Lex Fridman Podcast - #284 – Saifedean Ammous: Bitcoin, Anarchy, and Austrian Economics

Episode Date: May 11, 2022

Saifedean Ammous is an Austrian economist and author of The Bitcoin Standard and The Fiat Standard. Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors: - GiveWell: https://www.givewell.org/ and use code LEX - Scale: https://scale.com/lex - Uncruise: https://uncruise.com/pages/lex - BiOptimizers: http://www.magbreakthrough.com/lex to get 10% off - Athletic Greens: https://athleticgreens.com/lex and use code LEX to get 1 month of fish oil EPISODE LINKS: Saifedean's Twitter: https://twitter.com/saifedean Saifedean's Website: https://saifedean.com The Bitcoin Standard podcast: https://saifedean.com/podcast Books & resources mentioned: The Fiat Standard (book): https://amzn.to/3FmNfsy The Bitcoin Standard (book): https://amzn.to/3LRrcwA The Blocksize War (book): https://amzn.to/3LORQ9o The Theory of Money and Credit (book): https://amzn.to/3ykreZT Human Action (book): https://amzn.to/3w9LzP4 PODCAST INFO: Podcast website: https://lexfridman.com/podcast Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/2lwqZIr Spotify: https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8 RSS: https://lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/ YouTube Full Episodes: https://youtube.com/lexfridman YouTube Clips: https://youtube.com/lexclips SUPPORT & CONNECT: - Check out the sponsors above, it's the best way to support this podcast - Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman - Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman - Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman OUTLINE: Here's the timestamps for the episode. On some podcast players you should be able to click the timestamp to jump to that time. (00:00) - Introduction (07:53) - Money (20:58) - Gold standard (34:09) - Collective hallucination (39:59) - Austrian vs Keynesian economics (1:12:20) - Free market (1:28:49) - Monarchy (1:34:23) - Fiat money (2:21:13) - SWIFT system (2:34:03) - Bitcoin (2:40:20) - Satoshi Nakamoto (2:48:04) - Criticisms of Bitcoin (3:03:16) - Football/soccer (3:06:58) - Criticisms of Bitcoin continued (3:17:17) - Bitcoin Maximalism (3:29:40) - Proof of stake (3:46:46) - Central bank digital currency (3:57:59) - Michael Malice (4:00:12) - Advice for young people (4:06:21) - Palestine (4:18:00) - Mortality

The following is a conversation with safety and amuse, one of the central and most impactful economists, philosophers and educators in the world of Bitcoin. He is an Austrian economist, an anarchist, and the author of the Bitcoin Standard and the new book The Fiat Standard. Safety and does not miss words in his criticism of economists and humans in general with whom he disagrees. For example, Paul Krugman, who is a neo-acanzian economist and a previous guest at this podcast. Safety and opinions are strong and often controversial. I do push back in this conversation

playing devil's advocate or trying to steal man each side, but as always, I do so in the service of exploring the rich space of ideas that safety has about human nature and human civilization. I trust the intelligence of you, the listener, to come to your own conclusions. That is the burden of being a free thinking human. It is on each of us individually to dive into this chaos of ideas. And from that chaos, discover long-lasting universal wisdom to live by. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. We've got give-well for charity,

scale for machine learning, uncrews for adventure, by optimizers for health, and athletic greens for performance, choose wisely my friends. And now onto the full arteries. As always, no ads in the middle. I try to make these interesting, but if you skip them, please still check out our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff. Maybe you will too. This show is brought to you by Give Well. They research charitable organizations

and only recommend the highest impact evidence-backed charities. Over 50,000 donors have used Give Well to donate more than $750 million. This idea of effective altruism, of optimizing your giving, I think is essential. It's not enough to just give. You want to make sure that money is spent optimally. That's what Giv-Well does. It's actually a profound question of, if you have money, how do you help the world most optimally?

Giv-Well wants to empower people to make informed decisions about their donations, so they publish all of their research and recommendations on their site for free. No sign up required. They allocate your tax deductible donation to the charity of your choice without taking a cut. Go to givewell.org, pick podcast and select this, the Lex Friedman podcast that check out. They tell me to tell you to make sure that they know that you heard about Give Well from the Lex Friedman podcast that check out. They tell me to tell you to make sure that they know that you heard about GiveWell from the Lex Friedman podcast.

Again, that's givewell.org. This episode is also brought to you by Scale, the machine learning assisted data labeling platform. Scale Rapid works with any use case or task, including image, video, text, annotation, and classification, 3D data, and it has support for 20 plus languages. Can I just tell you that as a fan of machine learning, as a researcher in the field, I have always believed that at least in this point of history, data is much, much, much more important than the architectures,

than the machine learning models, or rather the architecture of those models, if you want to have real world impact with those models. So quality data, the annotation of data based on which the models are trained is essential, and you have to use the best tools for the job. That's why you should go to scale.com slash Lex today. You can get your first batch of data labeled up to 50 bucks for free. Again, that scale.com slash Lex. This show is also brought to you by Uncruz Adventures.

Smallship Cruises, sailing to Alaska, Mexico, Costa Rica, Hawaii, it goes on and on, choose from hiking, kayaking, whale watching, seeing the northern lights and much much more. I would like to go to those places now. I've never been to Alaska. I've been to Hawaii a long, long time ago. I feel like I'm afraid to go to Hawaii because if I go there, I may just stay there forever. I feel the same way about Alaska, actually. I'm not afraid of the cold. I don't love the cold, but I'm not afraid of it. And there's something about the isolation, the honesty and the beauty of nature that is Alaska is just, um, it humbles the mind. So even for just a little bit of

time, maybe it's a good place to visit. You can save $500 on Alaska adventures through June for bookings made within 30 days of departure, go to uncruz.com slash pages slash Lex. That's uncruz un-cruz.com slash pages slash Lex. The next sponsor is by optimizers, bi optimizers. They have a new magnesium supplement. When I fast, or I'm doing keto or carnivore, sodium potassium and magnesium are essential. Magnesium, I think, is a trick you want to get right. Of that, of the sodium potassium, magnesium, magnesium is the hardest. That's why I use magnesium breakthrough from bi-automizers. Most supplements contain only one or two forms of magnesium,

like glycinate or citrate. When in reality, there are at least seven that your body needs and benefits from Obviously, one of the things you really have to get right on keto is the electrolytes Andrew Huberman you should listen to his podcast called the Huberman Lab podcast talks about the importance of magnesium quite a bit So this just takes out the thinking out of getting your magnesium supplementation right by going with the magnesium breakthrough. That's what I do because thinking is hard friends. Go to magbreakthrough.com slash Lex for a special discount. That's magbreakthrough.com slash Lex. This show is also brought to you by

Athletic Greens and it's newly renamed AG1 Drink which is an all-in-one daily drink to support better health and peak performance. It replaced the multivitamin for me and went far beyond that with 75 vitamins and minerals. It's the first thing I drink every day. I drink it twice a day now. It's a source of joy. It's a source of contentment because I know whatever the crazy diets I do, whatever the crazy work hours I put in, the stress, the lack of sleep, the madness, the beauty, whatever I do in my life, I can always count on having a nutritional basis for my all too short existence on this earth if I take athletic greens every day.

Also perhaps as important as it's just delicious, it's refreshing, it's delicious, I love it. Anyway, they'll give you one month's supply of another important thing I take, which is fish oil. When you sign up on authenticgreens.com slash Lex, that's authenticgreens.com slash Lex. This is the Lex Rebend podcast and here is my conversation with Safety and Amuse. Let's start with a big question. What is money and what is the role of money in the history of human civilization? Money is a medium of exchange. The thing that defines money is that it is a good that you don't buy for its own sake, because you want to consume it itself or because you want to employ it in the production of other

goods, which is what capital goods are. So we have consumption goods, we have capital goods. Money is distinct from those two, because it is a good that is acquired purely to be exchanged later on for other goods. So it's not something that you acquire for its own sake, you acquire it so that you can then later on exchange it. And that's a market good. That's a market good like all other goods. You acquire food because you eat it, you acquire a car to move you around, you acquire money so that you can exchange it for other goods. And that's something that many people have a hard time grasping of the concept of money as a

market good. But it as a market good, but it is a market good, just like all others. And the importance of it is that it allows us to trade, it allows us to develop, to develop the division of labor, which would not be possible at any kind of sophisticated level without money. So, if we live in a small society of 10 people, then think about all the things that we can make, all the things that we can produce. If we're only 10 people isolated from the world,

there's only very few things that we can make, and therefore we can exchange those things directly with one another. But as if we get in contact with other societies that have more people, then the opportunities for specialization increase. There's 10 people, the only thing that you can make is the very basics you need for your survival.

But if you're part of an economy of 10 million people, there's much more room for specialization. You can make a car, you can make a house, that's very sophisticated. And that relies on the division of labor. That relies on you specializing in doing one tiny little thing, which is not what you consume. And you trade that thing for all the things that you consume. So as the economy becomes more sophisticated and involves more people, and currently we're

all part of an economy of almost 8 billion people, Each one of us produces one tiny little thing and they exchange that thing for all the things that they want. And so because we specialize, we become more productive in doing the thing that we're good at. So there's people out there who are engineers who are designing windshields and cars. It's a very specialized thing. They sell windshield design to Mercedes-Benz.

And then from that, that windshield design is added on to millions of cars around the world. And from that, they're able to get enough money to meet all of their needs. So the division of labor is enhanced enormously with money. Because without money, it's very difficult to be able to exchange a large number of goods. It's very difficult to be able to exchange a large number of goods. It's very difficult

to have a sophisticated economy with a large degree of specialization because it's very difficult to find people who want the thing that you have and have the thing that you want. We call this the coincidence of wants. And that's really the problem that money solves. So you make apples and I make oranges. I'd like to have some of your apples, but you don't want my oranges. That's, we have a problem of coincidence of one. So what do I do? You want bananas.

I need to find somebody who has bananas, give them my oranges, take their bananas, give you their bananas, and then I take the apples. In that case, bananas are a medium of exchange. So it's natural that a medium of exchange will evolve and will emerge in an economy, as an economy becomes more sophisticated. As we move beyond 10 people and 10 goods, it's inevitable that we're going to come to a situation where we have the problem of coincidence of once and the way to solve that is to use a medium of exchange. And it can be anything. It can be a banana, it can be food stuff, it can be any kind of good. As long as I acquire the good with the purpose of it,

passing it on to you, not with the purpose of me consuming it or using it, then that's a medium of exchange. So when we look at the entirety of human society, of millions, of billions of people, you think of them, just a bunch of individuals running around. I love the term co-incidence of once. So each one of them, it's a castic system, they have desires, it's a random collection of desires, somehow rooted in our evolutionary history, but mostly random in terms of preference of banana or apple, that kind of thing.

random in terms of preference of banana or apple, that kind of thing. And then they also have the capacity for competence and excellence in particular kind of labor. So like specialization, they're able to be like incredible at a particular set of tasks. So there's a bunch of ants running around with consciousness and intelligence. They have desires and have capabilities and then there's a coincidence of both the the wants they have and the capabilities they have and you wanted to create a system that kind of exchanges those things. So when you imagine like what is a, what is markets? When you imagine a market is like a hierarchical system, what do you imagine? What is a market? A market is just the name for the naturally

emergent phenomena of people voluntarily exchanging things. It's at any scale, at any scale, yeah. It could be a market of two people on an island, on their own. It could be eight billion people across the planet. Naturally emerging. Yes, this is the thing, I think, that is very hard for many people who don't have a good understanding of economics to grasp, that capitalism and markets are not something that you need a Central planner or a government officer to make happen Capitalism is just what happens when people are left to their own devices. It's just our cognitive capacity allows us to Develop tools that we can use for production and that's what we do. That's what humans have been doing since they started You know making spears to hunt. That's the first capital good probably

So we're constantly accumulating capital. We're constantly trading with one another. We find an opportunity. You've got a lot of oranges. I've got a lot of apples. Then I'll take some of yours. You'll take some of mine. We're both better off. This is just a naturally emergent thing. And money is what makes it enormously powerful. Money is what allows it to scale, really. Money is what allows it to go beyond small societies into just something that is global. Because with money, again, as I was saying earlier, all you need to do is specialize in doing one thing,

the thing that you do best, and then you exchange that for money, and you don't have to worry about whether the other people involved in this want what you have and have what you want. You just sell it for money to whoever wants it and you buy whatever you want from whoever has it. And that's an enormous reduction in the mental burden of how market economy functions.

So the first thing that I would say about money is that it allows for the division of labor and it allows for the market system to grow. The second thing is that money is a mechanism for storing value into the future. Again, as humans, we develop the capacity to think for the future, we make a spear so that we can hunt, and then we see that it works, and then we take it out of the animal that we hunted it with, and we keep it for the next day's hunt. Then we start making a better spear, and we make a better fishing rod, and then we take it out of the animal that we hunted it with, and we keep it for the next day's hunt. And then we start making a better spear, and we make a better fishing rod, and then we make a fishing net, and then we make a fishing boat.

And that's our ability to think of the future. And as we start building durable goods, we start thinking more and more of the future, we start becoming more and more future oriented. And that's really the process of civilization, the process of denying our needs now in order to think for the future. So instead of spending all about day on the beach, enjoying ourselves, we take time off from leisure on the beach and spend some time making a spear, making a fishing rod so that our productivity and hunting or fishing tomorrow is going to be higher. And so that ability to think for the

future is enhanced by our ability to provide for the future. And we do that with durable goods. But then money ends up being the best mechanism for providing for the future because the future is uncertain. So, you know, you can save your apples and oranges, you can save the spears, you can save the animal that you hunted. But these things, you know, first they rot, they're not very good at holding onto their value over time, but even if they wear, even if you know, have objects that are durable, the problem with them is that you don't know if you need them tomorrow, or next month, or next year. You're not sure if you're going to be needing them, and you might end

up not needing them, and you might end up not finding anybody who needs them, or finding somebody who needs them, but doesn't value them much and won't give you much in exchange. Money allows you the optionality of saving the most liquid good, the most salable good. So it's something that you can sell tomorrow with the least uncertainty. It has the most liquidity, the most ability to be sold without a loss in its value. So money is our most advanced technology, our best technology for moving value into the future. And so I think history really, I argue this in all my books, is that really history,

we see, we can think of it as a process of our money gets harder and so our money gets better at holding onto its value for the future and by harder I mean harder to produce. We find things that are hard to produce that are better at holding onto their value so they hold onto their value better for the future and that allows us to plot and plan for the future. That makes the future less uncertain. And that makes us more future oriented. In other words, it lowers our time preference. And the heart of the money is the better it is allowing us to think of the future. So people should know that you've written the book Bitcoin Standard from 2018, I believe.

