Fiat currency, unbacked by some commodity with utility/value, is the most silly thing ever.
Actually, it was a great idea that is still considered by the majority of economists to be one of the more important factors in the economic progress of modern civilization.
By Keynesians, you mean.
When it comes to fiat money, I don't see many Non-Keynesians argue as well.
There are economists who criticize fiat, but I
tend to see them with minority. But I won't argue about that, because I don't really have numbers to back that claim.
First of all, we're not talking about whether it's moral or immoral to be forced to use a currency. We're talking about whether it's theft or not.
It's theft precisely
because society is coerced into using it as money. That's the linchpin making the scam work.
I can tell you about a few fiat currencies that are not forced on people and that are commonly used.
The USD is one of them, the EUR another. In many countries across the world, it may even be illegal to use them, but they are used nonetheless.
Or how about a privately issued fiat currency that's accepted and traded worldwide? Think Bonus Miles.
Noone forces you to hold any currency, as far as I'm aware of U.S. legislation. That you are required to settle your taxes in USD is no more a hassle than the need for buying stamps if you want to use the U.S. postal service.
- No one HAS to mail a letter via the USPS. You can use UPS or Fedex (at prices above a governmentally-mandated minimum, anyway.) If you work to live, as most of us do, you MUST send your FRNs to the federal government.
- No one is forced to accept postage stamps as "legal tender for all debts, public and private."
- No company pays their employees in postage stamps; or does business in stamps, thus incurring the burden of converting them to FRNs to pay their employees.
[...]
I repeat: no one forces you to
hold any currency, as far as I know.
That you're required to use it for a short period of time when it comes to settle your bills, is an inconvenience, no more, no less.
The nitpicking would be fine if we actually didn't see the distinction, or if it made a difference. What's being pointed out to you is that for all practical purposes, the distinction is irrelevant.
Okay, the nitpicking part is actually that "fiat is not
theft".
It could be considered coercion, when you're forced to use it.
It could be considered fraud, if someone actually made a promise about its value and devalues it later on (but in reality, no one makes such a promise).
Would just using a new word work for you? How about we call the scam "inflatascrew"? When referring to fiat shenanigans, we'll just tell everyone, "losing wealth occurs because you're being 'inflatascrewed' by your government. It's pretty much the same as being stolen from, but with these distinctions..." Surely that would satisfy your desire for semantic accuracy--because it's not as if the real issue is that you feel being stolen from this way is totally acceptable, and the whole nitpick is a distraction from that, right?
Let's just assume for a moment that I'm not nitpicking, but I actually disagree.
Fiat is a really good concept. I've used fiat all my life and it served me quite well. So did all the people I know.
Just because we like Bitcoin that much more today should not make us spread FUD about competition.
