88. Is bitcoin good money? A debate with Paul Frijters | The Bitcoin Standard Podcast
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- Is Bitcoin Good? Debating a Nocoiner Economist
In this episode Saifedean invites back Professor Paul Frijters of the London School of Economics to debate whether bitcoin is a good form of money. Saifedean makes the case for money as a market phenomenon, and argues that bitcoin has the scarcity, divisibility, fungibility and transportability that humans have historically valued in monies. Paul presents his problems with bitcoin’s deflationary nature, and questions whether bitcoin mining is a zero-sum game, and whether the fact that people hold bitcoin really demonstrates its value. The debate moves on to discuss the desired role of government in society, how bitcoin affects it, and whether government force is legitimate.
Chapters:
0:00 Welcome to the Bitcoin Standard Podcast
2:06 A simple Introduction to Bitcoin
12:00 Paul Frijters Background
14:00 Is Bitcoin a means of exchange?
18:10 Why Bitcoin is the best store of value
28:35 Land is a good store of value
30:30 Who are Bitcoin miners?
40:00 Is Bitcoin stealing energy?
42:00 Bitcoins consensus rules
46:00 Evaluating the energy in Bitcoin
51:55 Bitcoin's mining transition
56:45 Money is a time trade
1:03:00 A cost benefit analysis
1:11:00 Innovation in the monetary sphere
1:14:00 Money is a means to an end
1:20:00 Living a happy life
1:24:00 Bitcoin increases people's saving habits
1:31:00 The different layers of Bitcoin
1:35:00 Is government force legitimate?
1:43:00 Austrian economics vs. empirical economics
1:50:00 Anarchism vs. governments force
2:01:00 Cholesterol and statins
Resources:
Nick Szabo’s article Shelling Out for an account of the historical emergence of money: nakamotoinstitute.org/shellin...
When Money Dies by Adam Fergusson:
ug1lib.org/book/5060458/6fc152
When Money Destroys Nations by Russell Lamberti and Philip Haslam: www.amazon.com/When-Money-Des...
The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard:
mises.org/library/ethics-liberty
The Great Cholesterol Con by Malcolm Kendrick:
ug1lib.org/book/3506823/e782cb
The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz, for further discussion of cholesterol:
www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Surpri...
Paul’s article Why Blockchain has no economic future:
johnmenadue.com/paul-frijters...
Paul’s textbook A Handbook for Wellbeing Policy-Making: History, Theory, Measurement, Implementation, and Examples:
www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09...
Saifedean’s first book, The Bitcoin Standard: saifedean.com/thebitcoinstandard
Saifedean’s second book, The Fiat Standard: saifedean.com/thefiatstandard
Enjoyed this episode? You can take part in podcast seminars, access Saifedean’s courses and read chapters of his forthcoming books by becoming a Saifedean.com member. Find out more here:
saifedean.com/membership/
I have listened to almost every big name in the bitcoin community speak for thousands of ours now. I believe Saif is absolutely the most well read, studied and most talented voice we have. This was not even a contest and a true real time testament to the fundamental logic and reasoning of a free critical thinker vs a traditional state sponsored frame of mind. Absolutely incredible! Quite possibly the most undervalued channel on youtube ‘as it were’.
It's fascinating to witness society naturally opting for Austrian economics over Keynesian now that a technology is available to all which strictly enforces the rules. Talk about proof of work/theory! #bitcoin
I want to see more of this; debates with trad-economists who are willing to have the debate. It's a good check to get out of the Bitcoiner bubble to hear other perspectives, even if Saif destroyed him.
Great debate Saifeadean! Debates with people who clearly haven’t done their homework are interesting and it’s clear they are making assumptions. I’d love to see someone who has really tried to understand Bitcoin firs then come into a debate - that’s where the real value of pros and cons come in. But maybe all of those people have been converted? 😆
I agree.
Such people don't exist.
The whole idea of someone doing a serious deep dive into understanding Bitcoin effectively eliminates the opposing argument against Bitcoin in the process. This is why whenever we see a Bitcoin debate, the non-bit-coiner is woefully unprepared.
I have to agree with the other replies. Impossible to truly understand all the pros and cons of Bitcoin at this point in time and still be against it. I read about it in 2010 but didn't buy because it hadn't gone through important tests to prove it's validity. Mainly, the ability to withstand the competition from copycats, and the ability for the protocol to uphold it's rules in the face of massive opposition. Since then it's undergone those 2 crucial tests and passed with flying colors. The only logical reason to oppose Bitcoin is of you're a doomsday prepper that truly believes the entire modern economy will collapse.
