Ten years ago, I was in a basement bar in Shoreditch, the fashionable part of London that had adopted the moniker “Silicon Roundabout” thanks to the confluence of tech firms there. I was speaking to one of the many salons that had popped up in the wake of the 2008 crash, before an audience of 30-something creatives and digital entrepreneurs. The topic of the day: the still-new technology of cryptocurrency. When I finished, I added that if anyone had a few quid to spare, they might consider taking a punt on this thing called Bitcoin. Then trading at about $100, I expected it to surge in price over the coming years — though it would be a wild ride, because it might eventually crash to oblivion. “Get in to get out,” I advised.
We knew little about Bitcoin’s creators, other than that they were angry at how the 2008 crash had been managed and wanted to create an alternative form of money to liberate people from banks. Set up using blockchain technology — a decentralised, digital record on a peer-to-peer network — Bitcoin transactions could take place without the need for a central clearing authority. Yet despite all the excited chatter that evening about the new businesses that could take payments or process transaction in cryptocurrencies, few of them went far. That’s because Bitcoin, with its volatile pricing and high transaction costs, wasn’t really behaving like money. But I also suspected that didn’t matter. Because built into its design was a limit to how many Bitcoins could be produced, a feature that would enable it to exploit a design flaw in central bankers’ monetary policy — and ultimately reveal the façade of so much “wealth-creation” in the past decade.
At the time of the 2008 crash, a strict theology governed economic policy-making in Western countries. It held that monetary policy, determined by an independent central bank, should dominate economic management and should support the private banking system to the best of its ability. For obvious reasons, the crash spurred demand for change to this model across the political spectrum. But the economic policy establishment scarcely noticed. Instead, it faithfully applied its doctrine. The banks were bailed out and, to ensure asset prices quickly bounced back, central banks flushed the financial system with cheap money, and not just with its traditional method of cutting interest rates.
Starting at the US Federal Reserve and then following on in 2009 at its British and European counterparts, central bankers adopted a bold new policy that had been pioneered in Japan: essentially handing money to banks by buying their bonds at near-zero interest, something they called quantitative easing. The theory, derived from studies of the Great Depression, was that by pouring money into the corporate sector, the central bank could get businesses to invest and thereby create new jobs. But economies had changed a great deal over the intervening century, and rather than kickstart a recovery, the money flowed into existing assets, producing big bull runs in stocks, bonds and real estate. Still, central banks were happy, saying the resulting wealth effect — asset-owners feeling richer — spurred consumption, and supported economic growth.
But that’s not necessarily how ordinary folk saw matters. Real wages remained stagnant, even as house prices and rents on homes or new business premises were all rising by the month. And not coincidentally, these were the years of populist rage against elites and “experts”. But while some took to the streets, a secondary revolt took place: infiltration of the financial system. Enter Bitcoin, which offered a means to hack the regime of quantitative easing. Since its supply was fixed, any portion of the wave of money that central banks pumped into markets which was used to buy Bitcoin would drive up its price, inflating a bubble.
That’s just what happened. By 2021, that $100-a-pop trade I’d touted back in 2013 had soared past $60,000. And on its vertiginous journey, as others saw the easy money to be made off gaming monetary policy, spin-offs multiplied, from non-fungible tokens to meme stocks on trading boards. Such innovations took on a sharp political edge on Reddit boards such as r/wallstreetbets, where traders organised short squeezes that caused losses at big funds, and then celebrated those victories. “We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to punish the sort of people who caused so much pain and stress a decade ago,” wrote one user in 2021, “and we’re taking that opportunity.” But though such victories were usually fleeting, and the new inventions not only ethereal but often utterly ultimately meaningless, they succeeded in making their point. What amounted to currency debasement by monetary authorities had meant that what was worthless could become priceless.
