Muslim World Report

Cryptocurrency Crisis Threatens U.S. Economic Stability

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 25, 2025 10:48 AM | 12 min read | 2492 words

TL;DR: The IRS has identified a potential $500 billion loss from Dogecoin, revealing significant issues in U.S. taxation and deepening economic inequalities. Stricter regulations may attempt to address these gaps but could also hinder innovation and provoke social unrest. Proposed budget cuts and the dismantling of the Department of Education could further exacerbate disparities, threatening U.S. economic stability.

The Cryptocurrency Crisis: A Threat to the Stability of the American Economy

The recent revelations from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the cryptocurrency Dogecoin (DOGE) have unveiled a staggering potential loss of $500 billion in U.S. revenue. This figure is not just a financial statistic; it symbolizes a broader crisis within the U.S. tax system, illuminating the growing chasm between the elite and working Americans. Much like the Great Depression exposed the vulnerabilities of the American economy, the current situation with cryptocurrencies serves as a wake-up call for our financial governance. The implications are profound, affecting not only budgetary allocations but also the overall economic stability of the nation. As the world watches, the interplay between cryptocurrency proliferation and government revenue strategies raises critical questions about accountability, equity, and the very fabric of financial governance: How can we reconcile innovative financial technologies with the need for fiscal responsibility?

The IRS attributes this revenue shortfall to its inability to effectively tax the meteoric rise of cryptocurrencies like DOGE. Key issues include:

  • Popularity among Retail Investors: DOGE has gained immense popularity but remains poorly understood by regulators.
  • Personnel Changes: The recent dismissal of key personnel in tax collection threatens the already fragile revenue system.
  • Systemic Inefficiencies: Critics argue this situation reflects a failure to adapt to the rapidly evolving digital currency landscape.

The narrative that DOGE and similar cryptocurrencies primarily serve the interests of the wealthy elite is gaining traction, further undermining federal financial support for those in need (Aysel, 2019). Like a modern-day gold rush, it often appears that only those equipped with the right tools and knowledge—essentially the affluent—are able to strike it rich, while the average person is left to navigate a complex and treacherous terrain.

When examining DOGE’s role, it becomes apparent that its primary objective is to generate wealth for the already affluent, rather than to promote fiscal responsibility or reduce government spending. This stark irony is encapsulated in the IRS’s predicament: as the agency grapples with massive potential losses, the very individuals who stand to gain from the proliferation of cryptocurrencies are often those who can afford to exploit the loopholes that allow them to evade taxes. The notion that the government can save a few million dollars while allowing billionaires to pocket billions in tax breaks highlights a critical failure in governance and economic justice (Corbet et al., 2018).

As the government confronts escalating debt and budget cuts, the ramifications of this scenario extend far beyond mere financial figures. Key concerns include:

  • Economic Disparities: Decisions made in the halls of power risk further entrenching economic disparities, potentially igniting social unrest in a nation already divided by class and wealth.
  • Global Consequences: The mismanagement of these emerging financial systems may lead to dire consequences that reverberate globally, affecting markets, political alignments, and the international perception of U.S. economic credibility (Eichengreen & Viswanath-Natraj, 2022).

As we reflect on this crisis, we must ask ourselves: What legacy do we wish to leave for future generations, and are we doing enough to ensure that economic prosperity is accessible to all?

What If the IRS Implements Stricter Regulations on Cryptocurrencies?

Should the IRS opt to impose stricter regulations on cryptocurrencies like DOGE, the immediate impact would reverberate throughout the market. While this could stabilize revenue losses as companies and crypto investors adjust to a new regulatory framework, it could also lead to:

  • Increased Transparency: Enhanced regulations may enable the government to better track and tax cryptocurrency transactions.
  • Stifled Innovation: A significant crackdown could push investment and talent abroad to more favorable regulatory environments (Agur et al., 2019).

However, this potential regulatory dichotomy raises serious concerns. On one hand:

  • Restored Faith: Enhanced regulations may address some revenue shortfalls and restore faith in U.S. fiscal accountability. Just as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was enacted to separate commercial and investment banking in response to the Great Depression, similar measures today could instill public confidence in the financial system.
  • Shadow Markets: On the other hand, regulations could push a substantial portion of digital financial activity into the shadows, exacerbating the very issues they aim to mitigate. The Prohibition era serves as a cautionary tale; attempts to restrict alcohol sales led to the rise of underground speakeasies and organized crime, suggesting that an overly restrictive approach could yield similar unintended consequences in the crypto space.

