Se preguntaban el otro día por la casa del liberalismo castellano si el Bitcoin es irremediablemente volátil. Entre líneas subyacía ni más ni menos que la pregunta del millón (de Satoshis): ¿será el Bitcoin Dinero algún día?
…We started out with the image of time that is familiar to us: something that flows uniformly and equally throughout the universe, in the course of which all things happen. With the idea that there exists throughout the cosmos a present, a “now” that constitutes reality. The past for everyone is fixed, is gone, having already happened. The future is open, yet to be determined. Reality flows from the past, through the present, toward the future—and the evolution of things between past and future is intrinsically asymmetrical. This, we thought, is the basic structure of the world.
…Ferguson declares above all, in line with a power-makes-for-plenty theory, that the apps permitted after 1500 a few European countries “to dominate the Rest [of the world].” Note the year, claiming four and a half centuries of “domination.”
“…In the world of fiat money, having access to the central bank’s monetary spigots is more important than serving customers. Firms that can get low-interest-rate credit to operate will have a persistent advantage over competitors that cannot. The criteria for success in the market becomes more and more related to being able to secure funding at lower interest rates than to providing services to society”
Graeber recently passed away and I allow myself to share with you one of his most popular (and controversial) passages.
While he found a gold mine debunking some historical inaccuracies of “the myth of the barter” as usually presented by armchair economists, ironically he still managed to get the underlying economic principle that eventually explained the (Mengerian) origin of money (very) very wrong. Right facts, wrong interpretation.
May he rest in peace.