Bitcoin’s Ascent

I rarely initiate public discussions myself; far more often, I publish reactions to my own texts and answers to those reactions. But not long ago, I couldn’t resist. In the video Money printer go brrr on the FuryDrops channel, Grigory Bazhenov attempted to present the basics of macroeconomics regarding the money supply, the workings of the money printer, and the money shredder in fairly popular terms. The video suggested that the Federal Reserve pumping trillions into the economy would not lead to inflation, but would merely compensate for the decrease in the multiplier.

In the comments, I inquired how the presence of a factor like Bitcoin—where the user chooses whether to operate within full reserves or turn to centralized intermediaries whose multiplier may be greater than one—would affect this entire model. I also predicted consumer inflation in the USA. The discussion was quite long; it’s better to look at the thread under the video yourself. There, Grigory Bazhenov and Artem Seversky objected both to the applicability of Bitcoin as money and to the possibility of inflation in a shrinking US economy. Artem even wrote a separate post about how money, by its very nature, means unsecured obligations and therefore can only be based on fractional reserves; otherwise, the economy stalls.

What do we see literally two weeks later. Consumer inflation indeed spiked in the USA. Using Trump’s helicopter money, people actively bought Bitcoins; this is evidenced by a beautiful graph showing the share of deposits of exactly 1,200 dollars (the amount paid to all US citizens) arriving at the most popular American crypto exchange, Coinbase, immediately after citizens received gifts from the federal treasury.

Finally, yesterday the Bitcoin price, as I promised on March 16, the day the price dropped to 4,400 dollars, shot up, and if anyone failed to buy in over the past month and a half, they must be feeling sad now. Though, it wasn’t the most suitable time for investments.

Finally, during this time, it has become clear that one should not pin hopes on corporate cryptocurrencies like Libra or Ton: they are too vulnerable to the ill will of regulators. Therefore, Bitcoin still looks like the only alternative money for a bright stateless future, and I feel sorry for clever economists like Grigory Bazhenov, who consciously try to distance themselves from this future: after all, you might find that there is simply no suitable place left for you there.

Oil, economy, limbo

No sooner had armchair political scientists managed to properly dive into virology than they already had to master the intricacies of the oil industry. I decided not to fall behind and watched an MBX Media story yesterday about what exactly happened and what to expect now.

First, Mikhail Krutikhin spoke about how May WTI futures hit rock bottom and started digging deeper. This joke has already been retold many times, and in Krutikhin’s specific case, it was so-so, because from his words, it seemed as if it wasn’t a triviality not worth noticing. However, I see no reason why the same story couldn’t repeat itself toward the end of May, because to prevent it, either oil demand needs to rise or supply needs to fall; otherwise, it will be even worse than now, because there will be even less free storage capacity in a month.

Next, Grigory Bazhenov spoke and repeated what he had already explained on his channel in a separate video—how taxes are structured in the Russian oil and refining industry. In short: oil prices could drop to zero, but gasoline prices won’t budge—the budget will take all the winnings. Thus, Russian refining faces downtime, and the weakest players in the industry—the private companies without integration with oil-producing companies—face bankruptcy. Gas stations will somehow survive, but in conditions of reduced throughput, they will lead a rather miserable existence.

Finally, Mikhail Khodorkovsky took the floor and spoke about the situation in oil production. According to the agreements signed by Russia, it must reduce production by a quarter. If production is reduced carefully, trying not to ruin the wells in the process, a maximum reduction of ten percent can be achieved. Moreover, free storage capacity is running out and exports have collapsed, so production will have to be scaled back sharply, which means irreversibly. A shut-in well will become unusable after a couple of months, and to restore production, it will need to be drilled again. But in old, heavily watered-out fields, such drilling will simply not pay off at reasonable prices. So Russia faces a choice: either pump oil regardless of the agreements and then pay those who kindly agree to take it, or irreversibly lose up to a third of production. At the same time, it is quite likely that the decision will be made not by the market, but purely administratively, and some will be allowed to work while others are put to the knife.

In connection with this, I want to make a prediction. Quite quickly, an obvious consideration will arise before the Russian leadership. If it wants its oil industry not to die, Russian oil must be bought. There is no hope for exports, which means the Russian economy must consume the oil. But it cannot do this while sitting in quarantine. Therefore, to hell with the quarantine. Of course, some other official reason will be given. For example, “at the request of the workers of North Ossetia.” Or “after studying the successful Swedish and Belarusian experience.”

