Society’s Disenfranchisement and the Connection Between the Law, Money, and Corporatism

Published on
January 18th, 2021
58 minutes

Society’s Disenfranchisement and the Connection Between the Law, Money, and Corporatism

Mike Green in Conversation ·
Featuring Rohan Grey and Michael Green

Published on: January 18th, 2021 • Duration: 58 minutes

How you feel about gold, bitcoin, the Fed, or MMT probably has to do with how you answer the question, “What is Money?” In this interview with Mike Green of Logica Capital, Rohan Grey, assistant professor of law at Willamette University, argues that money is a construct of the law and as such is rooted in the social contract. In addition to discussing the importance of understanding this dynamic and its implications for crypto, MMT, and the banking system, Green and Grey explore the role of the law in society more broadly. Together they discuss the never ending dynamic between disruption and regulation, the rise of corporatism and the disenfranchisement felt by citizens who no longer feel able to affect change through the law, and the importance of civil discourse when discussing societies biggest problems. Filmed on January 13, 2021.
Key Learnings: Grey and Green highlight that the “opt out” ideology of hard money enthusiasts is driven by a correct assessment that the system is broken, but that their prescribed solutions will only exacerbate the problem and fail to solve the bigger issue of the disenfranchisement of an overwhelming majority of the populace.



  • JL
    James L.
    7 February 2021 @ 12:01
    you are so brainwashed its hilarious. what a dope
  • JL
    James L.
    7 February 2021 @ 11:39
    white nationalists. LOL cmon man
  • JD
    Jonathan D.
    27 January 2021 @ 12:05
    This dude is representative of the totally out of touch "Progressives" that are stuck so deeply in Twitter echo chambers that they sound like they are from another planet. I won't even make fun of his sub-CNN tier takes on American politics, but I have a question. When he insinuates that the government can just give everybody a job does he realize that 50% of urban HS graduates are functionally illiterate and have the math skills of 2nd grade Korean students? What jobs is he talking about? Digging holes and filling them back in? This guy has supreme faith in big government, which has been an abject disaster for over 80 years. It has destroyed the nuclear family, the American dream, and whatever greatness Europe once had.
    • TA
      Thor A.
      29 January 2021 @ 13:07
      I'm not sure if you saw the interview through - what he was suggesting was not "big government", but a societal framework in which a job is guaranteed so that the average person has an alternative to being exploited by an employer which keeps salaries low, AND against a government which keeps unemployment high in order to reduce the political power of labour. Yes, the US education system is a failed system, but that has as much to do with failed governmental policies as it has to do with the privatisation of parts of it and the financialisation of it through an onerous debt system. Being a RV subscriber you are, probably, in the upper 20% of the population in terms of resources and unlikely to need a job guarantee, but there are many more who would benefit from it. You may distrust the government, though I'd posit it is not the last 80 years which have been a problem, but the last 30, and that due to increasing corruption of the political system by private interests, not a failure of the government. But does this mean that corporations are to be trusted then? You need a more balanced power structure between government, citizens and corporations in society for it to work, and a job guarantee is one way of doing that. There are many understaffed positions within a society where someone can make a difference within care and health, local administration and infrastructure, rather than just filing a hole. The alternative is that you either pay them unemployment benefit (which does nothing for the wider society), let them be exploited by corporations in their desperation for a job or let them starve, leading them to criminality. I'm a capitalist, but I believe that capitalism works best in a fair, egalitarian and meritocratic society. You see Europe as a failure, and it has its flaws for sure, but it looks after the average citizen better than the US does, and there is nothing stopping the more able and lucky individuals to make their own path and to become rich. Of course, the libertarian ideal might be your answer to this, but I think that is an echo-chamber far more insular than the "progressive" echo chamber. The advances this world has had over the last 100 years has been helped (not singularly caused) by development of democracy and government which has enabled citizens to live better in more fair societies, which has brought with it increased stability and has helped markets and corporations to increase our productivity and growth. It's not a call for "big government", but the knowledge that if we want our children to grow up in a better society, it requires a system where government, corporations and individuals are more equal and work together for the benefit of the common good.
  • TP
    Timothy P.
    26 January 2021 @ 17:46
    I had a lot more respect for Mr Green before I read this -- "...the bitcoin rebellion is functionally a re-enactment of Shay's Rebellion with the added aspect of "helping" countries with an expressly stated interest that are against the US. I am simply suggesting that it will not end differently for the same reasons." What a bunch of disingenuous garbage. Mike, I knew you were deeply connected to the financial system, but never to the point where you'd try to take on Bitcoin as "anti-american". This looks like a situation where someone dependent on the existing legacy system will do anything in their power to push back, because it scares them there are viable alternatives. Damn sad, I thought Mr Green was more sensible than this.
    • MG
      Michael G. | Contributor
      29 January 2021 @ 03:22
      Timothy, It’s a shame you interpreted my comments in that manner. I am far from wedded to the legacy system. That does not mean I believe bitcoin is the answer. Mike
  • AK
    Arthur K.
    19 January 2021 @ 23:01
    Dr Grey had a comment about ex-CIA officers that I thought I understood . Looked at transcript and it was no help. ????
    • JC
      John C.
      20 January 2021 @ 10:50
      I think he was referring to the large number of ex-CIA officers running for public office (McMullen and others, see here: making the point that they take a more favorable view of the surveillance state than the average citizen.
    • AK
      Arthur K.
      21 January 2021 @ 14:47
      Thank you for the reply ! Will check out the reference .
    • AK
      Arthur K.
      26 January 2021 @ 19:17
      read the Post article, no smoking gun. hoping to see mention of say Ukraine .. contempt by Trump for their agency.... would be ironic ....
  • SW
    Steve W.
    23 January 2021 @ 17:24
    I love intelligent people talking......sometimes though they get lost in their own bright concepts to the exclusion of the big picture. There has just been a conversation about who gets what, how they get it, and corporatism without any discussion of the State's constant betrayal of the principals as an agent, a disregard for the dynamics of power which shape the economy to the needs of those that wield it. The word 'China' not mentioned once and the belief that if magic money if delivered in the right way to the right people under the right laws it will solve the 'problem'. Then Mike talks about discussions asking people what they want - there is already a discussion and it is happening in the free market by people voting with the allocation of capital. Both of these people are clearly 'progressives' who believe in a 'better world' and that is noble but a country that has abdicated its responsibility to another country to produce things.......its not going to end well no-matter how you dress it's just macro fact.
