Hacker News Reader

Comment by batsigner | Hacker News Reader

In other words, in your view, the dollar literally cannot go tits up?

It can go out of use but it won't be due to competition with Bitcoin. A digital currency that did what the dollar does but better could give the dollar a run for its money. No such currency currently exists and I have a hard time envisioning one right now. Maybe something based on kWh as the unit of account.

The world would literally collapse if that happened.. so, no.

No, it would figuratively collapse.

I figuratively apologize :)

The world literally collapsing would be much bigger than an economic problem. Yes markets would fail along with it, but the world wouldn't end. The US isn't the first with major economy or currency and its arrogant to think it will be the last.

The Roman Empire was unstoppable until they over extended themselves with endless war and tried to solve it by debasing their currency. It may not happen anytime soon, but America won't lead the world indefinitely forever, its only 244 years old for shit sake.

> The Roman Empire was unstoppable until they over extended themselves with endless war and tried to solve it by debasing their currency. It may not happen anytime soon, but America won't lead the world indefinitely forever, its only 244 years old for shit sake.

Sure, but Britain didn't lead the world forever, either, and it's not exactly like the £ collapsed leaving everyone who held it in ruin.

American won't lead the world forever doesn't mean much unless but it's collapse will be so sudden and unexpected as to leave no opportunity to unwind dollar positions without catastrophic loss.

It might be worth hedging against that, but digital collectibles are a poor hedge for that circumstance. Physical resources for community self-sufficiency and physical defense against the ravening hordes are the hedge you need if you take that threat seriously.

It is a common trope to compare America to Rome. Economically America has almost nothing in common with Rome. Rome was a non-industrial economy mainly based on plunder or at least transferring products from the provinces to the central government and upper class in terms of taxation (in kind, e.g. Egyptian grain, and monetarily denominated). When the Empire stopped expanding new wealth, for the most part stopped being created. Perhaps there is a little bit of a comparison with 19th century America and expanding to the west in manifest destiny but in modern America economic growth is driven by technological change. Not conquest.

This is the rise and fall of civilizations, while expansion is possible in the sense of, the majority of people can "win" at their culture (or have a clear path to), a civilization is successful. In Rome, and America this usually means economic improvement. In Egyptian times, this meant falling in line with the religion. Carroll Quigley has a very nice framework for what is a civilization. Let's just say he was a very influential historian, mentor of one rather recent US president.

Let me pose it to you this way. In what situation could the dollar collapse without the world being in ruins?

>but America won't lead the world indefinitely forever

I'm not talking about America. I'm talking about the dollar. In our highly tied global economy- those are very much two different things. Do you think any wealthy person in the world does NOT hold dollars or have direct exposure to it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com