The author of this essay http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/g...about-bitcoin/
has "some serious reservations and concerns" about Bitcoin. He does think it's possible for digital systems like Bitcoin to have roles in the future monetary system, though.
He thinks that Bitcoin boosters expect Bitcoin to have a role greater than gold or silver, and disagrees with that. I expect that Bitcoin will be complementary with the precious-metal monetary system because of Bitcoin's superiority in several ways.
1)There is the problem of counterfeiting. Was there not recently in the news a report of gold-plate bullion? It should be much harder to fake bitcoins or some other digital money.
2) One party can conduct a transaction with another party at the speed of light even if they are antipodal to each other. Precious-metal money would have to be transported by hand or machine when it is necessary to transport.
3) Storage costs for metallic money would be greater. Also, insurance against losses might be seen as necessary.
4) Losses of metallic money are much more likely. To be sure, bitcoin or other digital money wallets can be lost.
5) Accounting and auditing costs would be much greater for metallic money.
There may be other advantages to digital money, but I think I have done enough (That's a chance for you to show me up!)
Partly for those reasons I envision that in time many people will use both metallic money and digital money because they are complementary, contrary to what the author says--he seems to think that we cannot use both metallic money and digital money (false dilemma).
Now this: The author writes, "Perhaps its my conspiratorial side, but something smells fishy here. If Bitcoin is as dangerous to the State as its proponents in the liberty movement claim, why isnt the State already moving to crush it?" In the first place, the digital money movement is still rather small. What all the now-existing digital money can purchase is a small part of the world economy. In the second place, perhaps the State welcomes for now the competition that the digital money movement offers to metallic money. Third, why should the State now act madly and precipitately? It can afford to bide its time and wait for a good time to strike. Indeed, later on in the essay the author does suggest just that.
A "fundamental characteristic" of money: In an economy it is traded or held for trade later more often than any other market good--really? This webpage uses a slightly different definition http://libertarianstandard.com/2013/...an+Standard%29
Many Turkish businesses will take many monies: dollars, euros, roubles, etc. In Argentina black market exchanges will exchange pesos for dollars or euros, or vice versa.
Are bitcoins money? I concede the regression theorem does not apply http://www.garynorth.com/public/11844.cfm So, no, not money? I suspect the theorem should not be used, but I am yet unable to explain why not.
has "some serious reservations and concerns" about Bitcoin. He does think it's possible for digital systems like Bitcoin to have roles in the future monetary system, though.
He thinks that Bitcoin boosters expect Bitcoin to have a role greater than gold or silver, and disagrees with that. I expect that Bitcoin will be complementary with the precious-metal monetary system because of Bitcoin's superiority in several ways.
1)There is the problem of counterfeiting. Was there not recently in the news a report of gold-plate bullion? It should be much harder to fake bitcoins or some other digital money.
2) One party can conduct a transaction with another party at the speed of light even if they are antipodal to each other. Precious-metal money would have to be transported by hand or machine when it is necessary to transport.
3) Storage costs for metallic money would be greater. Also, insurance against losses might be seen as necessary.
4) Losses of metallic money are much more likely. To be sure, bitcoin or other digital money wallets can be lost.
5) Accounting and auditing costs would be much greater for metallic money.
There may be other advantages to digital money, but I think I have done enough (That's a chance for you to show me up!)
Partly for those reasons I envision that in time many people will use both metallic money and digital money because they are complementary, contrary to what the author says--he seems to think that we cannot use both metallic money and digital money (false dilemma).
Now this: The author writes, "Perhaps its my conspiratorial side, but something smells fishy here. If Bitcoin is as dangerous to the State as its proponents in the liberty movement claim, why isnt the State already moving to crush it?" In the first place, the digital money movement is still rather small. What all the now-existing digital money can purchase is a small part of the world economy. In the second place, perhaps the State welcomes for now the competition that the digital money movement offers to metallic money. Third, why should the State now act madly and precipitately? It can afford to bide its time and wait for a good time to strike. Indeed, later on in the essay the author does suggest just that.
A "fundamental characteristic" of money: In an economy it is traded or held for trade later more often than any other market good--really? This webpage uses a slightly different definition http://libertarianstandard.com/2013/...an+Standard%29
Many Turkish businesses will take many monies: dollars, euros, roubles, etc. In Argentina black market exchanges will exchange pesos for dollars or euros, or vice versa.
Are bitcoins money? I concede the regression theorem does not apply http://www.garynorth.com/public/11844.cfm So, no, not money? I suspect the theorem should not be used, but I am yet unable to explain why not.
Comment