What about environmental protection, as an example. I'll set up a chemical company, I'll save a huge amount by not using any filters and just releasing the leftover sludge into the lakes and groundwater. It won't affect me because I will live in another region or a different country. We are already discussing regulation...
Just read the previous postings. I said the posting I made a reply to reminded me of this Saudi hotel thing... but you then replied with just a "?" in it...
That book is obviously BS. I've read it. Whenever something weird/unethical happens it so happens that it's two people in a room. Read the part where he talks about his "training". Plus there's the whole "In this particular case foreign investment worked out well for county X, but that's only because I was involved." The book fails obvious tests like source, timing, topic, ability to be verified etc. It's like the Dan Rather rodeo documents. If you have preconceived idea that you want to support, and you're sloppy then they're attractive. If you ask questions, they fall apart immediately.
But why would Turkey do so? What problem does it solve for them? Or to be more clear, how are they going to pay for all that Bitcoin? Think it through... You currency is crashing. This is making all the foreign imports that you want unaffordable and making it difficult to borrow. So you are going to take your currency that people already don't want, announce that you will no longer be using it, and you expect people will then trade you their Bitcoin for your soon to be unused currency? If you wanted to do that, you'd have to backstop the existing currency with something. It they had lots for unencumbered assets they were ready to part with to support their currency, then they could support the existing currency.
Weak currencies are the result of a weak economy, or the risk of default of a country. So the currencies are linked with their country. Switching to BTC would cut that link as BTC is not linked to a specific country. So the huge devaluations would be stopped and BTC will not tank because one country is in problems. On the other hand if all failed, bankrupt countries would start to use it, that might damage BTC.
1) Defaults would still be a problem. Particularly government bonds. Even if the value of Bitcoin was rock solid stable against a basket of goods, the bonds issued by the country would still be discounted by the default risk. And I would argue that default risk goes up because they can't print Bitcoin. The currency risk might go down, but you essentially just trade it for default risk. 2) A country would be crazy to issue gov't bonds payable in bitcoin. What if the price of bitcoin goes up 10x? 100x? They'd have to buy some sort of long term bitcoin call option to protect themselves, which given bitcoin's volatility, would probably cost more than the value of the bond for something like a 10 year bond. Bitcoin seems completely unsuitable as a benchmark for long term financial transactions. And doing things like building airports, roads and bridges are long term. It seems like they'd be forced to privatize and offshore long term investment. 3) Switching to bitcoin doesn't fix a weak economy or the underlying issues that cause it. If a trade deficit is an issue before bitcoin, it's still an issue after. I'm not sure exactly how that's going to affect the price of a gallon of gas, but I would expect foreign suppliers of good to be worried about payment from any country that's running a trade deficit and who is using bitcoin as currency. Maybe you trade rampant inflation for rationing? 4) I don't think bankrupt countries using bitcoin would devalue bitcoin, but promises made in bitcoin from bankrupt countries would certainly be devalued.