  • DS
    Dimitri S.
    18 January 2021 @ 20:27
    A woketopian in Oregon advocating the perpetual motion money machine. And an Aussie grabbler to boot.
    • BR
      Bryan R.
      19 January 2021 @ 19:36
      This comment brings nothing of value to the table.
    • DN
      Douglas N.
      23 January 2021 @ 05:42
      Disagreeing with another comment here, whether its just trying to be funny or intellectually dismissive, I find value in this snippet. I guess it depends on your values though. One of the things that is so insufferable about contemporary culture is that you can smear yourself in shit and call it art, but you can't tell someone he is full of shit....that brings out the schoolmarms in force.
  • AK
    Andrew K.
    23 January 2021 @ 00:08
    it's now jan 22nd - do you still believe the biden administration is obama 2.0? not a chance, from my perspective. great discussion. thank you.
  • CD
    Christopher D.
    20 January 2021 @ 05:15
    Slightly off topic but, in "Life 3.0." Max Tegmark discusses AI replacing humans in the application of (human) law. Ideally there would be human law humanly applied, with greater efficiency and accountability. Let's leave the machines (and their owners) outside of this.
    • GA
      Gerald A.
      22 January 2021 @ 20:05
      Terminator also discusses AI replacing humans in the application of human law. Neofeudal oligarchy will find AI more useful in prosecuting people before they commit crime. Pre-crime.
  • GM
    Gordan M.
    22 January 2021 @ 16:28
    Excellent video! Excellent analysis! This is why I am here. Please keep up the great work.
  • PB
    22 January 2021 @ 00:35
    Fantastic to hear these different perspectives. This is a rich interview. Very much appreciated. Yeah, that issue of there being several, politically popular ideas that are not being, and have not been, legislated. Certainly, legislating on issues that are common ground is part of the path forward.
  • CH
    Crag H.
    21 January 2021 @ 18:47
    I think the reason why many thought leaders and big names in finance reject Bitcoin is because their analysis stops at "Bitcoin is trying to become the world reserve currency and a global unit of account". I'd urge people to stop approaching Bitcoin as "money" but rather as a technology. Bitcoin is a new internet protocol which allows value to be cheaply transferred across the globe. It's an enabler just like HTTP was an enabler. If you can see the benefits of Bitcoin from a technical viewpoint, you probably soon realize that Bitcoin is here to stay and that it's a pretty big deal. Perhaps not in terms of money or as an asset. But rather as a network. Watch what's going on in this thread, it shows you some of it's possibilities: Now, how much is a network like this worth in the long run? I have no idea. But I'd sure like to be part of it.
  • ft
    frank t.
    21 January 2021 @ 14:26
    Holy hell this was the most wonderful discussion. I would pay lots of money to watch a daily show with these two brilliant men.
  • OM
    Owen M.
    21 January 2021 @ 02:04
    Hey Mike, what are the books you reference? Thank you, Owen
    • MG
      Michael G. | Contributor
      21 January 2021 @ 05:15
      Amity Shlaes “The Forgotten Man” and Matt Stoller “Goliath”
  • DK
    Dan K.
    21 January 2021 @ 03:10
    A real RealVision win. This made me follow up and listen to Rohan on Hidden Forces I'm more informed about Rohan's arguments and premise now. He's got some interesting points but I'm not super clear on how what he's proposing isn't just a reboot to the same operating system. Thanks RV, nuance is helpful, as is deep dives into topics like DIFI in the recently rereleased Crypto Summer panel. Now if we could just loose those commercials at the end of videos. Frankly, I'm embarrassed for y'all! Oops, I meant embarrassed for all of us, because we are all Realvision, am I right?! ;)
    • DK
      Dan K.
      21 January 2021 @ 03:27
      Ok, maybe not get rid of them, just try not clash with the site's overarching premise.
  • VA
    Victor A.
    21 January 2021 @ 03:16
    great talk. Feel a bit like Rohan glides too lightly through how influential technology can be to the legal-political economy constructs, and that it has a valid role in restructuring society's parameters with equity in a positive way. Referring to Defi/cefi etc. broadly as shadow banking seems more narrow than broad framework, neglecting some of what may be gained. Appreciate it!
  • OM
    Owen M.
    21 January 2021 @ 02:20
    William Faulkner! Come on Rohan! I am a native Mississippian.
  • MG
    Mark G.
    21 January 2021 @ 00:22
    Thank you RV for another great conversation. Rohan’s involvement in the STABLE Act makes him a great guest, and would have nice to hear more about that. Not my world, but it must be a very interesting time to be involved in gauging political risk in portfolios.
  • CC
    Charles C.
    21 January 2021 @ 00:19
    Really insightful and much food for thought. Where else but RV do you find this
  • TM
    Timothy M.
    20 January 2021 @ 20:01
    Great conversation until Rohan had to get political and say police tear-gassing Portland rioters just walking down the street. Really! Tell that to all the people who had their business smashed and burned. Both sides you can't reason with, and whatever you try to do to pacify them won't be good enough.
  • KP
    Kaushal P.
    18 January 2021 @ 15:06
    Very few Bitcoiners think or want it to be the world currency. Most just want to preserve their purchasing power. Same with most gold investors. I wish this was given more weight.
    • MG
      Michael G. | Contributor
      18 January 2021 @ 17:24
      You do not have the option to "opt out" and preserve your wealth. If that option truly existed, society would collapse. Think harder.
    • TP
      Timothy P.
      18 January 2021 @ 18:25
      @Michael G - That assumption is based on fiat on-ramps staying relevant. They increasingly will not be. Institutional involvement isn't the only reason BTC is up 318% this year-to-date. People are realizing that when Bitcoin rallies, its really the devaluing US Dollar (or other currency) that is falling. The next phase is denomination in Bitcoin, which routes around every single regulatory channel based on garbage paper money. I'm open to ideas, and RV had an interview with the principle architect of MMT. He was asked a direct question - "explain how this works". He then launched into a convoluted ramble of academic-speak mixed with economic buzzwords, and in the end, he really didn't have a good definition. It was that precise moment where I realized that MMT is absolute garbage. So for that, I think him.
    • KP
      Kaushal P.
      18 January 2021 @ 18:39
      Not opting out of anything. I still try to vote better, work in the economy, contribute, educate etc. but as an individual I certainly can TRY to preserve my purchasing power with real estate, gold, BTC, equities etc. this is like saying we are all going to die so stop trying to live longer.