Why are people put in quarantine in other states? To save human lives. Forgive me, I can believe many things, but not that human lives are important to Putin. So he will hesitate for a bit and then wind up all this self-isolation. Well, maybe except for Moscow—they’ve become too spoiled, let them shrink a little. So prepare for the fact that the heroic sitting at home was completely in vain: we will all get sick until we achieve herd immunity. Some will not survive. With our economy and medicine, the Swedish path was an alternative-less option from the start. What is this “flattening the curve” of yours? It’s like the game of limbo, where you have to pass under the bar. The lower the bar, the harder the task. The height of the bar is determined by the level of medicine. With Russian medicine, don’t even try—there’s no point in embarrassing yourself.

What to do? I have already dedicated a separate post to crisis strategies, and I adhere to the previous recommendations: going into the shadows, building horizontal connections, mastering cryptocurrency payments, and reducing all interaction with the state to demanding direct payments, tax reductions, the cancellation of regulations, the reduction of security forces, and so on.

In what direction and by what methods will protection against hacker groups develop in the world of free cities / ECU?

After all, finding such villains is not enough; you also need to compel them to stop, and in most cases I can imagine, they will be reliably protected by their contracts.

анонимный вопрос

And in a world where there is a state monopoly on violence, and in a world where the enforcement of rights is handled by private parties, and even where, as discussed in a recent post, violent collections are extremely limited, the strategy for fighting hacking groups is generally the same: to increase the cost of the attack.

To jump on a trendy topic, let’s liken the activity of a hacking group to the spread of an epidemic. You can invest in individual protection, you can make the transmission of the infection more difficult, or you can find its source.

A hacking attack can cause irreparable harm immediately. For example, a hacker steals your private keys, and your bitcoins vanish to someone else’s address. A virus can also encrypt your disk and demand money for decryption. If you send the money, the data will either be decrypted or not, depending on the strain you were infected with. An attack can also simply cause noticeable inconvenience, as in the case of a DDoS attack, for instance. For the state, catching hackers is long and expensive, and the barrier to entry into the market for such attacks is not particularly high. For a private individual, finding a hacker and preparing a body of evidence would also be costly. Thus, it is unlikely that the cyber-epidemic situation in a stateless society would be fundamentally better.

Since the cost of catching a hacker is high and the probability of success is not very great, there is every reason to impose quite large fines, in addition to damages, on those unlucky few who are actually caught. You can read about the principles of calculating fines in “The Mechanics of Freedom,” in the recently published Chapter 43.

What happens if a hacker is caught, but nothing can be seized from them? For example, they claim they forgot the wallet key. There are no legal grounds to apply thermo-rectal cryptoanalysis, and besides, it provides no guarantee of a result, as the key may indeed be lost. In this case, the only option is to impose installment payments on them, and let them compensate as new legal earnings appear. Or, perhaps, they will decide to speed up the process by remembering the key.

For the end user, I would recommend passive protection methods and insurance. As for the actual catching of hackers, let insurance companies pay for it on a systemic basis if they deem it a market-efficient measure.

Bitcoin vs fiat during freebanking

I keep wondering which currency will prevail in conditions of free currency circulation: a guaranteed hard currency or one with an emission center?

Let’s imagine a hypothetical case of gold/bitcoin versus paper money. In this case, paper money could be issued by a Central Bank or a private issuer (like MMM) and have a pre-announced inflation rate at the beginning of the year (for example, 0.5%). They could also be stored on cards, meaning everything would be like with the dollar, but without the obligation to use it specifically in a certain territory. Mainstream proponents claim that this is better than hard money (because there are fewer crises, as far as I can understand), and I am supposedly some kind of backward Austrian. But I want to argue that it is their statism that has skewed everything in the modern economy, and free people use free money. In short, my question is: which money will win under conditions of freedom—money controlled by a group of economists or free money?

Attached to the question is a donation in the amount of 0.00118933btc

Since you are a proponent of AES, you most likely mean not “price increases”—that is, a decrease in the value of the currency relative to some hypothetical basket of goods—by inflation, but purely monetary inflation, meaning the rate of increase of the money supply. For gold in 2017, inflation was 1.5%. For bitcoin today, it is 3.65%. Presumably, it will equal gold in terms of inflation rates in 2022. Thus, the hypothetical fiat money with 0.5% inflation that you propose comparing with gold and bitcoin appears, at first glance, to be an even better store of value than gold or bitcoin.

