Who's not properly handling tail risks. Most people here hold 25% of their investment portfolios in an asset that will go absolutely gangbusters, even in real terms, upon the demise of the currency of the most stable legal entity in the world, and the world's reserve currency.Libertarian666 wrote: Ok, so then this would be an acceptable post? If you say so.
-------------------
I really think if "monetary realists" didn't have such a deep reluctance to admit the tail risks they are ignoring, they would have a much easier time seeing the light.
They are literally being blinded by their inability to admit that their portfolio could be demolished by a freeze-up of the US financial system. I mean if you've gone your whole life thinking you're essentially safe in believing that the US empire is different from every other one in history, it can be hard to look at the system as one that could collapse without warning and leave your "safe portfolio" in ruins.
Admitting Austrian economics is correct would mean that a "monetary realist's" belief in the stability of the financial system was mostly a myth. People don't like to concede that kind of "wrongness," especially if we've held these views for a long time.
I'm not saying there isn't some life left in the current system, but it becomes a lot more of a nuanced discussion rather than "tail risks in the current system can be safely ignored" or whatever the common wisdom is.
When I say "it's really hard" to change one's opinions when you're emotionally invested, I'm not saying you're emotionally immature, I'm saying you're human.
I could have gone on about similar things among liberals or conservatives. I've found most MR'ists to have a deep desire to understand the system, not diagnose it before they even understand it.