Moreover, increased regulation is likely to provoke a backlash among the public, particularly younger investors who view digital currencies as a counter-narrative to traditional banking systems. If these sentiments gain momentum, they could catalyze widespread protests or calls for financial reform, further politicizing the issue and complicating the economic landscape (Ainsworth & Alwohaibi, 2017). As we navigate this evolving landscape, one must ponder: Will regulation foster a healthier financial ecosystem, or merely drive innovation underground where it becomes harder to track and control?

What If Trump’s 2025 Budget Plan Is Implemented As Proposed?

In the context of fiscal policy, the 2025 budget proposal by former President Donald Trump—calling for tax cuts for the wealthy—could impose a significant strain on lower-income families, exacerbating existing economic inequalities. If enacted, this plan would prioritize high-income earners at the expense of the poorest 40% of American families, epitomizing a clear redistribution of wealth toward the elite (Berkemann et al., 2019). This situation can be likened to a game of Monopoly, where the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few players while the rest struggle to maintain their modest positions on the board. Key implications include:

  • Increased Poverty Rates: The “Reverse Robin Hood” strategy could lead to increased poverty rates and greater demands on local and state resources.
  • Social Unrest: As low-income families grapple with higher taxes and diminished services, the potential for social unrest becomes inevitable.

Moreover, the implementation of such a budget would send shockwaves through the global economy, deepening perceptions that the U.S. is increasingly disconnected from its citizens. This invites criticism from international observers and potentially destabilizes foreign investments (McDaniel & Norberg, 2019). Given that global economic conditions are interlinked, the repercussions of U.S. fiscal policies would resonate far beyond its borders, affecting international trade and economic relationships.

Consider the historical example of the Great Depression, when significant economic disparities led to widespread suffering and social upheaval. The implications of such a budget extend into the realm of social mobility and educational equity. A reduction in federal support for social initiatives could result in diminished funding for public programs aimed at uplifting disadvantaged communities. The resulting lack of resources would entrench existing inequalities and create a cycle of poverty that may be difficult to break. Is this a future we are willing to gamble on?

What If the Department of Education Is Dismantled?

The proposed dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education could have severe long-term consequences for American society and public policy. The projected additional cost of $11 billion to taxpayers is indicative of a profound disconnect between the perceived intent of budget cuts and their actual impact. If the department is dissolved, states would bear the burden of education funding without federal oversight, likely leading to:

  • Increased Local Taxes: Local taxes may rise to compensate for lost federal funding.
  • Deteriorating Educational Quality: The absence of federal oversight could result in lower educational standards, especially in under-resourced areas (Painter & Mok, 2008).

This scenario threatens to widen the opportunity gap between affluent communities and under-resourced areas, fueling cycles of poverty and entrenching social hierarchies. It’s reminiscent of the Gilded Age, when stark disparities in education and wealth resulted in a divided society, leaving many behind while a privileged few thrived. The absence of a cohesive national education strategy could stifle diversity and inclusivity in educational curricula, as states would have the autonomy to set their own policies.

As educational quality declines in less affluent regions, the implications become grave. A poorly educated workforce would undermine the U.S.’s competitiveness in an increasingly technology-driven global economy (Bull & Rosales, 2020). Imagine a future where children in affluent areas are equipped with cutting-edge skills while their peers in underfunded schools struggle with basic literacy. The loss of the Department of Education could usher in an era of educational inequity, diminishing the country’s capacity for innovation and social cohesion. The ripple effects could extend beyond national borders, affecting the United States’ reputation and partnerships within the global economic framework. Can we afford to let our educational landscape reflect such stark inequalities?

The Implications of Economic Disparities and Global Stability

The consequences of mismanaging emerging financial systems like cryptocurrencies are not isolated; they threaten to reverberate across global markets, straining political alliances and tarnishing the international perception of U.S. economic credibility (Eichengreen & Viswanath-Natraj, 2022). The interconnectedness of global economies means:

  • Increased Volatility: Instability in the U.S. can lead to heightened volatility in other nations, potentially creating a domino effect that exacerbates existing financial crises. This phenomenon is reminiscent of the 2008 financial crisis, where the collapse of one major institution sent shockwaves throughout global markets, leading to widespread economic downturns.

  • Tensions in International Relations: As economic disparities within the U.S. widen, the potential for social unrest increases, posing a threat not only to domestic stability but also to international relations. History has shown that economic strife can lead to geopolitical tensions; for example, the economic hardships in Germany post-World War I contributed to the rise of extremism and ultimately World War II.

Global investors often seek stable environments to safeguard their interests; a financial landscape marked by instability could drive capital away from U.S. markets, diminishing investment in key sectors that are vital for growth.