Paul “as it were” Frijters….he clearly hasn’t done a proper deep dive on bitcoin based on his questions
Would be interested to follow up with Paul and see where he is at with BTC now??
"I've been to state-run schools." - Frijters
Yeah, obviously.
If he says "as it were" one more time...
hahaha my thoughts exactly, as it were!😆
2:05:17. My favorite moment in the entire video!!!
Bahaha that is hilarious and so true. That was a slam dunk
Rekt
Halfway through the video. Its like listening to a High Schooler argue with a College Professor. Someone who googles the arguments and thinks" Gotcha" but doesnt follow up by googling the answer.
I'm afraid Paul's understanding of Statin is worst than economics.
1:36:00. This is one of the things that irritates me about Keynesian economists is that they think they get to decide whether an economic activity is a good thing or not. It doesn't matter that a large number of economic actors all independently, and of their own informed freewill, decided to do a thing, the Keynesian still feels he's in a position to play the parent and decide whether that activity was positive. If the economic actors didn't find value in their actions, they would do something else. Who are you to try to be the final arbiter of whether an agent is acting in his own best interest? Utterly disgusting. Instead of trying to come up with means to decide whether the monetization of a good is of benefit (by whatever definition "you" have come up with), why don't you try to understand what the monetization is telling you about the market's will? This is really the problem with central planner types, this fundamental belief people are incompetent and have to be protected from themselves, so you have to curtail their options so they only have those approved options that are safe for them.
You are inherently also putting arbitrary limits on economic activity because you think some things are good. Why can't I take the metal you claim to have found? What gives you any right to stop me from touching it besides you arbitrarily deciding it is bad?
@@ZbjetisGod Seriously??? The concept of property is not an arbitrary one. It starts out with the notion of self, where you clearly own yourself, as you control yourself, and no one else does. Then you build on that foundation, that when you combine your labors with unclaimed materials, those materials become yours. Think back to when the first men walked the earth. Bob decides he doesn't like the weather, so he starts building a shelter, he invests his time and energy into that shelter, which makes it his shelter. Tom comes along and sees the shelter Bob has built and he decides he likes Bob's idea, and instead of building one of his own, he's just going to take Bob's shelter. From the stance of what physics will allow, certainly Tom can do that if he can over power Bob, but he is clearly violating Bob.
Now on the other side, say Bob is walking one day and see's Tom building a boat, and Bob is quite taken with the idea of having one. So Bob approaches Tom and says, "let's make a deal, I'll trade my shelter for your boat" and Tom agrees. There is no violation there. Two parties who both agree have willingly agreed they would rather have the item the other is offering than the item they have. No one has been harmed, no one violated. Both parties are now happier than they were, as both have something they value more than what they had.
What you're espousing is a barbarous idea that you somehow have the right to take from others what you want. Of course, that also means those others have equal right to take right back from you. So you're left trying to take their stuff, and they are trying to take it back, you know what that leads to? Not civilization, not long life, not safe places to live, not warm homes in which to sleep, not computers, not the Internet we're using to discuss this on.
I am dumbfounded! The guest said that money is time and you can't produce more time, but he also said that inflationary currencies where you're losing part of your time that you saved in money each year is apparently a good thing but in the context of Bitcoin he described that somehow we're losing time by Bitcoin which is bad when it comes to bitcoin but good when it comes to inflationary currencies?
I'm trying to follow him and I think I might need to rewatch The few minutes where he describes other people's time and money
It's both surprising and unsurprising that Frijters is a Professor.
What a great discussion, I just wish that Paul had a better mic setup, he sounded very muffled.
This applies to so many podcasters and their guests. Makes it very hard to listen to.
Not sure what is more embarassing, the dudes clear lack of research into Bitcoin or the fact that he still uses a laptop mic in late 2021.
1:20:00
Paul tries to argue "What's more important? Being financially healthy or being happy?"
What's more conducive to living a happy life, being financially well off or being broke? Hard money increases people's ability to provide for themselves and their loved ones. Being happy and being financially well off are not mutually exclusive. It's common sense really.
Economist’s the only job where you can continuously be incorrect and still keep your job. The reason Saifedean defies this model is he has a Engineering background and deals from first principles. Unfortunately this debate was watching a knife fight where one has a gun. What a massacre.
Great discussion, really enjoyed it
Give this man a radio show about economics
Outstanding closing statement Mr Ammous.
This "debate" is an excellent example of Austrian economics, vs all other schools of economics: one smart person telling another how things simply work.
