Factually! with Adam Conover - The Future of Money with Eswar Prasad

Episode Date: September 8, 2021

With the rise of mobile payment services and cryptocurrencies, money is at a moment of profound transformation. What is happening to money now, and where is it headed? On the show this week is Senior Professor of Trade Policy at Cornell University Eswar Prasad. You can check out his book, The Future of Money: How the Digital Revolution is Transforming Currencies and Finance, at factuallypod.com/books. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

You know, I got to confess, I have always been a sucker for Japanese treats. I love going down a little Tokyo, heading to a convenience store, and grabbing all those brightly colored, fun-packaged boxes off of the shelf. But you know what? I don't get the chance to go down there as often as I would like to. And that is why I am so thrilled that Bokksu, a Japanese snack subscription box, chose to sponsor this episode. What's gotten me so excited about Bokksu is that these aren't just your run-of-the-mill grocery store finds. Each box comes packed with 20 unique snacks that you can only find in Japan itself.

Plus, they throw in a handy guide filled with info about each snack and about Japanese culture. And let me tell you something, you are going to need that guide because this box comes with a lot of snacks. I just got this one today, direct from Bokksu, and look at all of these things. We got some sort of seaweed snack here. We've got a buttercream cookie. We've got a dolce. I don't, I'm going to have to read the guide to figure out what this one is. It looks like some sort of sponge cake. Oh my gosh. This one is, I think it's some kind of maybe fried banana chip. Let's try it out and see. Is that what it is? Nope, it's not banana. Maybe it's a cassava potato chip. I should have read the guide. Ah, here they are. Iburigako smoky chips. Potato

chips made with rice flour, providing a lighter texture and satisfying crunch. Oh my gosh, this is so much fun. You got to get one of these for themselves and get this for the month of March. Bokksu has a limited edition cherry blossom box and 12 month subscribers get a free kimono style robe and get this while you're wearing your new duds, learning fascinating things about your tasty snacks. You can also rest assured that you have helped to support small family run businesses in Japan because Bokksu works with 200 plus small makers to get their snacks delivered straight to your door.

So if all of that sounds good, if you want a big box of delicious snacks like this for yourself, use the code factually for $15 off your first order at Bokksu.com. That's code factually for $15 off your first order on Bokksu.com. I don't know the way I don't know what to think I don't know what to say Yeah, but that's alright Yeah, that's okay I don't know anything Hello and welcome to Factually. I'm Adam Conover.

Thank you for joining me once again as I talk to an incredible expert about all the amazing shit that they know that I don't know and that you probably don't know too. My mind is going to be blown. Your mind is going to be blown. We're going to have a hell of a time together. Let's start with this fun fact. Did you know that nobody really knows what money is? Seriously, we're all carrying it in our pockets, but none of us know what the hell it actually is. We know what we can do with it, but we don't really know how to define it. I've listened to a lot of podcast episodes. I've read books. I've read articles that try to explain it. And when it comes down to it, if you corner economists, they will tell you that, well, you know, they know it has something to do with value.

They know it has something to do with trust. They know that debt plays some kind of role. But none of these explanations add up to a single concrete definition that stands up to every kind of scrutiny we apply to it. That is why we have an entire field of human inquiry called economics that is basically devoted just trying to explain what the hell this shit is. What we do know for certain, though, is that money has changed a lot over time. You know, it seems pretty solid and simple to us now. Sure, at many points in history, money has come in the form of coins or precious metals, but it's also existed in the form of cattle, like actual cows, and seashells, and even

strips of white deerskin leather. The money used by entire countries didn't always come from a central bank run by the government, because those haven't always existed. In the 1800s, much of the paper money in America was actually issued by private banks or individual states. Even something like the gold standard, where every bill corresponds to a piece of gold sitting in a vault somewhere, well, that didn't even come along until 1816, when Britain fixed the amount of pounds in circulation to a finite amount of gold to stop inflation. And that lasted over a century, but then disappeared. We don't have the gold standard in America today. So this idea of money that we grew up with, that the state issues money that exists in

the form of a piece of paper in your hand with the signature of an old guy on it to prove its authority, well, that's actually very recent. And the future of money is quickly overtaking us. Money is about to become something else entirely. Take cryptocurrencies, for example. They act in some ways like money, in some ways not. There's a lot of complicated math involved, and no one can agree on if they're the future of money or a Ponzi scheme perpetrated on the foolish. Or look at mobile money, where in countries like China or Kenya,

you've got entire economies that exist by people sending money back and forth via cell phones without the intervention of a bank or cash at all. Money right now is in a moment of transformation and transition more than at any time in our lives. And to talk about it and tell us what the future of money holds, we have a fascinating guest on the show today. His name is Ishwar Prasad. He's an economist at Cornell, and he's the author of a book called The Future of Money, How the Digital Revolution is Transforming Currencies and Finance. If you are interested in money, crypto, or just, I don't know, the future of life on earth, I think you're going to love this interview.

Please welcome Ishwar Prasad. Ishwar, thank you so much for being here. It's my pleasure, Adam. Thank you very much for having me. Tell me a little bit about yourself before we get started. What do you do? What do you study? What do you teach? So I teach economics at Cornell University. I used to work for this big international financial institution called the International Monetary Fund for a long time, but I always wanted to be a professor.

this office. I'm now living my dream, being a professor. And I largely work in issues related to international finance, which means exchange rates between currencies, capital flows across countries and issues related to monetary policy. You know, it was my dream to be a professor too, but I backed off before applying to grad school. I wanted to be a philosophy professor. And I was like, everyone was like, yeah, maybe you should do comedy instead. That might actually be an easier career path to get a job in than academia, than the liberal arts. But let's talk about money. You wrote a book called The Future of Money.

What do you feel the future of money is? That's a big question to start with, but let's go for it. So, you know, I've written other books in the past. I had a book about the U.S. dollar, and then I had a book about the Chinese currency called the renminbi. But in the last three or four years, it became apparent to me that something funky was going on in the world of money. We've all heard about Bitcoin, of course, but this notion that you might have money that was issued not by a central bank set up by government, but by some mysterious computer algorithm, and that people could actually use this money and value it sounded remarkable to me. So I started reading up on it,

and I realized there wasn't much to read upon. So I started writing about this because that's the best way to understand what is going on. And as I started writing about it, I also realized that there is much more that is connected to this. There are lots of revolutionary developments in the field of finance, which go on to the broad rubric of fintech or new financial technologies. You know, most of us now use digital payments in some form or the other, but these could have pretty big implications for not just money, but for the world of finance,

for money flowing across countries, for central banks, for investors. So what is going to be a small little book turned into a 500-page tome that tries to show the connections between all of these financial technology developments and what it might mean for money, for finance, and for all of us. Wow. Okay. Well, we've talked about cryptocurrency on the show a little bit before. We did a past