However, you did not mention such a parameter as the hardness of money for nothing. By hardness, we mean the elasticity of the money supply in response to a price increase. Let’s say, if the price of gold rises sharply, it becomes more profitable to invest in its development at deposits previously closed as unprofitable, or even in extracting dispersed gold from seawater. Thus, gold is not a very hard currency, but due to the enormous stock of gold accumulated by humanity, even a twofold increase in the global production of this metal would still only increase its inflation to 3%.

In order to increase the supply of bitcoins, a hard fork is necessary. But a hard fork means a split of the chain and the creation of two cryptocurrencies with different emission rates. Naturally, the main mining power will work on producing the less inflationary old bitcoin, and the fork will remain a toy for speculators, losing value even more strongly than could be attributed to the difference in inflation rates. In other words, one can quite confidently assert that bitcoin is an absolutely hard currency, and there are no scenarios in which the production of new bitcoins could increase in response to a price increase.

Now let’s consider a private fiat MMM-coin. Yes, we know that today the inflation rate is 0.5%. But we have no guarantees that tomorrow the emission center will not decide to make inflation 1% or 10%. Fiat whose emission is centralized is absolutely soft money; therefore, its use as a means of saving only makes sense if the investor in this currency has reasons to trust the issuer that the supply of new money will remain low in the future. For example, he holds a hypothetical gun to the issuer’s hypothetical temple, but even in this case, hackers could be a serious problem.

However, the function of storing value is not the only task set for money. The second function is the use of money for settlements. And here, fiat certainly holds all the trump cards. Distributed ledger technology, which underlies bitcoin, will be inferior to the centralized ledger technology used in fiat settlements in terms of speed and cost—at least in the part of the operation where end users of the settlement system are served.

Naturally, the bitcoin community is also solving this problem by proposing the use of technology such as Lightning or sidechains. Their essence is that a certain amount of bitcoins in the blockchain is frozen, and in return, exactly the same amount is launched to move outside the main blockchain. In other words, we are talking about the issuance of fiduciary means of circulation, and if bitcoin is digital gold, then Lightning or Liquid is the technology for issuing digital banknotes.

What can a centralized money producer oppose this with? First and foremost—aggressive marketing. Imagine that tomorrow total ancap and free banking arrive, and the day after, Jeff Bezos releases a fiat Amazoncoin. He can offer his store customers a 10% discount when paying with Amazons. He can provide any other stores with terminals for accepting Amazons for free and charge them less for acquiring than Visa does, or charge nothing at all for the first year. Finally, he can invest tons of money in advertising.

So I wouldn’t write off fiat just yet; it will leave the stage slowly and majestically, and most likely will eventually simply merge with the crypto-economy, turning into fiduciary money backed by bitcoin, just as it once grew out of fiduciary money backed by gold.

For a deeper mastery of the material, I recommend reading the article “Modeling the Value of Bitcoin Considering Limited Emission”, as well as the monograph by Saifedean Ammous “The Bitcoin Standard”.

Police Russia of the Present, new season

Yesterday, the state carried out another act of violence against its citizens, raiding Navalny’s headquarters, as well as the homes and apartments of his staff, former staff, relatives of staff, and people who simply happened to be caught in the crossfire.

In general, political life in the country has become very lively. If I were watching this in a series, it would be clear that things are heading toward a climax and then a resolution. And, of course, I would find the series very strange if, after showing events like yesterday’s, I were then told that this had finally broken the spirit of resistance, the leaders had dispersed, the volunteers had returned to their everyday peaceful activities, and the tyrant ruled peacefully until his death, passing the throne to his growing son and leaving his loyal henchman Ramzan as regent. Instead, I would expect that in 2021, highly competitive elections for the State Duma would take place, preceded by a fierce struggle over the admission of non-systemic single-mandate candidates, and as a result, the parliament would acquire a rather diverse look, and with it, a certain agency; then there would be clashes over the repeal of the article in the election law banning Navalny from running for president, it would not be possible to repeal it, and quite unexpectedly for themselves in 2024, with Navalny’s support and to the outrage of the libertarians, Roizman would be elected. Now that would be a plot! Everyone would be eagerly awaiting the new season, which would certainly not be inferior to the previous one in terms of dramatic tension.

