I'm Voting for the Money Printer

 

 

 

 

Elections are a contested subject in Bitcoin circles. Some align with a party they feel best represents their values, while others consider themselves "Single-Issue Bitcoin Voters." A third camp argues that "opting out" should extend beyond monetary choices to encompass all areas of civic life, including elections. Personally, I don’t find myself firmly seated in any of these camps.

 

While I understand, respect, and relate to parts of the arguments on all sides, my focus tends to shift beyond social divides toward what I perceive as the largest impending threat to our country: the accelerating inflationary spiral.

 

I’ve “opted out” monetarily, taking the “debasement trade” as J.P. Morgan would put it, and shifted my monetary energy into the hardest of assets: Bitcoin. I’ve taken the steps I believe are necessary to protect myself from the dollar debasement likely to unfold over the coming decades. Still, the spiraling debt situation often leaves me pondering its potential impact and considering what fiscal steps could position us better as a nation.

 

 

Is There a Right Way to Address the Debt?

 

Despite my concerns, I remain uncertain whether taking the “proper” steps to address this debt would even be wise. The U.S., as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, is fundamentally tied to its ability to print money—so too is much of the world. U.S. Treasuries don’t just underpin the American financial system; they form the foundation of the global financial infrastructure. Any aggressive move to reduce debt could have consequences far beyond America’s borders.

 

 

The Global Financial System's Reliance on Dollar Liquidity

 

Treasuries serve as the safe asset central banks and investors worldwide rely on for stability, collateral, and liquidity. Policies aimed at curbing debt levels could create a shortage of these critical instruments, shaking confidence in financial markets. The ripple effects would be profound: soaring interest rates, collapses of financial institutions dependent on liquidity, and a severe contraction in economic activity.

 

Higher interest rates would stifle investment, lead to rising unemployment, reduce consumer spending, and cause tax revenues to plummet. The government would find itself caught in a vicious cycle: the more it tries to rein in spending or reduce debt, the worse the economic fallout becomes. In this scenario, the U.S. could face a debt-deflation spiral where reduced economic activity makes debt increasingly harder to manage.

 

The Catch-22 of Addressing the Debt Problem

 

I struggle to envision any meaningful attempt to tackle the debt problem without triggering a global depression, with the U.S. at its center. We are in a Catch-22: pursuing austerity to correct course risks collapsing the global economy, but maintaining the status quo merely delays the inevitable while accumulating more debt.

 

The reality is that difficult times seem unavoidable, whether they come from fiscal responsibility now or from delayed consequences later. If we attempt a "reset" now, it may unleash severe disruptions and pain worldwide. Is it worth triggering that pain sooner, especially with no guarantees that the outcome would be better?

 

 

Kicking the Can Down the Road: A Pragmatic Approach

 

So, why not continue kicking the can down the road? The argument for sustained monetary expansion—printing more money and letting the debt-to-GDP ratio rise—is not without merit if it buys us time. During this period, a parallel deflationary system could grow stronger. Bitcoin, with its finite supply and decentralized nature, presents such an alternative. By keeping the current system afloat while nurturing this alternative, we may gradually transition without a sudden collapse.

 

The strategy is simple: as we expand the money supply, capital flows into this parallel system, increasing the value of its finite unit—Bitcoin—and signaling a viable safe haven. The “orange Bit-Signal” grows brighter, and the infrastructure supporting it becomes more robust.

 

This approach is a timing game: prolong the life of the existing system to build the next one, allowing for a smoother shift from a debt-based, inflationary economy to a stable, deflationary alternative. This could mitigate the risk of a catastrophic reset, allowing for an incremental shift as participants gradually adopt the new system.

 

 

Voting for More of the Same: A Strategic Choice

 

Politically, I find myself in the middle, with little faith that either party will take meaningful steps to secure the long-term outlook of the United States. While I agree with various points on both sides, neither party seems willing to acknowledge the economic iceberg ahead. That’s why I feel inclined to vote Progressive this time around.

 

To borrow a Trump-ism, they’ll “print like Hell.” While that might seem reckless, it’s the only approach aligning with my broader perspective. I’m leaning toward more of the same, accepting things might get 10% worse but largely continuing on the current trajectory. This buys time to allow for a smoother transition rather than hastening collapse.

 

I understand why some support Trump’s economic policies, but to me, they represent a defibrillator used on a patient who still has a heartbeat. His policies may have worked decades ago, but today, they feel like a hard reset that could end disastrously for a country critically dependent on its currency’s global reserve status.

 

While Trump has occasionally made comments that give me hope (and have led many Bitcoiners to hitch their cart to his horse), his affinity for shitcoining and endless grift bothers me as someone who values integrity and honesty. It’s not that Trump has a monopoly on dishonesty, but if someone claims to be a “Bitcoin” candidate, I hold them to a higher standard because they represent my principles more directly.

 

 

Why the Money Printer Might Be the Best Bet (For Now)

 

This is why, despite its flaws, I see value in voting for the Progressive “money printer” for now. The risks of radically changing policy are severe and immediate. Continued expansion, by contrast, carries longer-term risks, allowing us to prepare strategically. If we use this time wisely to develop and fortify a parallel system, we may have a chance to mitigate the fallout when the existing system finally breaks down.

 

In essence, the goal is to manage the decline while building the solution. Hard times are likely ahead no matter what, but by extending the timeline, we might set the stage for a new, more stable financial paradigm.

 

 

Conclusion

 

I’m sure many will read this and disagree, and that’s fine. I’m just a dog finding my way along the orange brick road, and mistakes will be made along the way. Until they reveal themselves, I can only follow my moral compass and choose what I see as the least bad option.

 

I sincerely hope no one reads this and blindly agrees without questioning it. I encourage you to follow your own compass, just as I do mine.


This article was inspired by reading Bitcoin Apostle's "I'm Struggling with this Decision. Time is Running Out" on his blog "The Orange Revolution". Check out his writing!

 

 

Digging Deeper:

 

Hey there, I hope you enjoyed this read! If you did, and would like to read more of my barks, follow the links below!

 

External Resources:

 

 

...Woof!