episode with Everest Pipkin. That was our introduction to the topic. Folks can go listen to that. So first, I want to ask you about what are these other developments that you're talking about? Before we return to cryptocurrency in this conversation, what are some of the other developments that are happening in the world of digital currency apart from crypto? You know, we should actually start with digital payments, which is actually a huge revolution that is taking place in many parts of the world. So if you think about how you and I in the US might pay for a cup of coffee, you could use a debit card, a credit card,

or now you can use Apple Pay. If you want to split a dinner check with your friends, you can do it through Venmo. But for people in many parts of the world, they don't have access to a banking system. They don't have debit or credit cards. So it becomes a real problem dealing with cash. And it turns out that the other problem is that people don't have access

to banking services, meaning they can't easily get credit. They can't get access to places to put their money safely. So in some parts of the world, let's take Kenya as an example, mobile phone-based payment systems have become hugely important. There is a telecom operator that runs a mobile payment system called M-Pesa, which has become very important not only as a payment mechanism, but also giving people easy access to saving products, to ways to get credit. So that is a fundamental transformation. You've, of course, heard about how payments are very easy in China. There are companies like Alipay and WeChat Pay, which dominate the payment space in China. So if you go buy a dumpling or a piece of fruit from a vendor in Beijing or any province in China.

You can basically pay for that using your phone. So very few people in China actually use cash anymore. So that's one of the fundamental things that's going on, the shift away from cash towards digital payments as a medium of exchange for transactions. So this is really, really interesting. We've touched on that in this show before, actually, because we had the founder of GiveDirectly on the show,

which is a charity that gives money directly to folks, to some of the poorest folks in the world, in many in Africa. And those payments are done through cell phones, not through cash, but yeah, through the means that you describe. And actually, this is really interesting to me because an argument that I've heard a lot in the United States when businesses go cashless, you know, when say the salad chain Sweetgreen here in L.A. at least is completely cashless, it's only credit cards. disenfranchises poorer folks because they might not have access to a credit card or Apple Pay or something like that, and they tend to use cash. But what you're saying is, and I know that this

is the case, well, these are some of the, those folks are much, folks in Kenya are much poorer than poor folks in America. But in those spheres, cash is disappearing entirely. So those are kind of two opposed points of view. What does that dynamic mean? Now, that's a good point. There are some people who are going to be left out if we stop using cash. In fact, there is legislation in some states to prohibit merchants from refusing to accept cash. Some states like Massachusetts already have a law on their books and many other states have either passed or are considering passing such laws for precisely this reason. And one of the problems is that in the US, as you correctly pointed out, before you have access to a

digital payment system, you need a bank account or you need to have a credit card and to get those, you need to have a reasonable chunk of money. The way things have developed in a country like Kenya or China is that you don't need to have access to a bank account or a credit card. All you need is a mobile phone and that allows you to use that channel as a payment mechanism. So you don't need to be at the mercy of these other companies. And there is an interesting reason why payments at some level in the US are so backward. I mean, we might think we've made enormous progress here in the US. But why is it that digital payments are so much cheaper, both for merchants and for consumers in the rest of the world than they are in the US. And therein lies a story. If you think about how companies like Visa and

MasterCard make their money, they charge pretty significant interchange fees. It's a huge way. And if you're buying a cup of coffee, you know, there is a fixed cost. There is a basic transaction fee that translates into a pretty significant percentage. So why is it that you don't have alternative payment systems coming up? One reason, of course, is that in emerging markets, if you don't have any payment system like a debit or credit card, there is a demand for this payment system. So something new comes along. It's easier to gain traction in the U.S. If you or I had to switch to a different payment system, maybe we might say, oh, why would I bother? I already have Apple Pay on my phone. I already have a credit card. I don't need this. The credit card companies have been very clever. They've used their money in

two very effective ways. One is they pay off politicians. So in the US, it makes it much harder for a new payment system to take root because these companies are politically very powerful. And then these companies do something else. They bribe us. So when you go out and buy something with a credit card, you're going to get some of it as a cashback. You're going to get points. And so you might say when you go into a shop, hey, I want to use my credit card because there is something in it for me. Yeah.

I get 2% cash back. I get airline miles. I know. That's cool. So effectively, the credit card companies have bribed us, the users, and they have bribed the politicians, although somewhat more subtly, in a way that makes it much harder for new entrants. In many of these developing economies, by contrast, there is no Apple Pay. There are no alternatives. People use cash, but it's not good for consumers to have to transact in so much cash.

It's not good for businesses. There are concerns about counterfeiting, about theft. All of that disappears if you have an easy digital trail through a digital phone. That's why I think the rest of the world actually is ahead of us, especially countries like China, compared to what we have in the U.S. So because we have this entrenched player of the credit card companies that are making, well, 1.5%, 3% off of every transaction, and that's an enormous tax that they're putting on almost every transaction.

Like almost every transaction I use is via my credit card or via Apple Pay, which goes through my credit card. And so that's an enormous tax. They're able to use that money in order to retain that advantage. And by the way, that really hurts folks at the bottom of the pyramid, because if the credit card company is charging the vendor 3%, so they have to raise their prices by 3%. Well, I don't mind so much because I'm getting 2% cash back on my credit card, so it's really only 1% for me. But the person who walks into the store and doesn't have that credit card or doesn't have a rewards credit card and is paying with cash, they have to pay that 3% surcharge anyway, even though they're not getting the benefit of the miles that I am accruing. So it's a really pernicious scheme that you're

describing. But in other countries that didn't have that big vested player, that big actor already there to say, hey, we've got a lot of people who can't figure out where to keep their stacks of cash. They're getting robbed. They need to access digital payment. The telephone company is just able to say, hey, let's just build a quick, easy payment system with what a low fee that that is easy for folks to access. And since their customer base is is very poor, they're not going to charge a whole a whole lot of a whole onerous tax on this. So it just allows it to flourish in that way. Is that what you're saying? that there were many people who were using mobile phone credits as a payment mechanism because you could essentially transform mobile phone credits from one person to the other

instead of cash. So that's when Safaricom, the company, realized that there was a business opportunity here. They could help themselves and help the people by essentially creating a more formal payment channel that you could use to transact cash rather than using the mobile phone credits. Wow. So people were literally just saying, hey, I'm going to send you some minutes in order to pay you for this, I don't know, some piece of street food for this skewer or whatever

it is. And they're like, oh, hold on a second. Let's just allow them to send money from place to place. Are there any downsides, though, to this payment system? I mean, I have to say when I'm a mobile phone company that is serving, you know, a population in a developing country that has, you know, no access to banking, I can imagine that's a very easy process to exploit. And a lot of people make a lot of money off of, you know, soaking poor folks for the very little money that they have. That's a huge business here in the United States. I'm wondering,

for the very little money that they have. That's a huge business here in the United States. I'm wondering, are there problems like that in Kenya or in China that, you know, abuses of this? Things can go wrong. And an example of a country where things have not gone so well is Somalia. Somalia has been through a huge amount of civil strife. And, you know, transacting in cash is a real problem there because of you know the lack of good public governance which means the government doesn't work well

safety is not easily assured so carrying cash around is a problem there are mobile operators that offer payment services there but there is a risk that some of those are fly-by-night operators and there are potentially risks there that you could trust a mobile phone operator, put a significant amount of money there, and then it turns out that that money is gone because they are not regulated like a commercial bank would be. And of course, the other issue is that there is a trade-off here. with anything digital you lose some degree of privacy now for most people you know the ability to transact easily and safely easily overwhelms any notion of privacy i mean living hand to mouth privacy is not what you really care about but certainly as economies become more developed,

it becomes a problem. China is dealing with precisely this issue, the big payment providers. And right now, there are two dominant ones, WeChat Pay and Alipay. Practically every Chinese person has one of these or both of these on his or her phone, uses it for a variety of transactions. And these companies can soak up a ton of data.

