I disagree that cryptos have intrinsic value, but then again, real currencies (such as Fed debtbux) really don't either. But I've mentioned before that in the US's infancy, whiskey was 'money' because it did have intrinsic value - even if you don't drink it (disinfectant, solvent, cleaning fluid, liquid fuel, ect). I do think the Bitcoin and a few others can be a relatively short-to-medium term store of value, but with the ever-increasing galaxy of cryptos a major shakeup is on the horizon. I mentioned the ''Atari token'', that could drive governments to get ''hands on'' with them (other than cap gains taxes, they haven't) because of the 'casino chip' aspect of this digital token. Because ''the gaming industry'' and government go hand-in-hand the established gambling businesses (like Vegas) will push governments and the banking industry to crack down hard. 10 years ago online gambling was right up with porn sites for revenue generation, then within a year nearly all those sites 404'd. Government leaned hard on the banks to halt money transfers to anyone operating a gambling site - anywhere in the world. No income, and nearly all of them folded. Once the camel's nose is in the tent, the rest of the camel will follow shortly. That will be a major disruption to all cryptos.
As to the "Bitcoin is a pain in the ass to us" issue, you might want to look up the Lightening Network. I was there in the first year of Bitcoin development, and I can assure you that the common man was never expected to use the blockchain directly or on a regular basis. The blockchain was designed to be the highest security model available; but there is a trade off between security and convenience. Higher layer exchange networks were expected to develop that offered the end user more speed and convenience at a lower cost, once the system was mature and robust enough to support an economy. We are close to that day, but not quite there yet. Also, search for the term "Federated Peg sidechain"; which is a model for creating a 'local' currencies that is "pegged" to bitcoin in a transparent and electronically verifiable manner. And there are other ways that could yet develop to handle the majority of daily transactions, some in such a way that you don't even personally interact with Bitcoin at all, as you would have a app "agent" on your phone doing such things on your behalf, such as when you request one of those, soon to be driven by robots, Uber vehicles. The credit card system is downright limited, once you look into how Bitcoin (and most other cryptocurrencies) can actually be *programmed* via smart contracts.
You claim yourself to be a Libertarian. Libertarians ascribe to the Austrian school of economics. Friedrick Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises and more recently Murray Rothbard all have proven over and over again that there is no such thing as INTRINSIC value.
Value is always in the eye of the beholder, it is always subjective and it is always relative and comparative.
Even LIFE has no value in and of itself, it is in fact a LIABILITY as Robert Kyosaki would say.
Also, you erroneously ascribe to the labor theory of value. Just because something costs a lot of labor to produce, it doesn't mean that other people are willing to pay money for it. It could be that it has value only to yourself or that it has no value at all.
Finally, Francis Cousin has demonstrated that productivity doesn't create value, because higher productivity divides the same value over an increased number of goods. You get cheaper goods, you get a higher standard of living but you don't end up with more value because other people also reap the benefit of the increased production and will not trade more for what you have.
The only reason why Bitcoin has "value" is because plenty of suckers have plenty of pent up aggression towards the current economic and financial system tampered with by government mismanagement and are seeking an alternative, also the media and social media effect has created a huge advertisement for the cryptocurrencies.
4 comments:
I disagree that cryptos have intrinsic value, but then again, real currencies (such as Fed debtbux) really don't either. But I've mentioned before that in the US's infancy, whiskey was 'money' because it did have intrinsic value - even if you don't drink it (disinfectant, solvent, cleaning fluid, liquid fuel, ect).
I do think the Bitcoin and a few others can be a relatively short-to-medium term store of value, but with the ever-increasing galaxy of cryptos a major shakeup is on the horizon.
I mentioned the ''Atari token'', that could drive governments to get ''hands on'' with them (other than cap gains taxes, they haven't) because of the 'casino chip' aspect of this digital token. Because ''the gaming industry'' and government go hand-in-hand the established gambling businesses (like Vegas) will push governments and the banking industry to crack down hard.
10 years ago online gambling was right up with porn sites for revenue generation, then within a year nearly all those sites 404'd. Government leaned hard on the banks to halt money transfers to anyone operating a gambling site - anywhere in the world. No income, and nearly all of them folded. Once the camel's nose is in the tent, the rest of the camel will follow shortly. That will be a major disruption to all cryptos.
As to the "Bitcoin is a pain in the ass to us" issue, you might want to look up the Lightening Network. I was there in the first year of Bitcoin development, and I can assure you that the common man was never expected to use the blockchain directly or on a regular basis. The blockchain was designed to be the highest security model available; but there is a trade off between security and convenience. Higher layer exchange networks were expected to develop that offered the end user more speed and convenience at a lower cost, once the system was mature and robust enough to support an economy. We are close to that day, but not quite there yet. Also, search for the term "Federated Peg sidechain"; which is a model for creating a 'local' currencies that is "pegged" to bitcoin in a transparent and electronically verifiable manner. And there are other ways that could yet develop to handle the majority of daily transactions, some in such a way that you don't even personally interact with Bitcoin at all, as you would have a app "agent" on your phone doing such things on your behalf, such as when you request one of those, soon to be driven by robots, Uber vehicles. The credit card system is downright limited, once you look into how Bitcoin (and most other cryptocurrencies) can actually be *programmed* via smart contracts.
You claim yourself to be a Libertarian.
Libertarians ascribe to the Austrian school of economics.
Friedrick Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises and more recently Murray Rothbard all have proven over and over again that there is no such thing as INTRINSIC value.
Value is always in the eye of the beholder, it is always subjective and it is always relative and comparative.
Even LIFE has no value in and of itself, it is in fact a LIABILITY as Robert Kyosaki would say.
Also, you erroneously ascribe to the labor theory of value. Just because something costs a lot of labor to produce, it doesn't mean that other people are willing to pay money for it. It could be that it has value only to yourself or that it has no value at all.
Finally, Francis Cousin has demonstrated that productivity doesn't create value, because higher productivity divides the same value over an increased number of goods. You get cheaper goods, you get a higher standard of living but you don't end up with more value because other people also reap the benefit of the increased production and will not trade more for what you have.
The only reason why Bitcoin has "value" is because plenty of suckers have plenty of pent up aggression towards the current economic and financial system tampered with by government mismanagement and are seeking an alternative, also the media and social media effect has created a huge advertisement for the cryptocurrencies.
Nothing has intrinsic value, not even life.
I can't believe that you, a libertarian leaning economist, believes in the fallacy of intrinsic value.
Post a Comment