I'd argue the opposite, if the US government ceased to exist, the electrical grids in North America would collapse shortly thereafter, followed by the Internet and Bitcoin. Without the rule of law and threat of prosecution, a massive surge in usage due to theft would overwhelm systems. Without the nuclear status quo and the threat of retaliation, NA would either be glassed or invaded.
They would probably be collapsed in the short term and eventually be replaced by something, if not decentralized power generation.
>Without the rule of law and threat of prosecution, a massive surge in usage due to theft would overwhelm systems.
I used both internet and electricity in Northern Syria circa 2015, provided by private providers, and it seemed to work just fine then. Why you think rule of law is so important to internet existing? If the dude running the cell phone towers and cell phone stand points an AK out the window when they see a crook, most people decide not to theft that. You don't need central power grid to have enough electricity to run phones and cryptocurrencies.
>Without the nuclear status quo and the threat of retaliation, NA would either be glassed or invaded.
Or cooperative militias and private individuals ally with someone with nukes or seize the ones already in existence. Not to mention invading American part of NA is hilariously foolish as there would be a "rifle behind every blade of grass."
Sounds like the next startup mecca. Now, before bitcoin, where did smart people put their savings? Probably, any money that wasn't needed for immediate liquidity went into dollars or euro or securities denominated in those currencies.
The present state of the art is that cryptocurrency is an arbitrage that converts subsidized electricity into value that can be transported out of the country.
Without bitcoin I would still advise putting savings in stocks, bonds, a little precious metals maybe. I don't see bitcoin as savings as much as a currency or insurance policy against all your material assets and bank accounts being seized and/or stolen.
>that can be transported out of the country.
There's a lot of value in this though, no? The 10k limit on undeclared financial instruments held in your personal custody through customs and KYC/AML laws in banking mean crypto fits a big void that was previously much harder to fill.
Would those stocks be denominated in Syrian currency, or something else?
Indeed, as I've said in the past, money is a technology, and different technologies can be applied to different purposes. The "major" world currencies are designed to be used as a temporary store of value, medium of exchange, and instrument of economic policy. Bitcoin could be applied towards different purposes.
>>> There's a lot of value in this though, no?
Sure, a subsidy is by definition a source of value.
Stocks would continue to be denominated in shares. I've never heard of a stock being denominated in currency, but maybe there is one out there like that. A share is usually something like I own 1/N of the interest in the company so the formula of ownership is m/N where m is number shares you own and N is the number of total shares (some simplification here, but roughly accurate). Market clearing determines how much people will pay for a stock, which happens in all sorts of currencies.
I'd argue the opposite, if the US government ceased to exist, the electrical grids in North America would collapse shortly thereafter, followed by the Internet and Bitcoin.
No, there will just be temporary outages and prices these things (electrical grids, internet) will rise to extortionist levels as local authorities / militias take over. Just like they do in any other conflict zone in the world.
If a major superpower falls, adversarial superpowers will be the ones to move in to fill the power vacuum, not local tribal warlords. See Russia after the fall of the USSR, but before Putin.
I don't think you can say there's a general "rule" like this, throughout history. If anything the cases where these powers become straight-up subjugated from the outside (absent outright military invasion) are in the minority. Counter-examples abound, e.g. the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary, or Spain after the disaster of 1898.
See Russia after the fall of the USSR, but before Putin.
Post-Soviet Russia was weak for sure, but not a vassal state by any interpretation.
