“Back in 1987, when then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan initiated the so-called “Greenspan Put”, assuring investors that the central bank would underwrite asset values whenever they fell sharply by printing new currency, he launched the era of unlimited money. Ever since, central bankers in developed economies have repeatedly assured asset-owners they’d do “whatever it takes”, in the memorable words of former European Central Bank head Mario Draghi. With the advent of quantitative easing after the 2008 crisis, they turbocharged the printing presses. Global money supply hasn’t literally become infinite, but investors have been assured that more can always be created”
House prices unaffordable? Productive labour not worth what it was? Ever increasing wealth divide? Seems to me the above is a bigger issue than Bitcoin.
You can check for yourself what it does. It’s irrelevant who made it if what it does is clear. You might have a point if it had some hidden functionality.
Martin M
2 months ago
I think governments should just ban Bitcoin. It really doesn’t serve any useful (legal) purpose, and sooner or later, everyone is going to realise that it’s just “smoke and mirrors”.
People should opt out of fiat currency. It doesn’t serve any useful purpose, and sooner or later, everyone is going to realise that it’s just ‘smoke and mirrors’.
Ok so you’re beginning to understand value is subjective
John Riordan
2 months ago
The only way Bitcoin could crash the economy is if its limited supply exposes the technically infinite supply of silly money for what it really is. Or, to put it another way, the collective confidence in fiat currencies disappears, never to return.
How much that’d be Bitcoin’s fault is questionable.
The flip-side is that people will come to understand Bitcoin for what it truly is – a fake “asset” created by crooked computer geeks to scam the gullible.
Given a choice between letting asset owners take the hit, or chronic price inflation for the peasants, guess which one will be more attractive for Central Bankers. AI requires huge volumes of reliable 24/7 baseload electricity. There just won’t be enough renewable electricity to support all that, so Carbon emitting thermal generation will be required more than ever.
Diesel generators are an awful lot cheaper and vastly easier to get planning permission for.
Dennis Roberts
2 months ago
“Back in 1987, when then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan initiated the so-called “Greenspan Put”, assuring investors that the central bank would underwrite asset values whenever they fell sharply by printing new currency, he launched the era of unlimited money. Ever since, central bankers in developed economies have repeatedly assured asset-owners they’d do “whatever it takes”, in the memorable words of former European Central Bank head Mario Draghi. With the advent of quantitative easing after the 2008 crisis, they turbocharged the printing presses. Global money supply hasn’t literally become infinite, but investors have been assured that more can always be created”
This is more of an issue than Bitcoin if you ask me. House prices too high, value of productive labour falling, rampant consumerism…
It needs repeating though ! A terrible, terrible policy mistake that still isn’t acknowledged. Financial investors are supposed to bear the risk in return for the rewards. Not get taxpayer funded handouts and insurance.
Hugh Bryant
2 months ago
When information is universally available everyone will have their own currency based on their asset profile. In the meantime the next step will be for major corporations to issue theirs. Which you choose to use will depend on whether you trust Elon more than Jeff or vice versa (Elon, obviously). Currencies will replace votes as the engine of democracy.
How do I pay taxes with Musky Money or Bezos Pesos? States will never let corporations use their own money. Facebook tried and received serious pushback.
I don’t know a great deal about crypo, but think it’s likely to crash the grid than the economy, but maybe that’s one and the same.
Jon Hawksley
2 months ago
Odd to have an article on Bitcoins that does not address the pitfalls for purchasers. Bitcoins have no intrinsic value, they transfer wealth from buyers to sellers, a buyer can only spend their bitcoins if there is another buyer willing to transfer their wealth to him. Greed will encourage such buyers and the price is likely to rise quite rapidly. The early investors have large holdings that cost next to nothing. They will sell some to new buyers but carefully to keep the price going up. They will increae their holdings of Treasury bills. The dangers are:
Realisation that there is nothing at the end of the rainbow. Buyers dry up, price falls, panic selling, price to zero. The greedy who invested are left with nothing for heir retirement.
Banks foolishly take Bitcoins as collateral and go bust when it unravels
The transferred wealth to the pioneers is so large that they do not know what to do with it so it sits in treasury bills whilst the investors who lost their wealth cannot spend it. The increased propensity to save will be deflationary.
Value is subjective, not “iNtRiNsiC”.
If you disagree, I have an endless supply of bananas you can’t possible consume to sell you and you can’t refuse, because bananas have iNtRiNsiC vALuE, so you must value them as directed.
