Join Bitcoin philosophers Robert Breedlove, author of “Masters and Slaves of Money”, and Parker Lewis, author of the “Gradually then Suddenly” blog series for a cosmic discussion about Bitcoin. They discuss how fiat perpetuates inequality, how central banking causes the problems it is supposed to fix, how everybody follows their incentives (including the Fed), how fiat money distorts pricing and communication, and how Bitcoin is free speech and a fundamental monetary right. As always Brady Swenson, Swan’s Head of Education, hosts the lively discussion.
2:47 How fiat money perpetuates inequality
10:59 How Bitcoinization happens
13:48 Are Central Bankers lying to us or ignorant?
22:41 Fiat Money is a lie
29:54 Central Banking is theft
37:38 Bitcoin as a language and freedom of speech
47:10 Bitcoin’s absolute scarcity
55:25 Societal incentives toward work or theft
1:04:02 Who loses in the transition to a Bitcoin standard?
1:11:45 Does absolute scarcity require both physical and digital realms?
1:20:29 Wrap up
There we go. All right, everyone. Welcome back to Swan Signal Live. This is episode 32. On this edition we’ve got two Bitcoin philosophers for you. Two of my very favorite writers in the space, Parker Lewis and Robert Breedlove. We’re going to get a great conversation with the two of them today. Before we start and dive in, I’ll give you a quick chill on what we’re doing here at Swan. We have built the best way, easiest way, the safest way to accumulate Bitcoin with automatic recurring buys. You don’t need to time the market. You don’t need to even worry about logging back into an exchange. You just set up an account, tell us how much you want to stack, how often you want to stack it. We’ll stack it for you. You can also automatically withdraw it. Once you set up your account, the whole process is basically getting a confirmation email into your inbox, you click that, you withdraw, and you’re set.
You can set a threshold on that withdrawal. It’s so easy. It’s almost magical, as we hear from some of our customers. It’s a great experience. Send your family and friends our way. We will treat them right. We’re laser focused on Bitcoin only. No distractions from altcoins. We’re focused on education. We’ll help sort of be your wing man in teaching people about what Bitcoin is, your friends and family. You can join the Swan Force as you start referring your friends and family at swanbitcoin.com/enlist. You’ll make 25% of the fees of all the purchases that your referrals make. You make 25% of those fees. You’ll be stacking sats while we’re helping your friends and family become hodlers. A couple more quick shout outs before we get on.
First, our Telegram group. We have a great active group in Telegram talking Bitcoin and all of the tangential topics around Bitcoin. That’s at t.me/swansignal. Come join us there. It’s a lot of fun to hang out. Most of the Swan team is hanging out there all the time. We get into more in-depth conversations than we can’t on Twitter. Check that out. Also, the Bitcoin Arsenal. Our creative director of Brekkie von Bitcoin has been collecting all of the dankest Bitcoin news out there and working with some of the mean masters to create this repository called the Bitcoin Arsenal. That’s at swanbitcoin.com/arsenal and bitcoin_arsenal on Twitter. Really cool projects. Check that out up.
All right. I’d like to welcome Robert Breedlove to the show. You all know Robert. He has dropped some amazing pieces lately and is really stepping up his content production game. I know you’re happy to see it. I’m happy to see it. Rob, welcome to the show, man.
Hey, Brady. Thanks for having me again.
Absolutely, man. We got Parker Lewis again on the show as well, author of the Gradually, Then Suddenly series at Unchained Capital blog. Parker. What’s up, man? How are you doing?
Doing well. Brady, thanks for having me on again, and always a pleasure to mix it up with Robert here as well, so looking forward to it.
Absolutely. Yeah. Like I said, these guys are two of my very favorite Bitcoin writers. I know that’s a broadly held and broadly shared opinion. Let’s get right into it, guys. One thing that you guys, I think, better than anyone else who’s writing in this space is really establishing the degree to which these inequalities that are perpetuated by the fiat system are wreaking havoc on our lives and our society. Parker in your piece, Bitcoin is One for All, in Rob’s piece, Masters and Slaves of Money, you guys describe how fiat is the money of the few, the money of the masters, and the devastating effects that this reality wreaks on our society and civilization, individuals. I’d love to hear you guys discuss this idea back and forth about how fiat money perpetuates inequality, the historical scale at which this crime is being perpetuated. Rob, you want to kick it off?
Yeah, sure. I frame it up in Masters and Slaves of Money as… I guess I was inspired by this from Creature From Jekyll Island originally, where he actually described central banking as a currency counterfeiting operation. The first aspect you understand about money and fiat currency in general is that it only has value because it was once redeemable for real money. It was redeemable for monetary metal. It was introduced as an innovation to help resolve some of its limitations. Specifically gold is not exactly optimal and the portability in the visibility department. Paper backed by gold resolve some of that. Once a bank, though, moves beyond a one-to-one, being one unit of currency per one ounce of gold, for instance, and they started going to two to one, three to one, whatever, it’s a lie. It’s a fraudulent operation at that point.
Governments historically have always abused the money supply as the primary mechanism for extracting, basically scalping value off of the society that’s forced to use it. I the Masters and Slaves piece, I try… I guess there’s two ways to look at this. You can look at money, the scarcity of money as mapping onto the scarcity of time, which everything in an economy is the product of human time. One point there, even land takes hands to sell. Even if we think it’s something God given that we didn’t create per se, it’s still takes human time and effort to sell it and make it usable so on and so forth. Everything we trade is a product of human time.
Another way to look at that is you can say that the scarcity of money maps onto the scarcity of energy, which thermodynamics teaches us the law of conservation of energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so basically it’s absolutely scarce. Once you start abusing that function, you’re using the counterfeited currency, which is now no longer actually money, because it’s not a final extinguisher of debt, you’re using that currency to siphon value or time off of the society that’s forced to use it. I guess in a broad strokes nutshell, that’s how I tried to frame it in Masters and Slaves of Money, that fiat currency is essentially a pyramid scheme that is designed to scalp value off of citizens and reallocate it to those nearest the fiat currency spigot.
Parker, you want to build on that?
Yeah. I think, particularly, in the last piece that I wrote, released probably about a month ago now about Bitcoin is One for All, I think the themes that I talk about… Robert and I both take two very different approaches to talking about essentially what is the reality and what’s occurring. I think that there’s a result of it. Oftentimes I’ll describe Bitcoin saying, “Bitcoin is very difficult to see, but once something clicks and once there’s a connection made and you start to understand how this thing, Bitcoin, could be possible and how it could be viable as money, that is difficult to unsee that. Then over time it becomes more and more intuitive. I think the same thing… because other side of the same coin is the Fed.
Once you see it for what it is that is difficult to unseat in that as you are seeing the consequences of the actions that the Fed takes, it becomes very easy not to singularly blame the Fed’s operations for a lot of the economic imbalance and the extreme levels of equality, but just the general unrest, that once that chink in the armor forms and you start to see really the fundamental role that money plays in coordinating all economic activity, then it starts to become very intuitive that if you start to manipulate that function, whether it’s intended or unintended, how there can be significant unintended consequences and really negative externalities from that operation of printing money or digitally creating it through quantitative easing.