    • MG
      Michael G. | Contributor
      18 January 2021 @ 20:18
      Timothy, I am not making any assumption about "fiat on-ramps". And I assure you, I have done an incredible amount of work on the BTC ramp. It is not what you think it is, but that will be revealed at a future date. Kaushal, you are certainly free to speculate on BTC or gold. They may preserve your wealth, they may not. The other investments you describe (real estate, equities, etc) are not "opting out". Glad you're still involved. We need thoughtful people.
    • TP
      Timothy P.
      18 January 2021 @ 21:17
      @Michael G - Its increasingly obvious to me that as the conversion of bad money to good via crypto is going to accelerate. If you've been working on Bitcoin projects -- great, that is where the volume is going. However, I disagree with the assertion that you can't opt out of the fiat system. We're proceeding at a rapid pace where crypto-denominated channels will dominate, so the future isn't legacy banks that have pivoted to crypto, it will be pure crypto services that encourage the groundswell of usage and adoption to continue. Legacy finance is going to transform, and only the ones nimble enough to realize what the future is will have a chance -- and that doesn't mean that those who lazily pivot will last either, you either have the core expertise to work with this ecosystem, or not. Corporate mission statements on crypto don't count, their actions do. I've gained much in this ongoing revolution, and you better believe I'm using those resources to achieve the goals I'm talking about. I appreciate your interviews, but I don't agree with everything, which is refreshing of course, as you have rebuttals based in fact instead of emotional rants I'm usually subjected to.
    • VF
      Vassilios F.
      19 January 2021 @ 00:21
      @Michael G. - Would really love a video/series on your concerns/annoyances/objections to BTC and crypto. Your "bitconned" comments are intriguing and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know if I've heard your side of the story on RV about these subjects.
    • TK
      Tom K.
      19 January 2021 @ 00:22
      @Micahel G When you say "It is not what you think it is, but that will be revealed at a future date" ... would you be willing to offer more insight now? Just curious as to your take on where you think BTC or BTC ramps are headed.
    • JJ
      Jay J.
      19 January 2021 @ 02:48
      This is true for myself and everyone I know on a personal al lvl
    • JL
      J L.
      20 January 2021 @ 17:15
      I challenge this statement: "You do not have the option to "opt out" and preserve your wealth. If that option truly existed, society would collapse. Think harder." That is a false dichotomy. It is possible to "opt out" (in the sense of putting one's savings in an outside store of value) and still have society function just fine. Fiat currencies will always retain some level of value commensurate with the value of a nation's assets. The dollar is useful because you can use it to buy Manhattan real estate, or Apple or Google shares, or a million other things. At the same time, an alternate store of value will not always be compelling, but rather mainly when the fiat currency is being mismanaged. If, say, a government were running smart policy, with a growing economy, it might actually make sense to hold their bonds and currency, and keep one's savings in it. So the statement that an opt-out implies societal collapse is false. An opt-out simply acts as a check on mismanaged government policy (voting with your feet, in savings terms). Fiat currencies and societal systems can retain value even in the presence of opt-outs, meanwhile, because the inherent value of goods and services and assets within a society is real, and the currency issued by a sovereign government has a claim on those assets in a kind of arbitrage floor. As long as the US economy is worth something meaningful, in terms of output and assets, its currency will be worth something too. Bitcoin is not just an "opt out" in this regard, it is a useful check on political impulses that might even make fiat management decisions better (more responsible).
  • JJ
    Jay J.
    18 January 2021 @ 14:20
    Mike green, great as always. This other guy is shot, it is not the government’s responsibility to give anyone a job, it is the individuals responsibility to earn a job accordingly to their skills. He’s clearly very intelligent but comes off as a privileged little white boy who is very out of touch w/ reality. There can never be equality of outcome, that doesn’t even manifest at the household and family lvl, what there should be and most likely will never be is equality of opportunity.
    • JJ
      Jay J.
      18 January 2021 @ 16:26
      After listening to Rohan’s interview on hidden forces I recant my initial statement of him being intelligent, just another foreigner who made their success in America and now has all the answers on how to fix America when in reality he really has no idea what he’s talking about and 0 experience on what it’s like coming up here especially from poverty. He is also in bed w/ rashida the communist talib. Hopefully RV had this social activist LARPer for the first and last time
    • MG
      Michael G. | Contributor
      18 January 2021 @ 17:25
      Rohan is not arguing for equality of outcomes. He is arguing for better equality of opportunity. I would re-listen.
    • SP
      Seahyung P.
      19 January 2021 @ 14:33
      Jay J. It is an individuals responsibility to pay taxes to the the government, which the government enforces through a monopoly on violence. A government can cause unemployment by design, simply by having the taxes demanded outweigh money created through government spending (If we can't agree on this point, this discussion will go nowhere, I would suggest you listen to Warren Mosler instead if you feel inclined) , independently of whether an individual is responsible to earn a job according to their skills. If you dislike the idea of a job guarantee, then please address the original, deeper point that Grey was making here. What power do you have as an individual to prevent government from forcing you into unemployment by design, if it is not going to be a check against government overreach by forcing them to provide a job-guarantee?
    • KW
      Krzysztof W.
      20 January 2021 @ 17:10
      Privileged little white boy? - what does it mean?
  • SL
    Shawn L.
    19 January 2021 @ 06:53
    Money existed before governments and it does yet again in pure cryptocurrency. The only question that remains is how will governments chose to manage this situation? Game theory indicates their hands are already tied.
    • JC
      Joshua C.
      20 January 2021 @ 13:06
      How are their hands tied? What are they prevented from doing?
  • DD
    David D.
    20 January 2021 @ 11:43
    I wish finance and business types would stop saying the neologism "learnings" as in "key learnings." We already have a word for this concept in English, it is "lessons" as in "key lessons."
  • MD
    Matt D.
    20 January 2021 @ 05:43
    Great discussion. So much to learn. Great guests - more discussions in the future please lads! Excellent.
  • MH
    Martin H.
    20 January 2021 @ 03:22
    There is no legitimate violence.
    • CD
      Christopher D.
      20 January 2021 @ 05:12
      Do you imply that the law should not be enforced? Please develop.
  • JC
    John C.
    20 January 2021 @ 04:09
    Great conversation. I was hoping to hear what rohan thinks about the place for bitcoin in the world
  • MF
    Michael F.
    20 January 2021 @ 03:32
    Yes, this kind of interview is exactly what I hoped Mike Green would do.
  • JL
    J L.