And then a new book called Fiat Standard. The Bitcoin Standard is considered kind of the Bible in the cryptocurrency space and the Bitcoin space of just a very rigorous systematic explanation of why Bitcoin, what is it, why should it be, why is it good? So you're describing in that book and in the new book different implementations, the technology of money. In the new book, you talk about the out money, which is another way to do money. So obviously, there's a lot of different ways to do money. And maybe we haven't discovered the best way to do money yet. Our conversation today different ways to do money. And maybe we'll have them discovered the best way to do money.

Yet our conversation today is how to do money better. Maybe we'll go back to bananas eventually. Right. Very good reasons why we won't. Well, we can disagree. We can agree to disagree on this. I'm open-minded to the bananas. One of the biggest sources of joy to me

when I first came to this country is the bananas. One of the biggest sources of joy to me when I first came to this country is eating bananas. So, maybe money happiness, perishable happiness will eventually become the best medium of exchange. I don't know. Open minded. Anyway, so you mentioned hard money and soft money. So there's different ways to do money. What is hard money? What is soft money? In the Bitcoin standard, I present the argument that money is always whatever is the hardest thing to make.

Historically, I think we see many examples of that. So for instance, in prison, people use cigarettes as money because nobody can make cigarettes in prison. In societies, we have the example of YAP Island, for instance. It's an island that doesn't have any limestone, but there's a nearby island that has a lot of limestone. And it's very expensive, obviously, with primitive technology to move limestone

from Palau to YAP. So on YAP, limestones were money. Sea shells, rare sea shells, they're not easy to find, end up serving as money ins, they're not easy to find and the observing as money in places where they're rare. Glass beads were money in West Africa where there was no glass making technology because they were important and they were very hard to make. And I think there's a conscious effort of some people might recognize the hardness and

the scarcity and choose this as money. But I think what's more important is just a natural evolutionary process whereby people choose all kinds of random things as money, bananas, maybe even. But then the people who end up making these bad choices don't end up with any wealth left. Whereas the people who store their wealth in the things that are hard to make end up maintaining their wealth and maybe even increasing it over time. And of course, the money, the gold standard. The gold standard is basically when money is gold, or at least government currencies backed by gold. But the reason gold became money and not copper, not nickel, not bananas is that gold is the hardest metal in the world and it is the hardest metal to increase the supply of. And the reason for that is based

in chemistry. So gold is indestructible. You can't destroy gold in any meaningful sense. It's been accumulating stockpiles for thousands of years. The gold that was worn by Nefertiti back in ancient Egypt is today probably in somebody's necklace or in somebody's gold coin. It's still there. So for thousands of years, humans have been digging for gold. They dig it out of the ground, they refine it, and then they put it in a jewelry or a coin, and then it just stays there. It gets melted down into new other forms, you know, the jewelry gets turned into coins, or coins get turned into bars.

But it's just stockpiles that are accumulating. On the other hand, every year we get better at our technology of looking for gold. You know, there's more people all over the world, the population increases, the technology improves. So we keep finding more and more gold, and we keep making the stockpiles bigger. However, because we're constantly adding to a stockpile that is not being devalued, sorry, that is not being consumed because there's no way of consuming gold. You can't eat it, you can't burn it, you can't, it doesn't rust. Because of that, we're constantly adding to a constantly growing stockpile. consuming gold, you can't eat it, you can't burn it, you can't, it doesn't rust.

Because of that, we're constantly adding to a constantly growing stockpile. So if you look at the numbers, you see, over the last 100 years, we've got pretty reliable data on gold production worldwide, we see that pretty much gold stockpiles increase at around one and a half to two percent per year, every year. So yes, we're making more every year, but we're making more, so we're adding to the stock, but the stock bulk grows more. So every year, we're adding only around 1.5 to 2%. Compare that to the second, the second hardest metal historically was silver. And that increased historically at around maybe 5% per year or so. Now it probably increases something

like closer to 30% because it's now getting used extensively in industrial uses. So when you use it in industry, when you put silver in a laptop or in a camera or in a machine, effectively, you are consuming the stock bar because it's not used as money, it's taken out of the monetary stockpile. So over the last 150 years, since 1870 in particular,

and I'll just cut this in detail in the Bitcoin standard, what happened in 1870 was Germany won the Franco-Prussian War, and Germany was on a silver standard, but the value of silver was declining. So Germany did something very smart, which is they took their indemnity from France in silver and gold and used that big chunk of gold to switch to going on a gold standard. And since then, silver has been collapsing in value next to gold. So back then, the price of an ounce of gold was around 15 ounces of silver. Today it's closer to 100. It's just been declining for the last 150 years.

And so because of that, because of the fact that it's lost its monetary role, as people shifted toward gold, the value of silver went down, and so it became economical to use it in more and more industrial applications. So the stockpile declines, and then as a result,

that weakens its monetary properties more and more and more. So that's why at the end of the 19th century, I mean, at the beginning of the 19th century, gold and silver were money by the end. It was basically only gold. And the countries that were still on a silver standard, China and India in particular, suffered enormously from it because their money was devaluing very quickly next to gold. And so Europeans who would come to China or India were able to buy things practically a big discount.

So I hope it's okay if I ask very simple, very basic questions. There's few people in this world that are good, as good as you are, at answering very basic, almost ridiculously basic questions. Because I think exploring questions like what is money is a really great way to think from first principles to really think deeply

about this world. So I really appreciate you doing that. When you say standard, what does it mean? When you say silver standard, gold standard, again, with the basic question. The term really, I think, was based out of gold. The first time this came out was the gold standard, because so I said gold was money at the end of the 19th century, but it wasn't just that everybody was using gold coins

and trading with gold coins, because that's got a problem of divisibility. So a lot of things are worth less than one gold coin. So how do you buy that thing? And the answer was that you created monetary instruments that were backed by gold. And so currencies, national currencies under the gold standard, were specific units of gold. And that's how a gold standard function. Money was gold, but you had pieces of paper that were redeemable in gold.

So you could go to the central bank, you could give them the piece of paper, the $100 bill or the $10 bill, and they'll give you gold in exchange, they'll give you a specific quantity of gold in exchange. Effectively, the paper was just a receipt for gold. So the paper exactly represented the amount of gold. Exactly, that was the plan.

That was what it's supposed to do, but arguably we never had a pure gold standard because the natural gold means that the people who wanted charge the gold, they have an enormous amount of power because the gold is concentrated with them and as long as not everybody shows up at the same time asking for their gold, then you can make more receipts than you have gold. There's always shady stuff going on, but at least that's the state of gold is the receipt should exactly represent the amount of gold there. And also when you say standard, it means that governments sort of publicly stated that this is the approved, the main way of making transactions that are monetary. So this is the money.

This is the official money that you should be using if you live in this country. Yes, although I would say it's more like the other way around. It's not that the government's established gold as money. It's more like the gold gave the government's the credibility for their currencies. So governments were not the ones that made gold money. Gold has been money before states were invented. States, if you have a government and you'd like to have some legitimacy and you'd like to be able to deal with other governments on an equal footing,

you had to go by the gold standard. You had to have a currency that was redeemable in gold so that you could trade with the rest of the world so that people could in your country use that currency. So it's not that governments were choosing gold, it's more like they were having to adapt their own currencies to gold in order to give their currencies credibility. So there's a dance there though, because if they had to, then why did they switch away from it after? So there is a dance where the government's, you know, the people pressure. So first of all, the basic characteristics of the hard money pressures the governments and the people in terms of what should be used. Then the people, based on their community, the network

effects, the way the narratives they tell each other, all that kind of stuff, they pressure the governments to take on a particular money. Then the governments, they like power, they like control all those kinds of things, they pressure the people until different kind of narratives. So there's a dance going on in this evolution of what technology to use for a monetary system. So the reason I don't know if governments had to, because they clearly didn't have to, because they eventually moved away from it. So it, but there was pressure, probably.

Yeah, but even after they moved away from it, you know, central banks, until today, they still hold a lot of gold reserves. In fact, if you look at 1914, when the world really went off the gold standard, the amount of gold reserves held by central banks was a tiny fraction of what it was. As time went on, central banks accumulated more and more gold. What ended up happening is they prevented their citizens from using the gold, but they continued to use it. So gold continued to be money up until 1971, because effectively the world was on a dollar standard and the dollars were backed by gold. But then after 1971, even then, central banks continued

to accumulate gold, because why would you as a central bank want to accumulate pieces of paper, effectively, or credit liabilities of another central bank that can produce them infinitely. And it's a lesson that's becoming more and more obvious to governments today, you know, as we see US sanctions taking, say, Russian reserves or Afghanistan reserves. And this is why, you know, we see China and Russia have accumulated a lot of gold over the last 10, 20 years. So just to return to the question of definitions, so what is hard money versus soft money? Yes, so hard, I mean, it's a relative thing, but the hardness refers to the difficulty of producing more units of the money supply. So an easy money would be a money that is relatively easy to make, so you can increase the supply by 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 percent or something like that.

So pretty much all commodities, all market commodities other than golden silver, they're easy money and they're not suitable as a monetary medium because they're being consumed. So if you look at, and in the Bitcoin standard, I mentioned this metric called the stock to flow ratio, which is the ratio of the annual production, the flow to the stockpile, the existing stockpile. If you look at all the other metals, they're easy money because they're being consumed. So think about how much stockpiles of copper there are in the world today. So copper companies obviously have some stockpiles of copper. Major copper consumers will have stockpiles of copper, but the vast majority of copper is essentially on a conveyor belt of production from the mine straight to the consumer good that it's being used for.

So the existing stockpiles are roughly in the range of one year's production. If you take all of the companies, I don't have exact statistics, it's very difficult to get these, but it's roughly in the same range. If Copper Production were to stop completely today, we'll have about a year's production stored in various places. So that makes Copper terrible money because if you started using copper as money and this is why a lot of people say well money is a collective illusion, money is a social construct if we all agree that something is money, that something is money, I think this is completely clueless and it's usually Marxists who believe this obviously no understanding of economics.

It's completely clueless because even if everybody in society decided we wanted to make copper as money, even if we all decided to collectively take part in this hallucination or illusion, it would not make copper money. It would just make everybody who decides to take part in this hallucination poor. That's it. It would make copper miners rich. It would make all of the people who chose copper as money poor, and copper would not be money. It can't work because what happens is, because of the fact that the stockpots are so small. If you buy, even if you get the 1000 richest people in the world, all of the world's billionaires,

they get together and they all dump all of the money that they have, all the stocks, all the bonds, all the gold, all of the Bitcoin, everything that they own, they dump it, and they buy copper with it. What's going to happen? Price of copper is going to go up a lot, but what's going to stop copper miners from flooding the market with even more copper than what the billionaire has bought? Nothing.

They're going to dump all of that extra copper production. It's the price of copper is going to go up so you know there will be a lot more copper mining than all the other metals. A lot of, you know, nickel companies and gold miners are going to switch to focusing on copper. And then we're going to dump an enormous amount of copper on the market. The value of copper is going to crash. And the people who just chose copper as money are just going to end up with large warehouses of very cheap, rusting metal. So that's a brilliant description and that kind of pushes towards gold where the stocked flow ratio, I guess you would say is 1.5 to 2% like you mentioned earlier. That would be like the inverse of the stocked flow, that's the supply growth rate, so the stocked flows the

inverse is around 60. 60, got it. But let me push back on somebody who likes human psychology. Let me push back on the collective hallucination and the illusion. So that's for copper. But what about paper money? That, you know, that that's not, you can't smoke it. You can't eat it. It's just it's supposed to represent. It's supposed to just be the medium of exchange and

in that sense What role Does collective hallucination play in the effectiveness of money exactly zero? Because all of the paper money first of all there's never been an instance and again This is flies in the face of a lot of what a lot of people like to think about money. There's never been an instance where a government came out and said, all right, we're printing out these pieces of paper, it uses them as money. This one is worth 10 apples or use it for buying things. And here's the piece of paper. This

has never happened. They've always taken the out money, paper money, all of these things were always born out of fraud. Initially, it was a receipt for gold, and then they told you, well, you don't need the gold anyway, and you have to use this, and then if you don't use it, we throw you in jail. And then, so, first of all, you can't enforce this thing. So it's never really just happened. And it's never been hallucinated into existence. People can hallucinate this kind of nonsense

in writing textbooks and books and in academia. But in the real world, people don't hallucinate money. People thought they're very careful about what they put their money in. For people listening, we're going to have fun in this conversation. Because you're like, you're already said Marxist fraud hallucination just because we use these words doesn't mean they're true But they're fun to talk about so you you have a strong certainty about the way you talk which I think is fun

But allow me in my dumb self to push back to play devil's advocate and I'll actually ask you sometimes to play devil's advocate If possible because you're smarter than me and all this stuff. So we want the smartest devil devil's advocate possible And I'm certainly not that but anyway, so but nevertheless we are currently on the fiat standard so money does have value, paper money. And the reason it has values, because we believe it has value. To what degree, if we put the hallucination word aside, the belief that something

is worth value is actually value, and is the thing that helps money work because you're saying it's fraud and the belief is almost valueless but how much value can we quantify the value of the belief collective belief I should say like all economics is subjective I consider myself an Austrian school economist and the starting point of all Austrian economics is that all value is subjective. So obviously value only exists because humans choose to make the valuation. However, the economic reality of the way that money works

means that it's just a technology like all others. And so for me, when people say, well, if we hallucinate that this thing can be money, then it'll be money. If we can hallucinate bananas to be money, then it'll be money. For me, it's like saying, well, if we hallucinate that bananas can be spaceships, they'll be spaceships. I mean, you can call them spaceships if you want, but a banana is not going to get you to the moon. But nevertheless, that's true. So you're drawing a big distinction between physical reality and the space of belief. But it seems like so much power of human civilization, so much destruction, so much creativity, creation happens in our minds.

Absolutely. Everything does happen in the mind. You're not going to get to the moon, but you might still have a significant impact on human civilization if a lot of people believe a thing. True. But economic reality exists in a way in which your beliefs are rewarded when they match up with economic reality. And they're punished when they don't. So if you write a banana jump off a cliff thinking you're going to get to the moon, you know, that solves the problem of people thinking the bananas are spaceships by killing people who think that bananas are spaceships. And I think to go back to

your question on in terms of paper money. So yes, even though, you know, ignoring the the original sin of the creation of the yacht money and ignoring everything that happened before 1971, all right, well, here we are, people are using, well, it's not really paper money, we should say like, Fiat money is predominantly credit. So like, it's also digital currency.