I thought the Roberts piece, Masters and Slaves of Money was great. I think there’s another way that I look at it that is; when I see somebody like Neel Kashkari get on 60 Minutes and talk about how they have an endless amount of money to print, I don’t think that Neel Kashkari is somebody that wants poor people to suffer or wants to advantage really powerful people over weak people. I think that part of that’s just may be an errant bias, but wanting to believe in the good of people, but at the same time, recognizing, he just doesn’t understand it. That so many people that have grown up because all that this taught from, I’d say, academic perspective in terms of economics over the last 40, 50 years, is that active management of the money supply is a default activity, that the beginning assumption of that operation is that there is some good to be served in the world by doing that.
Then it’s a matter of how do you affect it to operationalize the most beneficial outcomes. If you turn that entirely on its head, which was maybe that entire assumption is wrong, then you can start to see or at least you can explain a way the behavior of central bankers everywhere in, not necessarily intending to do harm, but not really being the master of their own domain, where they think that everything that there is, that they’re doing is helping in some marginal way, but it’s actually the root source of the problem.
It is actually what creates imbalance, and whether or not they want to accept it, that is the reality. Again, what Bitcoin represents is not only the thing that fixes that, but it represents a free market competition that takes it out of an intellectual debate and into a true market test where the actual individual is empowered with an option to look at these two systems and choose voluntarily which one they want to contribute and store their time and value and what economy that they want to participate in, because it ultimately is two diversion economies that are forming on top of two different monetary systems.
Right. What point do the economies merge, Parker?
Well, I think-
Or how do the economies merge?
I don’t think that they merge. I think that one wins and one loses, that and we’re all just people operating in the world, but that more and more people will exit. Say there’s 350 million people in the United States, we’re 325 million people in the United States that are contributing to varying degrees at different levels of economic activity. Immediately local economies, state economies, national economies, global economies, but thinking of each one is a derivative of others and that there are overlaps, and that today practically everyone in the United States is still participating in the dollar economy, but as knowledge distributes and people learn about Bitcoin… I think about it this way, because oftentimes we talk about how… at least when we think about monetary maximalism or the term that was coined Bitcoin maximalism, which is more, I think, descriptive in the sense that there’s a reason why monetary networks are monopolistic, and that oftentimes people say that economies converge on a single form of money.
But I think, more realistically, it’s that economies emerge from a single form of money rather than converging on one, and that the economic activity and the markets that form around it are actually derived or only made possible because everyone decides to use the same form of money. It could be the same universe of people, say, there is 325 million people and they’re all participating in some form or fashion in various different economies, and that over time, completely, all of those individuals will shift over to Bitcoin. And that those two economies will look very different, but the constituents that make it up will all be the same, or realistically, not uniformly, but that the same actors that are participating, they will be participating increasingly in the Bitcoin economy, but at the core of it, we’ll have a different pricing mechanism and we will have a different standard by which to assess value and to transfer value.
That it would be errant or I think it would be irrational to believe that once we’re all on a Bitcoin standard, that the economy will still be… we’ll still have trade and specialization, but the things that we’re demanding and the things that people are delivering and things that people value on a Bitcoin standard will be very different. That value will be more true in that world, and there will be a lot more stability. But it takes time to essentially, I say, not converge those two economies, but to transition from one world to the other.
Yeah. I think there’s a great point here, and I’ve had a lot of discussions with people about it, regarding the intentionality of central banking. For instance, I tweeted… this is several months ago, Jerome Powell is on live TV saying that central banking, monetary policy has nothing to do with wealth inequality. This was maybe three or four months ago. I basically tweeted out and said, “This guy’s lying to you.” I got a reply from one of my friends. He’s a hedge fund manager over in Europe, and he’s applying to me saying, “You’re crazy. Jerome Powell is a good guy. He’s just doing what he thinks is best. He’s trying to do his job well. It’s wrong of you to call him a liar.”
I actually don’t disagree and I’m not sure, I don’t know if Jerome Powell or Kashkari saying they have infinite cash, I’m not clear whether they understand the implications of their operation or not. But what I am clear on, and again, reading the book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, is that this institution was established with a very specific intent. It was to maintain control over the economy, essentially, to be able to extract value from the economy at will and to fund warfare, which is another aspect that the VJ talks about. The counter argument I make to this is; money is a tool, but the monopolization of money can only be used for one thing, and it’s only useful for reallocating wealth. It can’t add any value to the economy. You can print all the money in the world, but it doesn’t infuse the economy with any new productive equipment or human time or anything of value.
It’s only useful for reallocating wealth from those that use the money to those that can produce the money to the monopolist. The example… I made this counter argument to this hedge fund manager in Europe. I said, “If I walk into a field and I point a gun into the sky and I fire a bullet and the bullet falls five miles away and it kills someone, did I kill that person?” Regardless of my knowledge of where that bullet landed, it was my action that fired the bullet, caused it to fall five miles away and kill this person. My position there was that regardless of if I understand what I am doing, I am inflicting this pain in reality. I do say that Jerome Powell is lying when he says that monetary policy has no connection to wealth disparity whatsoever, because he is lying.
I don’t know if he knows that he’s lying, but he’s lying because we all… the Bitcoin space, we know the Cantillon effect. We know how it works. The value of Bitcoin in all of this is that it actually obliterates the concept of monetary policy. It’s no longer a policy. It’s once again, a function of natural law. We have 21 million as this unshakable motif that’s kind of set stone and no one can do anything about it. It’s put outside the reach of everyone forever. That’s how I like to think about it. It disregards the intentionality of the current governors, but just focuses on the outcome, I guess, is my general point.
Yeah. There’s two things there that I think… because I think we look at it the same way, where in one way, it’s like I don’t know whether there’s intentionality, but I know the consequence, and so therefore, it’s their responsibility. You can’t absolve culpability just because you were ignorant. There’s two quotes that come to mind. It’s the Dragh. quote. I believe it’s Draghi. No, maybe it was Juncker, where he said… it was one of the two. Maybe it was John Paul Juncker who said “When things get serious, you have to lie.” Then the idea… I think it was a 2010 60 Minutes speech or interview where Bernanke went on to 60 minutes and he explained in this… made me think about this, one of the questions in the chart, where he said, “There is a myth that what it is we’re doing is printing money. We’re not printing money. The currency in circulation is not changing meaningfully.”
That is an example of something that I look at and say, “He is either straight up intentionally lying or he’s being purposefully obfuscating the truth or be highly disingenuous at best,” because in truth, they weren’t printing money. They were creating digital dollar. They weren’t physically printing dollar bills. The question in the chat, because I think sometimes people are overly pedantic is… I say to people, “When the Fed does QE, every dollar that is created is created by the Fed. Every dollar that is physically printed via the printing press is printed by the treasury, but a dollar doesn’t exist in the world without it being created at the Fed first, which means a dollar can’t be printed at the treasury if the fed didn’t first create it.”