    20 January 2021 @ 02:06
    I would argue the ideological aspects of this debate are a distraction. It is possible to understand money — to get a better grasp on it — by going back to first principles. The same is true of MMT, which can be treated as a theory that describes the functioning of a system. The aggressively critical descriptions of MMT (which are usually tiresome caricatures) assume that it has to be inherently ideological. I would say it does not. One can look at MMT like, say, the best way to design an airplane wing based on principles of thermal efficiency and aerodynamics. In theory at least, a libertarian-minded person could utilize principles of MMT in the design of a system if those principles were acknowledge to be scientifically valid. On money, three assertions. These are simplified statements but important as starting points: — money and credit are the same thing — money and debt are the same thing — money is a social protocol, enabled by technology, that exists on a network It sounds odd to say money and debt are the same thing. But it makes more sense if we remember that debt came first. First there was an agricultural age, which allowed people to stay in one place. Then there was barter, where, say, farmers and fishermen traded grain for fish. And then you had credit ledgers so that transactions could extend into the future. This is where credit and debt came into the picture. Credit and debt preceded money! The farmer said to the fisherman: "Give me some fish now, and I will give you an extra portion of the coming harvest." Or the fisherman said to the farmer: "Give me some grain now, and I will give you an extra portion of my next cash." In this manner, credit was extended for payment in the future. As such credit and debt were invented at the same time, before any form of money was invented. We know this is how it happened because some of the oldest forms of written accounting are ledgers denoting grain exchanges. So credit and debt came first. This makes sense because what is credit? What is debt? Simply a willingness to extend payment terms into the future. And what is interest? Simply a measure of compensation for delayed payment. So credit and debt came first. Money came into play when the farmer and fisherman realized that hey, you know what, instead of keeping these complicated ledgers, we'll just use seashells or quartz rocks or some such thing. Money was invented as a handy way to represent credit and debt obligations. Kind of like poker chips. You can play a game of poker with your buddies where all the wins and losss are tracked verbally. But it would be easier to write everything down — and easier still to use poker chips. So money is literally credit, which means money is also literally debt. Turning money into some physical or digital substrate, from that point, is just a technology upgrade. And what determines the value of a technology? How robust the technology is, and how many people agree to use it. This is why money is a social protocol, enabled by technology, that exists on a network. This is, quite literally, what money is. — You start with people wanting to trade "stuff." — Then you have people wanting to trade stuff that exists in the future. — Then you have a time value attached to future payments. — Then you move away from ledgers to some kind of chips. — Then you create some kind of technology for your chips. In that process you went from barter, to credit and debt, to money. That's it. Now in terms of what MMT is and does: MMT, at its core, recognizes that money and debt are the same thing. In the case of a sovereign entity like the United States, that is literally true. At any point dollars can be converted into treasuries. And at any point treasuries can be converted into dollars. This is why MMT recognizes, correctly, that undesirable forms of inflation are the true constraint on a sovereign monetary system. This is not an ideological statement. It is an engineering statement. It is recognition of how the plumbing works. If the U.S. government can pay debt in its own currency, and if money and debt are the same thing — a dollar is just a zero-maturity government security — then there is no constraint on the system, in terms of how much debt or how many dollars are created, other than undesirable forms of inflation. Now, does MMT recognize that undesirable inflation is bad? Yes of course. If you have runaway prices in various areas of the economy, that has a negative effect. If people dump your currency and bonds and cause rapid depreciation and debasement to the point of economic distress, that is a negative effect. MMT fully RECOGNIZES the negative impact of undesirable inflation. It also seeks to address it and mitigate it. The key thing here is that MMT recognizes that, say, undesirable inflation (and currency debasement is a form of deflation) is the true constraint on the system. Concerns about, say, debt-to-GDP are NOT the true constraint. Think about different companies, with different debt to equity levels. A utility company can typically have a much higher level of debt-to-equity than other companies because its revenue streams are so fixed and long-term stable. Guess who else's revenue streams are fixed and long term stable? A national government where most of the economic activity is domestic. This is why the appropriate debt-to-equity level will vary from company to company, and also from sovereign to sovereign. We don't know what the appropriate level is for, say, the United States — which is why debt levels aren't the true constraint. Inflation is. The next layer of debate around all this stuff gets into the Darwinian nature of complex systems and the tendency of operators in a system to push that system toward configurations of their own personal interest. That is a thing that happens by itself — a function of the invisible hand if you will. The free market is inherently Darwinian: Whether this is good or bad depends on how far one takes the Darwinistic aspects. But as far as MMT and national economies go, another thing most don't understand is that a sovereign nation has a balance sheet it can arbitrage against. The United States has debt on one side of the ledger, but it has assets on the other. On the debt side the U.S. has X trillion worth of currency and debt obligations. On the other side of the ledger it has Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Pfizer, hundreds of trillions worth of real estate and oil and gas reserves and intellectual property patents, and so on. As such, the currency issued by a sovereign government, if that government has a true claim on the assets of a nation through a functional tax system, is like an arbitrage against the assets of that country. The richer and more dynamic a country is, as such the higher the levels of leverage it can apply against its assets. None of this stuff has to be ideological. All of it can be understood through a lens of engineering principles and accounting identities and game theory and basic behavioral economics. The ideological stuff is more about what you do with the technology and the systems once you understand how the systems actually work.
    • JL
      J L.
      20 January 2021 @ 02:14
      * typos: catch not cash; currency debasement is a form of inflation, not deflation
    • WD
      William D.
      20 January 2021 @ 02:14
      You refer to inflation as defined by CPI - this is really the price of subsistence in a society. How does MMT affect the price of other forms of living?
    • JL
      J L.