The narrative surrounding cryptocurrencies often serves to underscore the divide between the wealthy and the marginalized. The rise of digital assets can be perceived as a form of economic empowerment for some; however, they also reflect the failures of traditional financial systems that have largely benefited the elite. Much like the Gold Rush of the 19th century, where a handful struck it rich while many faced hardship, cryptocurrencies can offer opportunities but also highlight stark inequalities. As such, the challenge for regulators, policymakers, and stakeholders lies in crafting responses that bridge this divide while promoting broader economic stability and equity. Are we on the verge of repeating history, or can we forge a new path that genuinely promotes inclusivity and stability in our financial systems?

Strategic Maneuvers: Possible Actions for All Players Involved

Given the gravity of these developments, all stakeholders in this complex scenario must take deliberate, strategic actions. The U.S. government must reevaluate its approach to cryptocurrency regulation, balancing the need for oversight with the imperative to foster innovation. Possible actions include:

  • Comprehensive Regulatory Framework: Encouraging responsible investment while effectively taxing profits could restore some degree of equity and stability (Zetzsche et al., 2021).

Moreover, policymakers must engage with economists and social scientists to critically assess budget proposals and their long-term impacts on the U.S. economy. Advocating for a progressive tax system that alleviates the burden on the lower-income bracket is not merely a moral imperative; it is also a sound economic strategy to stimulate growth and social well-being (Agur et al., 2019). History shows us that periods of economic inequality can lead to social unrest; consider the economic disparities leading to the protests during the Great Depression. When the wealth gap widens, societal cohesion tends to fracture, underscoring the urgency to address these issues.

On the grassroots level, civil society organizations and advocacy groups should mobilize to raise awareness and lobby against regressive policies that disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Strengthening community ties and fostering dialogue around education and economic justice can amplify the voices of those most impacted by institutional decisions. Is it not the responsibility of society as a whole to ensure that the most vulnerable among us are not left behind?

Finally, in the realm of education, there needs to be a concerted effort to preserve federal support for public education through advocacy and community organizing. Emphasizing the necessity of a robust educational framework is critical in counteracting the push toward dismantling federal oversight. Consider education as the foundation of a house; without a strong base, the entire structure is at risk of collapse.

As these narratives unfold, every player in this complex landscape—be it the government, wealthy elites, or the general populace—must reassess their strategies and align their goals toward a more equitable future. The stakes are high, and the time for action is now.

References

  • Ainsworth, R. T., & Alwohaibi, M. (2017). Blockchain, Bitcoin, and VAT in the GCC: The Missing Trader Example. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2919056
  • Agur, I., Ari, A., & Dell’Ariccia, G. (2019). Designing Central Bank Digital Currencies. IMF Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781513519883.001
  • Afzal, A. (2019). Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Regulation: A Review. The Lahore Journal of Economics. https://doi.org/10.35536/lje.2019.v24.i1.a5
  • Berkemann, P., Beaton, K., Gershenson, D., Arze del Granado, J., Ishi, K., Kim, M., Kopp, E., Rousset, M. (2019). Fintech in Latin America and the Caribbean: Stocktaking. IMF Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781498303248.001
  • Böhme, R., Christin, N., Edelman, B., & Moore, T. (2015). Bitcoin: Economics, Technology, and Governance. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(2), 213-238. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.2.213
  • Bull, B., & Rosales, A. (2020). Into the shadows: sanctions, rentierism, and economic informalization in Venezuela. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. https://doi.org/10.32992/erlacs.10556
  • Corbet, S., Lucey, B. M., Urquhart, A., & Yarovaya, L. (2018). Cryptocurrencies as a Financial Asset: A Systematic Analysis. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3143122
  • Eichengreen, B., & Viswanath-Natraj, G. (2022). Stablecoins and Central Bank Digital Currencies: Policy and Regulatory Challenges. Asian Economic Papers. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00843
  • Gozman, D., Liebenau, J., & Mangan, J. (2018). The Innovation Mechanisms of Fintech Start-Ups: Insights from SWIFT’s Innotribe Competition. Journal of Management Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2018.1440768
  • Painter, M., & Mok, K. H. (2008). Reasserting the public in public service delivery: The de-privatization and de-marketization of education in China. Policy and Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2008.09.003
  • McDaniel, C., & Norberg, J. (2019). The Impact of Tax Reform on U.S. Economic Competitiveness. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(1), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.1.5
  • Xie, Y., Kang, S. B., & Zhao, J. (2021). Are Stablecoins Safe Havens for Traditional Cryptocurrencies? An Empirical Study during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Applied Finance Letters. https://doi.org/10.24135/afl.v10i.342
  • Zetzsche, D. A., Annunziata, F., Arner, D. W., & Buckley, R. P. (2021). The Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation (MiCA) and the EU digital finance strategy. Capital Markets Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/cmlj/kmab005
← Prev Next →