When I see things like Bernanke in 2010 saying, “We’re not printing money,” I’m saying, “There’s no other way to say it, but you are printing money. You’re just doing it digitally because we live in a digital world and the consequence is exactly the same.” Someone is “intelligent” because he’s not actually intelligent, would understand that because they are masters of what their monetary policy is. I do think that in certain times, I would look at people like Jerome Powell and I would say, “Okay, I think where we’ve gotten to the point where it’s a combination of the Draggy or Yanker, sorry, whereas things have gotten so serious that he knows he has to lie.
I don’t think he knows the extent to which central banking creates instability in the economy or extreme levels of inequality, but I bet that he would be willing to say that there is some role over the longterm, he’s probably not willing to admit, the extent of it. But he also realizes, this comes from another Bernanke quote, but it speaks to the psychology of the Fed, this was from a 2011 meeting during QE 2 where he said, “Look, I can understand that monetary policy isn’t the solution.” Again, not willing to agree that it’s the actual problem, but he says, “I’m willing to agree that monetary policy isn’t the solution, that it can’t solve structural problems, and that structural problems may exist in the underlying economy and with fiscal policy, but we must do something. We must be palliative.”
I think that when I think about that kind of psychology of the central banker, pulling through from direct quotes of Bernanke and for central bankers from Europe as well, it’s that they don’t believe that they are the primary source or they would never be willing to accept that they are the primary source of instability, but they know to an extent that what they’re doing has consequences and they’re also seeing the correlation of extreme levels of inequality forming. They don’t understand the actual push and pull and the mechanism that causes it, but they know that there’s some connection and they have to lie about it because in the most immediate term, their policy and the consequences of it is that it causes short term stability at the consequence of longterm volatility. It’s very high time preference thinking, but it’s that idea of, “If I do something now, I can put the Band-Aid on it and I can actually ‘solve’ the problem for a day or two or a quarter or two quarters.”
But they’re doing that at the consequence of the entire economy falling apart in the longterm. That’s something that they won’t be able to control. They know that they’re lying to an extent, they don’t know to what degree. But they’re doing it, say, because they think that in the short term, they’re actually helping, which one could make the argument, but only in the world where you are willing to trade the short term for the longterm, which I think most of us as we start to come to understand Bitcoin, where we’ve become much more, not understanding of the consequences of short term thinking, but how if we were to think with that low time preference and think in terms of Bitcoin in generations, that we certainly would never make the decisions that central bankers do today, sacrificing today and the youth for our future.
I agree. I actually think fiat currency is accurately described as a living lie. That’s how it began. The fact that we had a paper that was redeemable for gold, that was then only fractionally backed by gold, then eventually not backed at all by gold. We consider that money is intended to be this final extinguisher of debt and this medium of exchange. If it loses its rooting to what the market selected as money, that is by definition, a lie. The market is naturally zeroing in on truth in the form of accurate prices, useful tools, and as I argue in my piece, individual competitive competence of virtue. In that sense via currency, it is an actual lie. It was held out as one thing and it was substituted for another. It was a money substitute that lost its ability to be substituted for money because you now cannot redeem that for anything.
To the other point, even if it’s not perhaps literately printed, that’s why I try to distinguish between… I like to say money is something more like gold or Bitcoin, it’s a bearer asset that can actually extinguish a debt. It was 100% asset and 0% liability when it’s transferred to a counterparty. Currency, as I like to distinguish it, is what is typically a derivative of money. That could be partially backed or no reserve, like we have with fiat currency. When they say they’re not printing money, I think he is actually… I think the farthest point is being literally pedantic, trying to say, “we’re not actually printing money. We’re just putting new entries into a database.” (Silence).
I think we’ve got-
–It’s inherently a high time preference–
We lost you for just about maybe 10 seconds there. But you’re back.
I was saying, when you actually think about lying itself, it is a high time preference activity. Typically, someone’s going to lie in the short run to avoid consequences. That may get them out of trouble or whatever it is to get by for the short run. But once you’ve put that lie into the universe and, say, someone else figures out you told this lie, then all of a sudden you have to tell another lie to cover that up. Before, you know it, this thing snowballs out of control. I think that’s kind of an analogy to what central banking is. They started out with this original lie, and now it’s just this whole temple of laws that’s built around it to try and preserve its integrity. It’s…
Rob, you’re going to come back and I’m going to be talking. yeah. What we’re up saying here, Parker, is, I think, a really good point. It starts with the original sin, the original lie of the creation of the Federal Reserve, and it’s snowballed with every decision to kick the can down the road to solve what is deemed as an economic crisis in the short term with printing more money. But do these people… are they really… Okay, they spend a lot of time as well justifying all of these actions, justifying the lies as they go down. There’s this entire academic tradition built up for a century around justifying those decisions now. Do you think… you were kind of getting at this earlier, do you think that there’s awareness or self awareness of this in the Fed or the central banks around the country that there is something wrong, but it’s too late now?
I think there’s probably more awareness in the mega banks, in the JP Morgans, the Goldman Sachs, Citibanks of the world, and the CEOs or the leadership of those organizations. I think that they know what the game is, and I think that they play the Fed like a fiddle. I think that the people that work at the Fed, given the incentives or the trade offs, I think that they are more idealistic, driven by a version of utopia, where they can just pull strings and people can print money and they can get the outcomes that they want. I think about that because they’re mostly academics.
Jerome Powell comes from the private sector, but if you look at Bernanke and Yellen, that most of these people are academics and don’t operate in the real world and think that most of their world view is informed by that lack of real world experience and living in the world of academia, but that, one of the things I would point out is, while… I don’t know if it’s been proven, one of the speculations of what happened when the repo market broke was that JP Morgan was moving a massive amount of reserves, essentially transferring reserves to be in bonds and to be in treasuries.
They were basically recognizing that they were front running peewee from the Fed, and they did it for profit matters. You can say it’s rational from their perspective, but that demonstrated an understanding of cause and effect as it relates to their actions and what response would need to be. I think that when you look at the bailouts from 2008, when you look at what’s happening, response to the repo market breaking in September and then to what’s happened subsequently with the global economic shut down with COVID, that it would be much more accurate to say that the big banks that benefit the most, that are the JP Morgans and the Goldman Sachs and the Credit Suisses and the Deutsche Banks, they understand how the strings are actually pulled more so than those at the Fed do, and that people at the fed probably don’t understand to what extent they’re being taken advantage for, it’s the tail wagging the dog.