So more than 90% of dollars are digital, less than 10% of dollars are physical. So it is a digital currency. And all over the world, all these governments are using digital currencies effectively with some physical manifestations in paper. But yet even within these currencies, it's still the same analysis and I discussed this in chapter 4 of the Bitcoin standard. You look at government monies, you see that the currencies that have held on to their value, the ones that have the biggest value, the ones that play the

biggest role in global trade, the ones that are used as currency reserves all over the world, are the ones that have the lowest supply growth rate, the ones that grow, whose central banks are the least inflationary. And on the other hand, the ones that who supplies more inflationary, similar to copper, end up failing. You look at Lebanon, Venezuela, and in pop-way. These are currencies who supply increases very quickly, and therefore their value collapses. Whereas the dollar, the Swiss Frank, the euro, the British pound, the Japanese yen, they increase at a much lower rate, in general, than these terrible currencies. And that's why all over the world, you see people are looking to get more dollars and more of these harder currencies than the easier ones. So I think this analysis of

the hardness of the money and the ease of money is Pretty well supported empirically. So like you said You're at least in part or in whole consider yourself an Austrian economist So you're perhaps a great person to ask about the basics. What is Austrian economics? What is Kenziean economics? How do you compare the two? What should people know?

Some interesting, what are interesting defining characteristics to you about these schools? Yeah. So Austrian economics, the way that I say it, Austrian economics is economics. It's, we. So Austrian economics, the way that I say it, Austrian economics is economics. We call it Austrian economics because economics has been hijacked by a bunch of frauds really. What people who are wrong. Well, it's much worse than wrong by people who are just essentially propagandists for inflation. Right. So it's like your opinion man. Well, that's also like your opinion, man. Yeah, but you asked.

That's true. Well, I also talked to Paul Krugman in this podcast. So he's, the O speaks enough, but he is one of the people that is perhaps most harshly criticized by folks in Austrian economics perspective and vice versa, which is a fascinating tension. Yeah, he's done a great job as an actor who plays an economist on TV and the internet.

So anyway, now tell me what you really think. No, but so the basics of what is Austrian economics? What is the, what perspectives are taken in the world? Yeah, so I mean Austrian economics really is the continuation of tradition that it goes back to the ancient Greeks of studying economics. Historically, it's really just economics that has evolved over time and the establishment of the Austrian school, per se, came in 1871, 150 years ago, when Karl Manger, the father of the school, wrote a book called

Principles of Economics, and essentially invented marginal analysis, which is a big deal in economics. Marginal analysis is the idea that in economics, individuals carry out decisions at the margin, that it's when you make choice, you're not making a, for instance, if you're making a choice between When you make choice, you're not making a, for instance, if you're making a choice between, what should I spend my money on? You're not making a choice whether it is this thing is object A or B, which one is more valuable for me in general, which one is more valuable for me for the rest of my life. You're choosing about the next unit right now at this point, at this stage. And if you analyze economic decision making at the margin, it makes a lot more sense. And you can understand why people decide and make the decisions that they do. Whereas if you don't apply marginal analysis, things don't make sense. The key thing that marginal

analysis helps us solve is what is called the water diamond paradox. So you will die without water. We all need water. And yet water is dirt cheap. Whereas diamonds are extremely superfluous. Nobody needs them. Nobody is going to live or die because they have a diamond. And yet they're extremely expensive. So why is it that as human beings we pay, maybe say, a dollar a liter for water. Whereas we pay thousands of dollars for a few grams of diamonds.

Why is this the case? Do we value water less than diamond? And the answer is no, but at the margin where we are right now, you live in a place where water is very abundant because cities are only built in places where water is abundant. And you're only making a choice about the next unit of water. And so water is extremely abundant and you're choosing about whether to spend the next unit of money on water. The valuation that you give to water, given that you have a lot of water at home, and

that you live in a place that has abundant water, is pretty low to the marginal unit. But it's very high for water overall. So if I asked you, how much would you spend for water in general? How much would you pay for water for all of your life? It would be a lot higher than diamonds. If I told you you can only have water or diamonds for the rest of your life, you choose water, obviously. But nobody's ever had to make that choice. You only make your choices at the margin.

So at the margin where we are, modern civilization, we have an abundance of water, that's why we have civilization, and diamonds are very rare and scarce. And people are only buying, you know, you buy your first diamond when you're gonna get married, you give it to your wife, and that's gonna be the first few grams of diamond that she's ever going to hold. I'm giving my wife water. Smart move. You should definitely give her bitcoins instead of diamonds. I tell my wife, I occasionally remind her of what we, how many bitcoins we could have had if I bought her bitcoins with the price of the diamond ring.

What's the downside of, by the way, diamonds for, from the analysis of like gold and so on. Ah, it's a great question. Um, arguably diamonds are scam. Uh, because they became popular as a thing in, uh, marriage after gold was banned, after gold ownership was banned in the US in the 1930s and in many places around the world. So before that, you'd give gold. And the reason you'd give gold in a dowry in wedding is because it wasn't just that it's pretty and shiny, it's because it's money. So you die, your wife can take the gold and she can live off of it. It's a demonstration that you're giving or something valuable.

And that's because nobody can make a lot more gold. It has the highest stock flow ratio. But then they banned gold ownership, or they allowed people to only own very tiny quantities of gold. And that's when the diamond industry stepped in and marketed diamonds as the thing that you need to give. But the problem with it is, of course, that diamonds aren't like gold. They're not very hard to make more of.

And the reason we have scarcity in diamonds is really artificial. There's effectively a monopoly of diamond producers. They restrict the supply. And it's a pretty dirty business. And the way that they do it is, all of the talk about blood diamonds is a way for them to ensure their monopoly. So, if you're part of the monopoly of diamond producers, then it doesn't matter how many people get killed, producing your diamonds. If you're out of the monopoly, then human rights organizations descend on you

and call for shutting you down for selling blood diamonds. And they're also restricting the production of artificial diamonds. This is the other thing. You can make artificial diamond. You can't make artificial gold. So they restrict the production of artificial diamond and they try and insist that you shouldn't take artificial diamonds, but they're indistinguishable from real diamonds.

So it's an artificial scarcity. And I think there's going to come a point at some point that this monopoly is going to break. And a lot of people are going to be left with essentially highly devalued jewelry. I'm going to take this segment of the podcast when I'm getting married and when it's funded and then instead you're getting water or Bitcoin. Yes, water and Bitcoin is all you need.

So marginal analysis. Yes. And the margin is the thing that allows you to most accurately capture human nature, the actual day-to-day decisions that we humans make. Yeah, that's really revolutionized economics, so 1870. And that's, that was Manger's work. And then he had a student, a Eugene Bombayer, who developed capital theory, and then he had a student, Ludwig von Mises, who is arguably the most important economist ever, and he developed theory of money, and he wrote a book in 1912 called The Theory of Money and Credit, and then in the 40s, he wrote

a human action, which is a big treatise on economics. And I think this is the correct tradition of economics. And before World War I, this was just known as economics. And then after what happened in World War I, and I discussed this in detail in the Fiat standard, is that the Bank of England essentially went off gold and tried to pass off their own credit as being as good as gold in order to finance the war. And incidentally here, this is part of the history that is not discussed often. This is presented as an innovation. Later on, they needed essentially a propaganda school that would justify what they did.

And later on, it's presented as, oh, hey, we realized that gold was not good. And now look, we've built this thing that is better than goldware. Now the government can just print money whenever it wants. And now gold money is not an issue anymore, which is extremely idiotic because the whole point of money is that it's not easy to make. If it's easy to make, it's not money anymore. It's just destroying the entire function of money. And we've seen that happen extensively in the 20th century after countries went off the gold standard. So essentially, Keynesian economics is just inflation uphologia.

It's just propaganda to justify inflationism. And it's profoundly nonsensical. It's built on the idea that if you just make more money, you can stimulate economic production. And of course, this is very self-serving to the central banks and to the banks and to the governments who promote this nonsense. And this is also very pervasive.

If you've had them as fortunate of studying at a university over the last century, you were taught Keynesian garbage economics. You were taught that if there is a problem in the economy, the way to fix it is that the government prints money, the government lowers the interest rate, and then that leads to more economic production, which is completely nonsensical. So you're, again, for the listener, you're using strong words and I'll push back just to find to please devil devil's advocate to hopefully one day arrive at the truth. So

just because it's in the interest of the central banks and the government the interests and the models of cancine economics and the government are aligned doesn't mean they're wrong. So let's give them a chance. So the conventional wisdom perhaps economics wisdom is that inflation is good in moderation as it encourages spending but too much is bad because you know to completely devalues destroy people's savings. So a little bit of inflation is good to stimulate spending. And I mean, I suppose this is one of the things that's supported by

a Keynesian economics. Why is that? This is basically the whole point of Keynesian economics. Just try and find an endless array of explanations to explain why inflation is a good thing. Well, you could, the chicken and egg. So that's, that's the cynical take. Yeah. This is a propaganda machine to sell the government's narrative. The less cynical take is this, a bunch of economists will tell it who, um, who figured out this thing and it happens to be good for banks and governments, just because it's good for them doesn't mean. And it justifies the existence of government and your basic, I don't think it's your basic assumption, but a foundational principle of your thought is that a lot of government

is not a good thing. Your first gut instinct, government bad. Like I mentioned, I live next door to Michael Malice, who probably beats you on the intensity and how quickly he says, government bad. So there's a potential argument for government good. Some government is good, maybe a lot of government is good, maybe we need a lot of centralized management for resource allocation and so on because we humans specialize, we're too busy and so on. So there is an argument for that that exists. You probably disagree with any possible

argument in that side, but anyway, so why is that idea of Ken's in economics wrong? I'm going to focus on the money idea, the idea that a little bit of inflation is good. The idea here, I mean, the criticism is that without inflation, people wouldn't spend and then the economy would come to a grinding halt. And that's nonsensical because people spend not because they want to keep this magical monster called the economy going.

People spend because they need to consume, because that's how we live, that's how we survive. You need to eat, you need shelter, you need clothes to keep you warm. And as technology advances, the capabilities of the things that we can do with our time increases. And so we want to buy more things.

So people buy things because people want to consume. There's a limitless desire to consume. There's no shortage of reasons for people to consume, you know, that there's no shortage of reasons for people to consume, whether it's food or ferrari's or private jets. People just always want to buy more. Can I interrupt just really quick, what about the fear, about the uncertainty of the future, where they might want to buy things, but they're really afraid because it seems like there's a lot like a pandemic going on or whatever it is.

That's good. So fear of uncertainty is good. Yeah, but can you have too much fear? No, here's the thing. What I was saying is I was making the point that we don't need to be motivated to consume. We have the insatiable desire to consume. Everybody would like to have more of all kinds of things. Everybody would like to have a bigger house.

Well, not everybody, some people have a big enough house, but everybody would like a house. Everybody would like a car, jet, all kinds of things, electronics, machines. So we don't need a desire to consume. But of course, the limit on how much we consume is opportunity cost. Why don't you buy a Ferrari? Well, because that's really expensive and it would mean that, you know, well, maybe you do have a Ferrari, but I mean, most people

don't buy a Ferrari because it's too expensive. They don't, they can't afford it. They'd have to work too hard to get it. And if they do get it, it might mean that they can't afford their house anymore. So we have to economize. That's a good thing. And we have to also think of the future. And so humans consume, that we don't need more motivation to consume. We have to deal with the economic reality of the things that limit us from consuming more. So what Keynesians present is that when there is a problem in the economy, like there

was after World War I, the problem is always caused by the inflation. And what the Keynesian Huxters do is that they look at the consequences of inflation and blame it on people not spending enough. When people are doing the rational thing, the money is, so there was inflation, cause the unsustainable boom, it caused the recession, and now a lot of people lost their jobs, and they don't have enough money to go out and spend frivolously, so they save for the future, the future is uncertain. That's a good thing, That's how you fix things.

You begin the recovery, well, you'd lost some wealth, so you spend less. If your business goes bust, if you lose your job, it's natural and smart. Did you stop spending money on the frivolous thing that you used to spend? And you save it for the future, and you invest in something else, you get a new job.

And then once you've recovered, you start spending more. This is this is very sane and very good and it's the way to recovery. But essentially the Keynesians have used this as a justification for more inflation. Because inflation is an addiction. Once the government gets down the path of spending money to solve its problems, then every problem looks like it can be solved by more inflation. And so this is where Keynes and economics comes in. And of course, the Keynes and economics is based on the work of Keynes which came in the 1930s. And this is the key point, like it's portrayed in the textbook as if it's just this scientific breakthrough that you know somebody in the 1930s this genius came about and realized that oh we don't actually need gold, we don't need hard money, we can actually just print all the money and in reality of course it was

just the very thin flimsy idiotic justification for what governments were already doing for 20 years. They'd already gone off the gold standard and they'd gone through 20 years in which they were lying to their population, telling their population were still on a gold standard, but you know, that our problems caused by various random things. But don't worry, we're going to be going back on the gold standard 20 years later, after they went off the gold standard, they come up with this justification for why, oh, actually, the gold standard was bad. And, and this is a really pernicious thing about it is the problems that were caused by us going off the gold standard, where caused by the gold standard. And we're going to fix them by going off the gold standard even more. Just because government is lying in a shady and it does these kinds of things, doesn't mean candy and economics is wrong. So just because I

wanted to separate a few things you said, it could very well be very wrong. And they could indeed be hucksters. All of these colorful, such colorful language. I love you deeply for this. This is fun. Yeah, but I mean, you know, it's like like somebody like Krugman doesn't use this kind of language when discussing Austrians. It's just that when actors like him use it, it's presented as if it is legitimate because he's part of the major shows.

So the case they make, and the criticism Kenzians make of Austrian economics, and the case to make for Ken Zien economics is based on empirical evidence. So Austrian economists are pying the sky theorists about how human nature works and it's just all theory. And just like you said, Ken Zien economics kind of sell it as a science data driven science. And so where's the data, bro? And the, so one way of saying it is, how do you know if we get rid of inflation?

How do you know if we get rid of central banks, if we push towards that direction, we will have a better world, a better functioning economy, better functioning markets, better functioning society. This is another inaccurate way in which they present the economics. They present it as if it's just theory and the data doesn't matter, but that's not the case. What the Austrian say is that without guiding theory, data is mute, data is dumb, data can't say anything. So theory first, and then you have to have models to provide context for interpretation

of data. And to sign of just how little self-awareness they have that they think that they're just being led by the data when they're being led by Keynes's moronic theories. And they use the data to justify those theories and to stick by them. And in fact, they are the ones whose theories cannot be refuted because it's just government mandated religion. So according to Keynes's nonsense, you know, so the way that the whole thing, the way that they justify the inflationism is this, and I'm just using this to give an example of what you're talking about in terms of theory, the way they justify the inflationism to tie

it back to the original point, they justify the, all right, we need money to spend, and then the level of spending in the economy is what determines the state of the economy. And I have taught macroeconomics at university level for a while. So I know I know Keynesian nonsense better than most Keynesian is no Austrians, if not all of them, I guarantee you. So the way they see it is the level of spending in the economy is what determines the state of the economy. There's a level of output and there's a level of spending.

