Bitcoin Rally Produces an Inane Comment By Paul Krugman

Via Paul Krugman's fawning echo chamber over at 'Businessinsider' we have become aware that he has recently seen fit to comment on Bitcoin. Krugman's comment consists essentially of the Keynesian nostrum according to which A) currency becoming more valuable is 'bad' and B) 'hoarding' of money is generally 'bad'.

Here is an excerpt from Krugman's Bitcoin epiphany:

So how’s it going? The dollar value of that cybercurrency has fluctuated sharply, but overall it has soared. So buying into Bitcoin has, at least so far, been a good investment.

But does that make the experiment a success? Um, no. What we want from a monetary system isn’t to make people holding money rich; we want it to facilitate transactions and make the economy as a whole rich. And that’s not at all what is happening in Bitcoin.

Bear in mind that dollar prices have been relatively stable over the past few years – yes, some deflation in 2008-2009, then some inflation as commodity prices rebounded, but overall consumer prices are only slightly higher than they were three years ago. What that means is that if you measure prices in Bitcoins, they have plunged; the Bitcoin economy has in effect experienced massive deflation.

And because of that, there has been an incentive to hoard the virtual currency rather than spending it. The actual value of transactions in Bitcoins has fallen rather than rising. In effect, real gross Bitcoin product has fallen sharply.

So to the extent that the experiment tells us anything about monetary regimes, it reinforces the case against anything like a new gold standard – because it shows just how vulnerable such a standard would be to money-hoarding, deflation, and depression.”


(emphasis added)

Our first reaction to such abject nonsense would be: apparently Krugman has never bought a computer or a cell phone in his life. According to the theory he espouses above, almost no-one has. After all, there has been a huge 'deflation' in the prices of these things. As we have pointed out recently, in the mid 1980s one could buy a 'super-computer' featuring a 105 MHZ CPU and 128 MB of RAM for $16 million in 1980 money (roughly a cool $53 million in today's money). The 1.2 gb hard drive that came with it, big as a wardrobe, set you back another $270,000 ($885,000 in today's money). Such a device, if you could still buy it, would probably cost $15 today, plus the cost of the housing and the power supply, which would likely exceed the cost of the electronic components markedly.

According to Krugman's theory, the best that could have happened to the economy would have been if such a computer really did set you back by $53 million today. People would positively fall over themselves buying it!

So much for Keynes beliefs on 'deflation' and Krugman's regurgitation of same.

If he makes a point of economic theory, then he is either elucidating a general economic law, or he isn't. There cannot be a 'different set of economic laws for the computer and telecommunications industries', which is why our example thoroughly disproves every word he says above. 

Not surprisingly, the period in US history during which real economic growth was by far the fastest ever and reflected positively on the largest possible number of people was actually a period throughout which the general price level tended to mildly decline. Gold was indeed still money at the time and there was no Federal Reserve yet. This economically blissful period has apparently been edited out of Krugman's personal version of economic history.

In an unhampered free market economy (we can safely assume that such an economy would employ sound money), 'hoarding' could actually never become a problem. People are not interested in holding X amount of money per se, but money representing a certain amount of purchasing power. If gold were used as money and a handful of pathological misers were 'hoarding' it, then the market would quickly adjust the purchasing power of the remaining gold supply, so that it could perform the same functions as before. Money is the only good in the economy that confers no benefit whatsoever to society if its supply increases.




Bitcoin's wild rally continues … click for better resolution.



Similarly, the fact that Krugman thinks that the rising exchange value of Bitcoin means that henceforth no-one will actually use it for buying things indicates that the man is utterly naïve and unworldly. Imagine you had bought a few Bitcoins when they were still a lot cheaper. Why would you not spend some of them now that they are buying so much more? The idea simply makes no sense whatsoever. We actually tend to believe that some Bitcoin holders are probably a bit nervous about the rapid ascent of the currency's value and will therefore be inclined to spend some of it while the getting is good.