And these two companies have grown so large right now that they dominate payments. So this has made the Chinese government concerned about privacy. And there is, of course, a deep irony here. One thinks about China as being a surveillance state, and the surveillance state is concerned that there are companies that have become more effective at surveillance than the government. Hey, that's our data. Yes. And this is a big issue in every country, not just in the U.S. Who has rights to those data? Who controls the data? And what do they do with it?

Yeah. And there is, you know, I find that the more you think about that, the more you do sort of start to see some of the original advantages of cash. You know, like, honestly, the main reason I carry around cash now is so that there are certain services that I use that I want to tip the person. And I've done a whole look. I've done a lot of work on my own show on this podcast about tipping and, you know, the historical roots of tipping and it's an imperfect system, but there are still cases in which I'm, you know, I'm receiving a service and I want to make sure that the person I am interacting with is paid a little bit more. And I don't trust necessarily that tip button in the app to make sure that that person is going to get the money because a lot of these, you know, Instacart and companies like this will take a tip and then actually charge it against the person's wages so they don't receive the full value of the tip. So one of the reasons I keep cash is specifically because I know when I give this person $10,

they will receive $10 and no one's taking a percentage of it and no one is tracking that I'm giving it. I know because I handed it to them. There is that security of cash that can start to disappear a little bit when we're talking about digital currencies. No? You're a man after my heart, Adam. I still keep a stack of $5 bills and $10 bills to tip my Uber drivers and my Instacart delivery people. Because, yes, there is something about getting cash that I think, you know, perhaps even creates a human connection.

This tangible element and the surety that the person has the money and that nobody else can intervene is certainly a big thing. But here again, there is a downside. of legitimate purposes, but largely for illegitimate purposes, a lot of money laundering, a lot of illicit activities are financed through cash. And then one might argue, you know, paying a babysitter or, you know, a gardener in cash and those people not reporting that revenue to the government is not a big deal. Many of these people, your high school babysitter probably is not going to be liable for any taxes anyway. But in many countries, even in the US, there is a concern that activities fueled by cash are part of what is called the shadow economy. These are perfectly legitimate activities, but that escape the eye of the government and therefore escape the tax net.

So another advantage of moving to digital payments is that once you have a digital trail, it becomes harder, not impossible, but much harder to disguise transactions and keep it in the shadow economy. So the government could more easily collect revenues, which you may or may not consider a good thing. That's a whole other episode. But yeah. So and also, by the way, if you're carrying around a lot of cash, there's a reason, you know, taxi drivers get get stuck up, right? Get robbed because, you know, it's like these mobile, you know, basically safes driving around like, you know, having a large amount of cash creates a security problem as well.

And so so there's a disadvantage and disadvantages here. I do want to ask you, though, a lot of what we're talking about is the sort of digital currency that we're all familiar with, right? That I've got, I look at my money, I log into my bank account, I have an app on my phone, I can send money using an app from me to you. And, you know, what you're describing in Kenya and China is a more efficient or maybe sort of supercharged version of the same thing. But I also know that you've spoken and written a lot about the idea of a digital dollar that. And I want to ask, is that something different than what we've been talking about? The idea of currency becoming because because when I'm looking at my bank account, I'm like, OK, this still corresponds to a dollar bill that's sitting around somewhere. In my head, that's how it feels. But is there some other transition that

is going to happen? And if so, what? Yeah, so here it's worth, and here I'll put on my professorial hat, it's worth thinking about concepts. I mean, when you think about cash, this is money created by a central bank that is in physical form, but most money in economies right now is digital. As you correctly pointed out, your bank balances are not, you know, pieces of paper sitting in a bank vault somewhere. They're just digital traces out there. Most money is transacted through digital forms that do not have any physical implications at all. So central bank issued money is again one form of money that also coexists with money created by banks and this is an odd thing that you know is not often thought of you know we think about

banks as just places where we put our money and then we can take out loans but you know when a bank issues a loan and creates a corresponding deposit, it actually creates money. So in fact, most of what the economists think of as broad money that fuels economic activity is really created by commercial banks rather than the central bank. You know, but we all love our cash. And this is why central bank digital currencies or cbdc's which is the digital dollar that you mentioned uh comes into play um in many countries there is a concern that you know as these digital payment systems start taking hold uh central bank issued cash will become irrelevant and that's not such a good thing because you want people to have the option of a government

issued currency rather than just a government-issued currency rather than just a privately-issued currency. Why is this? By privately-issued currency, you mean a cryptocurrency or something along those lines? A cryptocurrency or a currency issued by a bank or a digital payment form of some sort that is managed by the private sector. Facebook credits or whatever, yeah. Exactly, or Amazon credits. The concern is that if we start getting a little worried about these companies that are issuing that currency, we may lose faith in it, we cannot use it for payment.

And then if there isn't a government-issued backstop, you sort of face a crunch time because suddenly payments in the economy don't work. So some countries like Sweden, for instance, are experimenting with CBDC, a central bank digital currency. In that case, it would be the e-krona. The krona is the Swedish currency. So the e-krona. I know that because it was just a crossword puzzle clue for me. The Swedish krona was a crossword puzzle clue. So I just learned this like three or four days ago.

I'm sorry. Please go on. Okay. Well, next year, the e-krona will be the solution to a crossword puzzle because it's coming. So the e-krona would basically be a backstop. If the private payment systems fail, you still have access to a central bank that is a government-issued payment system. But in a country like the U.S., you know, there are still about 5% to 6% of individuals in the U.S. who are unbanked, meaning they don't have access to a bank account or debit cards or credit cards. And as we discussed earlier, these people could be disenfranchised if you don't have cash. And also cash is inefficient in some ways. As I mentioned, it's difficult for merchants to have to deal with cash to take it to the bank. It's very unsafe and so on. So in the US, there is a move towards at least considering a digital dollar.