The fact that cryptocurrency was more or less imaginary, that it had no physical reality, that it was nothing more than a sort of elaborate confidence act, was beside the point. That’s true of all money. Although we rational moderns claim to believe only in “facts”, and thus impart the language of cold empiricism to any talk of money — hard cash, real money, solid gold — in reality few things are less concrete. We think of money as cash, but cash is insignificant in the money supply (when was the last time you used it?). We think the government prints it, when we actually create it ourselves from thin air via bank-borrowing. The government can’t even be sure how much money exists.
Nevertheless, we’re willing to transact business with millions of people we’ll never meet, using a medium of exchange we don’t understand, simply because we trust in its fungibility and solidity. Those figures in our banking apps may be nothing more than code on a server, but we trust them to still be there tomorrow, to have essentially the same value today as they did then, and to be available as a universally accepted means of payment. The whole system is backed by an elaborate financial and legal architecture, mediated by a central bank, and is ultimately grounded in our faith. And that faith has enabled us to do miraculous things, from developing new technologies to lifting billions from poverty.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“We knew little about Bitcoin’s creators, other than that they were angry at how the 2008 crash had been managed and wanted to create an alternative form of money to liberate people from banks.”
No John, they just wanted to get rich quick. A degree in criminal psychology provides a better insight into the ways of the world than a degree in economics.
This may or may not be the case, but I remember when I first came across mention of bitcoin, back in something called the Daily Reckoning in 2010 or so, it was specifically being promoted as an antidote to fiat-money and corrupt central banking, so there may be more ideology and indeed anger behind its creation than you give it credit for.
Whenever “ideology” is mentioned. I always respond with “follow the money – who’s made it?” Ideology is, almost invariably, a cover for greed.
Whenever “ideology” is mentioned. I always respond with “follow the money – who’s made it?” Ideology is, almost invariably, a cover for greed.
…boy, you are really are self- immolating over Bitcoin Poli D. I suspect a lot of the negative sentiment on Unherd whenever cryptocurrency comes up, is from people who’ve worked in the City, and are invested in the status quo, or otherwise as conservatives, are naturally resistant to something which is radical capitalism.
…and by the way, the people who created it are polymaths, not City midwits.
But do we really know who the creators of Bitcoin were ? This seems far from certain. And if we do not, how can we know their real aims ?
Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assign them decent and honourable motives. But poli is still correct that subsequent waves of crypto “enterpreneurs” were – many still are active – criminals and shysters. There’s no getting away from the sheer madness and scale of fraud of the crypto exchanges.
One of the reasons that happens is that this is yet another so-called disruptive technology where one of the main “advantages” is that some new business model bypasses the regulators. Uber claimed not to be a taxi service. Crypto exchange get rich quick schemes claim not to be securities (investments). Tech companies claim that their IP (intellectual property) is worth huge amounts and claim it is “owned” in countries like Ireland which played almost no role in creating that IP.
Then there’s the massive energy waste involved in Bitcoin mining. Possibly reduced now for Ethereum. But not – I understand – for Bitcoin.
Back to the main poin about inflation. This economist (author) appears to be blaming inflation on companies making excess profits. Rather than central banks printing vast amounts of money. Doh !
Bitcoin was created to be untrackable trading tokens for buying drugs on The Silk Road (dark web). It took a very long time before people realised it could be used as an asset in itself.
…exactly Peter, the CB’s created the paper which lead to ridiculously easy paper wealth for financial insiders. For an interesting analysis, see: https://www.lynalden.com/open-networks/
Then there’s the massive energy waste involved in Bitcoin mining.
Untrue – it uses less than computer video gaming, and even the WEF recently posted a YouTube video on Bitcoin miner Crusoe, expounding how it uses energy that otherwise would go wasted.
Bitcoin was created to be untrackable trading tokens for buying drugs on The Silk Road (dark web). It took a very long time before people realised it could be used as an asset in itself.
…exactly Peter, the CB’s created the paper which lead to ridiculously easy paper wealth for financial insiders. For an interesting analysis, see: https://www.lynalden.com/open-networks/
Then there’s the massive energy waste involved in Bitcoin mining.
Untrue – it uses less than computer video gaming, and even the WEF recently posted a YouTube video on Bitcoin miner Crusoe, expounding how it uses energy that otherwise would go wasted.
