It's interesting that both sides of this debate are trying to claim the same argument: skepticism of human judgement and foresight: > Munger, in contrast, is e

It's interesting that both sides of this debate are trying to claim the same argument: skepticism of human judgement and foresight: > Munger, in contrast, is expressing contrasting beliefs about human nature and about the nature of politics and markets. Namely, that our inevitable flaws, including our lack of perfect foresight, require guardrails to reduce the risk of unintended consequences, like, for example, speculation in “low-risk” mortgages that drove a global financial crisis. Without borders, languages, culture and, yes, fiat currency, our civilization can be easily placed at risk. The pro-bitcoin crowd is making a similar argument. Their position is that, since we lack perfect foresight, the government can't be trusted to implement monetary policy. Eventually, they say, the government will screw things up and undo all the good that monetary policy has done over the past few decades. Who's right? It depends what happens. One point that never seems to come up in these debates: bitcoin can (and does) coexist alongside fiat currencies. It is clear that fiat isn't going anywhere, it is clear that bitcoin is not a totally suitable currency for reasons listed in the essay, but I don't see bitcoin's existence as a bad thing and I expect various cryptocurrencies will continue to exist alongside fiat currencies.