So there's like the factories on the one side that are turning out goods and those goods have a certain quantity and value, market value, and it's completely nonsensical of course because how can the value of the goods produce be different from the value of the spending? But let's put that aside for a second. So the amount of spending that happens in the economy determines the state of the economy. If the value of the production, which they call Y, is higher than the aggregate expenditure. So this is the production and the aggregate expenditure is lower. Then we don't have enough spending to buy all the goods.

And then that causes a recession. The factories start laying off workers. And then the laid off workers start spending less. And then that leads to aggregate expenditure dropping even further. And so it's a vicious cycle where the economy gets into recession. And the only way out is for Keynes' banks, their buddies and government buddies, to print a lot of money to give to themselves. And then that will... That's one interpreter. But to print more money to increase the expenditure to match the size level of alt. Sounds pretty good to me.

I'm sold. All right. But even though you're saying Huxters, so yes, I just, you know, the way I love you very much, but like just for people who are listening, I think it's I love the way you talk and it's great. It keeps doing it. But just for context, I don't know anything that involves human nature deserves this level of certainty. I, at least my position, is that we don't know what the hell we're doing on basically

anything. Perhaps. But I mean, there's a lot, like certainty can get us in trouble, it's my worry. I don't know much about economics, I don't even know, you know, financial systems, monetary systems, but I just seen us get in trouble with human psychology, certainty, certainty of ideologies in general. You mentioned Marxism and so on. I came from the Soviet Union. There's a lot of people that are very certain throughout the history of the 20th century that communism is the utopia that humanity should strive for.

So I'm nervous around certain. I could be wrong, but you know, you're asking me for my opinion. Yes, yes. Sorry. So it's that little bit of a caveat. So to go back to the idea, then on the other hand, you have the level of, if the, you know, the other situation is when the level of spending is higher than the amount of aggregate output. In that situation, you have too much spending, so therefore what ends up happening is inflation. So according to the Keynesian worldview, this is really important because this is a way

that I'm going to get to your point about empirical data and to show you why they're not correct. Yeah, they're not correct about what they say about empirical data and to show you why they're not correct. They're not correct about what they say about empirical data. So then what this means is that there's a level of output and there's a level of aggregate expenditure. The aggregate expenditure can either be higher or lower than the output or equal to it. If it's higher, we get inflation. If it's lower, we get recessions. Okay. So is there any universe in this model? Is there any post-essential universe in which you can have both inflation and a recession? According to the Keynesian model, you can't, right? Because aggregate expenditure cannot be both higher and lower than output. So therefore, if you were truly being an empirical person, if you were looking at evidence and trying to analyze data,

you'd look at this and say, one example, you just need one example of high inflation and high unemployment to refute this entire model, right? And of course, the world is full of examples of high inflation and high unemployment. And that's what happened in the 19th, and of course, you know, they ignored it and when it happens in poor countries because, you know, poor countries don't really matter, but then in the 1970s that happened in the US and in the Western economies and the most advanced industrial economies.

So historically, before then, you had all these Keynesian central bankers talking about this model and saying, well, aggregate expenditures too low now, and that's why we have unemployment, so we need to print more money. And then they print more money, inflation goes up, but also unemployment goes up. Because this model is broken. That's not how the world works. That's not the level of aggregate spending in the economy is not a lever with which you can control inflation and unemployment. So what would a scientist

do? What would a non-huxter do in this case? Admit the theories wrong and find another way to reformulate it. Have the Keynesians done that? No. Still the same garbage in the textbook that is being taught until today. So is it possible to have a non-Keynesian motto or one that still supports moderating and moderating inflation as good for the economy? I mean, since the 1970s, since this has happened, yeah. And this is what basically most fiat economists

as I like to call them, essentially anybody at a university financed by governments, which is financed by central banks, which is financed by fiat. I will talk about that. Yes. The effect of fiat money on our life as you write about in your book, fiat standard,

one of them is education. I'm sure we'll disagree there too. Not smart enough to disagree, but I'll disagree anyway. So yes, a whole bunch of other models came up, but basically it's, I mean, it's such an example of motivated reasoning, like anybody who's got a familiarity with the scientific method or who's got an engineering background who comes into economics immediately has a lot of red flags. And I remember when I used to teach macroeconomics, I used to teach, you know, introductory

macroeconomics, and it's a course that would be taken by econ majors as well as engineers. A lot of engineers would take it as an elective. And every time I'd explain, and I would just teach the Keynesian basic stuff, and every time I'd explain it, there's always that smart engineering kid who just looks at me and says,

sir, this doesn't make any sense because this and this and that. And I'm always like, you get it. Exactly, you're correct. Because if you have any kind of I'm always like, you get it. Exactly. You're correct. Because if you have any kind of shred of scientific thinking you see that this is all motivated reasoning. Like the answer is government needs to print money. And here's a whole bunch of models brought up by people for why government printing money is good. And the reason they're coming up to this conclusion is

that you only get funded if you come up with this conclusion If you come up with a conclusion that we need to Shut down the central bank. You don't get funded by the central bank You don't get published in the journals. You don't get a job at the prestigious universities You don't get quoted by a fiat publications like the New York Times and CNN. They don't invite you on as an expert Well, that's a fundamental flaw with a lot of institutions we have today Humong and throughout human history. Let me zoom out for just a second to the big question. What is economics in general? What's the goal? You said there's a bunch of models. Is any any economists basically trying to throw a bunch of models about human behavior on the table

and try to generalize it to the global scale. So both dance between micro macro somehow in order to determine public policy and explain the past, predict the future, prescribe policies that can control the future, those kinds of things. This is the big basic ridiculous question of what is economics? Economics is the study, the way the Austrians it, is the study of how humans make choices under the condition of scarcity. We begin with the starting point of economics as the fact that scarcity exists. And why does scarcity exist? Well, because it's easier to want things than it is to make them. It's much easier to want a Ferrari than it is to make one. And so because it's, you know, we have once and we have limited means to meet those ones, we need to economize.

It's a permanent marker of the human condition. We are always economizing at all times. And so how people make those decisions under the conditions of scarcity is what economists study. So to go back to your point on empiricism in Austrian school, so it isn't that the Austrians don't believe in data. On the contrary, it's that theory has to inform data. And in fact, if you think about it, as the example of the stagflation of the 1970 shows, if you have stagflation, that just completely refutes the Keynesian model. The Austrian way of thinking, which is think from first principles, understand how the

world actually works, think about how humans act, and understand that economics is really all about human action. So it's not about aggregates of goods. This is really the key distinction in terms of methodology. For the Keynesians, it's physics envy. They look at the market economy, that it could individuals in the market economy, and they think that they can understand the market economy by looking at aggregates. This is really the key point of what I think makes the certain branch of economics pseudoscientific is the introduction of aggregates. This is really the key point of what I think makes the certain branch of economics pseudoscientific is the introduction of aggregates. When you introduce those aggregates, you know,

how much a production takes place, how many people are unemployed, the percentage of the inflation rate, and then you think that you can establish scientific relationship between those aggregates. And you think that you can establish scientific relationship between those aggregates. It's purely physics envy. You know, in physics, for instance, or in chemistry, you put, let's say, a container with contains a gas. And you have the ideal gas law, PV equals to NRT, calculate the pressure, calculate the volume, and then the temperature. If you have the pressure and volume, you can calculate

the temperature because you have the N-art constants. So there's a clear relationship that has been demonstrated in a laboratory and that we can do it right now, we can measure it, and we can see it, and it's continuous to hold. And all it takes is one scientist to show that this relationship does not hold, to do an experiment that shows this is not hold, and it stops being a law of chemistry. And it's broken. Whereas in economics, what they've done is they've copied the superficial shape of this without any of the scientific rigor that was used to build it. There's no experiments. You can't experiment on economies.

We don't have the ability to establish laws. And all the laws that we establish are just models that get people published and get them on the media to say, my model says we need to print more money. But it's never subject to actual scientific scrutiny if it were, they would all be rejected in 15 minutes because the world is full of examples that contradict them. Was it possible to do scientific scrutiny when it's human nature, when you can't, when

there's a nearly infinite number of variables and you can't control them? So what's the best thing you could possibly do? You do thought experiments. But the problem with thought experiments, you know Freud thinks everybody wants to have sex with their mother Is the right problem with Freud. I don't know maybe he's right. Well, obviously I'm joking on that front but the Freud isn't probably under the canes Well, no, I think there's power to the thought experiment just like Einstein, you know, a lot of general relativity special relativity that That's a thought experiment it originates in a thought experiment. Now is it true?

You know in nice thing about physics you can't eventually have experiment of validation the downside of economics Is you really can't have experimental, like definitive experimental scientific rigor of validation of a theory. So, the thought experiment is just a thought experiment. Using your intuition, it's the power of reasoning together as a human nature. And that's why economics cannot make the claims that physics can make. So, with physics, you can predict that if you get this gas, at this pressure, at this volume, the temperature will be that much. And you can make that prediction and test it a million times and you'll always get the precisely correct answer.

With economics, we can't make quantitative predictions. But still, on Twitter and even today, you're very certain about the statements you're making. Yeah, but I don't make quantitatively certain statements. That's the thing. In economics, we don't make quantitative predictions. We cannot do that because we don't have experiments. But we can understand how the world actually works with humility. This is really the key difference. The Keynesians think they just want to copy the methods of physics. And then that's just going to give them the certainty of the results of physics,

which is like me saying, I'm just going to put a red blanket on my back and jump from the fourth floor because I'm Superman. Well, it's not the red blanket that's going to put a red blanket on my back and jump from the fourth floor because I'm Superman. Well, it's not the red blanket that's going to make me Superman. There's a lot more to it. So humility manifests itself in economics as the belief in a free market, meaning like, I can't do centralized control on this thing. We're going to minimize the friction of the free exchange of goods.

So Austrian economics puts priority in the market. Yes. You could arrive at it through two paths. The more practical path, which most scientific minded people arrive at, I came from an engineering background. So I initially had this idea that what is lacking in economics is math, math, and math. We need to have better math models.

We need to get all those tools from engineering, apply them to economics, and then we'll be able to plan the world economy and make it work better. And then you start actually trying to solve problems, trying to actually calculate them and you realize nobody can have that ability, because the difference ultimately comes down to the fact we can't have experiments and the reason we can't have experiments is that you can experiment on particles of a gas.

You can experiment on human beings and entire economies and because particles of a gas are just dumb matter and so you know you kick matter in a certain way, you can calculate exactly how much is going to fly. Human beings are much more complex. They have a will inside them. And this is really, this is the humility to understand that you are a human being and other people are also human being, just like you.

And that, every person wakes up every morning and they have a million things in their mind and million things they care about, a million things they want to do. And you will never be able to make the decisions for somebody else, let alone four millions of other people. So this is one path by which you arrive at the conclusion that free markets are better because you realize that all the people that think that they can centrally plan markets can't actually

do that, and that there's really nothing scientific about them except essentially the rituals they ape of the scientific process. And the other path, I think, that makes you arrive at the Austrian perspective, or the libertarian perspective, I should say, is simply the notion of individuals as having their own inalienable rights to decide what they want to do with themselves. I mean, the only way that you can give yourself the idea that you get to be planner is ultimately you think you're better than other people. You think your choice, your judgment overrides mine. And I don't think that's better than other people. You think your choice, your judgment overrides mine. And I don't think that's a defensible position. I think I'm in no position to want to force anybody ever.

I will never want to force anybody to do anything they don't want. The Keynesian perspective, the central planning perspective, is unlike physics, which is let's force a bunch of particles to sit in and laugh so that we can study them. In economics, you're forcing people to do things. You know, let's stop these people from doing this job because it's bad for the economy, and let's get them to do that job. Let's force them to pay this price. Let's tax them this much. Let's prevent them from using gold as money and force them to use our credit as money. So it has to rely on coercion. There's no central planning without coercion.

And coercion is a crime in my opinion. There's no way that it is justifiable morally or ethical formal politics from an ethical perspective. Your view is the, I mean, perhaps the broadly speaking of the libertarian view is coercion is the unethical Freedom is essential. What is what are the pros and cons of government intervention in the economy? So can you steel man? Can you provide pros? You just kind of provided arguments against is there any arguments to be made for government intervention for the role of government in society, speaking from a political or from an economics perspective, what is a positive role of government that you can imagine you can speak to?

I can repeat many other cases, but I don't find any of them compelling for the reason that I mentioned, which is that ultimately they all rely on putting a gun to somebody's head and using the threat of force. So that's for me, it can never be justifiable. Whatever the ends are, if the mean are violence and the threat of violence, then the ends aren't justified, everything that's good, governments will use as an excuse to justify coercion. So, you know, what do you like? You like motherhood and apple pie? Well, government needs to ensure that a motherhood works well and we need the government central planning of birth.

We need regulations on birth. For instance, we need regulations on how people give birth. We need to ban people from giving birth in traditional ways that have been tried for thousands of years. We need to force people to do things in the modern scientific way. Well, so what about things like that all of us use or infrastructure, for example, or education?

Or, well, the economy too, right? Can you make a case for the role of some large-scale centralized systems, whether it's government or not, that do this kind of management. I guess perhaps you could say this, the economies of scale argument that some things must exist at a very large scale, and therefore you would want political accountability of the people who manage them. This is kind of the argument that's given for infrastructure monopolies, for instance,

roads or electricity. Let's say we live in a country, we need one power plant, the bigger the power plant, the better off we will all be. And there's a natural monopoly in the power plant business. So we're going to have to have one power plant, and since it's only one power plant, then we can't just let anybody own it because then they're going to make it too expensive. So we need to have the government own it. So it can make it too expensive. And you don't find that case compelling. Not at all. I used to believe in it. I was pretty much a Keynesian when I first started my graduate studies at Columbia. And I don't find that compelling at all because I think all these examples that they mention of natural monopolies or economies of scale that can only fit at a scale of government.

It's always, you know, government bans people from opening power plants, and then there's only one power plant and they need to be in charge of it. But in reality, no, in reality, power plants can exist in all kinds of manners of scales of operation. And yes, of course, there are benefits to centralization in power plants in particular, because there's efficiency in generation. One big power plant is more efficient than 10 equivalent smaller power plants. But there's also inefficiencies in centralization, because the more centralized and the bigger the plant is,

the further away a lot of the population is going to be, so you're going to be losing a lot of the electricity and transmission. And you believe the free market is best in managing that dance, that balance of house centralization. Exactly. And if we do end up in a situation where there's one power plant for an area, If we do end up in a situation where there's one power plant for an area, then if the market ends up centralizing all of it into one power plant, I don't see that as a problem. There are places, there's a small town with only one barber shop. Is that a catastrophe?

