Slashdot Mirror


Steve Forbes: Bitcoin Not Money

MouseTheLuckyDog writes "A brief editorial by Steve Forbes, one of our moneymeisters, on why bitcoins are not money.. Hint: For those who are too lazy to read the opinion,. Bitcoins are too volatile to be money." From the article: "Money is most optimal when it is fixed in value just as commerce is facilitated when we have fixed weights and measures. When you buy a pound of hamburger you expect to get 16 ounces of meat. An hour has 60 minutes. A mile has 5280 feet. These measurements don’t 'float.' So too money best lubricates commerce when it has a fixed value."

26 of 692 comments (clear)

  1. Fiat Currency by jasonlfunk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What what exactly is the value of the US dollar?

    1. Re:Fiat Currency by KillaGouge · · Score: 5, Funny

      The value of one U.S. dollar is exactaly one U.S. dollar. The value doesn't change, how much you can buy with it however, does change.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    2. Re:Fiat Currency by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Money still fluctuates in value when you're on the gold standard. It just fluctuates in lockstep with the fluctuations in the value of gold. This means that it's unlikely to steadily decrease in value, but it doesn't mean it stops fluctuating.

    3. Re:Fiat Currency by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think its useful to say that the value of a currency is really in how stable it is within an economy - once hyperinflation takes over, it doesn't matter how established the currency is, its value as money disappears (see Germany in the 1920's, Russia in the 1990's and Zimbabwe in the past decade) and people move to alternative means of payment.

      $1 today will buy me a loaf of bread. That loaf of bread might cost $1.01 tomorrow, or even $0.99, but while that's an inconvenience its not disastrous. If that loaf of bread goes from $1 one day to $5 the next, and $20 the next, then its value as actual money is gone - theres no way to establish a stable economy on such a basis because there's no way to plan for the future.

    4. Re:Fiat Currency by Mystakaphoros · · Score: 5, Funny

      I like to visualize value in relation to ground beef. Like, I get paid about 6 1/2 lbs of ground beef an hour (before beef tax). I filled up my car with 14 pounds of ground beef. (One gallon of gas is running around the price of one pound of ground beef-- at least the good stuff.) I currently have about two tons of ground beef in student loans.

    5. Re:Fiat Currency by chill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Gold is, but a gold *standard* isn't. Or, rather, it doesn't have to be.

      You just adjust the value assigned to the gold. Since there is no significant commerce valued in "ounces of pure gold", you adjust the value given to your medium of exchange.

      See 1971, when Richard Nixon revalued gold from $21 to $35 per ounce, but only for non-American exchangers.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    6. Re:Fiat Currency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep, that's why keeping the gold standard was so asinine. It didn't do anything but obligate the U.S. government to hoard gold.

    7. Re:Fiat Currency by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't buy anything with BTC without converting them between it and another currency.

      This isn't true. Bitcoins are a medium of exchange. It is commonly used as a currency converter (IMHO it does a very good job in Foreign Exchange markets), but that isn't its only role.

      It is possible to pay salaries in bitcoins and other currencies. Look up Ithaca Hours for an example of how alternate currencies can and have been used in the past to pay for labor. You can also purchase items and services directly in Bitcoins (some webhosting services are currently offered directly in Bitcoins) and it is commonly used for voluntary donations to many organizations as well.

      The one thing that is difficult to do with Bitcoins though is to pay taxes, and that unfortunately is something that needs to be in the "legal tender". Also, if you sue somebody in a courtroom those debts will be settled in whatever form of payment acceptable by the judges involved, and that will likely be something like a Euro or U.S. Dollar and Bitcoins will not be likely recognized. This isn't to say Bitcoins could not be used in this fashion, but it takes a deliberate government act to recognize Bitcoins as a valid legal tender.

    8. Re:Fiat Currency by Dins · · Score: 4, Interesting

      True, but it's not all in humanity's possession, hence the interest in mining it (like you can do with BitCoin). And true, someday we will hit the limit (like we will do with BitCoin) and those who have it already will have power over those who desire it (ditto).

