Opinion

Edward Hadas

Bitcoin repeats gold-standard errors

Edward Hadas
Jan 22, 2014 15:07 UTC

I cannot judge whether bitcoin represents a technological breakthrough, but I am confident that the pseudo-currency’s popularity shows widespread economic amnesia. If bitcoin ever became a real currency, it would suffer from the crippling problems of the gold standard.

The underlying problem is the belief that the electronic token’s independence from the government is a good thing. This libertarian notion could hardly be more wrong. Money is a common good for the whole society, and in the contemporary world governments are the pre-eminent social guardians.

It is true that under dire circumstances people might have to resort to an inferior monetary substitute. If a government collapsed or totally trashed the monetary system, then some privately issued money could be the least bad alternative. In such apocalyptic times, though, a software protocol which relies on secure electronic communications would not be first choice. Gold, which is tangible and not subject to hacking, is more plausible. So are old baseball cards.

But for the sake of argument, assume that bitcoin or something like it did actually become the leading currency in a monetary dystopia. People would learn soon enough why non-government money works badly.

Deflation is an obvious issue. Price declines are inevitable when a finite supply of bitcoin money, a feature of the software, meets an expanding supply of purchased goods and services. That would be uncomfortable. Consumers might delay purchases as they wait for prices to fall, workers might chafe at regular annual wage cuts, and creditors would be even worse off.

An early obituary for bitcoin

Edward Hadas
Jan 8, 2014 15:09 UTC

Bitcoin is not over yet. But the pseudo-currency is close enough to collapse to merit an early retrospective.

My prediction is controversial. Many fervent fans are persuaded that this government-free currency is for real. Their ardour may keep it going for a while, but equally bitcoin could disappear very quickly – that’s the way with speculative bubbles. So now is the moment to learn some economic lessons before the whole phenomenon is forgotten. Here are five.

Money without government appeals to people without law.

Legal tender has the backing of the issuing state. The government has a proprietary interest in maintaining a reliable currency. It also has the necessary powers to do so. It can regulate lending institutions, pursue fraud and create new money to keep the system afloat.

Bitcoin is a step back not forward

Edward Hadas
Nov 27, 2013 16:00 UTC

The developers of bitcoin are trying to show that money can be successfully privatised. They will fail, because money that is not issued by governments is always doomed to failure. Money is inevitably a tool of the state.

Bitcoin relies on thoroughly contemporary technology. It consists of computer-generated tokens, with sophisticated algorithms guaranteeing the anonymity, transparency and integrity of transactions. However, the monetary philosophy behind this web-based phenomenon can be traced back to one of the oldest theories of money.

Economists have long declared that currencies are essentially a tool to increase the efficiency of barter, which they consider the foundation of all organised economic activity. On this view, money is a convenient instrument used by individuals to get things done. It is not inherently part of the apparatus of government.

The menace of financial markets

Edward Hadas
Feb 20, 2013 14:15 UTC

Financial markets are unstable, unhelpful and often immoral. They should be kept under better control.

My disdain will be dismissed by free-market enthusiasts. For them, lively markets where equities, bonds and currencies are sold at publicly disclosed prices are clearly a good thing; they may even be capitalism at its best. Such open markets, they say, both improve economic efficiency and make society more free.

Not so; these markets are economically and morally harmful. Let me be clear. I am not discussing what non-economists usually mean by markets, the generally useful supermarkets and farmers’ markets. Nor am I debating the merits of what economists refer to as the “market” – the real or virtual place where buyers and sellers make transactions. Nor is this a screed against all of finance. Banks and insurers do not need financial markets to gather savings and make loans and investments.

  •