Now, the US is actually somewhat behind relative to the rest of the world. You know, there are a huge number of countries, Japan, China, Sweden, the Eurozone, India, Brazil, all of which have either started or plan to start CBDC trials. The first central bank digital currency in the world is already in operation. Where you might ask, it's in the tiny island nation of the Bahamas. So the Sand Dollar, as it's called, is the world's first official digital currency. And the idea there is that if you have a digital currency, now basically you can give people access to a central bank account. So rather than keeping your money in a commercial bank account, you can keep money in a central bank account,

use that for transactions. And the central bank doesn't charge you any fees. It doesn't charge you any, require any minimum deposits. So now, so long as you have a mobile phone and an app, suddenly you're in business because you can use digital payments, even if you're the poorest of the poor. If you're in one of the outlying islands in the Bahamas, you now have access to a digital payment system. So you can think about a digital dollar as basically enfranchising people, giving very poor people even access to a digital payment system. You do need a mobile phone or some sort of access to the Internet. Without that, there would be a problem. So there are still concerns in terms of digital access, financial literacy and so on.

But a digital dollar could actually bring more people into the digital payment system. So wait, I want to make sure I understand properly because, look, a lot of this conversation gets to the question of what is money, which is a very difficult question to answer and not what I have you here to ask about, although maybe we'll get there. have you here to ask about, although maybe we'll get there. But so when you talk about a digital dollar, you're not really talking about something that is like a different form of currency than our current dollar. You're talking about a way that the central bank might make digital currency, like in the same way that I log into my, you know, my, my current, you know, Capital One checking account, not my actual bank for anyone who wants to hack me, but my Capital One app and see my digital dollars there,

the government might, the central bank might create a way for everyone to have access to digital currency in that way by creating an account for them at a central bank. And when they want to inject, say, money into the economy, they can just say, hey, let's, I don't know, distribute money to people via the central bank's digital account, rather than what, doing it in a more old fashioned method. Is that about right? Hey, you've hit upon a very important aspect of central bank digital currencies. But first,

let me just clarify that you're absolutely right. It turns out that central bank digital currencies. But first, let me just clarify that you're absolutely right. It turns out that central bank digital currencies can take different forms, but the way that would make the most sense is to have what are effectively accounts at the central bank or digital wallets maintained by the central bank. It turns out that these digital wallets can actually be even held by third party providers who can check your credentials and so on. So it turns out that even a regular bank, let's say a branch of Wells Fargo, which is not my branch, my bank, but let's say that you could walk into a Wells Fargo bank and say, look, I could put my money in an account with you, which pays me an interest, or I can have with you a central bank account that I can

use for transactions where you will not charge me any fees because the central bank mandates it to be so, where I will learn no interest. So it's just like money, except it's in digital form. I'm getting it now. So the same way that a central bank issue or actually the treasury in our case, but, you know, issues dollar bills that anyone can use that, you know, you can are a store of money. You can hold them in your hand in order to make payments work throughout the economy. And then you can go put them in a bank if you want. In this case, the government would say, OK, everyone in the country has a digital wallet that you can store digital dollars in and you can put those in a bank if you want or you can use them for payments. But we're creating

this system that anyone can use to really fluidly pass money around digitally. And that's the essential different point. Am I getting it? That's exactly right. And now there are possibilities. You talked about giving people money. Let's take something like the coronavirus stimulus payments.

Right. I want to talk about this. So this was a big hassle during that period when, you know, people really needed money. And there were some people in pretty desperate circumstances and the circumstances got even more desperate because the money that was supposed to come to them, some of it was sent in the form of checks, debit cards, which got lost in the mail, which got delayed and so on. Now, certainly one could think about making sure that

people are eligible to get payments, but so long as you can find a way to ensure that eligibility, now you have a very easy way to do what for us economists used to be something of a dream, something called helicopter drops of money, which is basically what a coronavirus stimulus payment is. Basically, you get everybody a chunk of money. Of course, you can say that they're truly rich. I'm not one of those, and maybe you're one, Adam, but if you're not, one could still get some of this money. So one could set some sort of income threshold,

maybe by linking it to IRS information. But everybody gets a chunk of money in their account so they can now go out and spend. We're actually covering this in my new Netflix show, The G Word, which is going to come out next year. We're talking about this exact problem because the government in the coronavirus. And by the way, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm saying all this to make sure I got it right. But the the government wanted to inject a ton of money into the economy during the coronavirus shutdown. And, you know, big corporations and banks literally

have Fed accounts. And the Fed is just able to, like, put money in those accounts and say, hey, you've got a whole bunch of money now. Go distribute it. Private citizens don't have that. So instead, they had to give it through, like you said, mailing checks to people via the IRS or through the unemployment system, which is this really slow, you know, state-based system where, you know, people have to call and they get the busy signal. It's so difficult. And if we just all had accounts like you're talking about when a horrible disaster happens and the government needs to say, oh my God, nobody can work. We just need to give everybody two grand so people don't die and the economy doesn't grind to a halt. They could just boom, do it and not have to do it through all the, or what about the small

business loans? You wouldn't have to do it through, you know, all this application, the PPP loan, et cetera. You would just have an account. Is that the idea? That's correct. I mean, it's not that the process was completely inefficient. Those people who had, you know,

direct deposit accounts with the IRS got their money pretty quickly, but that still left millions of people who had difficulties getting this money. So yes, having a central bank account would make it a lot easier. But you know, there are other interesting possibilities as well, because one problem with the government giving people $2,000 is it's not sure what they will do it with. So let's say the government gives you, Adam, $2,000. And you have enough money,

and you say, oh, heck, this $2,000 is good, but I don't really need to spend it right now. Let me just put it away in my regular bank account because I'll save it for some other time. That's not so good because the whole point of the stimulus was not only to help people, but also to make sure that some of this money ended up flowing to businesses, created jobs, or at least maintained jobs and increased the economy's demand. So it prevented economic activity from freezing. So with this digital dollar, suddenly there are new possibilities. You could say, I'm going to give everybody 2000 units of this money, but these units of money are going to be special. If you don't spend them in the next six months, it's gone.

So digital money creates all these possibilities that you could design expiry dates. In fact, I think there was a senator, I hate to say the name here, it may have been Ted Cruz or somebody who suggested that there should in fact be expiry dates on money. And it's not such a crazy idea, because the problem with these stimulus packages always is that some people end up saving it. So it has much less of an economic impact than you would expect. So you can do funky things like that with digital currencies. The other thing you could do, you know, with cash, there is one problem, which is that cash has a zero rate of interest, which means that $100 today is $100 next year. Or less because of inflation. Inflation can eat away at the value of that money. But when

the economy is tanking, having $100 today that is still $100 tomorrow is not such a bad thing. One thing you would like to do to encourage people to spend for businesses to invest is to say, if I had $100 today and I don't spend it, it's going to become $95 next year. That gives you an incentive to spend. And if your money is digital, what could the central bank do? It could say, hey, you keep your money in this account. If you don't spend it, it's going to decline in value. So suddenly now you have a negative nominal interest rate, which a lot, and this is not a far-fetched notion. In fact, there were some countries in Europe that were facing a problem.