And although no one writes scripts for Russia, nevertheless, without satiety and the resolution of major internal problems, there will be no dull police stability here, no matter how much you raid Navalny’s headquarters or declare Open Russia an undesirable organization. Not the century, not the people, not the trends.

Smart Voting showed people that they are not just many, but very many. This means that it is possible to step out of the shadows. So now is the time for the visual capture of space. There is no need for extremist slogans, for it is enough to simply state a position rather than explain it; for explanations, there are internet resources protected from pressure. For example, Professor Solovey suggested mass-producing and selling cheap silicone bracelets with a simple inscription “help political prisoners,” and directing the proceeds toward that very help. Firstly, this benefits the prisoners, and secondly, such a thing is not shameful to wear, but it is shameful to demand its removal, as it is proof that a person personally donated a couple of hundred rubles to help those whom the state persecutes for their political views. Moreover, there is nothing extremist in the inscription. There is no need to try to invent a single symbol of protest—why do we need an alphabet of one symbol? After all, we live in a consumer society, which means there will be competition and a wide choice.

Of course, there will be street protests—how could there not be—but these are one-off promotional protest actions; however, for the “fronde” to become fashionable, people must also wear these conditional neck scarves a la fronde.

Thus, I envision the outlines of the next political season roughly as follows:

A continuation of the trend toward the normalization of protest, the everyday demonstration of one’s moods to everyone around in the form of wearable symbols. Protest becomes, if not prestigious, then at least mass-approved.
Close attention to the numerous ghouls and few decent people newly elected through Smart Voting. Public support for any correct gestures on the part of the elected, even if they were previously in the “ghoul” category: training implies positive reinforcement.
The departure abroad of a number of well-known opposition figures and the formation of permanent teams among them for the information support of “rocking the boat.” This is required by banal tactical considerations. The host of a popular YouTube channel must always be online, not sitting uselessly in a detention center. The studio must work, not be endlessly restored after raids by security forces. The coordination of the network must happen continuously. And so on. There is no longer any need to fear that this will negatively affect the image of the protesters: the myth about the State Department has gone stale. No one cares that something like Meduza is based in Riga, so why shouldn’t Navalny.Live, MBX.Media, and SVTV establish themselves there? One cannot be a generalist in an age of division of labor; street politics and media propaganda must be separated. The street politician should remain a guest on a stream, not a regular host of a show.
Media shaming of deanonymized security personnel is bearing its first fruits—rank-and-file employees are starting to resign, superiors are starting to apologize, and orders for the violent suppression of street actions occasionally begin to be executed without enthusiasm.
Ukraine demonstrates significant economic growth against the backdrop of Russian stagnation. Russian citizens begin to want things to be like in Ukraine.
The long-awaited global economic crisis hits. The regime takes a step that is correct from the point of view of self-preservation, opening the rainy-day fund and lowering taxes—but this looks like concessions to the demands of the opposition and only continues to weaken the regime.

As they say, remember this tweet.

*The government always tends to do its manicure with an angle grinder*

Golunov as a white swan

Journalist Ivan Golunov spent his time demonstrating to his readers how uglily the Russian state operates. He wasn’t very successful: even among the liberal public, many knew neither his name nor, more importantly, what he wrote about.

Later, however, he himself became a living illustration of how uglily the Russian state operates, and it was so vivid that it required no special investigations. After all, who in Russia doesn’t know that cops can plant, and regularly do plant, banned substances on anyone, either to make quick money or to pad their stats. Nevertheless, the stars aligned in the right way, and Golunov became a global celebrity.

Golunov was printed in newspapers, Golunov was printed on T-shirts, Golunov was printed on posters, people went to pickets across the country with Golunov’s name—and the regime wavered. Golunov was released.

That’s it, it’s over, Golunov did his part, and now, as one ancient Greek recommended to another, he could even die, for he can become no greater. Instead, Golunov opened his mouth and immediately caused frustration among those who had fought so hard for his release, because he recommended that everyone breathe out and calm down.

Calm down? What calm down? The regime wavered; at the very least, Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is under attack. Crush it, damn it!

And the Muscovites went to crush it. Peacefully, civilly, on a holiday. The regime took the bait, and instead of one Golunov, we now have more than four hundred Golunovs.