So you’ll take shipment of all this dung, since it has iNtriNsiC vALuE
UnHerd Reader
2 months ago
Energy and human ingenuity are infinite. Bitcoin mining increases demand bit also incentivises supply so should stabilise the grid and mop up excess capacity. Fiat money possibly has some advantages but it depends on the ignorance of the masses who store value in it while the clued in buy assets on credit and this really can only go for some time. Bitcoin may save the economy by allowing a store of value for savers that people dont have now and restoring a stable middle class but we will have to see. Maybe it just forces the end of qt and higher onterest for savers and borrowers, maybe it takes over as fiat currencies hyper inflation
Richard Calhoun
2 months ago
Fiat money debt is unsustainable … whichever way you look at it.
Currencies need to be backed by Gold?
A gold standard is incompatible with modern economics, but there is nothing to stop you buying actual gold if you want it. At least it is real, unlike Bitcoin.
In other words, you forego your main economic tool.
Mark V
2 months ago
It could crash “the economy” if by “the economy” you mean the hall of mirrors, Potemkin village, managerialist-technocratic, hyperinterventionist, profligate, cronyist pseudo-economy we live in.
Back in reality however, “the economy” is a mess and Bitcoin is here to fix it.
The source code is public, it doesn’t matter who wrote it.
You say they are crooks, I say fiat is crooked.
Stephen Abrahams
2 months ago
What is the reason for all forms of currency? Answer : to act as a medium of exchange for trade. All currencies have no intrinsic value. Value is inherently subjective. The value of everything is entirely dependent on what it is worth to the purchaser. All fiat currencies are backed by nothing but the labour of generations yet to be born, a problem being continually exacerbated by the creation of ever more digital ie valueless forms of mediums of exchange by banks, who then charge interest on that essentially valueless medium.
Now tell me what Bitcoin is. Answer : it’s a purely digital medium of exchange with no intrinsic value, but with the advantage that its creation is understood to be a finite supply. Transactions are completely private and have no connection to the national economies of those transacting the trade. That, of course, is an unsurmountable problem for global governance, hence the enthusiasm for Central Bank Digital Currencies which offer the ‘benefit’ of a supply which remains under the control of national governments, with the added advantage of being a system which can be utilised to promote, or prevent, the trade in specific products.
Finally, to return to the utterly corrupted system of fiat currencies, the author of the article raises the issue of QE having been utilised to underwrite the value of assets, which is, undoubtedly correct. The more obvious and dangerous problem has been the wholesale transfer of wealth, in the form of assets, to those who were preferred by the thoroughly ludicrous concept of QE, because the assets represent the only reason for a concept of value which, as ever, is based on supply and demand.
Fiat currencies are backed by the issuing country, and their value is measured having regard to the power of the government in question. The US is the greatest global power, which is why its currency is the “global currency”. 120 years ago, Sterling filled that role.
My guess is that Bitcoin was created simply because it could be done. There were a few trials for digital currencies but they all failed to take off for one reason or another. Bitcoin overcame all of those deficiencies and became increasingly accepted. The underlying philosophy of such systems was the declared need to remove money from social and governmental control.
There is something alluring in creating something governments can not control, therefore corrupt or weaponize, but of course it has the dark side, that whatever good governments do (preventing crime, treason, etc) can be circumvented by the use of such untraceable currencies.
This qualified “plus” is seriously counterbalanced by it being a vehicle of speculation. If speculation is what the result of having no government control is then really what was the point.
Add to that the fact that keeping the system running requires extraordinary amounts of energy and materials, which are both supplied by societies and governments, including real miners working in real mines, and so on, the parasitic nature of the enterprise comes to the forefront.
When it comes to its use as a “currency”, it is only useful as a means of facilitating illegal transactions. It is simply too cumbersome for general use. When comes to its use as a “store of value”, it depends entirely on the “greater fool principle”.
“Back in 1987, when then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan initiated the so-called “Greenspan Put”, assuring investors that the central bank would underwrite asset values whenever they fell sharply by printing new currency, he launched the era of unlimited money. Ever since, central bankers in developed economies have repeatedly assured asset-owners they’d do “whatever it takes”, in the memorable words of former European Central Bank head Mario Draghi. With the advent of quantitative easing after the 2008 crisis, they turbocharged the printing presses. Global money supply hasn’t literally become infinite, but investors have been assured that more can always be created”
House prices unaffordable? Productive labour not worth what it was? Ever increasing wealth divide? Seems to me the above is a bigger issue than Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is the b*****d son of QE and will exacerbate its effects-its not binary.
Nonsense.
My understanding is that Bitcoin was designed to deal with this problem, at least for the people who own/will own it (a MASSIVE caveat I know)
How do we know that? We have no idea who “designed” it. My view is that Bitcoin was created by disreputable people for nefarious purposes.
The code is public
So?
You can check for yourself what it does. It’s irrelevant who made it if what it does is clear. You might have a point if it had some hidden functionality.
I think governments should just ban Bitcoin. It really doesn’t serve any useful (legal) purpose, and sooner or later, everyone is going to realise that it’s just “smoke and mirrors”.