No, because they don't need two barber shops. Now if that barber shop started to take advantage of people, started to charge higher price, well, then that's just an opportunity for others to step in and put them in their place. And that's the same thing with power plants, it's the same thing with everything. Ultimately, I think the key thing is this, from the central planning perspective, they'll present you the problem as it is and they'll tell you, well, this is bad. So the fix, you know, and what we can do is better. So let's stop what's bad and do what is better. Two problems here. Usually the reason that the thing is bad in the first place is because it is a government monopoly,

it's because of government invention. But the second thing is that this notion that we could just pass a law and fix what's wrong and make it better is it ignores the fundamental underlying reality, which is that what you're doing is you're offering only one way for this problem to be solved and making all other solutions practically illegal. You're taking taxpayer money, you're putting guns to people's heads to take their money to use it to build, say, this one solution for a power plant, but you're putting guns to people's heads to take their money to use it to build say this one solution for a power plant, but you're preventing the free market process from providing us with other alternatives. Well, so you phrased it from that perspective, but in theory, there is a feedback,

accountability mechanism for the solution that you propose and enforce by, as you're saying, placing a gun to people's head, you're accountable for that choice, for the quality of that solution by being voted out if the solution is actually bad. So it's just a different selection mechanism. And I think I personally believe it is a selection mechanism that has worked in the past. It just often does not work, and nearly as well as a free market.

The question is, are there domains in which the free market gets itself into trouble? This theoretical view is that the point of a free market is if there's trouble, that's a signal and it will respond to that signal, and it will respond appropriately to make you try to maximize happiness. The question is, is there a local optimer that free markets get stuck in any governments to represent the broader scale of the people to get inside of that? I think the fundamental problem here is the idea that there is a feedback mechanism when there is coercion in one party, when one party can employ coercion and the other one cannot. So in other words, I'm going to put a gun to your head. I'm going to take your money and I'm going

to use it to buy more guns for me to put against your head. But somehow you're going to put a paper in a box and that's going to deactivate my guns. Well, love requires a push and pull, they're a little bit of tension, a little spice in relationship. I think, yeah, I mean, a little gun to the head, no, it's not good luck to anybody who's gonna be dating you

if you think you're putting a gun to people's head as comparable to a relationship. All jokes, but yes, I mean, the people don't often think of it as gun to the as government and the military as gun to the head But that is sort of a libertarian perspective because ultimately when you you know turtles all the way down and at the bottom of those guns Yeah, so bottom if you don't want to pay if you don't want to you know

All right, I don't want to be part of your power plant. I want to get my own generator I don't want to do it and I don't want to pay, if you don't want to, you know, all right, I don't want to be part of your power plant I want to get my own generator. I don't want to do it. I don't want to pay for it. I'll go to jail. You can't not pay for it. That's really a symmetry which the market doesn't have which is why in my opinion It's not as if you know, I'm being stubborn and stuck on the idea that I want a market and that the government can't work It's presented as if you know, we're choosing between two different machines You know, should we use an Apple or a PC? And I'm just constantly choosing one of them and saying that the other one can't work.

It's not equivalent. It's not two machines. We're comparing between a machine and a gun to the head. We're comparing between a situation in which anybody, anywhere, is free to provide the service or the good, and anybody anywhere is free to buy it from them or reject to buy it from them. So, anyone can build a power plant, anyone can succeed that if anybody can fail at it, anybody can build it in a way that I can choose to take part in or not take part in. I can build my own. So, we have a situation in which 10 million people, let's say, they each can freely choose to provide the good or to buy the good.

That cannot be considered an alternative on an equal footing to a situation where one person or one entity gets to decide for everybody and those who disagree go to jail. So the problem is that the alternative to governments is other large successful entities that have humans in them and human nature such that there's corruption manipulation and so on. I think free market depends on the honest communication of information as widely as possible so people can make great rational decisions but sort of my fear is that like the proposes that in general,

there's manipulation, whether it's government, whether it's companies, they're going to manipulate, they're going to try to do propaganda, they're going to try to manipulate you, the CVU, shut down competition by playing games, human games of different kinds. And sometimes even meaning well, it's not like everybody thinks they're doing good

and they're actually doing evil. So how do we prevent the worst of human nature coming out in a free market as well? By not giving the worst of human nature, I'm monopoly on violence in the institution of governments. That little inkling of coercion, that little bit of asymmetry creates a gigantic ripple effect of asymmetry in your view.

Yes, and it ends up just being the place where corporations, individuals, free markets, they can't chorus without the resort to government. So you think about all the examples of corporations doing bad things. It's always because they have certain privileges from governments. Because, you know, as it exists, you know, Coca-Cola, McDonald's, all of these giant corporations, they can't do anything to me without government. They can't take any of my money and they can't force me to buy their stuff. And so, it doesn't matter to me.

So if Coca-Cola is corrupted, that's a problem for Coca-Cola customers. That's a problem for Coca-Cola shareholders. That's a problem for anybody who deals with Coca-Cola, but as somebody who doesn't drink their stuff and isn't a shareholder, I have absolutely no interest in what happens. They could all go bust tomorrow and I don't care. I don't buy their product and I'm not a shareholder. In this situation where you choose to voluntarily associate with people and you only give your money

to people you want to voluntarily give the money to, so you either buy their product or invest in their production. In that situation, the only way that a company can get my money is if they build the product that I value or if they convince me that they are Going to use it in a way that's profitable and they may be they might that I may be wrong You know, I may invest in a company that fails or I may invest in a company that is turns out to be fraudulent, but that's my fault, you know, and

It's it's it's my fault that I gave them my money and then it turned out to be scoundrels. But it's a totally different problem when we make it mandatory. You know, it's violence. It's a crime to put a gun to my head and force me to subsidize companies and force me to come at certain conclusions. Do you find an interesting distinction

between Michael Malas, between anarchism and libertarianism? So this particular use of violence, this like last resort, this policing force that libertarianism is okay with, and anarchism is not okay with. So basically, nation states that keep you safe from the worst of war. I think to be more accurate the distinctions between anarchism and monarchism. I think libertarianism is kind of a vague term that can encompass both. He's a lot of things, okay.

Yeah, but on the Karl Marx to Michael Malis spectrum, where do you? No, I'm Phil anarchist. You're Phil anarchist. Yeah, Phil anarchist. I mean, I don't find any justification for the use of force. And I think recently perhaps I've maybe I'm getting old,

maybe I'm getting senile, maybe I'm getting wise. Who knows? But I'm beginning to become more sympathetic to monarchy. So I'm an anarchist, monarchy. Which, where does that kings?, monarchy, which is that King's role. Oh monarchy. Yeah. And I think, wait, are you joking or not?

No, I'm not joking. And I think, I mean, I think, you know, morally and intellectually, I'm an anarchist, but it's what the reality is, we find ourselves in a world in which a lot of people are not. And the question is, what is the thing that is going to provide you with more freedom? And I think I'm recently coming around to the idea that monarchy might be the best way to provide people with a large amount of freedom because to have a free society, you need a majority, perhaps, or a plurality of people to have a very strong understanding of libertarian ideas, to have a low time preference, to have a free society. You know, when a respiratory illness comes along, unfortunately, you know, the last couple of years showed that we, the vast majority of people who are going to freak out and

lose their mind and support whatever their stupid TV tells them to support. And, you know, there's always a current thing. And the media is always telling you that we need this current thing as an excuse for more and more government power and more and more government coercion. What's the role of kings and queens in that case of a Marrake? This is what's the role of a leader. I think there might be a case that, so as I was saying, you need the majority of the population to get together and decide nope whatever is the case you know the answer is voluntary no matter how bad the disease is it doesn't justify forcing people to stay home you want to stay home stay

home you want to wear a mask take a vaccine do whatever you want but you can't force others to do that so you need a majority of the people to strongly believe in this principle in order to get it in a democracy. Whereas in a monarchy, you just need the king to get it. And I think the reason kings are more likely to get it is that kings have a low time preference where they think about things for many generations, whereas in a democratic system, your president is likely only going to be there for four years or eight years or 10 years or five years or whatever it is. So the only way that, you know,

all humans are self-interested. So the only way that your president in a democracy can provide for themselves is to maximize the amount of exploitation that they can do of the population during their brief stint. And then when he's out, you get a new one, and then that one wants to start all over again. So every four years, you get a new robber.

With monarchy, you sign up for a multi-generational subscription to the same family. And when they have the security of knowing that, you know, his great grandson is going to be taking money from your great grandson, suddenly his interest in yours align, because they both want your great grandson to be prosperous and have enough money for his great grandson to take. It's a market with the tiny government. So anything required to really provide for free market, so for maximizing individual freedom and the freedom of the economy. Yeah.

And if I were a king, which is highly unlikely to ever happen, but I think, you know, if you look historically, the densities that have succeeded at lasting for a long time, the key thing that they managed to do is to basically be libertarian. The key to being a good king is to just leave people alone, let them do whatever they want. Don't rob them too much or rob them as little as possible or maybe even don't rob them. And as a king, use your power only to punish people who aggress against others. Don't use your power to enrich yourself and enrich your friends. And that's really, like, if you look at smart kings,

this is what they do, this is what they teach their children. And the cycle of kingdoms is that, you know, the first king understands this, builds the empire, and the first couple of generations, they get this, and the society is free, the economy is free. And because of that, you know, there's peace and prosperity, get this and the society is free, the economy is free. And because of that, there's peace and prosperity. But then over time, the next generation of kids become a lot more high-time preference.

They haven't worked hard, they don't understand the meaning of hard work. So they become more likely to engage in destructive behavior. So raise taxes, pass laws that require people to do things, even when they're not hurting anybody. And that ends up basically eventually destroying the kingdom. Of course, power corrupts. Yeah. So you have to kind of create human institutions that prevent you as a king or any kind of leader from

from expand. So going back on the original promises and the purposes of your position. And then distracting using tools of technology and communication to distract the populace while you expand the power. Exactly. All right. You wrote the Fiat Standard. I think we danced around it quite a bit, but I don't know if we actually defined it. So what does Fiat money? What is the history of how it came to be? The fascinating history of the birth of the Fiat monetary system is something that really only got uncovered in 2017.

This is extremely, extremely interesting. In 1914, Britain joined World War I, and if you remember your history books, it's famous that this was called the August Bank Holiday. It was just going to be a few weeks where the British troops were going to go and kick European ass and come back, try Humphunth, and most European countries believe that. But then the war kept on dragging on. And of course, to finance the war, the government, this is what they used to do under the gold standard governments, would issue bonds. So you'd issue the bonds, people would buy the bonds, the money would be used to finance the military, and then the government would pay off the bond over the next five or ten

or twenty years. So for World War I, the British government, the British Treasury issued bonds for financing the war, and this only came to light in 2017. Only a third of the bonds were actually subscribed, so people, British people, and this is perhaps the greatest thing that they've ever done, they decided fighting a war in Europe is just not my ideal way of investing my capital It's a stupid thing. Why should I go and fight because the Austrians and the Germans and the Serbians are At each other's throats. I'd rather invest in something else

So they only bought a third of the bond issue and then what and then the Estonishing thing that happened which really set the tone for the next century of war, murder, canjiness, theft, and inflation, was that the Bank of England went and got two of the high-ranking officials in the Bank of England to buy the other remaining outstanding two-third of the bonds under their own name, with a line of credit from the Bank of England, so it wasn't their own money. But they took money essentially from the Bank of England, bought two-thirds of the bonds that financed the war. And that was how England was able to keep going into the war. So that's essentially what they did is what we today know as quantitative

easing. Back then, they just got, they printed money from the bank of England or credit, printed credit, gave it to those two employees, they bought the bonds, the government could fight the war. Sounds like it's a nice idea. And Keynes, of course, being a hawkster himself, he himself said, this was, he wrote a letter to the bank of England that was uncovered recently, and he said, I congratulate you on this masterly manipulation. I quoted in the book, masterly manipulation, is what he called it, that they basically managed to buy the bonds using the money of the government. And of course, he never had an idea of how economics works because he never could ask the question of, okay, and then what? All right, so we just printed money to buy two thirds of these government bonds.

What's going to happen next? You know, what could go wrong? Not a question can you just ask themselves? Because, you know, their jobs depend on not thinking about what's going to go wrong. So a quick question about war and somebody has been nonstop reading, thinking about the Wars of the 20th century and thinking that most of those wars were unjust, unethical, and destructive. How else do you find, how would you finance a war? So, ideally you don't.

No, but I mean, of course, there are sometimes, you know, you want to fight for self-defense. Yeah, you finance it, taxation or bonds. So the people really need to want to warn not just with their voices, their thoughts, their tweets, their actual financial vest. Put up the bullets and the cost of the bullets and the bodies. So their life and their financial well-being. That's how it wasn't that the gold standard mostly, because under the gold standard, the government couldn't print gold.

And so, they had a budget, they had a certain amount of gold, and that wasn't just, you know, that they couldn't infinitely increase it. They couldn't tax their population at will, and it's very difficult to take money from people, you know, go knock indoors and search everybody's homes, see where they're hiding their gold. It's very difficult to take money from people. You know, you go knock indoors and search everybody's homes, see where they're hiding their gold, it's very complicated. On the other hand, when he gave them paper money, which is what the case was in 1914, you could take their wealth just by printing the money.

And that's what changed everything when it comes to war. That's why the 20th century was the century of total war, because under the gold standard, governments fought until they ran out of their own gold. Under the fiat standard, with paper money, with credit money, governments fought until they ran out of liquid wealth in the hands of all of their citizens. So let's find flaws in this thinking if there's any. Okay.