Excellent, now we need twice as many people to take to the streets tomorrow, even though it’s no longer a holiday, and continue the fun. The Yekaterinburg protest blazed a trail; all that’s left is to repeat it in Moscow. Only increase the numbers, and with each day—new demands. Otherwise, it doesn’t work. Today they demanded the repeal of Article 228, tomorrow they can add the demand to dissolve the Rosgvardia, then activists from the regions will flock to Moscow, and after a month of escalation, Putin will flee to Donetsk via Crimea.

But unfortunately, most likely, none of this will happen. Golunov will not become a black swan for the regime. Simply, of the four hundred detainees, three hundred will receive fines and pay them, assuming that in three years they will sue the Russian budget for compensation through the ECHR. Cosmetic changes will be made to Article 228 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, slightly reducing the sentences and changing, for example, the norm regarding the total weight of the product to a norm regarding the weight of the pure substance. The operatives who planted the bags will be imprisoned. The ones who ordered it will not be touched—you say it yourselves that the police plant drugs constantly, well, Golunov just had bad luck that day, it happens.

Alas, bursts of enthusiasm in Russia are still too short; even successful opportunities do not trigger a chain reaction. For now, the regime reliably controls the situation and is always ready to shove as many control rods into the reactor as necessary. But, as we know, in Russia, even this can sometimes have unforeseen consequences.

Have you heard of the TON project? Do you think the future belongs to new-generation blockchains, or will Bitcoin maintain its role as the primary cryptocurrency?

анонимный вопрос

The main factors ensuring Bitcoin’s current dominance:

Network effect. A huge number of people own Bitcoins, and they didn’t receive them through an airdrop, but incurred costs to acquire them, meaning they value them. Since others value them, one can boldly accept payments in Bitcoins; they are liquid.
Low emission rates. The Bitcoin mass increases slowly, meaning that in the long term, this money will at least preserve its value. Thus, Bitcoin is suitable as a store of value; there is no need to rush to get rid of it if someone happens to pay you in bits.
Decentralization. To set up a wallet, you can choose from a multitude of programs or even write one yourself. To transfer money, you don’t need to ask permission from a single transaction verification center—there are several tens of thousands of nodes in the network.

These main factors are enough so that, should you wish, you could easily sell your goods for Bitcoins or, conversely, buy goods with your Bitcoins. Or simply hold bits and enjoy the price growth.

Gram, issued as part of the TON project, will be successful if it can satisfy roughly the same criteria.

Network effect. This could potentially be very large if nothing more than Telegram is required to use the coins, and a ton of people have Telegram. But the ability to buy Gram quickly and conveniently with fiat will be necessary. If buying Gram requires first buying Bitcoins, then it is completely unclear why it is needed as money, since Bitcoins themselves already exist.
Low emission rates. I haven’t looked into the creators’ plans regarding this, but if the growth rate of the Gram mass turns out to be higher than Bitcoin’s, then the price will likely decrease relative to Bitcoin in the long run.
Decentralization. Here, as I understand it, everything is bad. First, to achieve high transaction speeds, it is intended to maintain a very modest number of nodes. Second, if a Telegram account is needed to manage these coins, it means the money is completely centralized: any account can be banned by the Telegram administration at any moment. If these funds can be managed without Telegram, then it’s unclear what Telegram has to do with it.

So I am quite skeptical about TON, but Gram can certainly be used as a speculative asset; hyperinflation definitely does not threaten it.

*And, of course, it is currently difficult to consider a currency decentralized if it depends entirely on a single creator*

What’s going on with Bitcoin?

anonymous question (paid in the amount of 0.0002btc)

In short, everything is fine with Bitcoin. Throughout the year, the price has been gradually falling, as have trading volumes, commission sizes, and the frequency of Bitcoin mentions in the press. In other words, the bubble that burst at the end of last year has been successfully deflating, and now the price is approximately one-fifth of its peak. This drop is comparable in amplitude to the decline that lasted throughout 2014, and is far smaller than the catastrophic crash of summer-autumn 2011, when the dollar price of Bitcoin fell 13-fold.

Of course, the lower the trading volumes, the greater the possibility of causing significant price jumps using relatively modest funds. But high volatility attracts speculators, and volumes begin to grow again, which means the opportunities for price manipulation begin to decrease; thus, these market feedbacks prevent the cryptocurrency from spiraling out of control.