Also, imagine the hypothetical extreme situation that Bitcoin were the only form of money in existence. Does Krugman really believe that people would stop consuming just because the value of the currency has increased a lot lately? What would people eat? How would they pay for shelter? Would they all forego the new iPhone when it comes to market? By posing such simple common sense questions it should become immediately obvious how bizarre Krugman's claims are. The man is simply full of it and the same goes for his amen corner at Businessinsider and elsewhere, where these absurdities are presented as though they were holy economic writ.


Tom Woods Interviews a Bitcoin Expert

There are valid doubts as to whether a money that does not have an embodiment in the physical sense such as is the case with gold would really be considered viable in an unhampered free economy. There can however be no doubt whatsoever that Bitcoin fills a growing need in today's statist fiat money world with its central banking socialism and its steadily growing loss of financial privacy. While we still suspect that governments may try to stomp on the currency by making it illegal one day, the fact is that it can actually not be controlled by governments or anyone else. Indeed, it probably cannot really be prohibited out of existence; although it would theoretically be possible to criminalize its users under some pretext, it would still be impossible to track them.

For those of our readers who want to learn more, below is a very interesting interview with Bitcoin expert Erik Voorhees, conducted by Thomas Woods. One   perfectly logical and valid point made by Mr. Voorhees  is that part of Bitcoin's attraction is its utter lack of counterparty risk – something that cannot even be guaranteed by electronic gold depositories. For instance, the government came down like a ton of bricks on e-gold, which was accused of letting its service be used for money laundering purposes (we are not sure what happened to the gold holdings of legitimate customers there, but it is a good bet that it was a big headache to get one's money back). It should be noted though in this context that a number of similar services like e.g. Gold Money have been very careful to be 100% compliant with the relevant regulations. However, these very regulations obviously mean that financial privacy is lost a priori.

The standard argument against the legitimate wish for financial privacy is that 'if one has nothing to hide one doesn't need it' – which is of course the standard argument dished up every time governments are increasing their spying on the citizenry.  Allegedly it is all for our own good, but it should be blindingly obvious that it is ultimately paving the way for tyranny. It is therefore difficult not to like Bitcoin. The biggest risk to it would probably be a breakdown of the internet infrastructure, but that would be a risk to more than  just Bitcoin, as Mr. Voorhees helpfully points out.



Thomas Woods talks Bitcoin with Erik Voorhees




Emigrate While You Can... Learn More




Dear readers - we want to once again thank all of you who have supported us with donations.


To donate Bitcoins, use this address: 1DRkVzUmkGaz9xAP81us86zzxh5VMEhNke


Thank you for your support!

8 Responses to “More on Bitcoin”

  • timlucas:

    I have a small objection to bitcoins. I do not understand the necessity to create any new ones. The system allows the gradual expansion of the money supply as computing power is applied to ‘mine’ new coins. Systemically, isn’t this an unecessary waste? If one of the crucial requirements of money is its scarcity, then removing the ability to make more altogether would be a virtue, rather than a problem, and avoid numerous people wasting energy producing new coins.

    The effect of removing the ability to ‘mine’ would be greater deflation i.e. cheaper goods for everyone Mr Krugman and would avoid employing people, equipment, energy in fairly useless tasks. This said, there is a cap at about double the current number of bitcoins, so given the recent price moves, I suspect that they’ll all be produced up to this cap fairly soon now!

    Does anyone know if the ‘mining’ of the coins provides another useful service in the architecture, which would therefore be curtailed at the point at which the cap is reached?

    • mc:

      Yes, ‘mining’ of bitcoins performs other valuable services. “Mining” is really a cryptographic brute-force solve/validate of the math underlying the BitCoin algorithm, and those that mine also help keep the chain of transactions valid. Each transaction is signed with cryptography of sender and receiver, and these signings are validated by other network nodes, which would then mutually validate any newly created coins.