There's a lot of pacifist type of thinking in the when World War II as Hitler was expanding and expanding Hitler friend himself as a victim of the past of history. He never attacked anybody. Everyone's always threatening to attack him. That's kind of the narrative and he keeps expanding. He keeps sweet talking with this charisma, all the countries around him, into sort of embracing pacifism. They are the war and the wars on your doorstep. So France, just very sub-optimal military strategy from the perspective of many European nations in response to Hitler. They were basically hoodwinked by his words. So then there was Churchill,

Winston Churchill, who stepped up and says, perhaps irrationally, from some kind of economics perspective, saying, we're not going to back down. We're going to fight Germany. And perhaps that step alone is one of the biggest reasons that Hitler failed in his expansion. That decision to fight back, how was the right way to do that? If you're Winston Churchill, what's the right way to do that?

control. What's the right way to do that? If you're to fight back evil and violence is required. Now, you could argue that the no war is just, but there are such things as a just war index. And a lot of people argue if there is a just one in 20th century, it's World War II. So how would you fund your Britain, the war? Would you require Winston Churchill to convince the populace? Like don't fight until they're fully convinced that this is the right thing to do. You can't just make a decision for them. You have to convince them fully so that they give their life and they give their money to support the war. Is that the right way to do it? I think so. And I think when you have a true threat and a true evil and a true force that people

really do think is genuine, you don't need to convince them. I mean, when it's real, people will want to fight and people will want to pay to fight. And I mean, I think though on this particular example, I think you know the best way to fight Hitler is to have not fought World War One, not take out the Kaiser of Germany. If Britain hadn't, and Britain in the US had not caught an involved in World War One, which really is the senseless war about nothing. Like, what was in it and what was the goal from anybody fighting that war? If you look at it, after World War I, there were very minor adjustments

in the borders of the countries that were participating. So, Germany lost some land, Austria lost some land, but really, it wasn't all that massive and it wasn't like Britain wanted to take over Germany and move their people into Germany and kick the Germans out. So there was no real value from that war, and that's why the British people didn't want to take part in it. And that's why if they hadn't done this enormously criminal manipulation of printing money to buy the bonds, Britain wouldn't have gone into the war.

Germany would still be a kingdom, and Hitler wouldn't rise. And yeah, there'd be small changes in the borders of various European countries. I'd struggle to see how it could have been worse. I mean, I struggled to see who benefited from four years of carnage in Europe. And this came at the height of civilization. Before that, the people of Europe had the golden era, 100 gold standard. They were trading with one another. They traveled and technology was advancing and they did not expect this war to last this long. And my favorite story from World War One is the Christmas truce football game,

which I mentioned in my book, British and German soldiers at the height of the conflict. They stopped on Christmas day and they played a football game against each other. I mean, this is not a real war where it's a war for survival. Britain didn't want to end Germany. Germany didn't want to end Britain. It was just kings who were emboldened by the fact that they had a printing press playing

with the lives of the people. Take that away. Take away the printing press. Take away their ability to print money. I think we'd have had a much, much, much better 20th century. Yeah, the counterfactual history, Neil Ferguson is a historian who gets quite a bit of a trouble. Basically, well, he's a Brit suggesting that if Britain stayed out of World War I, there would be no Hitler, there would be no World War II.

Yep, I agree entirely. But if you have money, yeah, so how if you have money was born? Yeah, let's get back to that. So they finance the war with that money. So what is it? What could go wrong? That's where we left off. Well, what could go wrong when you've just printed an enormous amount of credit and used it to buy bonds. What goes wrong is that the value of the currency is going to go down, or in other words, prices of things are going to go up. So during the war, prices keep going up, and this is of course, it's going to sound

very familiar to victims of the 20th century. A government tells you it's because of the war, it's not our fault, it's because of the Germans, it's because of the foreigners, it's because of Putin, it's because of this, it's because of that. This has always been the case, there's always a war is a very good cover for inflation, which is caused by monetary phenomena. So then the war ends and inflation prices have more than doubled over the past four years, over the four years of World War I prices more than doubled. And then the British economy is in bad trouble. Obviously, you know, it's lost a lot of the labor force for four years that was out there

fighting. Now, those workers come back. You've got prices are up. And so people are demanding that the government control prices and the government is trying to fix the problem of inflation by doing price controls, which is what they always do, which is catastrophic because it makes things worse. When you implement price controls, when you say, well, bread can't be sold for more than X price. Well, that's just preventing bread producers from producing a lot of bread. And that's just making the problem

worse. If you let the price rise, the extra price, first of all, it makes people economize so people will only buy what they need. And it provides the money for the bread producers to acquire the capital and the resources they need to produce more bread, which then brings the price of bread down. But price controls destroy that. Then they also implement wage controls. So you want to also make sure that people have high wages. So you raise people's wages artificially, you lower prices artificially, and you cause an economic problem.

And this is basically, you know, I use this historical example because it's the birth of Fiat, because the Bank of England was the most important monetary system in the world at that time. And because it's the prototype that basically the entire planet copied over the last 100 years. We've had this same thing happen. The government prints money because of a stupid reason, because somebody in power decided this was worth destroying everybody's livelihood and savings for. And then the consequences come in and then they start covering up with price controls, wage controls, and then that makes things worse. And then they, and of course throughout all that, they're promising that we're going to go, oh, and also the other thing that they did, which I mentioned in the chapter, is they stopped people from using

physical gold and they confiscated the physical, well, they I mentioned in the chapter, is they stopped people from using physical gold, and they confiscated the... Well, they didn't confiscate it, but they took the physical gold and they gave people paper. So I call it the Fiat White Paper. You know, in Bitcoin, we have the White Paper. The Fiat White Paper was the bank of England announced to all of its banks and post offices. And from now on, you should not make payment in gold, and you should take payment in gold, and you should encourage all your customers to turn in all of their gold and give them paper instead. Is there an actual document? Oh yeah, yeah. Nice. Yeah, this is all new stuff. Obviously nobody really likes to talk about this stuff because

they're fiat economists, so they don't want to talk about the original sin. But you should like, republish it as the fiat white paper or something like that. But you should like republish it as the white paper or something like that. There's a fascinating book by a guy called John Osborne. So in the 1920s, I think his name was Montagu. He was the chief of the Bank of England. He commissioned one of his secretaries, John Osborne, to study what the bank did during the World War I. And it was a study that was kept under wraps, confidential in

the Bank of England, only released in 2017, almost a century later. What was special about 2017, by the way, is a year, which was a year on which the sum of this information was released? Yeah, a bunch of people got into parts of the basement, so the Bank of England found this and published it, and now you can download it as a PDF and find all of the amazing details. So they confiscated the gold, and they forced people to use the paper,

and they promised people that as soon as the war is gonna be over, this is temporary, we're gonna be back to using gold. And of course, you know, if you told people in Britain, this is the real scam about Fiat, if you told people in Britain, this is the real scam about Fiat, if you told people in Britain, 1914, hey, we're going to go off the gold standard because it's better. I mean, there might have been lynchings of the government officials because the British pound at that point, it had been the global currency of the whole world and the fact that the date managed the bank of England had kept the

British pound at a fixed rate next to gold for since Newton, you know, the exchange rate, the value of the British pound was set by Isaac Newton himself. He was the warden of the mint and he made the pound a specific amount of gold. And since then, up until World War I, it was 4.25 pounds per ounce of gold, I think I might be wrong, but I have it in the book. So he'd set that price, and it was a matter of national pride for people in England. The sterling is as good as gold because for two centuries it had been stuck to gold. There was the exception of the Napoleonic Wars, but for two centuries, mostly it was stuck to that. And so they went off that, and then they couldn't go back because they wanted to go back. They

didn't have enough gold. They shipped their gold to the US to finance the war, and they had printed a whole bunch of money that was out there. So this begins the problem for England, and that begins the end of England as the world's superpower. And the way they try to fight that was to get more and more countries around the world to establish central banks and have unhold British pounds. So they'd hold, you know, basically dumping their bags like just any other shit coin. You just get people to buy your shit coin, you know, that raises the value of your shit coin. So can you define shit coin? Shit coin is, in my definition of shit coin is that it's any form of money where somebody can produce it.

So soft money. Not necessarily, I guess, I think the difference, so there's easy money, but the shit coin is something that someone can produce at a rate that is at a cost that is different from the market cost. So gold, nobody can make gold, except that they dig for it and the cost of mining gold is generally in the range of the price of gold. Same is true for Bitcoin. But gold is not a shitcoin. Gold is not a shitcoin. The copper is.

Copper. I'm not so sure. I wouldn't call copper a shitcoin as much as it is easy money. But I think government currencies and other alt coins, I think are shit coins because someone could click a button and make 10 times the supply. Would it be fair to say that this began with the will for war in World War I. So the March towards Fiat began with a global desire for war.

In the 20th century did war start this or was war a result? It's difficult to say really. I think it goes both ways. I think you can't have permanent war without fiat. And I also think there's a case to be made that you can't really have fiat without war. It's some kind of weird dynamical system where they're chicken and egg situation and they build on top of each other. And there's a few individuals that figured out there's a way to manipulate this to play this kind of game, and it escalates. Nothing gives you the ability to manipulate money quite like war. When you have a war, you can declare an emergency, you can call all the people who oppose you

traitors, you can get people to support you not because what you're doing is good, but because you play on their sense of tribalism. In your book, you do cost benefit analysis. So you do acknowledge or think about the pros of fiat currency. Can you do just that? Look at the benefit and look at the cost just broadly at the highest level. So the way that I write the fiat standard is that I try and analyze it as an engineering system in the same way that I wrote the Bitcoin standard.

So with the Bitcoin standard, I looked at Bitcoin from first principles and tried to explain how it works for a reader that doesn't really have much of a background in computer science, networks, or economics. And I thought I'll do the same with the Fiat. Let's just ignore the official stories and look at how this thing actually works. And I think it does have value in the fact that the reason that they were able to pull it off

is because it was not possible for people who don't want to be part of it to use gold independently of governments. This is really the key thing. Gold is just very expensive to move around. And the fact that it is expensive to move around means that there's inevitably going to emerge institutions where it is centralized in physical location. And then these institutions trade liabilities for the gold.

So really, the gold standard intrinsically must involve credit as becoming part of the monetary system. It has to be the credit and because it gets centralized, it can easily be captured by the government. So to be fair, the benefit of the fiat system is that it saves us on the cost of moving gold around, which is pretty significant. Like generally, you know, moving a bar of gold across the Atlantic is going to cost somewhere between 0.1 to 1% of the cost of the gold bar.

So you move it 100 times back and forth between the Atlantic, you need to pay the whole gold bar, the cost of the whole gold bar to move it a hundred times across. Well, with Fiat money, it's essentially government credit. And so it's just sending a message from one central bank to another and you can move it halfway around the world. Is there also something to be said about the cost in time? So you're saving the sort of you're reducing the friction of the communication as well. Exactly. Of the transactions as well. Exactly. Exactly. It's faster. How big is that benefit? Because when you argue that that potential is the thing that enables modern economy, both

the speed and the low cost, so increasing the scale and the frequency of the speed of the transactions. Yeah. Arguably it does help in that regard. However, it isn't as if you couldn't have fast transactions built on top of gold. So you could have gold being used for final settlement. And you could have, you know, bank settling with one another, you essentially using credit cell. Can you define settlement just for people outside this world because we'll mention that word quite a bit probably?

Good question. So the way that it works is, let's say right now I'm going to pay you $10 over PayPal or credit card. So it shows up in your PayPal or credit card within a few seconds that I've sent you the money and then that's yours. But it didn't also happen in those 10 seconds that my bank, which could be in another country, sent the money to your bank into your account. There's a lot of infrastructure underneath that. So what actually happened is that I have an account

with my bank and you have an account with your bank, and when the message is communicated from my app to yours, my bank crosses out the money and your bank credits you with the money. And then at the end of the day, week or month, you know, banks in the same city will settle with one another, banks in the same country will settle with one another, and banks from different countries will settle with one another. So they won't, you know, they won't move the $10 from my account to yours at the end of the day or week or month. They'll tally all of the money that was sent from one bank to the other and then just settle the difference. So it turns out at the end of the month, my bank had sent $15 million to your bank and your bank had sent $14 million to my bank, so they give them $1 million in

that settles, that finalizes the transaction. So final settlement is like you can think about it as the infrastructure of the system, and then you can think of these things as being the higher-layered levels. And you had a wonderful discussion about that with the Michael Sayler. So the final settlement is like the the the moment when you paper and ideas connect to physical reality, or to some representation of physical reality. Under gold, everything was tethered to physical reality because there was a market commodity at the bottom of all of this, and nobody could print that market commodity.

At the end of the month, if your bank made too many payments, if you made too many payments, there was a reckoning. There, you know, if you were reckless, if you were insolvent, you went out of business. So there was no, there was no way to fool that. But then we moved to the Fiat century and everything is credit. At the end of the day, the final layer is government credit. And so, as long as you're friends with the government, basically, you never go bankrupt.

So, all kinds of hucksters manage to find their way into getting into a position where they don't get bankrupt. So, in part two of the Fiat Standard called Fiat Life, you describe the effects of Fiat money and a bunch of things like life, food, science, education. What is the most pernicious effect of fiat money on our world, on our life,

so it's taking a step outside of the monetary system, actually like how that affects our life. From this book. I mean, there's a whole bunch of things and I won't be able to go over them and I highly recommend reading the book. But if I were to pick one, I would say it's the impact that it has on our time preference on our valuation of the future. So, remember when we started the discussion, I said the key function of money is that it serves as a store of value. And the harder the money is,

the better it is at providing us with a way for providing for our future., and the harder the money is, the better it is at providing us with the way for providing for our future. And so the harder the money is, the less we discount the future. We always discount the future compared to the present. So if I told you, I'm going to give you something today versus giving it to you 10 years from now, the same thing you would prefer to take it now, because then you'd get to enjoy it over the next 10 years. So we always prefer the present to the future.

There's always a discount on the future. And that discount is called time preference, the degree to which we prefer the present to the future is called our time preference. So the higher our time preference, the less we care about the future. And the process of civilization is the process of lowering our time preference. Where we start carrying more for the future, we start prioritizing the present less and less. So we start being able to not consume everything that we have and store it. And so money is essential for that. And under the gold standard, everyone in the world had the

ability to provide for their future by simply using the same money that they use. You know, you would work a day and you would get paid in a gold coin and you could take that gold coin and keep it safe for 10 years and know that at the end of those 10 years that gold coin would buy you slightly more than what it bought you the day that you earned it. So anybody could provide for their future

and anybody could have very high degree of certainty that whatever their saving is going to be there could provide for their future and anybody could have very high degree of certainty that whatever their saving is going to be there when they wanted in the future. Because the money supply was only increasing at one and a half percent, whereas the production of goods and services was increasing, for most cases, for most periods, at a higher rate than that. So you could buy more apples and oranges and houses and cars. At the end of the 10 years than you could at the beginning of the 10 years so everybody had a way of providing for the future and.

With that people lower their time preference and that is reflected across all aspects of life i think it's not just economic thing you see it in the savings rate you know the ability to deny yourself gratification today. You see it in the savings rate, you know, the ability to deny yourself gratification today. I could take the money that I have and throw a giant party by a sports car by a yacht. And yet you decide that I'm not going to do that. I'm going to keep it so that tomorrow I can throw a bigger party or buy a better yacht or have a better life or give my children a better life. So all of human civilization really is the process of us lowering our time preference and finding harder monies that allow us to provide better for the future is how we really, technologically, we do that. It's I think of the hardness of money as being the control knob for our time preference. And you can see this reflected in the 20th century, where we go

from the money supply increases that are around 1.5% under gold to this current situation, where over the last 60 years, around the numbers on money supply and fiat, the global fiat supply has increased that around 14% per year. So we've done a 10X in the increase in the supply of money annually. And 14% is a weighted average. So if you take a basic numerical average for all fiat currencies, you get something like 30%. The average fiat currency increases by 30%.

