Why the Left and the Right are Both Wrong & Why it Does Not Matter

Traditional economic theories, primarily Keynesian and Monetarist, dominate today’s economic policy frameworks. Despite their differing beliefs on how to best or more fairly maintain “economic equilibrium” — whether through tax cuts or increased government spending — both agree on two key principles:

• Central control of the money supply
• Continued expansion of the money supply

These principles inherently mean that both theories endorse an economy with a centralised base layer, where a single entity — namely the government — has the authority to manipulate the money supply as it sees fit.

The prevailing belief on both sides is that for every increase in value through productivity gains in the economy, which would naturally lower prices if left alone, the government must impose artificial inflationary measures to offset this effect and ensure that the economy remains in a state of moderate chronic inflation.

Whether proponents of these schools of thought see this as a necessity to force humans into productive pursuits — an arguably cynical and misguided proposition — or recognise it for what it is: essential to keep the debt economy in check, the outcome is the same.

Nevertheless, what proponents of these economic theories fail to realise — no matter how well-intentioned they are — is just how detrimental the effects of chronic inflation are on the economy and society as a whole. Reliance on the debt economy and the fiat standard entrenches a system that distorts the incentives of corporations, the wealthy, and the working class alike — essentially everyone — leaving us all at a disadvantage and causing detrimental effects to our planet.

As we will explore in more detail in future writing, the Debt Economy and the Fiat Monetary System (which enables governments to print new money out of thin air at their own discretion) inherently promotes:

• Short-termism over long-term planning
• Companies growing faster and faster
• Overconsumption and waste over sustainability
• Hierarchical structures where a minority holds disproportionate power
• Selfishness over collaboration
• Uneven distribution of productivity gains
• Monopoly control over free market competition
• Unsustainable business practices

Ironically, all these negatives are endured just to ensure that we work more for less, because as artificially imposed inflation grows exponentially against us, we must produce exponentially more only to maintain the same standard of living.

I will repeat this once more: because inflation grows exponentially against us, we must produce exponentially more as a society. If we don’t do that, the debt economy collapses.

FIAT money is centralised money that can be printed out of thin air at the discretion of the controlling entity — namely the government. In contrast, Sound Money has a capped supply and preserves its purchasing power over time.

Despite our tendency to treat it as such, expanding the money supply, causing chronic inflation, is not a natural law. It is a self-induced condition purely of our own choosing — it’s about as natural as genetically modified Belgian Blue cattle or featherless chickens.

Without increasing the money supply, the natural state of the economy would be deflationary, meaning purchasing power would go up over time— as we accumulate knowledge faster than we lose it over time.

We’ve been taught to fear deflation for supposedly ‘depressing the economy’, when in reality, it’s because deflation would make it harder to service our ever-growing debt levels and prevent us from borrowing even more from the future — ironically, the very issues at the heart of what’s wrong with our current economic world order.

Another argument often championed by both Monetarists and Keynesian economists is that a deflationary environment leads to economic depression because when saving is incentives over spending — no one would be motivated to pursue any venture of value. This view, aside from being deeply cynical and borderline misanthropic about human nature, lacks logical consistency. In a deflationary market with sound fundamentals, borrowing rates are determined by market forces. When individuals and businesses save more, they expand the pool of available funds for investment. This increased supply of savings drives interest rates down, as lenders compete to offer more attractive terms. Lower interest rates, in turn, make investments more appealing.

Simply because an asset serves as a reliable store of value — meaning it doesn’t rapidly depreciate — doesn’t mean it’s automatically a good investment. While such an asset may be preferable to one that is losing value, as FIAT money does, it still doesn’t compare favourably to an investment that offers a positive real return. A more accurate perspective is that spending would only be incentivized when it truly contributes to sustainable economic growth.

Under a deflationary system with sound money (where the money supply is never expanded):

• Productivity gains would benefit everyone through lower prices
• Only business practices that add real value would be incentivized
• “Too big too fail” would be “too big will fail”
• Sustainable growth models
• Consumption driven by need not excess
• An abundant future where everyone has the inherent right to equal opportunity
• Financial speculation, fractional banking and political gaming would move from the center of the economy to the peripherals because there would be little to speculate about nor manipulate
• Those at the bottom won’t get poorer and poorer from eroding wages

Given the historical precedents, there is zero chance that the U.S. dollar will prevail indefinitely under the current system. The U.S. is at the late stage of its long-term debt cycle and is running out of tools to devalue its currency and service its growing debt, as it already allows unlimited borrowing under the FIAT standard.

Whether the U.S. dollar as we know it survives another 10, 30, or even 100 years remains unsaid, but we must ask ourselves:

What comes next?

Will we repeat the same destructive cycle, restoring the monetary system under a new central authority, only to see the same thing play out again?

Can we afford that, given the strain our current practices place on our planet and our social fabric? Do we need to wait, or more importantly: Can we afford to wait?

Why both sides are wrong

Today’s political establishments on both the left and right are united in upholding the fundamental flaw in our global economy — their control over the printing press and its frequent use — and spend the majority of their time squabbling over the crumbs left by this fallacy, which ultimately means fighting over whichever group of people deserves to benefit the most in the short-term at the expense of long term sustainability.

In the grand scheme of things, it matters little to future generations whether the right’s tax cuts for the rich or the left’s spending programs prevail today, as both sides’ economic policies are rooted in borrowing — let’s be honest, stealing — from future generations to uphold an economy that largely finances meaningless overconsumption and waste; where growth at any cost is our only guiding principle.

(I will be detailing why this is the case in a future article)

The economic environment we’ve created imposes a zero-sum game mindset on all participants, programming us to believe that one person’s gain must come at another’s expense. Yet, in reality, there is more than enough for everyone on this planet. Even more troubling is that this artificially imposed economic framework unfairly reduces humans to liabilities when, in truth, we are the ultimate resource.

To clarify, I’m not suggesting that the economic policies we vote for today don’t matter. Personally, I believe there are many leaders out there with an infinite mindset — genuinely wanting to do what’s right for the future — but the issue is that they’re facing an ever-growing uphill battle caused by the skewed incentive structures of our FIAT system.

Until we overhaul or restore these incentives — whichever term you prefer — it’s of little importance to future generations who gets voted into office in today’s political landscape given that each side’s economic policies are currently built upon the idea of borrowing from the future until there is no future to borrow from anymore.

Why it matters less than you think

I’ve painted a rather bleak picture, but perhaps more than at any other time in history, we actually have reasons to be extremely hopeful and to look forward to a bright future.

For the first time in human history, we have sound money — finite money — in the form of a digital open protocol — something I’ll delve into further in future writings. It represents the ideal of perfect money — decentralised money — with a fixed supply that can never be expanded or manipulated. Its adoption shifts our economy from a centralised base layer — where the window to manipulation, corruption and gaming the political system always stands open— to a decentralised base layer, granting every single person on this planet the inherent right to their financial future.

Every time new fiat currency is printed, this new digital form of sound money rises in value with the same amount, creating an unbeatable dynamic that is posed to spread around the world like sunlight — not because any one person says so, but because it simply represents a better idea.

Most importantly, unlike any other time in history, it no longer matters what those in power thinks about it or if they unite around it— adoption depends solely on individual actions, without the need for anyone’s permission.

I challenge you to embark on an explorative journey to understand these two statements:

• With infinite money, everything else becomes finite.
• With finite money, everything else becomes infinite.

Reflect on them until you’ve truly internalised their meaning.

It might just change your entire understanding of not only the global economy but why it’s incredibly meaningful to be alive today.