      20 January 2021 @ 03:01
      p.s. One other comment, keying off musings elsewhere in these comments on whether labor and capital can, and should, somehow balance each other: The need for a balance between capital interests and labor interests is quite logical, as Marxist as it sounds. That is not because Marx was right about how to organize an economic system, but rather because he made some bread-and-butter observations about the Darwinistic nature of economic systems. Economic systems are inherently Darwinian in the "survival of the fittest sense" and the "everyone competing for their own interest" sense, which any free market advocate should recognize. This is why class-based analyses have merit as a starting point in certain contexts. In every economic system, you have independent agents aggressively competing for their own interests. This is comparable to, say, competitive survival strategies in ecosystem. A successful economy is thus like a successful ecosystem, and various classes or groups are like interacting agents within that ecosystem. If the balance gets too upset, the system fails. For a simplistic example, take three ecosystem inputs: Wolves, rabbits, and grass. -- Too many wolves and the rabbits die (system collapse) -- Not enough wolves and rabbits eat all the grass (system collapse) -- Too many rabbits, grass disappears, all starve (system collapse) -- Not enough rabbits, the wolves die, then rabbits eat the grass and die (system collapse) Again, if the balance gets too out of whack, in either direction, the system fails. And nobody can expect the wolves or the rabbits to constraint themselves; both groups will simply do their thing. A free market economic system works in a comparable way -- a balance has to be maintained between capital and labor. You can have tensions and shifts within that system, but too much of an imbalance causes the system to fail: -- e.g. if labor falls too far behind, consumer spending implodes, or you get civil unrest that destroys democracy or replaces it with authoritarianism. -- but if capital falls too far behind, you get stagnation and a failure to renew and innovate, which can lead to malaise and structural deflation and downward economic spiral. As such, the reason that Democracy is such a prosperous counterbalance to a free market economic system is because Democracy is the means by which a balance is provided. Without Democracy as a counterbalance, a free market system would inherently trend toward its Darwinian tendencies (winner take all, survival of the fittest) to the point where the ecosystem collapses, which in practical terms would look like economic destitution (small pockets of wealth in vast pools of distress) or total systemic breakdown (anarchy, fascism, communist revolution etc). And the opposite, meanwhile -- too much labor, not enough free market -- would like like Britain pre-Thatcher, when the whole economy was moribund and weighed down by bureaucracy -- or perhaps like the Soviet Union. Noting, too, this same type of balance applies in non-free market systems. One could argue that the Soviet Union, for example, was one of the most unequal societies in history -- but the winning economic agents were members of the Politburo rather than, say, industrial tycoons -- and the inequalities of the Soviet system (born by an imbalance against capital) led to extreme economic fragility, which in turn led to the Soviet Union's collapse (via the implosion of oil and gas revenues after the Saudi oil wars of 1986).
    • JL
      J L.
      20 January 2021 @ 03:13
      @ William D. I most assuredly do NOT refer to inflation as defined by CPI. Inflation is a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, hard to pin down thing. There are different kinds of inflation: Wage inflation, asset inflation, commodity price inflation, real estate inflation, and so on. The CPI is a single, simplistic measure of inflation that defines it in a very specific way so that the government can get a handle on it through a certain lens. Einstein said "things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." The true picture of inflation is pretty damn complicated as a general rule. For example: Imagine an economy that has just had an oil price shock, after a housing bust, where monetary policy is loose but fiscal policy is tight. In that situation you can have commodity price inflation (oil and grains going up) side by side with wage deflation (workers not getting raises) at the same time as asset price inflation (stock prices going up) and real estate disinflation or deflation (home values going sideways or down). So not only are there different types of inflation -- too many to be captured in just a CPI measure -- you can have a mix of inflationary and deflationary impulses going on at the same time, in all kinds of configurations. That is why the term "undesirable inflation" is deliberately broad. It could mean a lot of things: The destabilizing aspect of a housing bubble driven by too much mortgage credit; a runaway speculative frenzy in the stock market; the cost of food and energy going up too fast; all of those or none of those. This isn't a knock on the CPI so much as to point out that the CPI is a kind of single-channel focus of a whole lot going on within a very large complex adaptive system. And this is also why mechanisms for fighting undesirable inflation are many and varied. For example: -- to put the brakes on a housing bubble (real estate inflation), you could cap the size of mortgages in a bubble-prone area to some fixed multiple of owner-equivalent rent. That way, if someone wanted to pay more than a reasonable amount for a home in that area, they could do so with cash, but not with borrowing. This would constrain the ability of the bubble to inflate further. -- to put the brakes on commodity price inflation, resources or tax credits could be put into the expansion of farmland operations or crop growth techniques, or some other targeted method of deliberately increasing the means of grain production and oil and gas production and sending that signal to markets. Etcetera. There are lots of different types of inflation, and lots of potential policy responses to deal with each kind. This is, at its heart, skillful management of a complex adaptive system that will go off the rails if not managed wisely at certain points along the way. I would argue that advocating for this type of ability is, once again, non-ideological, if one is simply able to see that the notion of a self-managing system is like a self-managing corporate organization: It doesn't really work.
  • MT
    Mark T.
    18 January 2021 @ 12:26
    Tear gassing demonstrators in Portland while the police opening the doors of the capitol and letting them in. Wow! A deeply unfortunate observation. When one confesses to blindness it leaves one open to being questioned about what else they aren’t seeing.
    • MG
      Michael G. | Contributor
      18 January 2021 @ 20:20
      Beyond Rohan's politics, which I share your skepticism about but am willing to ignore temporarily to consider his other thoughts, did you have any other takeaways? If not, I'd suggest a missed opportunity on your part.
    • JC
      John C.
      18 January 2021 @ 21:40
      Mayors & Governors allowed the riots to go on and on for months before actually 'doing' anything. Rule of law was openly flaunted in numerous cities. Businesses burned down, 'autonomous zones' allowed in Seattle (CHAZ). Full media and local political support for months. So that first statement was not true for quite some time. Cut to the recent one-day event and now 25,000 troops are in DC 'protecting' the inauguration while a wall has been build sealing off the Capitol.
    • AB
      Alastair B.
      19 January 2021 @ 04:25
      I fear everyone is watching the assistants, not the magician.
    • NI
      Nate I.
      19 January 2021 @ 05:33
      Very shallow/naive analysis by Rohan. I agree with what Rohan said about the police opening the doors and letting the people in. There are countless videos depicting that. However, Rohan needs to think about who gave the police orders to do that and what might their motives be? Moreover, until you know the names and detailed backgrounds of the people involved - you know nothing. Wearing a red hat means nothing.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      20 January 2021 @ 02:09
      Mike, you are one of my favorites, but his point (and I won't deny that there is always the possibility to learn) is that if you make that egregious of an error in analysis ... Mark's last statement is his key point.
  • CS
    Christopher S.