Thank you. Evrrytime I listen to these I'm amazed at how people truly believe what comes out of their mouths. The amount of brainwashing it must've taken for fiat to take such a hold on a person is amazing
1:55:20. What a slide of hand. This idea that the respect of property rights requires the violation of other people's rights, as though other people have a pre-existing right to your property. That's like saying other people have a pre-existing right to your body. But it was especially funny when he said, "even respect for Bitcoin property right needs some notion of coercion." He clearly doesn't understand cryptography. If you want to dilute "coercion" to simply mean the use of force in any case what-so-ever regardless of rights (which is a terrible definition, as the entire idea of a right implies the ethical ability to protect property, and is non-coercive in its inherent nature), the simple fact is cryptography does not require force to enforce its rights, it simply removes the entity in question from the reach of the aggressor. Even with Paul's weak definition of coercion you can't honestly make the argument that Bitcoin needs coercion. This is what makes Bitcoin such a game changer! It's both immune to force and doesn't need it!
No he's questioning why you get to decide something is your property. This isn't something natural, it's a social imposition you've merely asserted. It has no concrete reality beyond what you are capable to enforce. You hold an object, in what realm is your right to coerce me not to touch it derived from? No where, you have simply asserted it and are looking to enforce it. Also no property which can be used is outside the reach of an aggressor, if it can be transferred it can be taken.
@@ZbjetisGod You clearly don't understand cryptography either. Nor do you understand the concept of rights. Saying property "isn't natural" and that "it's a social imposition" is a pretty dumb thing to say. Society is not natural, that's the ENTIRE IDEA. If you want nature, get off the Internet, give up all your stuff, take your clothes off, and go live like an animal out in the woods. That's nature. You want to live like a human being, then understand humans are social creatures, and the social organism works in certain ways. Trying to kill the basic foundations of the social contract is like trying to give society cancer. If you dislike society that much, you're free to get out, and to stop benefitting from it, and to meet the natural world on its terms.
Assuming the first led with his best argument first, that delatuonary conditions discourages trade and investment, does not bode well for him. Thomas Sowell has already debunked that notion.
Deflation encourages innovation because as savings increases then it increases the amount of capital available to tap into. Conversely in an inflationary environment, the incetive is to spend all you have, leaving no capital for investing in new ideas and tech. Instead they are forced to borrow, creating more risk and bubbles.
Great discussion, would've loved to see more of the disagreement towards the end expanded upon.
All right so he said dollars are just a representation of time of others. And he said that's a fixed commodity. And so miners spending $30 billion to produce 1.2 trillion dollars worth of bitcoins is effectively a transfer, and that's apparently not good?
But also this is the same person said that inflationary currency is good.... Even though it transfers some of your time away, an average of 14% of your time per year.
From what I can gather these beliefs can be summed up in the following way. having less time is better than having more time. Having your time be more valuable in the future is bad. Having your time be less valuable in the future is good.
"As it were, as it were..." KEK
Saif is devastating
Amazing Frijters doesn't see inflation as a negative aspect of fiat.
He's also obviously on the spectrum, somewhere near green.
Thurston Howell Vibes
What about The proposed tokenization of things such as land that Rao Paul talks about?
Are you all familiar with this concept?
Would it in fact allow everyone to participate in Real estate without owning key pieces of land?
It would not be decentralised and allow for more speculation. That's why I'm not sure if it would make it more affordable. The possibility to participate for sure, but not owning a real house. Bitcoin will remove the store of value from real estate and make housing affordable for everyone. That's my hope for a bitcoin standard.
Saifedean, what do you think of Ayn Rand's idea of a voluntary tax on all transactions?
If you pay the tax, you have recourse use to the court system to protect you against fraud in that transaction.
If you don't pay the tax, you're on your own with regard to fraud, but only with respect to that transaction.
The option to pay the tax exists on both sides of every transaction, and is a flat tax based on the value of the transaction.
Overall tax income via this method is to be massaged by moving the rate to match the expenses of the court system within this new framework.
Since the number of taxpayers should be directly proportional to the number of subsequent litigants, it seems like an interesting starting point for a system of "fair" taxation.
He's an Anarchist, so he'll be very confused on the topic.
@@smashedhulk8492 Not really and anarchism has a very clear answer to this.
Anything that is voluntary is acceptable as long as anyone can propose the same service for competition and if you can refuse it, now is that a good idea or not only the market will say.
It's up to the entrepreneur to try to estimate if it's a good marketable idea or not and up to the consumer if it's worth the higher cost.
checkmate
Down here in Texas we're seeing that minors help bring down the price of electricity for the rest of us. Because before Bitcoin miners, our grid was only able to sell on average 50% of the electricity It produced, so the cost of running an electric company had to be spread out over the 50% of electricity sold. Now with Bitcoin miners electric companies are able to sell 80, 90% of the electricity they produce in the cost of running an electric company is now being spread out over more electricity sold which reduces the price.