      That's what's so odd to me about Steve Forbes' comments. He seems to be a proponent of the gold standard. Well, gold is very similar to bitcoins (i.e. a fixed total amount, people mining to get more, etc.) If anything, I view the wild fluctuations of bitcoin a function of it being new and people not knowing quite what to make of it yet, and to some extent the opposite of the natural fluctuation of fiat currencies like the dollar and the euro. There is a fixed amount of bitcoins. There isn't a fixed amount of fiat currencies. So if 1 bitcoin is worth $50 today and $100 tomorrow you could argue the bitcoin is the same value both days, but the dollar is worth LESS tomorrow.

      But what do I know. I got Cs in Econ 22 years ago...

    9. Re:Fiat Currency by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Steve Forbes is scared because Bitcoin takes the control away from existing institutions of wealth.

      LOL

      In as much as an ant picking up a grain of sand has taken over the US Federal Reserve or European Central Bank.

      Bitcoins have contextual value - Steve never made it to president, so that should tell you he's not quite as clever as he thinks.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    10. Re:Fiat Currency by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 5, Interesting

      See 1971, when Richard Nixon revalued gold from $21 to $35 per ounce, but only for non-American exchangers.

      Wrong. It wasn't Nixon who changed the exchange rate from US dollars to gold but the F.D.R. administration which changed the exchange rate from $20.67/oz to $35.00/oz. . Also it wasn't Nixon who stopped US citizens from exchanging gold to US dollars but again was the F.D.R. administration. To add further insult to injury the F.D.R. administration nationalized the gold holdings of the US and only allowed the private ownership of gold for industrial, jewelry, art, coins that had special collector status (not ones that would have them in the future), and foreign legal tender. This began the slow march to the end of the gold standard in the US. A good introductory piece on this period that I have found deals with the curious case of the 1933 gold Double Eagle over on wikipedia. Granted it isn't expansive on the gold standard but provides a good background on what the F.D.R. administration did and is a good jumping off point for other topics on the subject on the US gold standard of the time.

      What Nixon did was close the international gold windows that other countries were using to exchange US dollars for gold. This was being used by Charles de Gaulle to exchange France's dollar holdings for gold thus diminishing the US's economic power in the region. Add to it the deficit spending because Vietnam and it was necessary (from the Nixon administration's perspective) to remove the US dollar completely from the gold standard. What the Nixon administration did was put the final nail in the coffin of the US gold standard.

      Just because Nixon put the final nail in the coffin for the US gold standard doesn't mean he was bad in this regard. All Nixon did was end the Bretton Woods Agreements, he didn't confiscate anyone's private property. His role was actually quite small and the abuse he committed in regards to this issue were small especially compared to those of F.D.R. There are plenty of things to beat up Nixon on but this really isn't one of them.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    11. Re:Fiat Currency by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Also it wasn't Nixon who stopped US citizens from exchanging gold to US dollars but again was the F.D.R. administration. To add further insult to injury the F.D.R. administration nationalized the gold holdings of the US and only allowed the private ownership of gold for industrial, jewelry, art, coins that had special collector status (not ones that would have them in the future), and foreign legal tender. "

      This is a bit disingenuous. As you say, F.D.R. nationalized gold, in the sense that the Reserve banks had to turn their gold over to the treasury. However, he did not prohibit private ownership or sale of gold; only gold that was used as money.

      It was indeed Nixon who halted just about all citizen gold trade. With pretty disastrous results.

      By the way, just as an aside: by tossing out Bretton Woods, Nixon also effectively defaulted on U.S. debt. Quite intentionally. The people who said the "fiscal cliff" or not raising the debt limit would be the first time the U.S. defaulted on its debt are WAY off, by more than once.

      YOU might not consider government defaulting on debt to be a bad thing. But other countries most definitely did.

      "There are plenty of things to beat up Nixon on but this really isn't one of them."

      That is VERY debatable.

    12. Re:Fiat Currency by flaming+error · · Score: 4, Funny

      " Steve never made it to president, so that should tell you he's not quite as clever as he thinks"

      Because Republican primary voters nominate only the brightest intellectuals.