I think that there is intent, but that’s probably shifted more to those that have been directly bailed out that have taken the risk that has caused moral hazard to form. That over time, those big banks know that, again, it’s the old give a mouse a cookie, if you know that you’ve been bailed out once, and the Fed tried to demonstrate their independence with Lehman Brothers and that didn’t work. And they had to bail out everybody else thereafter. I think it’s just the poorly aligned incentive and the combination of skin in the game or no skin in the game academics that are pulling strings that have massive unintended consequences, and that those people don’t have to feel brunt of it. That they can continue to go on and their jobs are going to be protected while they’re basically throwing a massive monkey wrench in the entire economy over and over again by pursuing the same policy responses, just doing it in a bigger and bigger way.
Rob, do you think that this was intentional at the beginning of the Federal Reserve? We learn in Creatures from Jekyll Island, it seems like this was… the creation of the Federal Reserve was achieved with full knowledge of the power that it would bestow upon the shareholders of the bank. Maybe those involved now… as you said, the stone ball has rolled down the mountain quite a ways. Maybe those evolve now have good intentions, but the original lie, was that an intentional one, do you think?
I don’t think there’s much question actually. The model of central baking had been tried in times past, and it had proven very effective as an apparatus for theft, basically. It gives its governors nearly unlimited power to do what they want. The other thing, if you just… what Charlie Munger say, “Show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcome.” If you just really simply look at the incentives of a central bank. They’re a private organization. They have shareholders, shareholders draw dividends, so they have an incentive to increase their balance sheet, to increase the dividend payout. As Parker said earlier, they have no accountability to the customers, the users of dollars, because we have no say in the matter. They are full monopoly.
There’s no incentive for them to pay attention to or respond to customer preferences because we have no choice. We’re forced to use dollars. Their incentive is to lie, even if you don’t understand it per se, just follow the incentives. I would say either read The Creature from Jekyll Island, or there’s the abridged version, Dishonest Money. I don’t see how you could make an argument that it wasn’t set up intentionally. I mean, they knew what they were doing. These are not dumb people. These are some of the smartest people in the world, and they’re just people that have had greed, I guess, get the best of them, which is, back to Bitcoin, this individual pursuit of self interest is what got us to gold. People were basically trying to store their value in different things, via negativa, to use Talebain term, we landed on gold.
It was the thing that could that supply could be compromised the least and the most slowly and the most predictably. But then they figured out another way to build a layer on top of it, what we call central banking today, that re enabled this deception through greed. But in Bitcoin world, its a set of unbreakable rules where we actually transmute individual pursuit of self interest and greed into collective security and market capitalization of the network. That’s how I look at it. That’s the big breakthrough is that Bitcoin is just a profoundly and more effective system for channeling greed into something positive.
That’s amazing. That’s what capitalism is supposed to be in its ideal form. In order for that ideal to come true, you need to have the basic component of that mechanism. The capitalist mechanism is money has to have that incentive at it’s core and not be able to be manipulated. In that sense, is this the first time that the idea of capitalism could actually be tested in its ideal form?
I think one of Parker’s earlier points on the economy emerging from a standardization to one money. It’s like when do we standardize under these protocols, we pick up so much more efficiency gains. That’s what an economy is. We’re economizing our action collectively. Yeah, I think with money, we’ve just never had an unbreakable rule set. The rules have always been shady and distorted and manipulated, and different governments fighting over who gets to set the rules. We’re currently living in the American empire. Yeah, the capitalism in its purest sense was simply not possible for Bitcoin to the point where we’re talking about this yesterday. Maybe we need a new name. Someone suggested overnism at one point, which I thought was pretty cool. But it’s definitely something different. It just shows you that Bitcoin will cause us to rewrite the history books and reframe our understanding of economics.
Maybe the way that I would frame it is that we’re not going to necessarily see capitalism truly for the first time. I think what we have today is far from a free market. It’s often, I think, aptly described as crony capitalism, but that free markets are the natural tendency of human beings trying to interact, in their own self-interest, naturally benefiting from cooperation. What I think we’re going to see now is that we’ve seen an ebb and flow and evolutions of that over time, and that it’s like gravity that. That people do… when they are working in their own self-interest, eft to their own devices and left alone, they will cooperate and that there will be positive sum outcomes rather than zero sum or negative sum outcomes.
That what Bitcoin is unmarking or freeing up or removing friction from a system that, at one time, was working far more efficiently than it is today, and that is possible of working today because that monetary system and because the communication system has been co-opted and because it’s been manipulated so much that what we’re going to be evolving towards is getting back to a place in time where we are all speaking the same language of value and that we never were truly doing that, but we were perfecting that over time. That was the evolution of money and moving from one medium to another that one good nib and use as money in a certain local economy and as we’ve evolved, we’ve been perfecting what monetary mediums that we’ve been using to be able to access larger markets beyond just local economies.
That Bitcoin will be the true perfection of that because it will be…when we think about something like gold, it’s something very similar to gold, but rather than it being a common standard of value, because there was a point in time where cold really was a global standard, but the mechanism by which gold was principally communicated, at least as it evolved and matured, was not directly through that medium. That what we will see is that the medium that is the standard of value is actually how we directly communicate and interact with each other, that it will also be the method of payment and that that communication and the communication of information will be much more direct.
When you combine that with the advancements of the internet, then we’ll be able to be able to communicate not only in terms of value, but practically speaking, connecting far more people in the world. When you do that, you have more people contributing to ideas and figuring out how to solve problems for other people. That the some of that economy is far greater than anything we will likely could possibly have seen before at this point in time.
I agree completely. I love the language of value. I guess you’d maybe call it an analogy, but I actually think it is a language. If we stop to consider Words that are part of language, they only have meaning as a categorical comparatives, basically. We’re using words to compare and communicate meaning. If you look up the definition of a word, what do you find? You find more words such as that your understanding of any one word is dependent on this context of understanding of other words. This gets back to the logos, which I wrote some about in the piece, but logos is a Greek word that means ratio or word. If we consider that the logos could mean a word itself, but it could also mean a ratio, and that’s what prices are. These are exchange ratios denominated in money.
It’s like an economic telecommunication system. These are the two primary means of interpersonal communication, it’s words and prices. I think we learned this lesson in the 20th century that you can’t… Free speech is necessary for… The lesson we’re learning now is that also applies to prices in an economy. They must be left undistorted. That when we try and manipulate the money supply, it’s almost as bad, almost as catastrophic as suppressing the freedom of speech. That’s a good way to look at it. Words are this tool we’re using the compare and communicate meaning, and money is a tool we’re using the compare and communicate value. If you disturb or distort either one of those media of communication, you create havoc in the world.
It’s like the tower of Babel story, but with money. You’re creating 300 different languages start to communicate value around the world. It just makes things so much more inefficient. Parker, in one of his pieces, talks about how Bitcoin guarantees inalienable right, similar to the freedom of speech as it is guaranteed in the constitution of United States. But the idea that Bitcoin guarantees a monetary right. Parker, I think this fits in here. If you want to talk about that right. What right that Bitcoin guarantees to its users?
