This week I had a conversation with Vijay Boyapati about how the emergence of Bitcoin has revealed some serious problems in the traditional Austrian account of the origins and nature of money.
Topics include: how Menger and the Austrians failed to understand the bubbliness of money; how speculation rather than use as a medium of exchange is what bootstraps bitcoin; what bitcoin can or cannot tell us about the origins of money; how money is actually better off without 'intrinsic value'; how the success of gold shows that bitcoin can have a future; how bitcoin isn't quite money yet and what this means; and much much more.
Showing posts with label intrinsic value. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intrinsic value. Show all posts
Friday, May 30, 2014
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Why Bitcoin Needs Neither 'Intrinsic Value' Nor Government Backing
One of the things that puzzles people most about Bitcoin, and what makes them most skeptical about its future, concerns the very nature of bitcoins and the source of their value. Put simply: Just what the hell are bitcoins exactly and why would anybody want them?
The most basic answers to these two questions are, respectively, that a bitcoin is a spot in a distributed ledger, and that what makes a bitcoin valuable is that it is a medium of exchange that at least some people are willing to accept as payment for other goods or services.
These answers, however, do little to take away the confusion and/or skepticism, because bitcoins are by nature so very different from other media of exchange that we are familiar with.
This becomes clear when we look at the different ways in which this type of confusion and/or skepticism is expressed by a wide variety of both experts and laypeople, including top economists like Paul Krugman, former central bankers like Alan Greenspan and Nout Wellink, Fed critics and hard money advocates like Peter Schiff, sympathetic Bitcoin observers like JP Koning, and many many more. Here are the most common points these critics make:
The most basic answers to these two questions are, respectively, that a bitcoin is a spot in a distributed ledger, and that what makes a bitcoin valuable is that it is a medium of exchange that at least some people are willing to accept as payment for other goods or services.
These answers, however, do little to take away the confusion and/or skepticism, because bitcoins are by nature so very different from other media of exchange that we are familiar with.
This becomes clear when we look at the different ways in which this type of confusion and/or skepticism is expressed by a wide variety of both experts and laypeople, including top economists like Paul Krugman, former central bankers like Alan Greenspan and Nout Wellink, Fed critics and hard money advocates like Peter Schiff, sympathetic Bitcoin observers like JP Koning, and many many more. Here are the most common points these critics make:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)