    13. Re:Fiat Currency by Myopic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah I heard that Intelligence Squared program. Steve Forbes wasn't very convincing. He said "A foot is twelve inches and that should never change. We need consistent measures so why do we allow the value of a dollar to change?" And I thought, uh, if a foot is twelve inches then a dollar is one hundred cents, you disingenuous asshole. Inflation doesn't mean that a dollar loses its mathematical soundness, like suddenly a dollar is ninety-eight cents. To say that a dollar should be pegged to an amount of gold is to say that we should use gold instead of dollars, which is fine, but the dollar then is redundant. To me it is obvious that a dollar is not an amount of gold, it is a different thing, so its value shouldn't be pegged to gold. Would he suggest pegging the price of gold to the price of a Big Mac? The price of his salary to the price of celery? Why would we do that, that would be nonsense.

      The reason Steve Forbes is pissed off about inflation is because inflation is good for people who work and bad for people who don't work, and Steve Forbes doesn't work. Like most ultra-rich people very little of his income is payment for "working", for making something. When inflation rises wages rise because they have to, but "savings" (what I charitably call Forbes' billions) loses value so Steve gets less rich. Boo hoo hoo.

      Middle class people also have savings, ten thousand times smaller than Steve's, but even a middle class person derives most of his income from wages, compensation for work. In an inflation economy, people in debt get ahead, people who work keep apace, and people who coast on riches fall behind. And that is bad for Steve, so Steve opposes it.

      Fuck that guy. Also I have a personal anecdote: when he ran for President he came to my school and ended up promising a keg to my fraternity. We never got that keg! Fuck that guy.

  2. Judo by superwiz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The main premise in Judo is to use opponent's strength against them. Forbes knows he sounds snooty. Which is why he takes on a position contrary to the one he actually wants to advocate. Let's say he loaded up on Bitcoins and he wants them to go up. His choices are (1) stay silent; (2) promote it; (3) oppose it. Staying silent obviously will not help him cause. Promoting it will not help his cause because the kinds of people who would take him at his word are not the kinds of people to seek out an alternative currency (he is all about orthodoxy). But he can use the fact that anyone seeking to oppose orthodoxy would do the opposite of what he'd recommend (this is Judo). Oh, and if he really didn't think much of Bitcoin, he would simply not comment.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:Judo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm all for martial arts metaphors when possible, but this is fucking ridiculous.

    2. Re:Judo by dotHectate · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just wait until we get to the mixed martial arts metaphors.

      --
      Patience is a virtue, but haste is my life.
  3. Say what, Steve? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *All* money fluctuates in value. Yes, even if you run on the gold standard (which I know you favor). Money that fluctuates too much isn't very good for money's intended purpose (as a means of exchange and a store of value, particularly the latter), but you can't say that something isn't money because it fluctuates. Was the Deutschmark not money during the hyperinflation of the 1920s?

    1. Re:Say what, Steve? by chill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Re-read the article. His point is that once a currency becomes *too* volatile it ceases being money. He doesn't say money *has* to be fixed to be useful, just that it is OPTIMAL when fixed. The *less* it fluctuates the more useful it is as a standard medium for exchange.

      "Money is most optimal when it is fixed in value..." (Emphasis mine.)

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  4. Price Anarchy by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of my childhood friends does internal auditing for a large bank. One time I asked him what his biggest fears were (having been able to look at all the books) and he told me at the time it was actually price anarchy. This was around the 2008 time frame and he was trying to describe a situation where nobody knows how much money to charge for something. I later heard a This American Life episode that details life in Brazil when something like this happens.