Once again, as in 2014-2015, mining profitability has dropped, which leads to the least efficient miners being sent to the scrap heap. In 2015, during the low exchange rate, bankruptcies of individual pools also occurred. Thus, this market is actively clearing out inefficient players, meaning the end of the crisis is not far off.

Against the backdrop of all this seemingly negative environment, active work continues both on the Bitcoin protocol itself and on the Lightning second-layer protocol, which allows for the creation of direct payment channels outside the blockchain and the movement of money through them with negligible time costs and negligible commissions. Therefore, in the event of a new price surge, the probability that the mempool will become clogged, as it did last autumn, and that the transaction fee will skyrocket, becomes much lower; the community is now far better prepared for such situations.

So, is it time to buy? You know, the Belarusians have a proverb that it is never too late to buy dollars; the same can be said about Bitcoin. It should be acquired whenever there is free fiat that does not need to be spent in the next five years. By doing this, you will not only preserve your purchasing power but also benefit the community.

On a logarithmic scale, it is clearly visible that everything is OK with Bitcoin

What will happen to the institution of marriage under ancap?

anonymous question

I can answer in one word: deregulation. But that is obvious to everyone, because deregulation awaits all institutions under ancap, so let’s fantasize about where it will lead and what forms the institution of marriage might take.

What functions of marriage do we have today?

Marriage is a subscription to sex. Since humans are generally inclined to save effort, this function of marriage will be preserved under ancap, regardless of how much ideological polyamorists dream otherwise. But a subscription, of course, will not imply exclusivity by default, just as it already does not. The word “infidelity” will finally become a thing of the past, alongside other archaic terms like “sacrilege” or “vendetta”.
Marriage is a form of organizing a household. Here, as people become wealthier, this function will increasingly wither away. Roughly speaking, the norm will be an autonomous household, with the possibility of visiting a partner from time to time or organizing a joint tour. Housekeeping itself will become even more automated, and whatever automation does not handle will be perfectly executed by specialized companies, like modern cleaning services.
Marriage is a form of friendship. The continuing improvement of communication channels will make framing friendship as marriage less and less relevant. People easily meet and grow close without such a status, regardless of gender, age, and increasingly even social standing. Ancap will only exacerbate this trend.
Marriage is a cooperative for raising children. To the same extent that the model of marriage as a form of friendship blurs under ancap, the model of marriage as an institution for upbringing will also blur. A child will have a much greater degree of freedom, including in the choice of friends, guardians, and teachers.
Marriage is a form of legal entity. In the absence of a state that provides the right of legal representation without a power of attorney only to family members, this model will also blur. People will formalize situational relationships of mutual trust using simple and cheap mechanisms, for example, based on blockchain. In the absence of such formalization, a counterparty will be forced to act regarding someone’s acquaintances at their own risk. However, the aforementioned development of communication will allow one to easily obtain all necessary confirmations if necessary.

So. It is quite likely that the form of marriage we know today as traditional will be preserved under ancap as a kind of archaism, however, the role of the institution will be noticeably reduced and replaced by clearer and more specific contractual relations between people.

Will the current generation of Soviet—ugh, Russian—people live under ancap?

@WildTurkey

I would say that even the phrase “under ancap” is not entirely correct. Rather, one should say “by ancap,” just as people say, for example, “by conscience” or “by the rules,” although it sounds a bit clumsy.

The further we go, the more opportunities people have to live by ancap in a wide variety of things. Just ten years ago, people had practically no opportunity to conduct international trade without contacting the state. Now—no problem at all: there are bitcoins, there is the internet, trade away; the only issue is that problems may arise at customs. But once inexpensive long-range drones go into mass production, the issue of cross-border delivery of small parcels will cease to be acute.
And it will be this way everywhere there is solvent demand for bypassing state barriers. And the more positive examples of living by ancap there are, the greater the demand for such a life, and the less the demand for the state as such.

I have just drunk an elixir of optimism and predict that among the current generation of Russians around twenty years old, significantly more will live to see a life fully by ancap than will live to see retirement)))

This is a completely baseless prediction based on blind faith in the “market.” Mind you, economic theory does deny the possibility of precise quantitative predictions.

Ancap-chan

I answer questions on ancap, libertarianism, economics, politics, ethics, law and occasionally on abstract topics.

Тег: Forecasts