Electricity is weird in that if at Peak demand you need 100 megawatts for your area, then yes you need the ability to produce 100 megawatts but the majority of the time you only have a demand of about 40 megawatts, so 40% of your capacity. Other things aren't like that. If you run a serial company, you don't have to be producing 100 million boxes of cereal at all times just in case the man spikes from 40 million to 100 million boxes. In the cereal doesn't immediately go away if not used. But if it did, then the ability to consistently sell 80 to 90% of the cereal boxes he produced, would bring down the price of cereal for everybody because now rather than only being able to sell 40% of your product, you're able to sell 80 90% of your product.
When it comes to electric companies it doesn't just decrease the kilowatt per hour price, but also increases the ROI for renewable energy and incentivizes more building of renewable energy producing facilities
Why is it not surprising in the slightest that he hasnt read the book before doing this show
Professor of derp
I'm curious, who contacted whom to do this debate? I don't want to criticize Paul if he's a guest here, but... He's not making much sense.
And I realized maybe he's on our side when he referred to "parasitical governments"
If he got fooled on Statins, He's Not Going to Make it.
@ 1:17:01 Saife started going 🔥🔥🔥
Riveting listen.
The Bitcoin Network literally uses less energy than the washers and dryers in just the US.... That's not the washers and dryers for the whole world. Just one country.
When people tell me that Bitcoin uses a ton of energy, when they try to tell me that a global payment Network that processes transactions 100% of the time 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year, that's a lot of energy, but washers and dryers for just one country just 5% of the world's population keeping their clothes clean, apparently that's not a lot of electricity even though it's more and it's only for one country rather than the whole globe...
Rant over
Why doesn't Paul ask himself if a society should land as a store of value, ethically speaking
The professor is intellectually dishonest and is not interested in discovering truth, his mind is made up. Reminds me of the "follow the science" meme. Follow the money is much more reliable.
You’d think a Ferrengi would have a better grasp of money
I run a node.
You can run a node.
It takes 4 gb, trust yourself drama try it
Professor Vs Satoshi
Hilarious. I'm 17 minutes in and this guy is already arguing that saving is bad for the economy. smh
I am just absolutely perplexed by the guests obsession with the idea that someone somewhere might be stealing electricity to mine bitcoins 🤷
He's just a well spoken social justice warrior, concerned with imposing his notion of what is or is not "fair" and placing that as the most important issue.
Damn this was a fairly enjoyable debate until Saifedean decided to discuss Statins something he clearly isn't well informed on if he's citing Malcolm Kendrick's 2008 book on cholesterol. There has literally been zero good evidence to support their claims and no significant researchers or doctors subscribe to their niche view. Makes me wonder if he's talking out his ass on topics I am less well read in.
Agreed. Saifedean's glaring weakness is his militant stance on (meat) nutrition by putting his faith into charlatans like Paul Saladino who just constantly, day after day, peddle complete junk science. I just saw a clip of Saladino saying "There's evidence that A, B & C, etc" and his source was *literally* a book from like 1920 in Germany that someone found in a library that had never been transcribed to English, never been checked out at said library, and was full of studies that have never been replicated since and in fact were claiming to be using technologies and methods that weren't around until the 1950's. Absolutely fucking insane to hear that and go "Yep, this guy is legit." Yes, eat more read meat, cut out the processed boxed garbage and lift heavy weights. Duh, but please stop subscribing to the fucking meat cult, or at least do so at your own will and shut the hell up about it.
This guys clueless. Saifaden is the truth
You can make more land... you cant make more bitcoin
Duh
kudos for being courageous to invite a critical view - 2:05:22 weer just going to defund the state - i donut no if you are just impulsive compulsive outspoken or if you and michael saylor are out to take down bitcoin - down in the rabbit hole this is the speech of the mad hatter
This guy knows barely anything about bitcoin and his arguments make zero sense
A regular Bitcoiner is a better economist than this guy.
I HAVE INCURRED SO MUCH LOSSES TRADING ON MY OWN...I TRADE WELL ON DEMO BUT I THINK THE REAL MARKET IS MANIPULATED... CAN ANYONE HELP ME OUT OR AT LEAST TELL ME WHAT I'M DOING WRONG ?
Same here, My portfolio has been going down the drain while I try trading,l just don't know what I do wrong
Paul Frijters ...NOT interesting ideas or views
I'm so glad people like Paul Frijters aren't involved in bitcoin. He is unbearable, pretentious and doesn't even come off as sharp. An incumbent lame.