Japan had the same problem, deflation. That is prices are falling. You know, you might think falling prices are a good thing, but there is a problem with falling prices, which is even prices are falling. You know, you might think falling prices are a good thing, but there is a problem with falling prices, which is even worse than inflation. If you know that your TV is going to cost 10% next year, you might say, let me just wait for a year. Yeah, I'm not going to buy it.

I'm not going to buy it. People around the economy say, I'm not going to buy stuff. Suddenly, there is less demand. So firms start laying off workers, there is even less demand. So you get into this deflationary spiral where suddenly, because of falling prices, all hell breaks loose. If you could offset this deflationary spiral by reducing the value of money, not through inflation, but by basically just knocking down the nominal value of money,

suddenly the government has a tool. And this actually would be a tool. I don't want to overstate this because, you know, doing things like putting expiry dates on money, paying negative interest rates are crazy policy choices, but we've been living through crazy times. What you're describing is everything you've said in the last answer is a little bit spooky to me. You know, I mean, first of all, it's unsettling, the idea. It is. It's why I get your point about, oh, there's so many possibilities. But these are unsettling ideas. The idea, OK, the government's going to give me or the money that I have is going to slowly go down. And look, I'm the sort

of person I like experts and I like having some management of people saying, hey, there's a problem. And if we look carefully and take the right measures, we can prevent a financial collapse. I believe in all that kind of thing. But I I started to get a little bit squicked out by the idea of a bureaucrat somewhere going, oh, I'm worried about deflation. We're going to suddenly have a negative interest rate and everybody's money that they had in their digital wallet is going to start trickling away. And I do wonder about, you know, you said the idea of people, oh, people might save the money, et cetera. But I'm a big believer in the idea that, hey, people know what's best for them. Right. And that we don't want to be too paternalistic and that, you know, if we say

we need to inject some money into the economy, we just give people the money and let them make the best decision for themselves. That's the idea behind charities like GiveDirectly and things like that. So what you're describing is a system that gives the state a lot more control over money and what people do with it. And that's something that, oh, those are, that's a complicated, difficult idea. I'm not sure how much I like it. We got to go to break, but I'm curious what you think about this real quick. There is a lot to be said about that. I know. Tell you what, tell you what, tell you what, let's go to break and this will be a cliffhanger and we'll come back and then you can answer that question. How about that? Perfect. We

can lead into a dystopian world and the answer that I come up with. That sounds great. We'll be right back with more Ishwar Prasad. Okay, we're back with Ishwar Prasad. Ishwar, we were just evoking a horrible future or a concerning future where we were talking about the wonderful possibilities of digital money, but then we started going down a road where we're talking about, well, it gives the state many more opportunities to control the money that we use to make it, you know, sort of trickle away if we're in a deflationary situation or that kind of thing. And that's unsettling and maybe kind of objectionable to some folks. So what is, yeah, what is the, and by the way,

you know, I don't always trust the United States government. Certainly if I live in a country like China that has a much more authoritarian regime, I start to get a lot more concerned. So tell me about those parts of it. Are those things that we should be worried about with the idea of these central bank digital currencies? So central bank digital currencies

have many positive attributes, but there are things we should be worried about. And as you will see from my answer, we should approach this not just from a technocratic perspective, but also from a societal perspective, because there is some pretty big social implications of the changes we are seeing. So first of all, I should be very clear that this notion of negative interest rates, you know, reducing the value of money that I spoke about in your central bank digital wallets, that is, you know, a desperate policy for desperate circumstances. No central banker wants to be driven there. But as we've seen, there were some countries around the world that were in such perilous circumstances that negative interest

rates, negative nominal interest rates, that is not inflation adjusted, but nominal ones, those we had thought were improbable and wouldn't work. Actually, they did work in many countries around the world, in Japan, in Sweden, for a few years, but they create all sorts of distortions and nobody really wants them. So it's just in desperate circumstances, you might want them for a little period. But there is another problem, and you've hit upon it, Adam, which is that we may end up, if we have central bank digital wallets and CBDC accounts, where the government has much more control over the economy. And even central banks really don't want this.

Let me give you one example. Let's say we all have central bank accounts where we can keep money just for transaction purposes. And then we start hearing about some financial troubles in the economy. And we know that during the financial crisis of 2008, 2009, you know, some very reputable the financial crisis of 2008-2009 you know some very reputable banks with rich traditions started facing severe problems so we might all say hey this is a difficult time let me just as a precaution take my money and put it in my central bank account because after all that's safer if you had this happening if you had a huge flight of deposits from the commercial banks

to the central bank, the commercial banks could end up collapsing. And then you might end up having this very awkward situation where the central bank gets all these deposits and has to allocate loans in the economy. Nobody, including the central bank, wants that to happen, but it is a risk. It can be managed. The Bahamas, for instance, has figured out a way to manage this. You just put a cap on the amount that people can put in their central bank accounts. So there are ways to manage these risks. But there is an even greater risk. I talked about expiry dates on money.

You could do other things with money. You can very easily conceive of a scenario where you can link up money with UPC product codes and say you can use central bank money for certain things but not for other things let's say conservative government might say you cannot use the money that I issue you say for contraception or pornography or something a liberal government in the American sense of the term might say you cannot use this to buy ammunition or arms. Now, suddenly, money starts becoming an instrument of societal control as well. I'm not saying we're anywhere near this, but you could conceive of a world that is much more dystopian. And even if none of this happens,

there is a more basic problem, which is that with cash, if I buy you, Adam, a cup of coffee, nobody really knows about it except the barista at whatever coffee shop he goes to. If the only means of payment we have are either a debit card, a credit card, or a central bank account, somebody is going to know about it. The central bank can have some degree of privacy in basic transactions, but ultimately, my views that anything where there is a digital trail can in some form be unraveled. And that is something that we need to think about as a society. The Eurozone actually conducted a survey of its citizens to say, how would you guys feel about the digital euro?

The number one concern that eurozone citizens had was about privacy sweden is undertaking cbdc experiments and the central bank is very wisely recognizing that they cannot move on their own technically they could institute you know an e-krona on their own but they cannot do it without parliament approval because they know that unless society buys into this, there is going to be a big pushback. And I think we need to, and we'll have that debate here in the US as well. Yeah, well, the, I mean, these are all, like, you described really, in the first half, all the wonderful beneficial things that could happen if we do it right. But those are, you know,

not really bringing human nature into it, and that not bringing in the fact that, you know, not really bringing human nature into it and that not bringing in the fact that, you know, the systems that humans tend to design for ourselves are not so perfect. And, you know, are used by can be used by bad actors or used by inefficient governments can have security holes and things like that. And when you're talking about the level of societal control that could be exercised through these, yeah, that does get worrisome. control that could be exercised through these, yeah, that does get worrisome. When I look at, you know, again, say that's the central government of China that, you know, recently, for instance, this is a very, I just follow video game news, so I know about this, but, you know, the government there exercises very tight control over video games. So you can't buy video game consoles, and they just put limits over children. I think children can only play video games, online video games for a couple hours a week now during like certain periods, right? That's a very large amount of control to have. And if you're having

that control at the currency level, right? If you're able to say, well, this currency works, but it doesn't work on certain things, that's a tool that I'm not sure that I want a government to have. I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure how I feel about it. And I certainly see the potential for abuse. And yeah, the privacy issues are very, very big. So it sounds like you're talking about this as a future that, hey, we're moving into, and there are some good things that could result, but we have to be very careful about it. Is that your general take? That's absolutely right. At a technical level, at a policy level, there are many advantages to CBDCs. And let's face it, it's going to happen. I think very few of us are going to be using cash in the future.

