins” in the cryptospace, I think it is important to ask yourself: 1) what can you afford to invest; 2) what are you comfortable investing at; 3) what are your goals. The last is most important. For me, a number of practical tech cryptos are long-term holds for the next 5-10 years. Personally, I like ETH and I like ADA. I also like Solana for the short term pending ETH’s development, among other cryptos I hold or trade in.
Then there are coins to trade, to invest in now and flip for financial gains at various price levels. I won’t go into that as that is more people who have a more punctual interest in crypto.
In short, I tell everyone who is interested in the crypto space to invest in three coins: Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Cardano. I think a great entry into a portfolio build is 20-25% BTC, 75-80% ETH and ADA (how you wish to split that is up to you). What one decides after this entry point is up to them. That’s under the assumption that you’re not interested in “day trading” crypto and will just put in a small to modest sum and let it ride.
The blockchain, smart contract, and super computing data ability that various crypto projects are engaged in is undeniably the future. Everything from media, music, education, property, and business will be touched by these technologies. Hence, unlike BTC, the other cryptos should be seen as technological investments rather than a currency asset. Even if they (like ETH) also gain currency acceptance, their primary purpose is practical and pragmatic.
This will, of course, drive wealth redistribution. As regards Pi, I personally don’t care for low cap fractional penny cryptos. Sure, everyone is out looking for the next Dogecoin to “get rich quick.” Good for anyone who manages to get lucky on that. I prefer to keep my money in pragmatic projects with a record of developmental success and potential. While it is true that some fractional penny cryptos seem to have practicality, there are often already established competitors in the same field with institutional clout and support. Speculative coins are all that: just speculation. While one can be a cynic and say all cryptos are speculation, the reality remains some crypto projects have a track record of development success, contractual agreements, and significant contemporary use and value which are all good things to see. However, as with penny cryptos, if you’re willing to gamble a few hundred dollars on it, I won’t dissuade you from that as it’s your money to use as you see fit.
I don’t think the “get rich quick” mentality is healthy for crypto. Nor do I think it’s healthy for people to invest their life savings into some meme coin hoping it goes to the moon and makes them a millionaire overnight. Those stories are so few and far between, but the media, sensationalist as always, runs those stories (like all the Dogecoin millionaires). As said, good for them—especially if they are wise enough to cash out instead of just holding in perpetuity. Anyone who gets lucky should be prudent and not chase after avarice.
In sum, though, I think everyone should have some stake in cryptocurrency. I especially think this is doubly true for everyone who is under 35 as the under 35 generation will likely see the most practical manifestation of crypto projects in their lifetime. I have personal political reasons to invest too: the more successful cryptocurrency, the less power legacy finance will have. (Though I think the crypto anarchists are starry-eyed idealists thinking legacy finance will disappear because of crypto, more like they’ll adapt to survive but, in doing so, have to concede space for decentralized alternatives and also the fact that people—like myself—will prefer to hold savings in stablecoins with higher APY yields than traditional banks.)
LikeLike
Thank you so much for this detailed answer. Now things are clear for me. My interest in cryptocurrency is a mix of political and financial. Political, because without being idealistic myself, is a way to invest and make some side money without the fiscal interference of the legal institutions. Financial, because I would love to be a fulltime blogger and invest in creative and educational domains online.
I am sure I will read your answer again and thank you very much.
LikeLiked by 1 person