Helicopter Ben said:
Is it likely that government spending will come down to a sustainable level? No
Will the government stop printing money? No
Is the govt more likely to grow and interfere even more than it already does? Yes
I think the answers are an obvious no, no, and yes. - Agree If my answers are correct, then collapse is a mathematical certainty.
If we can't predict when, but we're certain of the outcome, it only makes sense to prepare now. - Agree with a caveat in my response.
Stablecoins are, essentially, the CBDC everyone saw and objected to a few years ago. The main differences here are
1) They're issued by Treasury and not by Fed
Also
2) They're backed by UST bills, not notes. Stablecoin adoption supercharges foreign purchases of treasuries injecting huge amounts of foreign capital into the US. It's the anti-dedollarization.
3) They're completely controlled by the US
4) They take SWIFT (Euro Dollar market, for the most part) out of play
5) They actually could upend the entire banking system. Right now banks play intermediary between the Fed and the people to increase or decrease money supply, interest rates etc. Stablecoins can do that without any part of the banking system. It's a direct connection between the user and the US Treasury.
6) Globally, people want to be paid in USD rather than their own local currency. They want to hold their cash in USD rather than their own local currency. The vast, vast majority of global commerce is done in USD.
USD has a, lessening, stranglehold on global commerce. Stablecoins could be like an Extremis injection to USD control. There is a scenario in which every strength of the USD is multiplied to a degree that it can't be competed against (until such a time it explodes...I'm borrowing from Iron Man 3 FYI)
Ultimately, the mathematical certainty remains but timing becomes more cloudly. I think Stablecoins push dedollarization out decades. I think it would be folly to assume the US has reached this level of global monetary dominance without having some tools left to deploy.
Now the caveat. Preparation is prudent. I think the mistake someone could make is to prepare to such a degree that they miss a lot of potential upside in the mean time. Think of it this way, Dave just landed for an 2 week vacation with his family. Everyone but Dave heads out to the destination and enjoys themselves. Dave, on the other hand, the prudent planner, stays in the airport and heads over to his departure gate. He knows the plane home is taking off from there and doesn't want to miss it so why take the chance of leaving the airport?
I get the example has a very concrete defined timeline for the departing aircraft and the collapse of USD is undefined which is where the analogy falls apart. I think if you prepare for something like it's imminent and fail to use resources for any other alternative, you'll miss something. The correct behavior is not to just prepare, but to prepare to such a degree that it considers the reality of multiple outcomes being in the distribution - particularly when incoming data lean more towards those alternatives than the certainty in the near term.