    19 January 2021 @ 02:24
    Big fan of MG. Respectfully disagree with conclusions drawn here. I agree with Richard Werner when he says banks create money out of thin air. But before banks there was credit and debt between those in the local community. Law has its foundation in custom. Having said that, money creation is not wealth creation. Banks are supposed to be the intermediaries of capital, not invincible vampire squids backed by the state. I think the reason you see people "opting out", either by buying precious metals or bitcoin, and/or by seeking FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early) is because they do not want to be serfs. I agree with Kaushal P below. In a world where you are otherwise forced to buy hypervalued equities or zero yielding bonds in a depreciating currency, I buy precious metals not to "opt out" but rather to "step aside" and wait for the time when those assets can be exchanged for investment at a later date. If it is a speculation, it is only a speculation that in the current environment, few investment ideas besides gold miners look interesting from a risk/reward perspective, and for the reserves I hold I seek to maintain purchasing power in the face of active debasement. The statement "You do not have the right to opt out" is statist. The current situation is evidence of what happens as power and control of currency centralizes. The road to neofeudalism. I sympathize with the humanist and/or patriotic desire to have a system that works for everybody. Unfortunately human nature seems to win out at the top/center of the hierarchy. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Intellectuals of course can always imagine a State that administers a just opportunity set for people to work hard and succeed. The current system, however, is not that. And I suspect the government is not going to implement MMT in anyway that will be a net-positive for society. Politics has become a death struggle over a printing press.
    • BC
      Bill C.
      19 January 2021 @ 16:28
      MMT is the new hipster name for welfare. People bandy the term around like it's a panacea. MMT and other forms of welfare destroy self-initiative and self-motivation. One most delicate balances in modern society, and almost 100% of the time is abused to excess is with welfare and charity. Because of the vast exporting of real jobs very capable people sit around think about how they can help people. But the idea of starting a company seems increasingly foreign (pun intended) - millions of potential entrepreneurs neutered in the false narrative that charity (welfare by any other name) helps build the individual in any long term measure. Some years ago Carlos Slim, Mexican business magnate, was being hounded by the press for not giving more to charity. His rebuff of the criticism was something to the effect of, "No, I'd rather give my money to give my people jobs." I heard Jim Chanos recently describe Uber as a "body shop" in regard to it being a potential investment. As in, to make more money more and more people have to be hired. His comment implied it was a poor investment. To my mind, we need to do the hard work of building those companies that are "body shops." Does anyone really think MMT and welfare doesn't ruin the individual and by extension their family, their neighborhood, town, even state and upwards? People become engrained with the idea they don't have to work to receive money. Their skills and outlook are decimated. I refuse to believe any mindful person can assume MMT and welfare can be helpful in the long term. If anything, we should have a tax moratorium on "body shop" businesses for a decade or so. At minimum the velocity of money would increase. And surely sales and various other taxes on individuals would increase flow to our bankrupt governments. Secondary and tertiary jobs would increase, too. And on the bully pulpit government leaders should shame the citizens, many of whom are on the financial edge, that don't make efforts to make their own lot in life better.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      20 January 2021 @ 02:05
      When you get Bernie Sanders and identitarian opportunists like Stephanie Kelton on the scene, and you don't realize or have enough wisdom to understand that the narrative is a total fraud, you are beyond help. But so go most of the hucksters and the magic elixir sellers; the pied pipers of what the corrupted people want to hear (and have voted for). You won't have virtue, sound business, or sound money if you don't have a foundation of virtue (religion/revelation/values). That's the point - even if you think you are a good person (haha) - those around you who tell you they are, aren't. And they outnumber you and take advantage of your lack of wisdom.
  • JC
    Joshua C.
    19 January 2021 @ 16:21
    "Yet we know that power to put something into code is the power to deceive. You can hide something in there, you can change something. You can take a contract and force somebody to enter into it under duress." The second part about duress is a fair point, just as with paper contracts. As for the earlier part, that's not how smart contracts work: 1. The code expressing a smart contract is not hidden, at least not to the parties that agree to it. (This is true of Ethereum at least.) The entire code of the smart contract can be examined, just as people can access legal text describing the law and case history relevant to a paper contract. 2. On the other hand, the mind of a judge is a black box and his interpretation of the law is unpredictable, unlike the mechanical system that executes a smart contract; the interpretation of a smart contract within a cryptocurrency system is completely unambiguous, unlike how the law will be interpreted in court or even the set of legal texts or historical cases that are relevant to the contract. 3. A smart contract may have other problems at a higher level beyond that of the mechanical smart contract system, such as people being forced in the physical world to enter a contract against their own interest, or being deceived about the nature of the contract. But such problems are not unique to smart contracts; people can be forced to sign paper contracts or be deceived about their meaning. One benefit that smart contracts bring is reducing the ambiguity of language in the text of a contract and automating parts of the enforcement of a contract that traditionally required people to push papers or exercise authority that they have by virtue of their political position or professional credentials. 4. Someone who is insufficiently computer-literate may misunderstand a smart contract, so this could be construed as code's "power to deceive"; but someone who is not a lawyer can also overlook legal pitfalls in a paper contract. The 'deception' is not a problem unique to computer code; it can happen also with legal 'code' and case law.
    • LS
      Lemony S.
      20 January 2021 @ 01:58
      Thanks for that.
  • PB
    20 January 2021 @ 01:53
    Really great to have access to this perspective. Fresh. Thank you for this interview.
  • DW
    David W.
    19 January 2021 @ 22:43
    Really great interview.
  • RG
    Roman G.
    19 January 2021 @ 20:41
    Damn that Keto diet is really working!
  • gj
    gail j.
    19 January 2021 @ 20:00
    Excellent gentlemen - just excellent !
  • ND
    Nivtej D.
    19 January 2021 @ 18:49
    Awesome depth of discussion. Cheers
  • MR
    Michael R.
    19 January 2021 @ 18:37
    Terrific discussion. Lots of thought provoking points. Mike Green is a very intelligent and well spoken guy. Curious what his debate is with Bitcoin.
  • SF
    Simon F.
    19 January 2021 @ 17:14
    Just shy of an hours worth of proper meat and potatoes substance that takes the time to get deeper than the usual shallow end swimmers who thrash about trading cliche labels with their minds stuck in neutral. It is truly refreshing to see many of the comments are similarly thoughtfully engaged in really wrestling with what are real important issues.
  • SS
    Stephen S.
    19 January 2021 @ 16:33
    Interesting interview! I don’t agree with this framing of certain social issues but do agree with the need for a strong economic Left. That has been missing in America since the Reagan Era.
  • MK
    Martin K.