But do we really know who the creators of Bitcoin were ? This seems far from certain. And if we do not, how can we know their real aims ?
Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assign them decent and honourable motives. But poli is still correct that subsequent waves of crypto “enterpreneurs” were – many still are active – criminals and shysters. There’s no getting away from the sheer madness and scale of fraud of the crypto exchanges.
One of the reasons that happens is that this is yet another so-called disruptive technology where one of the main “advantages” is that some new business model bypasses the regulators. Uber claimed not to be a taxi service. Crypto exchange get rich quick schemes claim not to be securities (investments). Tech companies claim that their IP (intellectual property) is worth huge amounts and claim it is “owned” in countries like Ireland which played almost no role in creating that IP.
Then there’s the massive energy waste involved in Bitcoin mining. Possibly reduced now for Ethereum. But not – I understand – for Bitcoin.
Back to the main poin about inflation. This economist (author) appears to be blaming inflation on companies making excess profits. Rather than central banks printing vast amounts of money. Doh !
“…boy, you are really are self- immolating over Bitcoin Poli D.”
But unlike you, I have a sense of humour. Dissing your sacred cow! – Oh dear.
You’re correct. It shows some of the characteristics of a cult – non-believers being instantly shouted down for example.
That’s not to say there isn’t some value and useful innovation in Blockchain. I don’t think that’s in doubt.
…well if this thread is anything to go by, which it is, at least on Unherd, it is the ‘believers’ getting shouted at!
…well if this thread is anything to go by, which it is, at least on Unherd, it is the ‘believers’ getting shouted at!
…my point was you’re dissing yourself Poli ! For an incidental analysis of where crypto sits in the current scheme of things, see: https://www.lynalden.com/open-networks/ as well as: https://www.lynalden.com/april-2023-newsletter/
You’re correct. It shows some of the characteristics of a cult – non-believers being instantly shouted down for example.
That’s not to say there isn’t some value and useful innovation in Blockchain. I don’t think that’s in doubt.
…my point was you’re dissing yourself Poli ! For an incidental analysis of where crypto sits in the current scheme of things, see: https://www.lynalden.com/open-networks/ as well as: https://www.lynalden.com/april-2023-newsletter/
…and by the way, the people who created it are polymaths, not City midwits.
“…boy, you are really are self- immolating over Bitcoin Poli D.”
But unlike you, I have a sense of humour. Dissing your sacred cow! – Oh dear.
Your post undersells massively how much the early adopters of all of this did so for ideological reasons. Libertarianism had a brief renaissance around that time in the tech sphere.
Pompous, erroneous twaddle. If you’re going to comment on a topic at least ensure you’ve done a tiny bit of investigation into the topic before you sound off like an ignorant farmyard animal.
Here’s a useful library: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/literature/
This may or may not be the case, but I remember when I first came across mention of bitcoin, back in something called the Daily Reckoning in 2010 or so, it was specifically being promoted as an antidote to fiat-money and corrupt central banking, so there may be more ideology and indeed anger behind its creation than you give it credit for.
…boy, you are really are self- immolating over Bitcoin Poli D. I suspect a lot of the negative sentiment on Unherd whenever cryptocurrency comes up, is from people who’ve worked in the City, and are invested in the status quo, or otherwise as conservatives, are naturally resistant to something which is radical capitalism.
Your post undersells massively how much the early adopters of all of this did so for ideological reasons. Libertarianism had a brief renaissance around that time in the tech sphere.
Pompous, erroneous twaddle. If you’re going to comment on a topic at least ensure you’ve done a tiny bit of investigation into the topic before you sound off like an ignorant farmyard animal.
Here’s a useful library: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/literature/
“We knew little about Bitcoin’s creators, other than that they were angry at how the 2008 crash had been managed and wanted to create an alternative form of money to liberate people from banks.”
No John, they just wanted to get rich quick. A degree in criminal psychology provides a better insight into the ways of the world than a degree in economics.
