This feckless approach to governance isn’t limited to our nation’s economic policies. It applies to almost every policy the government pursues. Most policy changes are biased toward whichever party is in power. They represent feeble attempts to solve problems politically rather than practically. There is no such thing as long-term planning since the parties’ time horizons are limited to whatever period is left in any given election cycle. Testing for any adverse consequences associated with the solution’s material assumptions is never done because it might expose the policy for what it ultimately becomes: flawed. Metrics are rarely included by which performance could be measured to determine the degree to which the policy was a success, or even whether it should continue because the politicians really don’t want anyone to know.
By today’s standards, the Continental dollar solutions was a wild success. The war was fought, government got money to cover the expense, and the borrowed money was repaid, if at all, at a heavily discounted rate. As you stated, “…Congress issued too much paper, prices soared, the currency plummeted…” Grubb was correct when he compared the Continental dollar to “a zero-interest bearer bond.” Of course, we know that the IRS would correct that problem in today’s world if Continental dollars were treated like promissory notes. It would simply impute an interest rate to the loan. But then, that rule only applies to taxpayers rather than government policies funded by taxpayer dollars.
It’s comforting to know so little has changed in 250 years. After all, continuity is important.
The statement by Scott Bessent underscores a critical but often underestimated reality: financial system integrity is a core pillar of national security. Since its founding in 1865 under the United States Secret Service within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the agency’s original mission combating counterfeiting was fundamentally about protecting trust in the U.S. dollar. That mandate has now evolved into a dual role: safeguarding both physical leadership and financial infrastructure.
Recent operational effectiveness, including rapid evacuation and crowd security during presidential events, signals more than tactical competence. it reflects the integration of financial security, public safety, and political continuity. In an era of rising cyber threats, digital asset proliferation, and geopolitical financial fragmentation, institutions like the Secret Service are no longer just protective forces; they are guardians of systemic stability.
For global leaders and capital allocators, the takeaway is clear: trust infrastructure. whether physical, financial, or digital is the ultimate strategic asset. Nations that can secure it will maintain dominance; those that cannot will face erosion not just of safety, but of economic sovereignty itself.
With poor infrastructure, the opponent finds it easy to take advantage of any weaknesses using cyber attacks, disrupted supply chains, or disinformation. However, with good infrastructure, it serves as a base for dominance, providing for innovations, robust economies, and influence internationally.
This is why responsible scaling of AI, the prevention of armed conflicts, and countering of geoeconomic conflicts all hinge on one common thing – infrastructure that can be relied upon.
This feckless approach to governance isn’t limited to our nation’s economic policies. It applies to almost every policy the government pursues. Most policy changes are biased toward whichever party is in power. They represent feeble attempts to solve problems politically rather than practically. There is no such thing as long-term planning since the parties’ time horizons are limited to whatever period is left in any given election cycle. Testing for any adverse consequences associated with the solution’s material assumptions is never done because it might expose the policy for what it ultimately becomes: flawed. Metrics are rarely included by which performance could be measured to determine the degree to which the policy was a success, or even whether it should continue because the politicians really don’t want anyone to know.
By today’s standards, the Continental dollar solutions was a wild success. The war was fought, government got money to cover the expense, and the borrowed money was repaid, if at all, at a heavily discounted rate. As you stated, “…Congress issued too much paper, prices soared, the currency plummeted…” Grubb was correct when he compared the Continental dollar to “a zero-interest bearer bond.” Of course, we know that the IRS would correct that problem in today’s world if Continental dollars were treated like promissory notes. It would simply impute an interest rate to the loan. But then, that rule only applies to taxpayers rather than government policies funded by taxpayer dollars.
It’s comforting to know so little has changed in 250 years. After all, continuity is important.
Happy Independence Day!
Thank you for the comment, TJ! The more things change the more things stay the same! Happy 250th Independence Day!
Data integrity ensures that information flowing through networks is accurate and secure. Without it, decisions are built on sand.
Oversight mechanisms provide accountability, preventing misuse and corruption.
Trust frameworks allow nations, companies, and individuals to collaborate confidently across borders.
The statement by Scott Bessent underscores a critical but often underestimated reality: financial system integrity is a core pillar of national security. Since its founding in 1865 under the United States Secret Service within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the agency’s original mission combating counterfeiting was fundamentally about protecting trust in the U.S. dollar. That mandate has now evolved into a dual role: safeguarding both physical leadership and financial infrastructure.
Recent operational effectiveness, including rapid evacuation and crowd security during presidential events, signals more than tactical competence. it reflects the integration of financial security, public safety, and political continuity. In an era of rising cyber threats, digital asset proliferation, and geopolitical financial fragmentation, institutions like the Secret Service are no longer just protective forces; they are guardians of systemic stability.
For global leaders and capital allocators, the takeaway is clear: trust infrastructure. whether physical, financial, or digital is the ultimate strategic asset. Nations that can secure it will maintain dominance; those that cannot will face erosion not just of safety, but of economic sovereignty itself.
Agreed, that trustworthy and reliable infrastructure is paramount to dominance.
With poor infrastructure, the opponent finds it easy to take advantage of any weaknesses using cyber attacks, disrupted supply chains, or disinformation. However, with good infrastructure, it serves as a base for dominance, providing for innovations, robust economies, and influence internationally.
This is why responsible scaling of AI, the prevention of armed conflicts, and countering of geoeconomic conflicts all hinge on one common thing – infrastructure that can be relied upon.
yes Mam