So I think the way I would steer this is to not say, oh, my God, we should be terrified and not let CBDCs come into existence. They are. But let's put in place the right kind of safeguards so that at a technical level, we can make sure that central banks don't start having to technical level, we can make sure that central banks don't start having to do the work of commercial banks, that central banks can assure us at least a basic level of privacy in our transactions, even if they want to make sure that the currency in digital form cannot be used for money laundering, terrorism, financing,

or such nefarious activities. And we want to make sure that there are safeguards in place that the government cannot start using its money as a tool of societal control. So these are all things we are going to have to think about as societies. And ultimately, legislatures will have to get involved. This is not going to be a purely technocratic issue. There is an interesting twist in the context of China, which I just want to mention. You know, in China, as I mentioned, indicated earlier, there are these two big payment systems, Alipay and WeChat Pay, that run the payment systems in

China that dominated and are hoovering up a lot of data. The Chinese central bank has started digital currency trials, and they're making the interesting pitch to people, hey, if you use our currency, we're going to be much more cautious about collecting the data. And besides, you should trust us with the data more than these companies, because after all, we don't want to use the data for commercial purposes, whereas Alipay and WeChat, they're going to exploit this for commercial purposes. So you should trust us more than you should trust those companies. And having this come from a government that, as you know, has a tendency to tightly surveil and manage its citizens is an interesting irony. Yeah, well, I'm sure many Chinese citizens do trust the government more than they trust those corporations. But many, many citizens have

reason not to. Yeah, there is an irony there. Well, look, I'm sure there's a lot of people listening to this screaming at us because we have barely talked about cryptocurrency yet. And I think a lot of cryptocurrency boosters would see crypto or at least promote crypto as being the antidote to this problem. That if we have a decentralized currency that is just sitting on many people's computers

using cryptography, well, you know, de facto, the state cannot control what you have used it for. And it is much more like cash while having all the advantages of a digital currency. And so what do you say to that? I also know that you wrote an article called Five Myths About Cryptocurrency. So I'd love for you to walk us through those as well. So Bitcoin, which started off the whole cryptocurrency revolution, you know, was a fantastic concept, the idea that you could have a medium of exchange that allowed you to conduct transactions without revealing your actual identities, that is using just your digital identities. And to do this in a form that did not involve intervention by a government or

central bank or any official agency or a trusted institution like a commercial bank. I mean, many people may not trust commercial banks, but we still keep our money in them to a large extent. So this notion of trust through public consensus was really very attractive. The problem is that it has not worked for what it was designed to do. It turns out that Bitcoin is a lousy medium of exchange. It's very expensive to transact using Bitcoin. In fact, this year, the average transaction fee has been somewhere around $8 to $9 on one transaction. transaction fee has been somewhere around eight to nine dollars on one transaction.

It takes about 10 minutes to complete a transaction because of the way transactions are. Your coffee would be cold by the time your Bitcoin transaction is done. Yes. And it turns out that it's not truly pseudonymous. Pseudonymous means allowing you to transact with just your digital identity. It turns out that where Bitcoin meets the real world, so if you were to pay for something and get a package delivered, the address could eventually be linked to your Bitcoin digital address. But I think the irony here, and this whole discussion has arrived with ironies, is that while Bitcoin has proven to be a terrible medium of exchange for transactions it's become a store of value so this is a purely digital object that is exist just on computers

it's created just by computer algorithm it has no intrinsic value because it cannot be used very efficiently as a medium of exchange but people trust that it's going to have value now why does it have value people in the bitcoin community will tell you the following the reason it has value is that it is going to be limited in terms of how much it's going to be created there are ultimately going to be only 21 million bitcoins that can be created there's scarcity and a half million have been created so far so it's scarce just like gold is scarce the question is whether scarcity by itself is enough to create value as an economist i think just because something is scarce

it's not going to have value it needs to have some fundamental use even gold has some basic uses fiat money on the other hand that is printed by central banks or governments can be printed at will in infinite amounts and bitcoin and cryptocurrency adherents might say why should we trust that something like this will preserve its value when the central bank can go out and print any amount of money. There are reasons why it seems to have value still. Number one people still trust at least the u.s government and some other governments and second the government can require that certain payments such as tax obligations can be paid only using the legal tender which is the fiat currency therefore it has value so i worry about bitcoin now having said all this three years ago when i started working on my book if instead of wasting

time writing my book, I'd actually gone out and bought Bitcoin, I'd be a much richer guy for this. If you were then able to sell your Bitcoin, right? I mean, like that, that appears to me to be part of the problem that, you know, Bitcoin has its value because everyone believes in the value of it. But then if people start selling it, then the value of it drops. And so you have all these Bitcoin billionaires of billions of dollars of Bitcoin, but aren't able to get it out because if they sell it and try to convert it into dollars,

well, they'll tank the whole market. And is that, I mean, it starts to, the more you think about it, the more your brain starts to like fold in on itself, trying to figure it out. That's right. I had no prospect of being a Bitcoin billionaire, maybe a 10,000 at most, but you're absolutely right. These had no prospect of being a Bitcoin billionaire, maybe 10,000 at most.

But you're absolutely right. These markets are not very liquid. And, you know, the reality is that, you know, three to five years from now, the value of Bitcoin could be some crazy amount, like a million dollars per Bitcoin, or it could be zero. Both of these, in my view, are equally likely, because if people suddenly start worrying about Bitcoin, and a few people try to sell large amounts of Bitcoin, that value could plunge to nothing. But, you know, the technology is a marvel. And I think the technology has set off something really fundamental. So I spent a couple of chapters in my book talking about this issue.

And that's, I think, phenomenal, because one of the things that is really a problem right now in the world is access to digital payments and not just digital payments within countries, but across countries, you know, for workers, say, from Mexico or Haiti who want to send their money back home. If they're working in the US, you know, that transaction is very expensive. It takes a lot of time. It's difficult to keep track of. It takes a lot of time. It's difficult to keep track of. And it's not just economic migrants, you know, companies that export and import, even financial institutions that are sending money across borders find it horribly inefficient.