Should be the other way around. Governments should stop endlessly printing money.
Governments have to manage the economy. One of the tools they have is controlling the money supply.
The less they do the better.
That was probably true in the Neolithic Age.
Nothing new under the sun.
People should opt out of fiat currency. It doesn’t serve any useful purpose, and sooner or later, everyone is going to realise that it’s just ‘smoke and mirrors’.
Gee, I just had a nice lunch. I used fiat currency to pay for it. Guess what? My payment was accepted.
Gee, I just had a nice lunch. I used Bitcoin to pay for it. Guess what, my payment was accepted.
It wouldn’t have been anywhere I have ever eaten.
Ok so you’re beginning to understand value is subjective
The only way Bitcoin could crash the economy is if its limited supply exposes the technically infinite supply of silly money for what it really is. Or, to put it another way, the collective confidence in fiat currencies disappears, never to return.
How much that’d be Bitcoin’s fault is questionable.
It used be gold that people flocked to. But you can still mine more.
The flip-side is that people will come to understand Bitcoin for what it truly is – a fake “asset” created by crooked computer geeks to scam the gullible.
People will come to understand fiat for what it is – a fake asset created by government to scam the gullible
And yet we can use it to buy anything, anywhere in the world.
USD came to prominence on a gold standard.
Given a choice between letting asset owners take the hit, or chronic price inflation for the peasants, guess which one will be more attractive for Central Bankers. AI requires huge volumes of reliable 24/7 baseload electricity. There just won’t be enough renewable electricity to support all that, so Carbon emitting thermal generation will be required more than ever.
Nuclear?
I think I read an article recently about data centres having their own small nuclear reactors.
Diesel generators are an awful lot cheaper and vastly easier to get planning permission for.
“Back in 1987, when then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan initiated the so-called “Greenspan Put”, assuring investors that the central bank would underwrite asset values whenever they fell sharply by printing new currency, he launched the era of unlimited money. Ever since, central bankers in developed economies have repeatedly assured asset-owners they’d do “whatever it takes”, in the memorable words of former European Central Bank head Mario Draghi. With the advent of quantitative easing after the 2008 crisis, they turbocharged the printing presses. Global money supply hasn’t literally become infinite, but investors have been assured that more can always be created”
This is more of an issue than Bitcoin if you ask me. House prices too high, value of productive labour falling, rampant consumerism…
Apologies for the double post. I’m blaming UnHerd.
It needs repeating though ! A terrible, terrible policy mistake that still isn’t acknowledged. Financial investors are supposed to bear the risk in return for the rewards. Not get taxpayer funded handouts and insurance.
When information is universally available everyone will have their own currency based on their asset profile. In the meantime the next step will be for major corporations to issue theirs. Which you choose to use will depend on whether you trust Elon more than Jeff or vice versa (Elon, obviously). Currencies will replace votes as the engine of democracy.
How do I pay taxes with Musky Money or Bezos Pesos? States will never let corporations use their own money. Facebook tried and received serious pushback.
You’ll pay your Land Value Tax in any currency you like and at the current exchange rate.
Horse hockey
Um…? George Soros is calling…
I doubt I will ever be likely to trust someone as creepy as Elon.
Bitcoin is built on the principle of ‘don’t trust, verify’
It is based on “Don’t trust, verify, and take endless amounts of time, and huge amounts of power doing so”.
You might want to look into the US military
What will be the medium of exchange?
I don’t know a great deal about crypo, but think it’s likely to crash the grid than the economy, but maybe that’s one and the same.
Odd to have an article on Bitcoins that does not address the pitfalls for purchasers. Bitcoins have no intrinsic value, they transfer wealth from buyers to sellers, a buyer can only spend their bitcoins if there is another buyer willing to transfer their wealth to him. Greed will encourage such buyers and the price is likely to rise quite rapidly. The early investors have large holdings that cost next to nothing. They will sell some to new buyers but carefully to keep the price going up. They will increae their holdings of Treasury bills. The dangers are:
Realisation that there is nothing at the end of the rainbow. Buyers dry up, price falls, panic selling, price to zero. The greedy who invested are left with nothing for heir retirement.
Banks foolishly take Bitcoins as collateral and go bust when it unravels
The transferred wealth to the pioneers is so large that they do not know what to do with it so it sits in treasury bills whilst the investors who lost their wealth cannot spend it. The increased propensity to save will be deflationary.
Value is subjective, not “iNtRiNsiC”.
If you disagree, I have an endless supply of bananas you can’t possible consume to sell you and you can’t refuse, because bananas have iNtRiNsiC vALuE, so you must value them as directed.
Bananas are a foodstuff, so they have an intrinsic value. Even if all the humans die out, animals will value bananas.