Prior to 2008 the financial system had created an excess of debt that had become unsustainable and threatened to collapse the entire system. QE had the effect of a sponge, absorbing the debts with new money, leading to a surplus of money in the system which then drove up asset prices. This was then extra-inflated by the Covid payouts to cover a lack of economic output leading to too much money in the system for the level of economic production. Inflation was always going to follow, but it was made worse because of Russia-Ukraine and the squeeze on energy.
The value of money depends on what it allows you to buy. With prices rising visibly (ie from one month to the next) everyone is left chasing more money just to stay still and speculative assets like bitcoin stamp-collecting benefit from the panic of chasing income benefiting charlatans like FTX.
However, what’s really scary is how fragile the financial system is to movements in interest rates – from the pensions funds who would have been caught cold over Truss’s tax-cuts, to the collapse of SVB and Credit Suisse, with more banks at risk.
If the government can’t curtail inflation by tightening the money supply and raising interest rates it may well get worse as the spiral of wage claims redoubles the effect on prices. Unfortunately, this is coming at a time of low trust in political institutions, and with politicians adding regulatory costs and chasing policies like net-zero that in themselves would increase prices even in normal times. Now is the time to lighten the balloon by cutting costs and throwing out anything that restricts economic output. In the long run inflation is beaten by efficiency and surplus, not restriction. Simplify, streamline and ‘stick to the knitting’.
Prior to 2008 the financial system had created an excess of debt that had become unsustainable and threatened to collapse the entire system. QE had the effect of a sponge, absorbing the debts with new money, leading to a surplus of money in the system which then drove up asset prices. This was then extra-inflated by the Covid payouts to cover a lack of economic output leading to too much money in the system for the level of economic production. Inflation was always going to follow, but it was made worse because of Russia-Ukraine and the squeeze on energy.
The value of money depends on what it allows you to buy. With prices rising visibly (ie from one month to the next) everyone is left chasing more money just to stay still and speculative assets like bitcoin stamp-collecting benefit from the panic of chasing income benefiting charlatans like FTX.
However, what’s really scary is how fragile the financial system is to movements in interest rates – from the pensions funds who would have been caught cold over Truss’s tax-cuts, to the collapse of SVB and Credit Suisse, with more banks at risk.
If the government can’t curtail inflation by tightening the money supply and raising interest rates it may well get worse as the spiral of wage claims redoubles the effect on prices. Unfortunately, this is coming at a time of low trust in political institutions, and with politicians adding regulatory costs and chasing policies like net-zero that in themselves would increase prices even in normal times. Now is the time to lighten the balloon by cutting costs and throwing out anything that restricts economic output. In the long run inflation is beaten by efficiency and surplus, not restriction. Simplify, streamline and ‘stick to the knitting’.
Cash will be abolished, every transaction will be passed onto GCHQ and bank rescues will consist of electronically managed haircuts to the amount of money in the ‘wallet’ on your mobile phone. Will people still use banknotes and coins (illegally) in a parallel economy? Will local communities set up barter systems?
Cash will be abolished, every transaction will be passed onto GCHQ and bank rescues will consist of electronically managed haircuts to the amount of money in the ‘wallet’ on your mobile phone. Will people still use banknotes and coins (illegally) in a parallel economy? Will local communities set up barter systems?
“Beware the Greeks bearing gifts”.*
(As Laocoön is supposed to have said.)
“Beware the Greeks bearing gifts”.*
(As Laocoön is supposed to have said.)
Some kind of sick joke. Bitcoin and the whole crypto market is like the wild west. There’s no rules, trust or obligation. It’s a tower built on ‘greater fool theory.’ I’d sooner measure faith in global finance at the local casino.
Some kind of sick joke. Bitcoin and the whole crypto market is like the wild west. There’s no rules, trust or obligation. It’s a tower built on ‘greater fool theory.’ I’d sooner measure faith in global finance at the local casino.
Errr… no it does not.
Errr… no it does not.
Keynesians v goldbugs: The same ol’ metaphysical two-party system persists!