But if you value it by the volume of each currency so that you're not giving equal weight to the Venezuelan Bolivar increasing at 500% a year and the dollar increasing at 8% a year. If you do it by value of the currencies so that you get the total supply fee at something like 14%. So, I'm weighted is 30%. You said? Yeah, 30%. It's insane. I'd like to see the worst ones, the people that are dragging that average up. Yeah, but 14% is still an incredibly high high number. And so you're saying that, that's what, sorry, that's the average over the century

over the past 60 years. 1960s to 2020, we get World Bank data on that pretty reliable data on World Bank and European Union OECD data. I ran the numbers on that weighted average, something like 14%. And what effect that has on time preference? The effect is now it's much, much, much harder

for everybody to provide for their future. Everywhere in the world, it's much harder. So how do I get the equivalent of the old gold coin that I could just put under my mattress and expect it to be there 10 years from now? Well, gold itself isn't cutting it. Gold can't keep up with inflation. And the reason for that is that gold

is not being used as a money anymore in that. You can't send it internationally. You can't use it to settle trade internationally, which therefore means demand for it monetarily is limited. And so it's becoming more and more an industrial metal. And as a result, as a result of the fact that its value doesn't keep up with inflation, it becomes economical to use it in industry. So we're seeing gold become like silver in that it gets used in industry. So the stockpile declines. So the stock to flow ratio declines as well. And it becomes more and more of an industrial metal.

And it can't protect your wealth over time very well. So what do you do? Well you could invest and this is kind of the obvious answer that Keynesians will give you is, well you just put your money in an investment. But investment is different from saving. Saving the whole point of saving is that the thing is liquid and that the thing carries little uncertainty. You know, you just held the gold coin and it just sat there.

It did nothing. It didn't take risk. You knew that it was gonna be there in 10 years. Investment means you give the gold coin to somebody to go and do something with it. And it could work, it could not work. If it works, you get a positive return, you get more gold back.

If it fails, you might not get any of your gold back. So taking on risk is something very different from saving. Saving is just a way of buying the future. Investing is taking on a risk and you could lose everything with it. So what ends up happening, and this is, you know, the Keynesian objection, I think, is very wrong and bad because investment is a job in itself. To figure out what to do with your money in order to beat inflation is something that professionals out there on Wall Street that have PhDs in finance, that have enormous computers, and they have enormous staffs of PhDs and master's degrees and math nerds that are crunching

numbers and figuring out how to allocate your portfolio so that you can beat inflation. And guess what? The majority of them don't beat inflation. The majority of them can't beat inflation, not as measured by CPI, which is completely fraudulent, but if you remember... 18%. Yeah, that 14% or even the 7%. If you look at just the increase in the money supply, which I think is a much better metric, and this is what's reflected on the desirable goods. If you look at the price of real estate in Miami Beach, as Michael Seller mentioned in your example, it goes up at around 6, 7% per year on average over the last century. So if you want to live in a nice area, that's what's happening to real estate. If you want to go to the good universities, that's what's going up.

It's going up at a rate that's similar to the increase in the money supply. And you can beat CPI, but CPI is designed so you can beat it, but you can't really beat the appreciation in the things that you actually want to buy, in the price of good food, the price of good real estate. So, and you know, most investment professionals fail at doing that. So, what hope does a doctor or an engineer or a scientist or an athlete have in doing those things? Investment is hard and saving should be easy. Exactly. Saving is essential for us as a civilization. And what Fiat did is it took that away from us and then it forced everybody to become an investor or more accurately a gambler because you're not just even everybody to become an investor or more accurately a gambler because the money itself is broken because the money itself is constantly changing in value.

Investing is becoming more of a crapshoot. Value investing is underperforming compared to market analysis. You listen to the Fed and what matters to the price of individual companies is monetary policy much more than it is their own performance. So basically you need to be a junkie watching the Fed and following all of the world central banks and you need to learn macroeconomics and you need to learn what all the central banks are doing and you need to understand how commodity markets work and you need to understand how equity markets work and bond markets and real estate markets.

You need to do all of those things just in order to be able to save and earn the money that you've already earned. That's the criminal thing about it. I've already earned that money being a doctor, being a dentist, being an athlete, being an engineer, I built a house for somebody and I got that money and all I want to do is just make sure that I can have it 10 years from now. The only way to do so is to become a crappy engineer because you have to spend half your time not doing engineering and instead spend half of that time learning about Japanese

central bank monetary policy and commodity markets and what's going to happen to copper and what's going to happen to oil and what's happening in the wars and what's happening with foreign policy and Russia and the US and all of those things. Under the gold standard you didn't care about any of that stuff. Your gold coin worked regardless of all of those things. So what this means is the future, so first of all, you know, we have all of the problems I mentioned, but also it means that the future becomes much more uncertain. So you're far less likely to provide for yourself 10 years from now. I'm far less likely to find an easy way to give yourself value 10 years from now.

And so you become more short-termist. And that is reflected economically in a lower savings rate than we see savings rates decline. But it is also reflected in all manners of decision-making. I think if you really want to see what it is, take a look at a society that goes through hyperinflation and look at what happens there, how do people change under hyperinflation and compare that to essentially what we see in the 20th century all over, under not hyperinflation, but under low inflation, you know, 10, 15% that you see across the board most of the time, is just slow motion hyperinflation. So

what happens in hyperinflation? Everybody gets their paychecks, they run straight to the supermarket, they spend all of their money. Nobody thinks about savings. Nobody thinks about the future. Survival until the end of this month is highly uncertain. How likely are you to be planning for what you're going to be doing five years from now? Very unlikely. But also, it's reflected not just economically, it's also reflected in all aspects of morality on all the way in which we deal with each other's human beings. When your survival is precarious, how much are you invested in the notion of being

a good citizen, on caring about your reputation, on caring about not getting caught in a crime? All of these things become harder to value, so people start committing crime, people start caring less and less about the future. And we see it reflected in everything, and I argue you see it reflected in architecture. You know, we used to build houses in the 19th century that last until today. And then in the 20th century, we build the century disposable cardboard boxes that get scrapped in 20 years. So what can you say about potential positive effects of lower time preferences? So, I mean, it's a balance, basically, you're talking about an average kind of time preference,

but you know, there's some things in life where low time preference could be a negative thing. So like, if I want to take on risk, not for investment, or a kind of investment, but say I want to start a business, I want to take something crazy, take a leap into the unknown, be an entrepreneur. What can you say about that kind of leap? Taking on debt, what's the value of that within the current system, what's the right approach to that within the current system, what's the right approach overall from an economic perspective? So it's not saving for the future. It's doing something while taking the money from your mattress, taking on debt, and having

a dream in your heart that you somehow just want to do. Maybe it's not the wisest investment decision, but it's something, you know, as being human. It's taking on leap into the unknown because something in your heart says to do it. I think you're more likely to be taking the leap in the unknown when you have a little bit of gold in the mattress than when you don't. I think this is the thing. If you look at the late 19th century, and I discussed this in the Bitcoin standard, that was the arguably the most innovative period in human history. There's qualitative evidence. You look at the wall around you today, pretty much everything that we use was invented in that period. The car, the airplane, the telegraph, the telephone, the camera, pretty much modern life as late 19th century.

You know, the period between 1870 and 1914, because the whole world was practically on a gold standard, the whole world was using the same money money and the whole world could save in the same currency. That meant that a bicycle shop owner, two bicycle shop owning brothers in North Carolina could go and try and fly, even as all the scientific experts in 1903 were confirming that the possibility of flight has been debunked as unscientific. You know, Lord Kelvin said, not in a million years, we're going to be flying. Thomas Edison said, it's never going to happen. No, I think it was Edison who said a million years. But Kelvin also said, it's never going to happen.

Yeah. The New York Times said, it's never going to happen the same month in which the Wright brothers did it. And they continued to deny that it was going to happen even two years after they did it. But that's, why could they do that? Because they had savings in gold. They had the security with something that you know is going to be there.

And then you can take a risk with the stuff that is extra. I have, say, three years expenditures in gold under my mattress. And I know that I could take a risk with everything else because whatever bad things happen with all of my dreams, like even flying, think about how insane that is, I still can go back to the three years of gold that I have saved. Still okay to take on debt, given the stuff the gold and the mattress. Well, this is the thing. Under the gold standard, the way that peopleced things was predominantly with capital, with equity. So because you had gold savings, I had gold savings, everybody had gold savings, when

you wanted to start the business, you could use your own savings or somebody else's savings. So you didn't need to get into debt, well, you could get equity from others and you could also get debt from others. So there was, but it's directly mapped to physical reality. Yeah, it's directly back to economic reality and that there's a hard money out there that you know what you're spending money, you know, you want to build your airplane factory,

you need to get actual resources. So you get actual gold, either yours or somebody else's, you borrow it or you give them equity, but there's real resources. Now what happened with the Fiat system and this is the, you know and the first part of the book where I look at it from an engineering kind of perspective, is essentially, and I think this is like

the breakthrough inside of the book, what Fiat does is that it replaces gold mining with credit creation. The way that we make Fiat money, the way that Fiat is mined into existence is through credit creation. Most people think of Fiat money as being something that happens when fiat money, the way that fiat is mined into existence, is through credit creation. Most people think of fiat money as being something that happens when government prints money. And we still use the term government's printing money.

But the vast majority of fiat is not physical. And in fact, fiat is not created when it is printed physically. It's created when it is lent. So when you go to a bank to get a $1 million loan to buy a house, that bank is not going to give you a million dollars from their own money or from their depositors money. They're going to make a fresh new million dollars. When you walk out of that bank, the money supply has increased by $1 million to finance your home. So what Fiat does is, I mean, it was basically born out of government credit and the credit of banks that are backed by the central bank and the government.

So if you're part of the institutions that are allowed fiat privilege where you can just issue loans backed by the central bank, backed by the currency, you are effectively creating new currency, new money every time you wish to the loan. That's fiat mining is credit creation. I love it. Can you say something? You can't really have credit without a demand for credit. You can't really have an increase in supply without a demand for it.

Is there any value you place in the humans wanting it? Basically people wanting to do something with that credit, want to take big leaves, big risks, big entrepreneurial decisions So is it all bet is all credit bad? No, I think what's bad is You know anything in my opinion anything that is consensual, you know I want to borrow money from you and we agree the terms I can't object to that As long as you and I both agree I can't object to that. As long as you and I both agree, I can't object to that.

But in the case of the Fiat system, it's not just you in the bank who come to an agreement. Everybody who uses the currency is forced to be part of that agreement. Because if you default, effectively, what's protecting the bank from you is the fact that the government can just print a bunch of money and make the bank hold. So, effectively. That's interesting. So, that little agreement between the bank and you is actually an agreement between the bank and the entire populist that's using the currency. Exactly.

They're forced to provide the safety net for you and me to go and make that loan. And that safety net is the devaluation of the currency. That's how the whole thing actually works. So this is why, you know, I wrote the Bitcoin standard explaining Bitcoin and then basically, they'll take away message of the Bitcoin standard as you need to stack as much Bitcoin as you can, because this is the best money that has ever been invented. And we'll talk about that. Why Bitcoin is a hard or the hardest money. Yeah. But with Fiat, the conclusion of the Fiat standard, and again, this is not financial advice.

I'm a lowly academic. You should have listened to me on issues of money, but I think theoretically and intellectually, the conclusion of the Fiat system is you need to be short Fiat as much as you can. That's the smart winning move. So, human wisdom over thousands of years is to save, try not borrow as much as you can, try and accumulate as much savings as you can. That's reversed under fiat. If you're saving money, you're just subsidizing everybody else taking on loans. If you're taking on loans, you're benefiting from all the people that are borrowing. So, the winning move under the

fiat system, and this is what rich people do, is you borrow. Rich people under the Fiat system. And this is what rich people do is you borrow. Rich people under the Fiat monetary system, they don't hold assets. You know, there isn't a, if you're worth a billion dollars today, you don't have a billion dollars in a checking account. You've got maybe a hundred thousand, a million, five million or something like that. A tiny fraction of your money is held in cash. The majority is going to be held in all kinds of other hard assets. And you're going to be held in all kinds of other hard assets. And you're going to be borrowing. The richest people in the world are the biggest borrowers in the world. The most powerful entities in the world, the governments are the biggest borrowers in

the world. And that's how they are the richest and the most powerful because every time you're borrowing, you're giving the bank an excuse to print new money. So you're devaluing everybody else's money and you're getting a bit of the cut. If you're going to buy a house with your savings, you're accumulating the savings and they're losing value. And if I were to go to buy the same house with credit,

I'm getting the bank to print money for me. So obviously they can cut me in on that deal. And that's why it's much cheaper for everybody to buy with credit. That's why everybody buys everything on credit. So when we look at the global monetary system, the thing you want to do as a government is be the sexiest currency out there. So the main currency like the dollar currently is the one that has the most power in that kind of context. So you have, if you were to try to summarize, what is the global monetary system at as it is today? Is a bunch of fiat currencies battling for position, for use outside their nation,

and so doing trying to gain power in the geopolitical sense. If we just zoom out, what is the global monetary system? What is it currently, outside the United States, the whole thing? Yeah, you could say that, but I think it's more realistic looking at how it is actually evolved over the past few decades. It's really a dollar system. It's not a system of currencies, buying with one another. It's a dollar system and all other currencies are just basically, I like to call them dollar plus country risk. So each, it always returns home to the dollar.

Yeah, there is no competition. There is no second best as Michael Saylor would say. And money is like that, you know, gold was a winner take all by the end of the 19th century. The global monetary market is effectively a winner take all for the dollar. And if we get it a bit going, you'll know I also think digital currencies are also going to be a winner take all situation. So, market money wants to be won.