Yeah. I’ve talked about this idea in a couple of different pieces, but one of the… I think my last piece, I took a tweet from Vitalik Buterin, the founder of Etherium, and he had a quote that said something along the lines of… the idea that you could have a fixed percentage of the entire world’s money supply for an indefinite period of time sounds very oligarchic to him. I think that it was a really interesting tweet, not because what it says about Vitalik or about Etherium, but that is the argument that is made against a sound monetary standard, but it actually articulate the reason and the power of a tool such as that. That if you flipped it around and you said, “Okay, what if everybody had access to that tool? What if the poorest people in the world could convert their time and energy into a form of money that could not be manipulated and was fixing supply?” That levels the playing field with somebody like a Paul Tudor Jones, a billionaire in New York that.
That somebody who is on the lower end of the economic spectrum in Argentina or Brazil or Nicaragua or wherever they may be, at the Bitcoin network level, everybody is treated equal. The substance of that is that whatever they choose to do in the world, whoever they are, wherever they are, they can contribute value that is inherently subjective. That is one thing about money. That money is what allows us to take something that is inherently subjective, like value, and be able to objectively measure it. That is what forms really the foundation of communication system.
When I think about that and you say, “Hey, who would benefit most from leveling that playing field, and what are the consequences of this tool being available to everybody?” That’s where it becomes… When I refer to it as an inalienable right, when you think about it as at its very core, it’s people recognize that that money is solving an inner subjective problem, and that there are benefits to trade specialization. That’s the idea. I saw somebody put in the comment that self-interest is not greed. It isn’t. Self-interest is “I’m figuring out how best to solve my own needs,” and the most effective and efficient way to do that is to solve somebody else’s problems. if I do that and if everybody is thinking and doing that, not because we’re all utopias, that, that we actually will act in our own self interest by serving others.
But at that core, if I’m looking at that problem set and I need money as a tool to help me solve a problem, to work on my own self interest and to help others, that all I’m doing is I’m choosing to convert time and energy into a medium that will best capture value that will allow me to trade and get the benefit of that value that I’m creating today in the future from a wide range of people. What could be more fundamental of a right than to convert that into a digital token? Why could anybody prevent me from choosing by force to say, “No, you have to take your time and put it into this month.” Because that’s the consequence. If someone were to say, “No, you can’t use Bitcoin,” they would essentially be saying, “You can’t convert your time and energy into a digital token.”
That the reverse side of that is, if you can’t do that, then you’re forcing me to say what? You’re going to say I have to put my time and energy into dollars? Because that is the reverse side of the coin. It is one of the most fundamental rights just to say, “What are you allowed to convert time and energy into?” If you’re not allowed to convert that into money, then your most basic freedom and your ability to voluntarily and peaceably coordinate and cooperate with anybody else in your economy has suddenly been critically impaired, I think is the core idea.
I think it’s a great point. I would add that it’s almost like this is… Bitcoin represents the discovery of the freedom of speech in a lot of ways, because we have freedom of speech, again, the word, verbal version, but we haven’t had this freedom of speech in “Where do we store our time energy and how do we communicate it?” That’s always been distorted historically. It’s like the vote that actually matters too. We think, in Western society, “Oh, I go and vote for this politician. He represents my interests and that’s how we create change or stability in society.” But that’s not really what matters. The vote that matters is how you spend your money. That selection has just historically been really narrow for people. We haven’t had a sound store value because it was antithetical to the fiat currency system.
For the first time, you can consider Bitcoin as the money through which we can communicate our preferences and a voice that cannot be distorted or muted. Politicians and governments and central banks in the world are so aware of this asset because it’s a competitive threat that’s running countervailing to their operation. Their operation is to maintain this narrative, this false narrative and continue to have people operating in their system and having a lack of options, whereas Bitcoin gives you free options to express yourself.
Another way to think about this is… there’s was an old clinical psychologist named Jean Piaget. He talks about the difference between equilibrated structures and disequilibrated structures. An equilibrated structure is essentially a voluntary game. It’s a game that people want to play because of their own self interest. A disequilibrated structure is something where the rules are imposed. You have to play by these rules because I said so, because I have a gun or whatever. He made the point that, over time, the equilibrated structure always out competes the disequilibrated structure because you have to enforce the disequilibrated structure. There is cost to enforcing these rules, to protecting the turf, to suppressing competition, such that over time, as Parker kind of said, people’s individual self-interests becomes like gravity. They just gravitate towards this voluntary game. That’s what Bitcoin is. It’s a voluntary game outcompeting this involuntary system of stuff that we call central banking.
It disintermediating everything. If the internet and software and digital networks and protocols are disintermediating industry after industry, this is the ultimate purpose of the internet. It’s both guaranteeing to a much larger extent than a state ever could. A freedom of speech. It’s much easier for me to express myself if I’m in an authoritarian state and get it out over the internet than it would be otherwise. But then ultimately we have the language of value here being voluntarily expressed over this medium as well. As Rob puts it, it’s zero to one moment, in your piece, The Bitcoin and The Number Zero, that it’s solitary moment, a singular moment in human history and the invention of absolute scarcity. Let’s dive into that idea a little bit. I’d love to hear you two bat it back and forth. The idea that you can only create absolute scarcity once. Rob, you want to kick it off?
Yeah, sure. I argue that the invention of Bitcoin… behind that invention is the discovery of absolute scarcity for money. I specified the money because you can create these crypto tokens where they fix supply that maybe are representative of something else, but I think in the sphere of money that can only really happen once because… The case study I use there is Bitcoin Cash. We had this ideological divide that ostensibly larger block sizes were needed for higher transaction throughput at the base layer, was Bitcoin Cash’s is argument. Bitcoin Core was essentially saying that we needed to maintain small blocks to maximize decentralization of the protocol, which protects its censorship resistant qualities. There was a divide. There was a divide at the social layer for Bitcoin. We’ve seen that play out over the past few years.
We’ve seen the market capitalization in Bitcoin terms of Bitcoin Cash collapse. As a student of the markets, I think that is an empirical point that the absolute scarce money supply of Bitcoin is a onetime discovery. The only way to really compete with it at this point is to fork it. We’ve seen that fork play out. It’s already happened. Bitcoin Cash is an abject failure. When you step back also to consider that money is just a single purpose technology, again, it’s just a tool for moving value across time and space and its value is supported by its liquidity and network effects, that it has this centripetal effect towards one standard. Again, back to the earlier point, the more standardization we add, the economic efficiency that we gain. Given that all people need to trade globally, we only need one money.
In that general respect, I think absolute scarcity is perfect scarcity. Even negative scarcity wouldn’t make sense for reasons that I outline. It would reintroduce political vectors as to who benefits from the deflationary monetary policy. Any inflation doesn’t make sense because it’s just, again, who benefits from it? Zero is this perfect showing point for the scarcity of money.