Dung beetles value dung
Sure, and if they ever evolve to becoming sentient, their futures exchange will probably list Dung Futures.
So you’ll take shipment of all this dung, since it has iNtriNsiC vALuE
Energy and human ingenuity are infinite. Bitcoin mining increases demand bit also incentivises supply so should stabilise the grid and mop up excess capacity. Fiat money possibly has some advantages but it depends on the ignorance of the masses who store value in it while the clued in buy assets on credit and this really can only go for some time. Bitcoin may save the economy by allowing a store of value for savers that people dont have now and restoring a stable middle class but we will have to see. Maybe it just forces the end of qt and higher onterest for savers and borrowers, maybe it takes over as fiat currencies hyper inflation
Fiat money debt is unsustainable … whichever way you look at it.
Currencies need to be backed by Gold?
Rather than ‘backed by’, you could simply use gold. And silver. Copper. etc….
clumsy though
It doesn’t travel over the internet very well, but for that you could use gold backed crypto.
A gold standard is incompatible with modern economics, but there is nothing to stop you buying actual gold if you want it. At least it is real, unlike Bitcoin.
“A gold standard is incompatible with modern economics”
There’s nothing especially modern about fraud
Well, how to you “pump prime” an economy if you are limited to a gold-backed currency?
You can still invest, the only difference is there aren’t unlimited units to throw around, debasing the currency.
In other words, you forego your main economic tool.
It could crash “the economy” if by “the economy” you mean the hall of mirrors, Potemkin village, managerialist-technocratic, hyperinterventionist, profligate, cronyist pseudo-economy we live in.
Back in reality however, “the economy” is a mess and Bitcoin is here to fix it.
It Bitcoin is here to fix that mess, we are all in trouble.
Fiat parasites are in trouble
So your solution is that we should embrace something put in place by a crook or crooks who are not even prepared to disclose their identity?
The source code is public, it doesn’t matter who wrote it.
You say they are crooks, I say fiat is crooked.
What is the reason for all forms of currency? Answer : to act as a medium of exchange for trade. All currencies have no intrinsic value. Value is inherently subjective. The value of everything is entirely dependent on what it is worth to the purchaser. All fiat currencies are backed by nothing but the labour of generations yet to be born, a problem being continually exacerbated by the creation of ever more digital ie valueless forms of mediums of exchange by banks, who then charge interest on that essentially valueless medium.
Now tell me what Bitcoin is. Answer : it’s a purely digital medium of exchange with no intrinsic value, but with the advantage that its creation is understood to be a finite supply. Transactions are completely private and have no connection to the national economies of those transacting the trade. That, of course, is an unsurmountable problem for global governance, hence the enthusiasm for Central Bank Digital Currencies which offer the ‘benefit’ of a supply which remains under the control of national governments, with the added advantage of being a system which can be utilised to promote, or prevent, the trade in specific products.
Finally, to return to the utterly corrupted system of fiat currencies, the author of the article raises the issue of QE having been utilised to underwrite the value of assets, which is, undoubtedly correct. The more obvious and dangerous problem has been the wholesale transfer of wealth, in the form of assets, to those who were preferred by the thoroughly ludicrous concept of QE, because the assets represent the only reason for a concept of value which, as ever, is based on supply and demand.
Fiat currencies are backed by the issuing country, and their value is measured having regard to the power of the government in question. The US is the greatest global power, which is why its currency is the “global currency”. 120 years ago, Sterling filled that role.
Empires fall
Yes, and another rises to fill its place. At that point, you just move to using the new empire’s currency.
If you’re not very bright you might
My guess is that Bitcoin was created simply because it could be done. There were a few trials for digital currencies but they all failed to take off for one reason or another. Bitcoin overcame all of those deficiencies and became increasingly accepted. The underlying philosophy of such systems was the declared need to remove money from social and governmental control.
There is something alluring in creating something governments can not control, therefore corrupt or weaponize, but of course it has the dark side, that whatever good governments do (preventing crime, treason, etc) can be circumvented by the use of such untraceable currencies.
This qualified “plus” is seriously counterbalanced by it being a vehicle of speculation. If speculation is what the result of having no government control is then really what was the point.
Add to that the fact that keeping the system running requires extraordinary amounts of energy and materials, which are both supplied by societies and governments, including real miners working in real mines, and so on, the parasitic nature of the enterprise comes to the forefront.
When it comes to its use as a “currency”, it is only useful as a means of facilitating illegal transactions. It is simply too cumbersome for general use. When comes to its use as a “store of value”, it depends entirely on the “greater fool principle”.
Fiat’s use as a currency is only useful as a means of impoverishing the public
And yet it has enabled us to construct quite a complex civilisation.
The gold standard did that, fiat is undermining it