So these new technologies can actually help in terms of providing more efficient payments. Now in addition to the problems with Bitcoin, I mentioned the other problem for something that you use for transactions is you need to have stable value. I mean, the value of Bitcoin, you know, it's bounces around like crazy. It's like if you go to if you take a Bitcoin and one day you can have, you know, a very fancy meal with whatever Bitcoin you have. And the next day that bitcoin is worth just a cup of coffee that's not a great medium of exchange so there are new cryptocurrencies

that have come up that are called stable coins so the stable coins basically use similar technology to make efficient payments but their value is anchored because they hold reserves of money and it turns out the money they hold as fiat currencies so facebook for instance wants to issue its own cryptocurrency and their promise is the value of each unit of their cryptocurrency which they want to call the dm uh each unit of dm will be backed up by a u.s dollar so you know that if you buy a DM, Facebook has set aside a dollar. So the value of the DM relative to the dollar will remain the same. And now Facebook says, I'm going to give you a great payment mechanism. Now, do I trust Facebook really to maintain privacy of transactions

on? Probably not. But you can see much of the world, you know, countries with currencies that are not very credible, governments that are not credible, where Facebook is easily accessible, people might say, hey, I trust Facebook a lot more than I trust my own government. Let me start using Facebook. So now that currency could start becoming used within countries, across countries. It could be used for good purposes, bad purposes. So there too, there are potential improvements to be made in payments, but a lot to worry about. Yeah. I mean, the more, the more we

talk about this, like, like part of the pitch for cryptocurrencies, I believe was supposed to be that, Hey, you don't have to trust the government because it's cryptographically secured. The trust is technological. You can trust this cryptological system, which is a cryptographic system. Well, I don't know the terminology, but, you know, and it's like open source software. You can go read the code if you want. You can see how it's constructed. And, you know, therefore you don't need

to trust some third party. But the more you talk about it, like you just always do. Like you need to either trust that the government is gonna, you know, that when it says this note is legal tender, that that is correct. Or you need to trust that, you know, the anonymous person who built Bitcoin

did it in such a way that is going to cause it to be a stable source of value. And you have to trust the Bitcoin exchange that you use. You know, I had a friend who bought a bunch of Dogecoins in literally 2014. And when Dogecoin, as a joke, he was just like, yeah, I got a couple of Dogecoins. literally 2014. And when Doge coin as a joke, he was just like, yeah, I got a couple of Doge coins. It's funnier than Bitcoin. So I got some. And when Doge coin started, started, uh, spiking, I asked him like, Hey, what happened to your Doge

coins? And he went and checked. And it turns out that three years prior without him noticing the place that he bought them turned out to be a massive fraud that disappeared and stole everybody's Dogecoin. It was like a famous case of disappearing money. And so all of his Dogecoins, which would have been worth, you know, $20,000 at this point, had all disappeared. And so, you know, he had to trust somebody and he trusted the wrong person. And, you know, you have to trust Facebook. You have to decide where you are putting your trust. Are you going to put it in the anonymous hoard

of Bitcoin boosters, or are you going to put it in the US government, or are you going to put it in the overall performance of the stock market and the economy? Like you ultimately are having to make some sort of, is money nothing but trust at the end of the day? Trust is a crucial concept underlying money, because if you don't have trust, it doesn't work. And, you know, in the long arc of history, there is an interesting development because, you know, if you go back to the creation of money, a lot of money initially was issued just by private merchants on the strength of their reputations.

Yeah. Or because they had their currency backed up by, backed up by stores of commodities or precious metals. And then governments started creating their own money, and that money was not hugely trusted because governments could use just money printing to finance their operations. So central banks were created to basically generate trust in money. So the central banks would be the guardians of faith. So now and that basically wiped out all privately issued currencies by and large. So now we're coming back to a stage where

there is some declining confidence in private banks, in government banks. And now you have this approach of trustless exchange but you know the blockchain technology again i think it's going to be transformative in different ways the remarkable thing about this blockchain technology that underlies bitcoin is that one level everything is transparent so you can go out and see every transaction that has been done with every unit of bitcoin and it is posted on a public digital ledger that everybody can see. You can't see the actual identities of the people transacting. Like I said, it's only digital identities, but that is what actually gives the system a lot of

security and creates some degree of trust because this public digital ledger is maintained on multiple computers. So if you're tampered with one of them, it would immediately be noticed that something funky is going on. But having said that, as you pointed out, there are some risks because there is nobody to go to if there is a problem. So if you accidentally send money to the, let's say, the digital issuer was sending money to the digital Adam, and I put in the wrong digital identity for you, there are some inbuilt checks that make it less likely this happened. But if it happens, the money is gone to whoever I accidentally ended up sending it to. If you happen to lose your, what is called your private key,

which is sort of basically like a password to your Bitcoin wallet, it's gone. Nobody can retrieve it for you because it's not like you can go to a bank and reset your password. It's gone. If it turns out that there is some flaws in the software, you can't go out and easily get it fixed. The idea is that it's all open source or somebody or the other is going to come out and fix it. But before it gets fixed, a lot of things can go wrong. So this is where the other fragility of cryptocurrencies lies. As they become bigger, there is a possibility that there might be some technical flaw that is uncovered and then everything goes poof. So to my mind, it's all very fragile and there's also the there's also the problem of the what is the basis of the value like when you look at okay if you go to the if you go to the reddit page for

a cryptocurrency you will see people saying hey let's boost it up right let's to the moon let's all believe that this is worth a lot and keep pushing. Right. And that pushes the value up. But that is quite evidently a it's a it's a booster campaign. It's trying to create sort of something out of nothing because there is no inherent value in it other than people's belief in it. Right. Like it's interesting because it reveals that that is the where the value comes from is people people's belief that it's valuable. is where the value comes from, is people's belief that it's valuable. But there's no inherent underlying utility that makes it valuable. And that makes it look like it'll disappear at a, like it has the potential to disappear at some point in the future if everyone stops believing in it, which could happen, right?

It could happen instantaneously. I mean, history is rife with examples of these speculative manias. And even in the U.S., I mean, we had this crazy tech boom just a couple of decades ago where, you know, companies that had no profits, and this is still the case to some extent, companies with no profits said that oh we cannot use the old models to value companies these companies are going to have such fast increases in revenues that that's going to be enough to generate higher stock prices and we know how that ended and there have been many many other speculative manias in the past. So given that many of these cryptocurrencies don't have any intrinsic use, these two economists at least had the classic implications of speculative manias.