Yeah. I think ne of the ideas…I can’t remember the specific quote, but I remember one of the ideas that I came away from The Number Zero and Bitcoin was the idea… something connected as I was reading it where there’s no energy leaking outside the system. I think it was when you were talking about the concepts of infinity and zero. There was just something about it. It’s just weird the way, for some reason, certain things connect, and you could say the same thing to 10 different people and the 11th person would interpret it differently. But this idea with a fine nightly scarce form of money and in zero terminal inflation, that the consequence of that is that no energy escapes out of the system.
When I was thinking about that idea and trying to relate it in… or at least how I was thinking about it in my latest piece, it’s this idea that if you… Because within again, academic circles and intellectual economic debates, people argue for the benefit of being able to print money, to ease financial conditions and just brag to man, but if you actually start to understand what the role of money is, and that it actually is a communication system, and it’s a way that we objectify what is a subjective concept of value, and that the goal that you’re trying to facilitate through money is to be able to communicate with others and convert the value that you create into a broad set of goods created and services created by other people to actually act in your own self interest.
That in that world, you’ve actually incentivized to communicate with more and more people. That if there’s a wider range of choice of things that you could put potentially convert your own time and energy and into the time of energy and others, and that monetary network has it grows actually benefits you. That thinking about that world… That the actual amount of money is the nominal amount is not meaningful. That what we’re actually ascertaining from it is the exchange ratios of how much individually and in aggregate, what people value and how things are valuable relative to others. That money is that tool that says, “Hey, how many cars do I need to produce to buy a house or how many apples do I need to sell to buy an iPhone.”
That at that root level, all trying to learn through a monetary medium are any number of relative exchange ratios of various different goods and services, and that if you have that fine scarce form of money, no energy is leaking out of the system and more perfect information is being communicated. That connecting it back into this idea that if you are going to get money in the Bitcoin world, it has to come, again, not in 100% percent of the time, but that the best way to do that is by… think about 21 million Bitcoin, no more Bitcoin can be graded. I have zero. How am I going to get it?
There’s a lot of people in the world that will have Bitcoin, and I have to deliver value to one of them. That in that world, the positive externalities of the least path of resistance to getting money that opens you up to this various range of choice for all these people that can contribute to a monetary network is, at the inception point, delivering value to others. Producing for others more than you consume so that you can have savings.
Then when you compare that vis a vis the current system, which is, if you look since 2008, 80% of the dollars that exist in the world have been created by the Fed in the last 12 years. That in the dollar system, you can either get money by delivering values to others, or by and large, 80% of the money that exists, you can either get it through delivering value or by the Fed giving you more money, if you are one of the people that are so lucky to be in that seat where the Fed gives you money. Which system has better incentives and which system is more prone to have better outcomes? The one of which in order to get money, overwhelming respect, the easiest way to do that would be to deliver value to others in return for that money or to have a co-opted system where one in 10 or one in 20 dollars that exist over time, will have been earned via actually delivering value to others. That system inherently becomes more corrupt than the one that we’re shifting towards.
I think that’s a great point. The incentive system is either guiding people towards work or towards stuffed. If you’re trying to get near the fiat currency spigot, you’re basically benefiting from theft via inflation. Whereas if you’re living in a society that the money can’t be artificially increased, you have to work and add value to our money. Another way to maybe think about this is that all online market value is driven by scarcity. Everything is trading at a ratio to everything else. Scarcity itself is just a relative concept. It’s just a relative to, “This good is more scarce than this good.” At the bottom of that really is the scarcity of time. The time or energy necessary to produce these things that are relatively scarce. If we see that, that scarcity is relative, all things trade as a ratio to all of the things, the most tradable thing in any economy is money. A money with a perfect scarcity is by definition, the most scarce and valuable thing.
When you come to see scarcity as the bedrock of market value, then I think it helps you see absolute scarcity as the perfected state of money in a way. To get into the Taleb concept of a Wittgenstein’s Ruler. It says, “If you’re measuring a table but you can’t trust the dimensions of the ruler, you’re not sure if you’re measuring the table or measuring the ruler.” You need a money, a fixed frame of reference that does not bend… the supply doesn’t expand or contract based on economic activity. It becomes this absolute unit of measurement for valuations in the real economy. In that sense, I think… that is Bitcoin’s center of gravity is that it’s that perfectly scarce money. The incentives just cause people to collapse into it over time.
Let’s talk about that value though. The difference between value in a Bitcoin world and a fiat world. All right. Parker, I’m going to shoot this one at you. We have ‘value’ accrued, and we account for it in various ways. That value includes all kinds of rehypothecated money. The unknown question of whether or not there’s going to be more money printed at any given moment. All of these financially engineered methods of creating value, take that away from the on the base level, in a Bitcoin world, how much of this value that’s out there now is actually real? If we move to a Bitcoin world, what does that mean? How does that value deflate into the new economy? What’s going to happen there? How does it play out?
Yeah. I think that that obviously is impossible to predict, but I think I’ll maybe shine some light in terms of how I think about it conceptually, about how I think directionally how a Bitcoin economy would differ from the legacy economy, and then some key structural differences. I think one of the concepts that sits at the core of it is that this concept that Robert was talking about earlier, which is that when we think about the operation of printing money, whether it’s the treasury literally printing money or the Fed digitally creating dollars and transferring them around the financial system, it is that all of that financialization and money… starting at money creation, it’s sending false signals through the market.
The way that I would relate what that means is by sending a false price signal. Essentially by printing money, every signal that’s being sent through the pricing system becomes manipulated and ultimately becomes false in the sense that it would be different and the price system and the local prices throughout the economy would inherently be different if not for those operations. That the economy is set on a different course as a direct result of them. That if you start out sending false signals, then the natural result of that is that in order to sustain the direction, you have to continue to do that. The entire incentives that underpin the economy become manipulated and distorted to the extent that they have to be perpetually manipulated in order to sustain any semblance of quote unquote ‘stability.’
When you change those incentives, and when I think about the current economy and what it looks like, today the banking system has become the epicenter and the bleeding part economies all over the world. Somebody would look at that and say, “Hey, that doesn’t seem like it’s a very noteworthy comment to make,” but the reality is that it wouldn’t exist that way if not for central banking and if not for the Fed continuing to print and print more money each time the credit system has expanded and then attempts to contract or even collapse. The consequences of that is rather than banking being one sector within an economy that provides a service to all the others, it’s really shifted to be the center such that the Fed and central bankers and academics all over the place come to believe that if the banking system went away, that the world would cease to exist.
They think that way because it has tentacles in to the entire real economy. It’s like it shifted from… if you were to think about horizontally, all of these different economy servicing each other, banking, telecommunications, healthcare, agriculture, energy, all being interrelated and servicing each other. Money and banking, because we’ve shifted over to the allocation of resources and the economy being facilitated directly through the monetary medium to a world where information is communicated and resources are allocated through the function of credit. That through that process, and it’s happened directly as a consequence of the Fed, that the banking sector, rather than just being one sector of many has become literally the epicenter that all other… The successful, at least today on a day to day basis, successful operation of any business is dependent on the banking sector either to move money around, not necessarily through credit, through debit, but also through the function of credit.