      The creation rate is strictly limited so that no many how many people ‘mine’ BTC, only a certain number can be created in any time period. At this time, it is similar to gold in that that stock is large compared to new production. The ability to make new coins decreases over time until an actual hard limit is reached, and thus the incentive for mining would go decrease/go away. The though is that at this time in the future, the size of the network and incentives for maintaining that web of trust will be great enough for the users to continue based on the utility of the currency, as opposed to this current system where your computing put to work for the network rewards you with some slight benefit.

  • worldend666:

    It’s hard to see what is driving this Bitcoin rally. After all it has appreciated 2500% and there is a decent alternative in gold. Why would anyone risk their nuts buying this hot potato at this point in the game?

    I can only assume it’s one of these 3 alternatives:

    1) People who cannot get their hands on gold who still have some money but worry about losing electronic digits at the bank (Cyprus? Argentina?)

    2) People with huge income who don’t want to bank it and don’t want to store it in cash (Drugs/arms dealers).

    3) The Fed buying massive amounts with the intention of crashing it to teach individuals who don’t trust dollars a lesson.

    Any other ideas?

  • SavvyGuy:

    Excellent piece!

    I totally agree with the one statement above that sums up the fallacy of modern monetary planning: “Money is the only good in the economy that confers no benefit whatsoever to society if its supply increases”.

    Unfortunately, we’re all stuck in fiat monetary regimes worldwide, and a sudden outbreak of monetary wisdom is unlikely to strike anywhere in the near future.

  • rodney:

    A good article. Nonetheless, I notice a tendency to often use the term “central banking socialism”. May I note that this is contradictory; what central banks do is more aptly described as “reverse socialism”: a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

  • Seems Krugman has something against people keeping their own property, like any good fascist. As far as the computer example, it would be perfect for Krugman money, from extremely valuable to the point almost no one would even want it today.

  • Keith Weiner:

    Great Piece Pater!

    What Krugman and Keynes miss about hoarding is that there is a difference between hoarding a consumable good like food and hoarding a monetary good. In the case of food, very low stocks are kept. Food is produced in the quantity which is consumed. If all of a sudden some people begin hoarding it, others will starve.

    In the case of the monetary good, hoarding does not cause starvation nor deprivation of any other good such as heating oil, clothing, etc. It causes the interest rate to rise. The monetary good exists in huge quantities if one measures total stocks to flows (inventories divided by annual production). The arbitrage between hoarding and saving (i.e. lending at interest) sets the floor under the interest rate.

    What would Krugman’s answer be? How does he think the interest rate should be set? By wise and powerful central planners…

  • Kreditanstalt:

    Hoarding a problem? Rubbish…

    People only “hoard” stuff – whether it be money (purchasing power) or goods – if they feel that the stuff might become more expensive in the future. In other words, a good in the hand today is at a premium to a possible one in the future. Backwardation!

    If the purchasing power of new money – to be acquired in the future – is expected to be lower than the dollar you have in hand NOW, you hoard dollars. Or gold. Or bitcoins.

