Accelerationist Pierre

The following argument about Bitcoin and monetary policy has taken place on Twitter between Pierre Rochard, of Riot Platforms, and Thiago Coelho, of the Pythagorean School:

Pierre: "There is an accelerationist argument for raising the debt ceiling to undermine the credibility of central bank monetary policy."

Thiago: "Bitcoiners get to ignore and even encourage the monetary collapse from which they are insulated, but it can make them seem cruel toward the innocent nocoiners (the would-be “precoiners”); careful with that."

Pierre: "I haven't heard any data-driven arguments for why a collapse of fiat money would harm the median nocoiner. Seems like only people with fiat-denominated fixed income will be harmed."

Thiago: "Maybe I misunderstand the idea here; inflation clearly harms the average person, and so would hyperinflation."

Pierre: "That seems like an accelerationist argument."

Explain what Pierre's point is and what Thiago might be missing in it.

From this conversation, it seems like Pierre Rochard's point is predicated on a fundamental criticism of central bank monetary policy and the view that Bitcoin could be a better alternative. By referring to the "accelerationist argument," he's talking about actively encouraging scenarios that would lead to the failure or discrediting of current systems—in this case, central bank monetary policy—in order to hasten their replacement with something new (like Bitcoin).

When Pierre says, "I haven't heard any data-driven arguments for why a collapse of fiat money would harm the median nocoiner," he's suggesting that the majority of people who do not hold Bitcoin ("nocoiners") might not be significantly harmed by a collapse of fiat currency. He seems to imply that the people who would be most harmed are those with fixed incomes denominated in that fiat currency, possibly because their income wouldn't be adjusted for inflation and their purchasing power would therefore decline.

Pierre's final statement, "That seems like an accelerationist argument," is a response to Thiago's claim that inflation and hyperinflation harm the average person. Pierre might be pointing out that Thiago is inadvertently making an accelerationist argument himself—acknowledging that the current system can cause harm and potentially lead to a situation that hastens its own demise.

What Thiago might be missing from Pierre's argument is the contention that the fallout from a collapse of fiat currency might not be as universally harmful as assumed. While it's generally accepted that hyperinflation is detrimental, Pierre's point suggests that there could be different outcomes for different segments of society, and these nuances might be overlooked in a blanket statement that "inflation clearly harms the average person." Pierre's argument implies that a deeper analysis of the impacts on various demographics and economic groups might reveal a different picture.

Like how?

When Pierre argues that a collapse of fiat currency might not harm the "median nocoiner," he seems to imply that the effect of such a collapse might differ among various groups in the population. Here are a few potential scenarios to illustrate this:

1. Wealth redistribution: If a collapse of fiat currency leads to a rapid increase in the value of Bitcoin (or other cryptocurrencies), wealth could be redistributed from those who primarily hold assets in fiat currency to those who hold Bitcoin. This could lead to substantial wealth gains for "coiners," but the effect on "nocoiners" would vary depending on their economic status and asset holdings.

2. Inflation hedge: Assets like Bitcoin, real estate, gold, and other commodities are often seen as hedges against inflation. Therefore, individuals who hold such assets might be protected against a collapse of fiat currency, while those with most of their wealth in cash or cash-equivalent assets (e.g., savings accounts) might suffer. This effect would be more prominent among wealthier individuals, who are more likely to hold a diversified portfolio of assets.

3. Debtors vs. creditors: In a hyperinflationary environment, the real value of debt decreases. This could potentially benefit individuals or entities with large amounts of debt, at the expense of those who hold the debt (creditors). This could have a varied impact on different segments of the population depending on their debt status.

4. Income earners vs. fixed income recipients: As Pierre mentioned, individuals who receive a fixed income denominated in fiat currency (e.g., retirees receiving a fixed pension) would be adversely affected, as their purchasing power would decline. On the other hand, individuals who are still working might see their wages adjust over time (though not necessarily immediately or perfectly) to compensate for inflation, thus lessening the impact.

Overall, the impacts of a fiat currency collapse are complex and could vary significantly among different segments of the population. It's also important to note that while some groups might theoretically benefit in certain ways, a collapse of fiat currency would likely cause substantial economic instability and hardship, and these potential negative effects shouldn't be overlooked.

The argument was here.