That the core difference in the Bitcoin economy, I think, will be that banking sector will shift from being the epicenter of the economy to being just one segment of the economy that is not more or less important than any others. It will likely be less important, say, than healthcare, energy, telecommunications, whatever it may be, the things that produce real value in the role, their status will be raised to the actual… those being what is truly delivering value. They won’t be dependent on the banking system. The banking system will only be valued to the extent that they truly deliver value in an unmanipulated world, not in one where the system has become rigged to shift it such that every other economic sector is dependent on banking.
I think that is the core consequence. That the result of what that looks like from there is very impossible to predict and say. There still will be credit. There still will be stock exchanges. There still will be stocks. But that business and that sector of the economy will be far smaller as a consequence. People will not need to funnel through it in order to access other points of the economy. There will be more direct communication between telecom sectors, energy sectors, healthcare, agriculture.
Yeah. What happens to all that value, man? To me, I feel like, as I’m learning about this stuff, that there’s just this layer, like you’re saying, of real value. Value that’s being produced that people want to consume, therefore, it has value. Then there’s just the whole layer of just vapor value that doesn’t actually exist, except for in ledgers and databases in this middleman industry of money changing industry that they’ve sort of built on this house of cards. What happens to all of that? Who’s going to lose in the popping of that entry? Is it mostly the financial industry that’s out or are their tentacles really going to cause damage in the real… the businesses creating real value to?
Well, I think that there’s a reality that everybody in the world is currently operating on manipulated price signals, and that we’re all going to have to bear, to varying different degrees, the consequences of easy money and monetary mediums all over the world being printed to the extent that eventually the forms of money that we’re all relying on today will eventually fail. I believe that Bitcoin will be the currency that practically everybody in the world is using to fuel their economy. I think that the short answer to that question is everybody… When we think about the value of… the value, there’s a $250 trillion global credit system and that a lot of that value is going to be proven to be impaired. On a direct basis, I’d say, the people that overwhelmingly hold those assets are going to figure out that nobody else values them and that the price signal of the par value of those bonds or whatever they’re currently trading at will prove to be errantly wrong.
When I say wrong, it’s thinking about this idea of there will only be 21 million Bitcoin, and all it’s capturing is a more accurate view of what people value. Today it’s the same thing. There’s 250 trillion of a global credit system and it costs $40,000 to go buy a car. How much do we value the car rather than holding a debt instrument? There will be some degradation of value in the aggregate because there will be some instability as these large currency and monetary systems continue to break down. That’s essentially what we see during the COVID economic shutdown. There’s real consequences to shutting down an entire economy. That these things aren’t static things that exist in the world. That all economic systems and all local economies are so interdependent, and that if you throw a monkey wrench in one, it’s going to have a ripple effect into others.
When economy start to break down because money starts to break down, the quintessential example is Venezuela. Who lost the most there? Everybody lost. Everybody loses by economic instability and everybody gains in the end of the day by economic stability. That will actually be fostered and improved upon through the use of a more stable form of money. But that there’s probably going to be some turbulence between then and now where we’re going to have to probably feel some pain in aggregate, almost certainly. But at the other side, Bitcoin represents that anchor or rock that allows us to bootstrap and pull ourselves out of it, because if not, then the world would go the way of Venezuela, essentially.
This is why you want to own real assets right now. Rob, any thoughts there before I move on to one more question for you?
Yeah. I thought that’s a great point. Money, you can consider it as the base layer protocol for an economy. It’s what we’re using to facilitate all transactions. If that base layer is compromised, then the scope of trade is reduced and trade is what generates wealth. Me doing what I do best you’re doing what you do best, all of us trading. That’s how we accomplish greater results with the same or less efforts. That’s the root of productivity and comparative advantage, if you will. I like to think that in this transition, we’ll actually go back towards the original functions of banking, where today we’re in this crazy world where market prices have become more of a function of monetary policy than supply and demand, because again, price signals are totally disrupted.
But I think we’ll go back to where a bank essentially provides two functions, which were custody. They were actually custodying money and other assets, and they were doing maturity matching. They were time log depositors’ savings and use those to lend out and do a credit analysis on investments. You have a customer keeping their savings in a bank in what we would call maybe a CD today that has a one-year time lock. They get paid 5%. The bank turns out and loans that money out because savings is the basis of investment. They loan that money out at say seven or 8%, and they net the difference. Bank was providing this custody and maturity matching function. That’s what I think we’ll get back to providing on a free market.
Another thing to think about is if gold itself had been… if we were able to secure gold cheaply, so we didn’t need to centralize in vaults to pick up that economy of scale, and if we can transmit gold digitally, which is basically what Bitcoin is, there would be no central bank, basically. The central bank was developed on the shortcomings of gold. I think Bitcoin is removing those shortcomings is another way to look at it, eliminating central banking. There’s just no need for it because it resolves the shortcomings of gold. The thing I see on the back of that is a return to value investing, where money as a claim on the savings of society at full market penetration would tend to appreciate year over year in line with savings growth or productivity growth. Fluctuating with demand, of course, but say it’s the global economy is growing at two to 5% per year. That’s what money would tend to appreciate as, and that would be your benchmark rate for investing.
You would only allocate into projects that had a prospective return higher than that benchmark rate. Whereas today you have to put your money anywhere except fiat currency to protect it. That leads to all this capital misallocation, the unicorns, the exacerbation of the boom/bust cycle. All of these things we get away from, I think, on a Bitcoin center.
I’m mindful of time. Can you guys hang out for a little bit longer or do you need to jet? This is the end of our scheduled time here.
I’ve got about 15 more minutes.
Yeah, I have until 2:30 pm.
Okay, cool. All right. This is just an idea that came up when I was going through you guys’ pieces. I thought it was interesting question. Just a prompt to get some thoughts from you guys’ brains. Rob has this quote in his piece, The Number Zero and Bitcoin, and it’s “Zero is the fulcrum between real and imaginary number planes.” All right. “It implies then that Bitcoin is the fulcrum between the physical and digital planes.” Rob, you can get this one off. Do you think that first of all… first of all, it’s two levels there. They sound like they might be the same question, but I think they’re a little different. Do you think digital scarcity is possible without an anchor in physical reality, and does absolute scarcity require a combination of digital and physical planes?
Digital scarcity, to my knowledge, is not possible. It’s not possible to provide assurance of supply limitation without some form of energy expenditure. I think to have digital or absolute scarcity, you have to have a connection to physical reality, to thermodynamic reality via an expenditure of energy. What was the second part of the question?
Do you think absolute scarcity requires a combination of digital and physical planes? Do you think it would be even possible without humanity living in both the digital and physical planes now?