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • testa-e-collo-di-cesareWhy Do We Let Other People Tell Us What to Do?
      Lame Theories of Government We have been disappointed with political ideas and theories of government. They are nothing but scams, justifications, and puffery. One tries to put something over on the common man… the other claims it was for his own good… and the third pretends that he’d be lost without it. Most are not really “theories” at all… but prescriptions, blueprints for creating the kind of government the “theorist” would like to have. Not surprisingly, it is a...
  • goldmine-700x360Gold and Gold Stocks – Back to Tricky, but Interesting Signals Emerge
      A Relentless Short Term Decline When we last discussed the gold sector, we noted that with gold approaching its 200 day moving average, a pullback had to be expected soon. In the meantime, a bit more than just a pullback has happened, as a severe sell-off started after the October FOMC announcement.   Photo via   However, as you will see below, this has most likely merely reset the clock a bit in terms of anticipating a medium term trend change (even if...
  • MponengGold and Gold Stocks – It Gets Even More Interesting
      Technical Backdrop If only we could get a dime for every bearish article on gold that has been published over the past two weeks...but one can't have everything. When a market is down 83% like the HUI gold mining index is, we are generally more interested in trying to find out when it might turn around, since it is a good bet that it is “oversold”. Of course, it if makes it to 90% down, it will still be a harrowing experience in the short term. We like these catastrophes because...
  • winterThe Long, Cold Winter Ahead
      Not Immune Cold winds of deflation gust across the autumn economic landscape.  Global trade languishes and commodities rust away like abandoned scrap metal with a visible dusting of frost.  The economic optimism that embellished markets heading into 2015 have cooled as the year moves through its final stretch.   Photo credit: David Byrne   If you recall, the popular storyline since late last year has been that the U.S. economy is moderately improving while the...
  • resultThe Greatest Racket of All Time
      The Successes of the Global War on Terror One would think that the so-called “Global War on Terror”, which has been given fresh impetus by the Paris attacks, must be going swimmingly. What else could explain the great enthusiasm with which it is pursued? It may be recalled that it started in earnest after the WTC attack – also a declaration of war, as it was put at the time. As is often the case when Islamist fundamentalists strike, the actual attackers immolated themselves on...
  • santaHow Do People Destroy Their Capital?
      There is no Santa Claus I have written previously about the interest rate, which is falling under the planning of the Federal Reserve. The flip side of falling interest rates is the rising price of bonds. Bonds are in an endless, ferocious bull market. Why do I call it ferocious? Perhaps voracious is a better word, as it is gobbling up capital like the Cookie Monster jamming tollhouses into his maw. There are several mechanisms by which this occurs, let’s look at one...
  • oil rigJunk Bonds Under Pressure
      While the Stock Market is Partying ... There are seemingly always “good reasons” why troubles in a sector of the credit markets are supposed to be ignored – or so people are telling us, every single time. Readers may recall how the developing problems in the sub-prime sector of the mortgage credit market were greeted by officials and countless market observers in the beginning in 2007.   Photo credit: Getty Images   At first it was assumed that the most highly...
  • P1060838US Economy – Not Getting Better
      An Update in Light of Recent Data Releases Since our last updates on the manufacturing sector of the US economy (in chronological order: “Is the US Economy Close to a Bust?” and “More Ominous Data Points”), new data have been released and our friend Michael Pollaro has mailed us updated versions of his charts, so we decided to provide another update. So far, there is no sign that the emerging downtrend in manufacturing activity is stopping or reversing. The recent manufacturing...
  • Young-European-Jihadists-ChappatteAngry Belgian Muslims and the Price of Welfare Statism
      Ill-Tempered Mohammedans in the Socialist Paradise In the wake of recent revelations about the identities of the morons involved in the horrific Paris attacks (happily, most of them shuffled off the mortal coil as well, thereby improving the aggregate degree of moral clarity and intelligence in the world), a friend pointed us to an article at Unz Review that asks: “Why Does Belgium Have Such Angry Muslims?” Our instinctive, immediate reaction was to argue that the bland, boring...
  • US-GNP-per-capita-1869-1918The Next Level of John Law Type Central Planning Madness
      Cries for Going Totally Crazy are Intensifying What are the basic requirements for becoming the chief economist of the IMF? Judging from what we have seen so far, the person concerned has to be a died-in-the-wool statist and fully agree with the (neo-) Keynesian faith, i.e., he or she has to support more of the same hoary inflationism that has never worked in recorded history anywhere. In other words, to qualify for that fat 100% tax-free salary (ironically paid for by assorted tax serfs),...

Support Acting Man




Own physical gold and silver outside a bank

Realtime Charts


Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from]


THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

Buy Silver Now!
Buy Gold Now!