    19 January 2021 @ 09:51
    One of the last themes that Rohan and Mike touched upon, towards the end of the interview, was the idea that organised labour could act as counterbalance to the unholy alliance of state and corporate interests, and thereby protect us from the worst excesses of Corporatism. That is a really interesting idea, and one that I had never come across before. I like Rohan's idea of a tripartite structure to our economic systems. You have two factors that traditional economics places at the centre of the analytical framework (omitting Land, of course): Labour & Capital. However, there is a third pillar: Guns. I'm using the term "Guns" as a convenient shorthand for the State. It is an oversimplification, granted, but it is intended to capture the idea that the one of the central functions of the State is the preservation of the structural integrity of the system within which the productive relationship between Capital & Labour can take place. Economies tend to underperform if they're locked in a life-and-death struggle to keep the Barbarians outside the gates, or the internal order of a society has degenerated to such an extent that general lawlessness prevails within its borders. So, can well-organised Labour keep Capital and Guns in check? Prima facie, one would suppose that it couldn't. However, I think a case can be made that, not only can Labour do so, but it might be the only viable way that a society can extricate itself from the vortex into which it can be dragged by crony capitalist gravitational forces. Without getting too metaphysical, Labour involves the world of subjects and their attendant characteristics, both physical and mental, whereas Capital and Guns are both objective constructs, i.e. products of the material world that Labour has synthesised through the exercise of its physical and mental capabilities. Within that paradigm, our humanity is to be located within the sphere of Labour. We all have the experience of trying to create something of value for ourselves and the people we care about through the use of our minds and bodies. So, I'm not talking about a revolution, where Labour takes up arms to overthrow and oppressive Corporatist regime. I'm talking about evolution, where we can unite around the idea that there is no more important expression of our humanity than how we choose to expend our blood, sweat and tears. Not "work" in the sense of a job, but in the sense of "a life's work". There's a viable bridge over the left/right divide there: it combines traditionally left-of-centre ideas, such as the labour theory of value and the dignity of the worker, with more libertarian/classical liberal ideas of individual sovereignty and self ownership. If we can move to a world where we see one another primarily through the prism of Labour (i.e. as another creative being engaged in the exercise of attempting to fuse its unique combination of physical and mental attributes with the natural world, in order to create value), rather than as a competitor for the control of Capital or Guns, then we might be able to move past some of the obstacles that currently obstruct our path forward. It's possible that this is a hopelessly utopian ideal, and I haven't even attempted to flesh out how we could go about trying to achieve such an outcome in practical terms (although I do have some ideas, which revolve around realigning the economic analysis of Labour away from the reductionist view of humans as "meat machines"). However, I mainly wanted to comment on the idea of Labour as a third way between the Scylla and Charybdis of Guns & Capital. If I'm completely wrong, then all we have is the Hobbesian struggle for the means of production and the means of coercion. Or maybe Bitcoin will set finally allow for the emergence of collective consciousness, who knows? Anyway, that's my two cents' worth.
    • ML
      Michael L.
      19 January 2021 @ 15:03
      Enjoyed reading your thoughts. "So, can well-organised Labour keep Capital and Guns in check? Prima facie, one would suppose that it couldn't. However, I think a case can be made that, not only can Labour do so, but it might be the only viable way that a society can extricate itself from the vortex into which it can be dragged by crony capitalist gravitational forces." A modern secessio plebis would be a good place to start if Labour wants a seat at the table.
  • DL
    Dan L.
    18 January 2021 @ 18:21
    "ultimately, the enforcement mechanism has to be the state" -- Therefore, a smart contract that is based on a decentralized crypto-currency, and employs an enforcement mechanism that is based on math, should not be permitted by law. This sounds to me more like an ideological position, rather than an objective statement. The state provides specific functions, such as the enforcement of property rights, which make civil society possible. But there is absolutely no logical implication here (only an assumed one it seems) that these functions cannot be achieved by means other than law and government. I understanding the reasoning, but what I am hearing sounds more like a failure of imagination.
    • MG
      Michael G. | Contributor
      18 January 2021 @ 20:15
      I would suggest the failure of imagination is not Rohan's. A smart contract can certainly have an enforcement mechanism based on math. So does a CDS contract or a credit agreement. However, if there is disagreement or evidence of fraud in the contract, an appeal to the state is necessary.
    • SL
      Shawn L.
      19 January 2021 @ 06:43
      Why can’t the rule of law enforce the rule of math?
    • SL
      Shawn L.
      19 January 2021 @ 06:44
      Sorry no delete or edit.
  • DN
    Douglas N.
    19 January 2021 @ 00:23
    I had a hard time following exactly what we were talking about here.
    • RM
      Robert M.
      19 January 2021 @ 02:38
      Same here.
  • JN
    Jerrick N.
    19 January 2021 @ 01:11
    your green screen background looks weird by the way
  • RH
    Ron H.
    19 January 2021 @ 00:55
    This was a model for respectful, constructive dialogue. Which is something that continues to feel rarer and rarer every year. And I say this as someone who disagrees with both Mike and Rohan on various points. Thank you both. One comment I'll add is that normativity is pervasive. There is a very strong tendency in mainstream culture to equate a status quo with legitimacy, to conflate these ideas, which includes making the embedded assumption that defending the status quo is somehow less normative, morally and politically, than arguing for change. Omitting to act, and acting, are equivalent normative decisions. Both must defend their legitimacy, not simply assume it. This applies to a proper accounting of history, as Rohan rightly states is critical to making present decisions, just as it applies to the present-day corporate framework, and to the current debate around social media (i.e. Twitter was never a politically neutral, non-manipulated public sphere of free speech like Union Square in New York City).
  • AM
    Alonso M.
    18 January 2021 @ 16:50
    Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
    • DL
      Dan L.
      18 January 2021 @ 18:23
      Bien sûr, comme mon téléphone portable.
    • MC
      Mike C.
      19 January 2021 @ 00:19
      Bah ouais hein!
  • RP
    Rein P.
    18 January 2021 @ 23:24
    This was great. A truly fresh perspective and lots of food for thought. His key point: state and business are two sides of the same coin. A third power representing working people needs to organise itself as an independant counterforce, or be exploited/owned by state and/or business. Not to create a marxist utopia but to create a healthy balance and avoid facism.
  • ZM
    Zac M.
    18 January 2021 @ 10:17
    I’m not an American social justice warrior so I need help, why is “equity”, the equal apportionment of roles, university places, etc on the basis of a predetermined characteristics like race or sex an improvement over equality whereby people receive equal treatment? I understand equality doesn’t provide the outcomes progressives hoped for but that doesn’t make it a flawed system. I don’t want to be operated on a surgeon that got the job because of his or her sex, I don’t want to get on planes flown by people that got the role to meet a racial quota.
    • JC
      John C.
