Response to Michael Suede “Against the gold standard”

This article is a response to Michael Suede´s Artcile “Against the gold standard“.

First of all, I would like to state that I am a BitCoin supporter and I also think that gold is and has been the best money around until some other thing is discovered.   Regarding the gold standard , I have a problem with the word “standard” as I think that money should be provided by the free market and not being subject to any other standard or regulation appart from law (civil and trade laws) that would apply equally when providing and exchanging any other goods and services.

That being said, I think it is important to remark the economical nature of Gold and Bitcoins: Both of them are present goods. The fact that gold is tangible and BitCoins are intangible might be a relevant issue, but it is not something new at all.  Software or trademarks are also present goods and they are not tangible.  The most important thing about present goods regarding monetary utility is that they are not anyone else´s liability.

Since I believe Bitcoins are  present goods, and considering the Theory of Economic Time (TTE) from the austrian economist Carlos Bondone, they would qualify as money.  Conversely, currencies that are not present goods can only be credit.   I totally agree whith Michael Suede on his previous article about Bitcoins when he says “In summary, Bitcoins are money because of the properties they have“.   An explanation of why agree with him within the TTE theoretical framework can be found here.    Austrians say that Bitcoins don´t qualify as money because they don´t comply with the Regression Theorem of Money from Mises, which is true, but the problem is that the Regression Theorem is a very unfortunate interpretation from Mises of Menger´s origin of money.   Monetary utility, which is the need for liquidity, is valuable enough by itself, no need a link to anything else to have value.

I understand that Mises could not tolerate that fiat currencies (in fact credit currencies just as he realized) could be used the same way as commodity money, which was the “true money” on Mises perspective.  But that was because he did not separate the concepts medium of exchange (currency) and present good used as medium of exchange (money).   Currencies that are not present goods, can only be credit, and credit might be a currency, but it will never be money (understood as a present good) .  A sound monetary theory has to be unmistakable clear on this: money ≠credit.

Now, regarding counterfeiting and fraud, I do not agree with Michael.  From a theoretical point of view, fraud, theft and counterfeiting are not very relevant, specially when we talk about money or currency.  Because all kinds of currency will always be subject to these risks, including Bitcoins.  Also, any bearer currency such as Bitcoins or physical gold coins, are inherently sensitive to theft.

I also disagree with Michael regarding clearing services (i.e. limiting all transcations to P2P).  I think it will be very hard for Bitcoins to have a wide success with no clearing services at all.  Even transactions involving electronic currencies can be complex and expensive processes, which could certainly be simplified by clearing services.  That would be financial institutions’  role, and I think that it could be perfectly done if all indebtness priveleges they currently have are removed.   Bitcoins could be an excellent pressure to change these laws since they are best suited to work without these institutions, but I have no doubt that Bitcoins would perform better with those sound clearing services.

Also, not all the people have enough knowledge to handle all system security needed to protect bitcoins, and would prefer to ask for a custody service, even giving up anonimity but on the other hand improving security.  A free market surely would cover all needs, and I think this need for security and the aforementioned need for clearing services will always exist.

Manuel Polavieja

Bitcoins and Mises´s Regression Theorem

I am writing this post in english because I think it might be interesting to a lot of bitcoin supporters.

One of the main bitcoins flaws that austrian economists denounce is that BitCoins don´t have a non-monetary utility, therefore BitCoins don´t have any non-monetary value.    Since Mises stated this requirement on his Regression Theorem, all austrians think that this is a necessary precondition for money.

Menger observed that in a free market usually the most marketeable commodity becomes money, but he never stated that was a mandatory requirement for money.  Mises Regression Theorem was a very unfortunate interpretation of Menger’s observations.

Well, from a theoretical point of view we must consider the Regression Theorem as unnecessary because monetary utility is valuable enough by itself.  The need for liquidity is the need for certainty on future exchanges, and certainty is impossible to accomplish completely.  That´s why anything that might provide us liquidity on the near or far future is valuable.  So there is no need for previous industrial utility for a good to become money and the use of BitCoins is a categorical demonstration.

The economist Carlos Bondone demonstrates how the Regression Theorem is unnecessary to explain the value of currency, pages 111 through 114 of his book Theory of Economic Relativity. Carlos Bondone provides a simpler, clearer and stronger monetary theory, following Menger´s principles which Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek did not.  This is a brief summary:

Currency:  Indirect medium of exchange and unit of account.  Currency Types:

• Money: Present good used as currency (wheat, gold, silver, deposit certificates of gold or silver, etc.).
• Credit currency:  Any currency that is not money, it can only be credit.  Then there are the following types of credit currencies:
  • Regular Credit currency:  When the present good that cancels the debt is specified, ans so is its quality, quantity and due date.  This is the case for real bills or old bank bills that where redeemable for gold or silver.
  • Irregular Credit Currency:  When the present good that cancels the debt is not specifed or its quality or its quantity or its due date.  This is the case for fiat currencies such as dollars or euros.

As I see it, BitCoins do qualify as money when they are used as currency — which they actually are — because they are present goods, the same way that software or an mp3 file are also a present goods.   And they are useful as currency because they have good properties as a medium of exchange:  They are scarce, homogeneus, difficult to fake, easy to identify (this could be improved),  easy to transport, divisible, etc.  The perceived utilitiy of these properties is what makes Bitcoins valuable.    Purchasing power is a consequence of utility, not the opposite.

It would make the BitCoins value more stable if they could be used for a non monetary purpose.  Maybe some cryptographic application?  I think that it would be a good idea for the BitCoin community to research for a non monetary utility for the BitCoins.

As long as BitCoins don´t have a non monetary utility, Mises followers are correct when they say that if BitCoins loses its currency status, then their value would drop to zero, the question is, how much value would also lose silver or gold if they were not used as currency or store of value anymore?    BitCoins are not risk-free, as nothing in life is risk-free.  It´s a matter of choice.

Manuel Polavieja.

Bitcoins and Mises Regression Theorem (II) –>

Confusión entre dinero y crédito II

Siguiendo el post anterior sobre la diferencia que existe entre dinero y crédito, voy a hacer una actualización muy breve sobre el tema.  Básicamente se trata de una serie de implicaciones que, a diferencia del dinero (oro, plata, etc.), tiene el uso del crédito como moneda :

1.  Todo crédito tiene un inicio y un fin, por tanto la moneda basada en crédito tiene una existencia limitada en el tiempo, cuando se amortiza o se impaga, la moneda ligada al crédito sencillamente desaparece del sistema monetario, de la misma forma que apareció.
2. Por tanto toda moneda creada a partir de crédito es inflacionaria en el momento de su creación y deflacionaria el resto de su existencia.
3. Cuanto más crédito [deuda] se cree y se monetice, mayor será el flujo de amortizaciones, de forma que cuanta más deuda exista, más crédito nuevo hace falta para mantener creciente el montante total de deuda y por tanto la oferta monetaria.
4. Si emitimos más moneda [crédito] para solucionar el punto anterior, vamos a peor, ya que seguimos añadiendo más flujo de amortizaciones [deflacionario] al sistema monetario.

Por eso, una burbuja de crédito solo puede acabar de una forma, la única clave del asunto es cuando.

Manuel Polavieja.