As usual, so much of what you say is right on the money (forgive the expression) and a fair observation of “some” things.

First, I know it’s just an analogy, but the wrong observations are being made about the administration of opiates: their safety in any given case varies and is incredibly difficult to predict. Same thing with the money supply situation. The risk is there, but the alternative is not to deliberately permit suffering and even worse consequences, it’s wise and adaptive rational action.

Sadly, none of this has anything really to do with crypto. But this is what is so often done in the crypto space: any justification for its existence is permitted and the sophistry is some of the most creative on earth.

The problem with the U.S. and it’s solutions are not the solutions, they are the problems. If the U.S. distributed the spoils of its economic system as well as most other western liberal democracies (my favorite is Germany) and, as a result, didn’t persistently run giant deficits by giving tax breaks to undeserving economic activity, then flooding the economy with debt and dollars would be completely unproblematic. In the last go-around in 2008, there was a lucky attempt at taking some piece of the action of those who benefited that paid a fair amount back to the treasury. This time the moral hazard is vast and only way of getting the money back is by taxation. And, of course, with the tax base seriously eroded, well, you get the idea.

But back to your advocacy….

“But if money becomes debased and devalued indefinitely, then technically, anything apart from money itself, should hold better value.”

Bitcoin has no case in this circumstance. If the above circumstance prevails, Bitcoin will be irrelevant. And we will be in a world of pain that no opiates will suffice to reduce.