      18 January 2021 @ 21:38
      Everything is politicized in the US in a sort of ersatz-Soviet style way now. So standards get watered down and predetermined characteristics reign supreme. The system is so broken I am not sure it's 'fixable' at this point although it's interesting to hear the arguments which I am open to. Unfortunately I think at the end of the day everything will get pulled down to the lowest common denominator in many fields and you're going to be left with sub-par performance...not always, but increasingly it's becoming more of the norm. I just wonder when the harder working more productive people are going to say 'enough' and just move out of many of these Western countries as they continue to devolve and the benefits of work & productivity just aren't there anymore. But will automation start to take over to the point that we can all just be as fat, dumb & happy as many US citizens are? (like in Wall-E)
  • MO
    Michael O.
    18 January 2021 @ 20:58
    Success Mike! You framed the discussion in a way that allowed Rohan to give a view but not irrevocably stake a position thus allowing me to learn his views without an emotional response. Excellent. A learning experience.
  • HK
    H K.
    18 January 2021 @ 11:18
    Very interesting conversation - While I disagree with a lot of Rohan's views on regulation - there was one point I did want to ramble on about The reason why often the "extremely popular ideas" aren't put into practice (around the 5min-to-end mark) is that there is no constraint on public opinion and public desire to be self consistent. But the provider of those needs is bound by reality and limited by resources. The people will always love a tonne of benefits, free stuff and at the same time love to be taxed nothing, etc. So a referendum asking the people if they want free stuff win win as will a referendum to tax them 0%. The policy makers need to decide whom to take from and whom to dole out to - to win the next election.
    • MG
      Michael G. | Contributor
      18 January 2021 @ 20:23
      Agree with your point. This is why we have a Republic (elected representatives) rather than an "excess of democracy". However, many of the proposals that are quite popular are not "free" in the taxation sense, but rather productivity enhancing (and hence better than free).
  • pt
    popejumpingjohnpaul t.
    18 January 2021 @ 19:33
    oh man i heard this rohan grey dude on hidden forces he was top class. a man on a mission. as we clearly see by the current state of affairs, so many americans dont care about america or american society. rohan may be a foreiger, as am i, but we certnainly care. rohan on hidden forces here
  • pt
    popejumpingjohnpaul t.
    18 January 2021 @ 19:12
    oh man i heard this rohan grey dude on hidden forces he was top class. a man on a mission.
  • LK
    L K.
    18 January 2021 @ 18:29
    Some fresh perspectives on some familiar topics. Thank you for a thought-productive conversation.
  • PG
    Philippe G.
    18 January 2021 @ 16:48
    Fantastic! Certainly made me pause and think several times! It's not often that we can get an enlightening discussion on the intersection of society and the various core themes RV addresses (Crypto, MMT, banking system, etc...). This duo certainly delivers! Thanks RV!
  • SS
    Sam S.
    18 January 2021 @ 13:43
    Commonality of being an American Citizen= System of laws, speaking English (other languages OK but not first), no matter your nationality, you call yourself an American and have the Freedom of faiths and belief. This top down commonality creates confidence in the system. We all follow the laws, but with the given right to speak out and speak up to argue to change or adjust the laws. Regulations are a suppression of the people as is taxation. Freedoms allow people confidence to invest, grow, invent and flourish, which produces tax revenue. It's a shame right now our nation is being torn down and confidence is at a very low point. People vote with their wallets-----everyone does. Those promoting otherwise are going to have a future rude awakening, when their vote swallows them up in the government takeover. Trillions in stimulus being floated, is for bailing out the bankrupt states and pensions, while taxing everyone to pay for this stimulus pacifier. Mass migration to the tax haven conservative states, is the South against the North. Rohan Grey speaks beautifully with a depth of reality. Mike Green is always top notch, but sometimes beyond my pay grade. I always learn a lot! All the best.
  • MO
    Master O.
    18 January 2021 @ 12:57
    Fantastic discussion gents. I would like to offer my own rebuttal to the statement by Rohan that money is a government construction and it decreed by law. Money is a creation of the human imagination and it is a network effect. It is an imagined reality in something that everyone believes in, and as long as this communal belief persists, the imagined reality exerts force in the world. This fiction has enabled humans to cooperate flexibly with other strangers in large numbers. Any large scale human cooperation whether a modern state, or an ancient city, is rooted in common myths that exist only in people’s collective imagination. The government comes in later to codify those shared myths into the social contract and law. Money does not occur in nature, and no version or analog of it exists among any other members of the animal kingdom. Money, like language, is uniquely human. Money constituted a new way of thinking and acting that changed the world immediately. Money is a matter of belief, even faith, belief in the person paying us, belief in the person issuing the money he or she uses or the institution that honour their debts. Money is not metal or paper. It is trust inscribed. And it does not seem to matter much where it is inscribed, whether it is on silver, on clay, on paper, or a sea shell. Anything can serve as money, from the cowrie shells of the Maldives to the huge stone discs used on the Pacific islands of Yap. And now, it seems, in this electronic digital age bitcoin can serve as money too. When Renaissance Italy created the banking system it was not decreed or constructed by government. It came about to the Italians through the mathematics of Fibonacci and the creation of the debit and credit system. So I am not so sure where Rohan gets the idea that money is a government construction that the state decrees into law. That smells to me MMT!
  • HK
    H K.
    18 January 2021 @ 11:18
    Very interesting conversation - While I disagree with a lot of Rohan's views on regulation - there was one point I did want to ramble on about The reason why often the "extremely popular ideas" aren't put into practice (around the 5min-to-end mark) is that there is no constraint on public opinion and public desire to be self consistent. But the provider of those needs is bound by reality and limited by resources. The people will always love a tonne of benefits, free stuff and at the same time love to be taxed nothing, etc. So a referendum asking the people if they want free stuff win win as will a referendum to tax them 0%. The policy makers need to decide whom to take from and whom to dole out to - to win the next election.
  • TC
    Tor C.
    18 January 2021 @ 11:09
    If I was to destill out the essense I was left with this: Trust the existing system, we will make it better going forward. Or to quote Mike from his hidden forces interview: «vote better» I get the arguments however will it not sound a bit like the folklore Marie-Antoinette quote: «Let them eat cake» if you voted for «change we can belive in» back in 2008 or «Make America great again» in 2016? Let’s hope this time it’s different and that it all works out, I would hurry. Tick tock next block
  • TE
    Tom E.
    18 January 2021 @ 08:18
    Rohan makes his points very well and provides intellectually stimulating content. You don’t need to agree with him but I find his input a valuable ingredient for thinking through issues such as crypto from all angles. Great interview by Mike.