    So my friend told me that his biggest fears are when you go into a market one day and eggs are 68 cents a dozen and you go in the next day and they're $5.92 a dozen ... and you can go to the store management and they're looking at some graphs at the beginning of each day to set their prices but they're doing guesswork because the money fluctuates so quickly. So my friend's real fear was that there's some point where that swings wildly out of control and -- similar to the bank runs that happened before regulation -- weird swings cause people to act erratically and irrationally. And those actions cause the swings to get even wilder and suddenly you have price anarchy where nobody knows what anything is worth at a given point in time. The funny part is that on some days he would watch the terminals and freak out and go withdraw as much money as he could from the ATM to hedge into some liquid assets since he kept everything in the bank. That amused me because by using inside information he was performing what were erratic behavioral patterns ... but I guess that's another discussion.

    Anyway, yeah, back to Bitcoin ... if you want some entertainment, keep this tab open throughout the day. So many people are gaming Bitcoin right now that it makes for an excellent show! Behold, the completely unregulated market!

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Price Anarchy by dj245 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      .... Anyway, yeah, back to Bitcoin ... if you want some entertainment, keep this tab open throughout the day. So many people are gaming Bitcoin right now that it makes for an excellent show! Behold, the completely unregulated market!

      The thing I noticed a couple weeks ago when I first looked at bitcoin price graphs is that the different currencies are not trading at the level which would be indicated by the actual bank exchange rates. Doesn't this indicate that there is not enough volume or FX traders in the system?

      It crossed my mind that the differences were due to fees which may apply when converting different currencies. But if this were true, then the graphs of different currencies would at least trend each other. They don't.

      If I had the time and motivation, it would be worth investigating opening many international accounts and trading between the currencies using bitcoin as an intermediary.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  5. His issue is with bitcoin's volatitilty by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    not that their value changes, but that the changes are to volatile to make it a worthwhile currency. Its more like a commodity than anything else.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  6. Re:Ah Um, WHAT?!? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gold hasn't been the basis for our money in many, many, decades. And while there's some merit in having some common "thing" for currencies to be pegged to, gold has always seemed especially stupid. The US forced itself to do so from the 1950s until the early seventies, creating a situation where every country that was having financial problems could devalue its currency except the US itself, causing relatively substantial problems for the US itself.

    (Why? Bizarrely, national pride. The 1950s-1970s version of the Gold Standard came because the major economies wanted a single currency to peg their currencies against. What they wanted was an independent currency called the "Bancor". The US vetoed this, as it felt it would diminish the importance of the dollar, and demanded they peg their currencies to the dollar instead, and in return would make sure the dollar was pegged to gold. More evidence, perhaps, that national pride can be a destructive, stupid, thing.)

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  7. Re:Floating money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    He said "too volatile." Not that it doesn't change but it doesn't swing in value as much.
     
    Oh, who am I fooling? This is Slashdot. The morons here are either super-literal or undeniably obtuse... to the point that they're a mockery of themselves. And they wonder why people in the real world find them awkward to deal with.

  8. "We don't really know how this coin is created" by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Saying "we don't really know how this coin is created" displays the author's fundamental misunderstanding of the phenomenon. You don't need to know the exact technical details- and I don't either- to understand that the process of bitcoin production is clearly defined and entirely transparent (for those who *do* understand the technical details). (*)

    Of course, you *should* understand the principles of what has to be done, the nature of Bitcoin and the factors involved in it in general (such as the fact there will only ever be a finite number of Bitcoins). But saying that "we" (i.e. humanity) don't understand how it's created is nonsense; what he means is that *he* doesn't understand. "We" created the damn thing entirely ourselves along arbitrary lines!

    IMHO, the real question is the philosophical one of whether Bitcoin's creation is an arbitrary, Sisyphian task and whether this makes any sense.

    Also, the Bitcoin's value *is* fixed- a Bitcoin is worth 1 Bitcoin, just as a US Dollar is worth 1 US Dollar. Granted, in the real world the dollar is almost certainly a better measure of "absolute" value than the Bitcoin is at present. Still, this doesn't change the fact that in principle it has no more inherent value and stability than Bitcoin, only what it's worth against other currencies- and of course, the dollar is always going to be stable if you choose the dollar as your "stable" currency to measure it against.

    (*) I was going to post this on the Forbes site too, but I notice the *first* comment there already made *exactly* the same point.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  9. Must disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Definition is something I look for when thinking about increasing the population.