Although in this case, there is the added element of technological coolness. You know, this technology underlying Bitcoin, like I said, is really a marvel. And there is this notion that anything with such cool technology must surely be worth a lot. And it's also very accessible to a lot of people. One of the things that really impresses me about cryptocurrencies is that it's given so many people a feeling that they can be a part of something that is both futuristic but is also financial. is both futuristic, but is also financial, right? It's not like the folks at Vanguard or even Betterment, right, are going to the average person saying like, hey, I can help you, you know, turn $1 into $2 and, you know, help you understand investments. They're really targeting, you know, the rich person, whereas, you know, cryptocurrencies are saying, hey, come join, jump in. It's going to

be fun. The water's fine. And you can be a part of this cool brand new thing. And that is some amount of utility. It gives people a good feeling to be a part of at the very least. But how long would that last? No, but that's exactly right. I mean, part of the end of this revolution that Bitcoin has set off is the notion of democratizing finance. That it's completely open and permissionless and censorship resistant. What this means is that anybody can get access to Bitcoin. Nobody's there to stop you from getting access to Bitcoin. You don't need anybody's permission and nobody can be restricted from using it. And this is a very powerful concept that this does not involve any sort of government control at all.

And if you add to that this element of technological coolness, because this is a wonderful new technology, that I think, has proven to be an irresistible combination. But the problem, you know, as with many of these Reddit examples of the run up in the GameStock stock, stock for instance that you mentioned, the less savvy retail investors are the ones who could get really burned. I mean, there are certainly people like the Winklevoss twins who may have a huge amount of investments in Bitcoin, but they're going to make out okay, even if the value of Bitcoin falls to zero, they have enough money and other assets.

But you know, the retail investor who says, let me put all my life savings in Bitcoin because, look, the price has been rising all this time and it can go only one way up. Those are the people that one worries about in the context of these speculative mania. Yeah. And it's once you realize that in order to keep the price of Bitcoin up, if you've got a lot of money in Bitcoin, you want the price of Bitcoin to keep going up. And the way to do that is to increase the mania for Bitcoin. And that explains why Bitcoin people or cryptocurrency people are such huge proselytizers where they're telling, oh, dude, I made so much money. Oh, you got to get in on this. Let me let me hook you up, you know, et cetera, because it's

like it almost starts to look like a massively decentralized Ponzi scheme in a way where it's or Ponzi scheme is the wrong word pyramid scheme in a way because you you need to get other people excited about it for the value to keep going up. But eventually, you know, the worry is that the music stops and the whole thing falls apart and people who are able to cash out in time do well. But everyone who was the last person on the bottom of the pyramid, the last person to get in is going to lose their money as the concern. Yeah, that's right. And I think for all of us, there is the fear of being left out of a really good deal

because who knows, Bitcoin may turn out to be the real thing. And as I mentioned, if I had bought Bitcoin three or five years ago, certainly I'd be a somewhat wealthier man right now. But that is what I think draws people in, the feeling that you're being left out of an easy way to make money. I mean, who can resist the idea of making easy money and buying Bitcoin seems like such an easy way to make money. And many people have made money. They're letting their neighbors, their friends know that they've made money for precisely the reason they need to keep the mania going. Yeah.

But at the same time, it's like there's such a mania for Bitcoin, but everything is so overheated right now. The stock market has doubled in the last year as well. So I don't know. It's really wild times out there. But I don't know. It's really wild times out there. But I don't know. This is just like, this whole conversation is blowing my mind about what money is in the first place, you know, and the need for trust in it. But decentralization, though, as being the pitch for what is so great about cryptocurrencies, I understand its allure and the democratization of it. But it does make me think,

like, hold on a second. In the past, as you said, merchants would issue their own currencies and no one could stop them from doing it. Right. Or there were currencies that were like inherent stores of value, like, you know, some, you know, some trade good that is really highly desired ends up being de facto currency because, you know, you can always, you know, sell it for such and such an amount. This was the world hundreds of years ago where we had completely decentralized currencies that were just based on, you know, whatever people wanted to use. And we went towards a world where things were more centralized, right? Both because the state had power it could exercise, but also because it made things more efficient. And so when I look at crypto and all these, you know, decentralized currencies, it makes me wonder, hey, are we just in the middle of a moment where this stuff is brand new? And so it's super decentralized, just like the early web, right? In 1999, when anyone can make a website. And now 20 years later, hey, if you're not on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube, no one's going to watch what you do,

you know? Are we, you know, in 20 years, are we going to look around and go, oh, wow, that Bitcoin crypto decentralized currency moment was really exciting. But of course, everything centralized really quick in a couple of companies and a couple of governments. And here we are in a new future. Like that to me looks inevitable. Does it look that way to you? Yeah, you know, one of the good things from an economist's point of view is that these cryptocurrencies are providing competition.

They're providing competition to government-issued currencies, which in principle should make governments more disciplined in terms of how much of their currency is they issue, under what conditions they issue it, and so on. but in the internet world of things as you pointed out there is also the risk of market concentration which means one or two players start becoming very important you know the great thing about the internet the great thing about cryptocurrencies is in principle that anybody can set a cryptocurrency and see how valuable it becomes but if you have a corporation like facebook or amazon stepping in and issuing its cryptocurrency, its cryptocurrency is certainly going to get a lot more traction and it's going to become an even more powerful corporation as a result. So there is a fine balance here between saying that the new technology is a love for easy

entry of new innovators, more competition and so on, but it could equally well lead to a lot more market concentration. So I think this is one of the big risks that we face that we go from competition towards even more decentralization towards a few corporations, a few issuers of currencies that have even more power. Well, the thing that this conversation is really underlining for me is that this is a really exciting time where we're talking about money. There's a whole lot going on and there's a lot to follow and a lot to track. How do you recommend that people keep up to date with all of this? I mean, there's so much to think about and process. Yeah. I mean, how do people get involved in figuring out what the future of money is? Hey, there's no better place to start than my book.

That's a perfect segue. So the book actually talks about all these developments in finance. It has a couple of chapters will tell you exactly how Bitcoin works, the benefits, the disadvantages, and talks about other cryptocurrencies and the world that they have unleashed in terms of creating new technological developments it talks about central bank digital currencies and how those again could have a lot of advantages but could end up creating some potentially dystopian scenarios. So it's all there explained without any equations, any tables.

It's all in plain, simple language. My undergraduate students were able to comprehend all of this. In fact, they were very tough editors, made sure that everything was spelled out very clearly. So I hope that the book will make everything crystal clear.

Well, if you want to pick up a copy of the book, you can go to factuallypod.com slash books for our special bookshop where you'll be supporting not just this show, but your local bookstore. Or go walk down to your local bookstore and buy a copy. Ishwar Prasad, thank you so much for being on the show. It was incredible talking to you.

Hey, Adam, that was really fun. Thank you. Well, thank you once again to Ishwar Prasad for coming on the show. I don't know. song, The Fine Folks at Falcon Northwest for building me the incredible custom gaming PC that I'm recording this very episode for you on. If you want to leave a comment about the show, you can send it to factually at adamconover.net. I do read and sometimes reply to your emails. I love to get them. Please let me know what you're thinking. You can find me online at adamconover.net or at Adam Conover, wherever you get your social media. Until next week, thank you so much for listening. We'll see you next time on Factually. That was a HateGum Podcast.