Where in that definition does it say that it can’t be done in the open?

See for example Trump’s shenanigans, which are done in plain sight for all to see, but with few if any repercussions (a very brief selection: having foreign dignitaries stay at his hotel in DC while he’s in office; having the Secret Service stay at his resorts when he goes golfing; scamming the public with his family’s meme coins; etc)

Not if it limits growth to a commensurate extent (or more)

A big part of why America is as rich as it is in 2025 is Big Tech. If laws and regulations had prevented that industry from taking off by stifling the now-giants back when they were starting up, you may have been more equal today (you’d have fewer billionaires), but there would also have been a lot less wealth to go around, even for the working class

Between 2022 and 2024, 0.1% of all fentanyl seizures were at the northern border with Canada, vs ~99% at the border with Mexico. There’s also an (equally small, relatively speaking) reverse flow of fentanyl into Canada from the US. Not to mention that fentanyl trafficking is completely orthogonal to tariffs, except that the former is used as an excuse to utilize the latter to bully an ally.

> you're describing a level of control that the US government can already exercise using the current banking system

You’re handwaving this away. Just because something is theoretically possible, it doesn’t mean that it’s as likely to happen as something else that is order of magnitudes less complex (imposing the level of fine-grained control discussed in this thread on the existing system, versus building it in from the beginning in a new one). Friction and inertia matters in the context of preventing government overreach

> Why would anyone use it?

Because the government mandates it. Because the only employers that will hire you pay out wages in it. You can imagine many scenarios where individuals don’t have much of a choice. Which could be a reason for someone to want this idea to not catch on, lest the current system gets replaced by something worse. Cheerleaders and enthusiasts may take the opposite view

> if you can exchange your dystopian stablecoins for USD

Yes, if. And for how long?

I’m not saying a motivated totalitarian regime controlling all levers of powers could necessarily be prevented from implementing their dystopia anyway, but we also don’t have to expedite technology that would make it significantly easier for them

Is there any particular segment of this chat where he said something you found insightful or thought showed his deep understanding of some complex topic? I don’t doubt that he can be pleasant and charismatic when shooting the breeze with people in a friendly atmosphere, that’s not the critique I have of him.