Yeah, I don’t. I wrote about this in the piece that how could you guarantee the supply of anything physically? It’s just not possible because we can always create more of anything. It’s just kind of a function of time. Even gold, which was the best tool for mapping the scarcity of time and energy that money’s intended to, if you could, all of a sudden, make everyone go mine gold, we could increase in supply a lot more quickly. There’s something special about Bitcoin existing in the non corporeal informational domain that we can establish this consensus every 10 minutes that it’s still, the same amount, the supply schedule is still being executed as it’s laid out and there’s still 21 million supply cap. I don’t think that’s possible without the constant iterating digital consensus. I don’t see how you could do that without that.
What about the concept itself? The concept of absolute scarcity. Does that even exist in the natural world? Can that concept exist? Is this a new idea that we’ve been presented with? I guess this is what you’re saying with The Number Zero and Bitcoin. The idea of absolute scarcity is completely novel to human thought.
Yeah. Here’s maybe another way to think about it. Absolute scarcity exists before Bitcoin. It’s either in the form of time, which is quite mysterious, or thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy mass. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed in the universe. I think that’s maybe another good way to look at Bitcoin is that it is a monetary technology that for the first time, perfectly maps on to the absolute scarcity of time or energy in the universe. That’s what we’re treating here. We’re treating our time and energy through money. If the medium doesn’t represent the substance with high fidelity, which in the case of Bitcoin, it’s perfect fidelity, then signal gets lost and there’s room for distortion. I think in that way that, yes, it is a concept that exists prior to man, like the law of thermal dynamics have been here way before we have been here, but we have now figured out this protocol that maps on to these laws. The other interesting parallel here is, you know the old saying, “There’s no free lunch in the universe.”
That comes from thermodynamics. Thermodynamics are the physical laws that we cannot break. That’s the law of physics that we can’t manipulate or change. By mapping a monetary system onto that, we have developed this unbreakable set of rules for money that we call Bitcoin. That’s where, in the grand scientific philosophical sense, I think it’s just… I don’t like to use the word inevitable, but as close to inevitable as you can get, because it’s so perfectly maps onto the fundamental nature of reality that how do you escape it?
Parker, you’ve written a whole piece about this, Bitcoin being inevitable. I know where you stand on that subject, but do you have any thoughts about the special nature of the relationships between the physical world and the digital world for Bitcoin as a money and as an idea?
Yeah. I definitely have some ideas. I would say that both Robert and then one of the co-founders here at Unchained, Dhruv Bansal, if you really want to get cosmic, you should get Dhruv on and he could start to really dig into these subjects better than I could. But I do think, in short, and I don’t want to go on a long, tangent, but I think that the short answer, or at least my perspective is there does need to be a connection between the physical world and the digital world in order for that absolute or finite scarcity to exist. Yes, the only way that absolute scarcity in the sense that we’re describing it can exist is that it exists in a digital form because I think that, to Robert’s point, one of the ideas of what we saw over millennia humans constantly searching for better and better forms of this tool that we refer to as money.
That goal had been that standard. That in the physical world, yes, there is a finite amount of gold, but from a practical application, our ability to use it and to find more, that it practically is not finite. That when we combine the… anchoring this digital form of money in the real world through energy expenditure and being able to prove that work and the energy has been consumed, and that’s the function by which this digital form of money moves, that when you combine that with the properties that only something digital can have, and the key distinctions being that it can be transmitted over a communication channel and that it can be easily divided and moved at very low costs, that is something that can exist merely in the physical world.
That when you create that link and create that digital form factor of it, that it actually causes us to stop searching for other forms of money. That we’ve, in the current iteration, truly perfected it and reached that point where once we accept that more money can’t be derived, that we actually stop fulfilling the unproductive activity or pursuing the unproductive activity of trying to print more money, which essentially is, I think, something that people inevitably attempt to pursue.
They try gold with fool’s gold and dollars with financial engineering. That people, just by their very nature, are incented to try to create money out of thin air. They want the free lunch, but if we have live in this new reality where people accept that it is impossible to do this and that the incentives all around because it is in the form factor of being digital and because we don’t need representative technology, like the dollars that helped solve various limitations of gold, that people will actually stop the pursuit of printing more and more money. That is really what creates this finite and absolute scarcity is that we all agree that more can’t be created so we can get on with our lives and actually doing things that other people value.
Love it man. Thank you guys so much. This is our episode with the Bitcoin philosophers. This is the moniker that we’re giving you guys. I hope it sticks because I think it’s pretty cool. Rob, thanks so much for your time, man. Parker, I appreciate it.
Yeah, enjoyed it guys.
Thanks for anything, Parker.
We’ll sign off. Go to swambitcoin.com/breedlove. You’ll get $10 of free Bitcoin dropped to your account. You can support Rob’s work. You can also grab your own Swan Force ref link at swanbitcoin.com/enlist. That’s this week. See you next week when we have Danielle DiMartino Booth and Michael Saylor, Giga Chad himself, Michael Saylor. Danielle and Michael will be together for the first hour, and we’ll be talking about macroeconomics, Fed policy, how it affects businesses, and running a corporation in America. The last half hour, it’ll just be one on one with me and Michael Saylor. That should be a fantastic fire episode. So stay tuned for next week. Thanks all.
Episode 8 –Andy Edstrom and Ansel Linder
Episode 9 –Rockstar Developer and Jeremy Rubin
Episode 10 – Bitcoin TINA and CK Snarks
Episode 11– Gigi and Knut Svanholm
Episode 12 –Adam Back and Preston Pysh
Episode 13 –Alex Gladstein and Matt Odell
Episode 14 –Robert Breedlove and Tuur Demeester
Episode 15 –Isaiah Jackson and Max Keiser
Episode 16 –Gigi and Udi Wertheimer
Episode 17 –Aleks Svetski and Jimmy Song
Episode 18 –Stephan Livera and Marty Bent
Episode 19 –Mark Moss and Ben Prentice
Episode 20 –Samson Mow and Parker Lewis
Episode 21–Lyn Alden and Jeff Booth
Episode 22– Robert Breedlove and Cory Klippsten
Episode 23 — Saifedean Ammous and George Gammon
Episode 24 –Jameson Lopp and Eric Martindale
Episode 25 –Preston Pysh and Andy Edstrom
Episode 26 –Lyn Alden and Nic Carter
Episode 27 — Erik Townsend and Yan Pritzker
Episode 28 — Max Keiser and Tone Vays
Episode 29 –Preston Pysh and Andy Edstrom
Episode 30–Raoul Pal and Vijay Boyapati
Episode 31–Dan Tapiero and Dan Matuszewski
The Number Zero and Bitcoin –Robert’s Writing
An Open Letter to Ray Dalio –Robert’s Writing
Masters and Slaves of Money –Robert’s Writing
The Number Zero and Bitcoin –Robert’s Writing
An Open Letter to Ray Dalio –Robert’s Writing
Masters and Slaves of Money –Robert’s Writing