In fact, there is no such thing as multiple currencies. Multiple currencies is just a step back to barter Money is one if you go back to a system of several currencies. You're just reinventing barter. So In the case of the dollar system the global dollar system is built around the dollar Because all central banks have dollar reserves and because all central banks use the dollars in clearing mechanisms. So that's why you're basically playing in the dollar system. This seems to have changed over the last couple of months with the sanctions on Russia and

the confiscation of Russian reserves. It remains to be seen on what that's going to do and how that's going to change. But it is looking like, you know, this dollar system is clearly unsustainable. It's not sustainable for the US. It's not sustainable for anybody. Speaking of which, so you do an amazing podcast called the Bitcoin Standard Podcast. Also episode 108 of that podcast is about the very thing you just mentioned. And allow me please to read the description of that and then ask the very thing you just mentioned and allow me please to read the description of that and then I ask you a couple questions about

your thoughts in general. The description reads, After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the US confiscated the Russian Central Bank significant monetary reserves and banned some Russian banks from the Swift network. Serious questions are being asked about the survival of the post-war dollar based world monetary order. Will Russia, China, and other countries actually build an alternative international settlement system after years of threatening to do so? Question mark. Will global central banks stop accumulating US treasury bonds and replace

them with gold and commodities? Will we witness the birth of a new commodity, gold-based monetary order in this seminar? We use the insights from the Bitcoin standard and the Fiat standard on temporal and spatial salability to explain why reports of the death of the dollar and the emergence of a new gold standard may be exaggerated. So I would love to get your analysis on this situation. What are the fundamentals of it? on this situation. What are the fundamentals

of it? What is Swift? What are the possible future evolutions of the global monetary system? Yeah. So Swift is the network of the US Federal Reserve. He uses for moving money around the world. So basically the US government can sanction you off of Swift as they've done with Russian banks, as they've done with Iran, and as they've done with Russian banks as they've done with Iran and as they've done with Afghanistan. So effectively, I mean, this is really the catastrophe of the current monetary system is that in order to be able to trade as a member, as a citizen of your country, you need your monopoly local central bank to be on good terms with the U.S. government so that they would

let them operate it. And this is really, like, on top of the aspects of the hardness of money, this is the other really powerful thing about Bitcoin, which is that it's just purely a technological thing. It doesn't matter if you're Russian, if you're Iranian, if you're American, if you're Chinese, it's a technology. And so it's like a spoon or a knife or a car, you know, you operate it properly and it works. And so with Bitcoin it's the same thing. It doesn't care about your passport. If you have the private key, you click send and the money goes, well, it doesn't really go, but effectively it does go anywhere at once. And the money can move without having to abide by political situations.

And the point here is not to bash US foreign policy much as that might be deserved. I'm just going to discuss it from a kind of technical perspective. It has to be a political system with fear because ultimately relies on credit. And then the government is the one that has the guns. And the government is going to decide who gets to pay their loans. Anyway, in the governments, it its own rules about who gets to

play and who doesn't. And so it has to be political as this kind of fiat system. And when I wrote the Bitcoin standard, initially I used to be much more of a gold bug. And in my mind, gold bugs have spent the last 50 years saying the global monetary system is going to collapse next week and we're going to go back to a gold standard. And writing the Fiat standards gave me a very good appreciation for why this hasn't happened and why it's not very likely to happen.

I think the reason is, as I said earlier, gold is very expensive to move around and perhaps more importantly, is very expensive to verify. That's really the problem with it. It's very expensive to verify that the gold that you're receiving is original gold. So the only way to do this properly is to melt the gold bars down and recast them, which is pretty expensive. So we have this situation now where Russia, which is one of the biggest economies in the world, has been kicked off to varying

degrees off of the global monetary system, and the US has confiscated their reserves. And I don't have political opinions about the war, it's not something I'm very familiar with, it's outside of my area of expertise, I'm just analyzing the monetary aspects of it. It is, on the one hand, whether you think the war is justified or the sexist is justified is not something I can opine on. But the implication of this is that effectively the US might be shooting itself in the foot because it's telling everybody in the world your money in our system is not really your money. It's just token to play in our arcade. And at any point in time, if you misbehaved, we kick you away out of the arcade

and we take your tokens. And so, I mean, this is something that China, Russia, Iran, and many countries have made a lot of noise about over the past decades. It got really this year. But it's been decades of China, Iran, and Russia, to some extent, saying that some extent saying that we want to build an alternative to the US dollar-based system. And yet they haven't. And I think there's very good reasons they haven't. And the reason is, what do you do based on? How do you build it?

So you can do a credit-based system based on, but then who's going to be the big boss? Is it going to be China? Is it going to be Russia? Is it going to be Iran? Is it going to be India? None of these countries wants to be China, is it going to be Russia, is it going to be Iran, is it going to be India? None of these countries wants to be, they don't want to jump out of the US-based system to get into somebody else's based system. So China doesn't want to use the Russian system, Russia doesn't want to use the Chinese system, and so therefore you can't use their own central

bank's currencies. Don't you think they have enough leverage, India, China, Russia combined with several other nations have enough leverage and incentive to create their own system. So any one player, yes, but if they collaborate. Yeah, but then okay, so what are you based on? Like, who's going to be the boss? Who's going to be the one who can, in this case, China, right? Because China is becoming increasingly an economic power in the world. Yeah. That it's hard to deny. Yes, it's true. And it's the most likely scenario, perhaps, if we were to witness something like this is going to be a Chinese-based sister, is it possible to have a split in what is the driving currency of the world? It's possible, but I don't think it's sustainable.

Again, money wants to be won. And that's the kind of thing that I argue in that seminar. So we could see this emerge based around the U-1. And likely, I mean, Russia is obviously going to hurt economically from what happened, from the confiscation of the reserves and from the sanctions. So it's not going to be in a position, and of course, because it's outside of the US-based system,

it's not in the strongest negotiating position with the Chinese, so the Chinese might be able to get them to join their Yuan-based system. But I don't think that's sustainable in the long run, because these governments can issue their laws and make their designs and they make their monetary systems, but ultimately, there are billions of Chinese people and billions of dollar-based people and they're going to want to trade with one another. And the power to want to trade with one another is too strong.

Like, we can't just split the world economy into two monetary systems that don't trade with one another. So then, they're going to want to trade with one another. Or the dark possibility is it, the inability to trade as opposed to being a forcing function for trade, it would become a forcing function for conflict in cyber space and potentially hot war. Yes, this is the scary part of it. And this is basically how World War II happened, you know because There's an old historian who used to say when I think his name is Otto Mallow and I quote him in the Bitcoin standard If goods don't cross borders then bombs will If people trade with one another they have an incentive for each others well-being and then

They have less of an incentive to fight and it was the death of global trade in the 1930s because of the failure of the Fiat system That brought about the rise of the populism that and the rise of all those leaders that hated each other and helped finance the war and bring it about So that is this scary possibility And of course here you can't discount that with all of the escalation that you see, that is a possibility that it could turn into a real war. But then, even so, I think ultimately, you can't fight wars forever. That there's going to end at some point. And we're going to be back at square one, or, well, none square one. We're going to be back at the same dilemma of who's going to have the global monetary

system. And so one alternative is that what the Chinese and the Russians could do is they could base it on a commodity. So a lot of people are now saying, well, they're going to base it on copper and corn and agricultural commodities. And that's the analysis of salability that we discuss in the Bitcoin standard and the Fiat standard. I don't think that's workable.

If you end up basing the monetary system on copper, as we said earlier, doesn't matter how many governments say that we're gonna make a new monetary system based on copper, grains, and nickel, and iron, and so on, doesn't matter. You're just gonna have to stockpile those things in order to make a market in them. And then if you stockpile those things,

you're just raising their value, inviting them producers to make a market in them. And then if you stockpile those things, you're just raising their value, inviting them producers to make more flood the market. I hope they don't try this because it's going to be a devastating, devastating impact on the world economy. You're going to have central banks bidding up the price of essential commodities that people need for real uses in order to back their currencies with them. And then just incentivizing the producers to make more and more and more of it and then bringing the price back down. So it's going

to be a very expensive mistake where we raise the price of copper, destroy a lot of industries dependent on copper. It's not just copper, but also food, and then increase the supply beyond what we need. And the end result is copper miners make out well, governments go broke, and we end up with a lot of rusting copper in government warehouses. That's why I don't think it works to use commodities that are not monetary commodities. Then the question is maybe gold. Can we go back on another gold standard?

And I mean, Russia seems to have done that. I'm not so sure. It's very difficult to get reliable information. I'm trying to look into this more. But they seem to have said that they're fixing the price of gold in rubles. So they will buy and sell gold at a fixed rubble rate, which effectively means you're on a gold standard. Now, I'm not sure how much, how serious this is, how they managed to stick to it, but it seems to have stabilized the rublin, in fact brought it back to its pre-war level, which I found absolutely astonishing, you know, considering all the sanctions going on. But in the short run,

it's obviously much better than having your currency pegged to nothing. But in the long run, I also don't think gold is going to cut it in the 21st century. Do you think there's any chance they go full gangster move and go into the digital space and the blockchain go Bitcoin? I think, you know, the point of this discussion is that, you know, we run through all these other options, you know, a Chinese-based system, why it probably won't work, commodity-based system, why it won't work, and a gold-based system, why it won't work, I think they might have to learn this the wrong way, I mean, the hard way. But eventually, I don't see them doing it now, but eventually, I think the winning move

is going to be to go on a Bitcoin-based monetary system. Well, I don't know if everything always has to be the hard way. I'd love it not to be, but I mean, it doesn't look like there is any kind of desire in China or in Russia to switch to a Bitcoin, it says, leap to Bitcoin. So unfortunately, I think we're going to go through a few years, maybe many years of learning the lesson, the hard way of trying to accumulate these commodities and seeing the limitations that make them unsuitable as money today. One of the things I'm really concerned about is the tension, the amount, the increasing amount of hate in the world, and the increasing amount of power centers in the world between which hate is making a regular appearance

and because the weapons of war becoming more and more powerful as they have been in the past, many decades, I'm really concerned about nuclear war. So let us see if Bitcoin can fix this. Yes. Bitcoin fixes all of this. First rule of Bitcoin is if it's a problem, Bitcoin fixes it. All right, well, I have some personal questions for Bitcoin then because I have some, my life is pretty fucked up. So I'll try to see. I'll quick pause for bathroom baking. Sure. Let's return to the basics. What is Bitcoin? We started with what is money? Quick Possible Bath & Baggy, you ain't ain't ain't ain't ain't ain't ain't ain't ain't ain't ain't ain't ain't ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain ain What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a software and it's a distributed software to operate peer-to-peer network between members who are all equal on the network. They're all peers and what this software does is that it allows you to operate

a payment network between those peers and the payment network has its own currency. And that seems like, you know, just a simple software game. But the reason this is such a big deal is, I believe Bitcoin is the most advanced form of money ever invented. And the reason for that comes from two properties that this network has. The first one is that the currency is the hardest money ever invented. It's the money whose supply is the most resistant to inflation. It's the money whose supply is the most resistant to inflation. It's the first monetary asset that we've ever invented that is guaranteed to be fixed in its supply that cannot be increased beyond a certain number.

So there's only ever going to be 21 million bitcoins. And that's a qualitative leap forward in our technologies of money. All of our monies leak essentially because people can always make more and more and more of them. The best money is the one that leaks the least, which is gold because it only leaks 1.5% in other words, your share of the gold stock is diluted by 1.5% every year. Ideally, you'd like it to be zero. Bitcoin is currently at around 1.8% headed towards zero. So it's the first money that we've ever had that goes to zero in terms of terminal supply. So there'll never be more than 21 million Bitcoin. And I think that's a huge deal because, you know,

as I said earlier, money is always whatever is the hardest to make and now Bitcoin is the hardest thing to make. And then the second property, which is extremely important as well, is the fact that it operates without the need to trust in anybody. It doesn't have a party that is in charge of it. It doesn't have a central authority that can, you know, it's, as I said, it's peer to peer. So there's, it only has users. It doesn't have any admins. There's no authority in charge of Bitcoin that can take your Bitcoin, that can stop you from using Bitcoin, that can change the rules of Bitcoin. They can't make more of it. So it's fixed, it's available for anybody in the world, it's the hardest money ever invented. And it is absolutely, I think, an enormously, enormously significant invention.

Because if you read the Fiat Standard and the Bitcoin Standard as well, you'll see my perspective for why I think a very large number of problems in the world are caused by easy money, are caused by inflation, and caused by government having access to essentially an infinite recourse to people's wealth. And I think Bitcoin fixes this because it allows us to have money that has the salability

of gold across time, meaning it holds its value across time like gold, but much better than gold. But also, it is similar to Fiat, and that Fiat can travel quickly, but Bitcoin can travel even faster than Fiat. So it combines gold's salability across time with Fiat salability across space in one immutable package that nobody can change and nobody can control. Can you define the word salability? Salability is the essential property of money. It's the ability of a good to be sold easily on the market, specifically to be sold without much loss in its value. So, houses are great for living in, but they're not very

sailable. If you want a sailor house, you can just click a button and sailor house and have a giant market of people buying houses from you. You need to find somebody who wants the exact house that you have with the exact specifications that you have. And because houses are not identical, there's no liquid giant market for people to just buy and sell identical houses from. So gold, for instance, has good salability as money because it's a liquid good, it's uniform and people are always buying it. Fiat dollars have great sellability because everybody's always buying an exchanging dollar for other goods.

So if you have a hundred dollar bill, you can easily get rid of it and you'll get a hundred dollars worth of stuff for it. If you have a hundred dollars worth of stuff, it's harder to get rid of it. If you have a hundred dollar worth of phone, it's not as easy to spend it as a hundred dollar bill. That's salability. What do you mean that Bitcoin, I understand that Bitcoin has the salability of gold across time. Better even now. Better, yes, like on the order, whatever. And then has the salability of fiat across space, what does that mean? So if you remember, when you asked me, what is the advantage of fiat? What is What does that mean? So if you remember when you asked me,

what is the advantage of fiat? What is the advantage that it offers us? It's cheaper to move fiat across space than it is to move gold. You know, with a current fiat monetary system for all of its flaws, you can send money, you know, I can send money from my bank account in the US to a bank account in China in a couple of days or in Britain in France in a day or two,

which is much faster than you could do with gold and much cheaper than you could do with gold. But in reality with Fiat, the reason Bitcoin improves on that is that with Bitcoin you're actually selling, you're sending final settlement in a couple of hours. So you send the Bitcoin transaction, you get six confirmations in an hour, you get about 12 confirmations in two hours on average, with 12 confirmations, you know, you're pretty definitely clearly safe on this. So within a couple of hours, you can send the billion dollars across the ocean and have final settlement on them. It's not just that you've sent a credit obligation that's going to need weeks and months to settle, which is the case with Fiat. So it is

faster than Fiat effectively. So it's harder than gold and faster than Fiat. That's a good way of putting it. One other aspect of Bitcoin, I have to ask to me and the human level is fascinating. Is it was founded by Satoshi Nakamoto and the Nautamist founder, there's no leader. So that's another aspect of the decentralization, it's leaderless. Yeah. So unfortunately it's not a monarchy. Fortunately, or fortunately, yes. Who is Satoshi Nakamoto, do you think, and first of all, is it you? It definitely is not me. I don't know who it is. If it was, would you tell me?

No, it's a trick question. No, no. A trick question, but I mean, everybody who knows me knows I can't read the code. So, you would say that even if you could. But do you think it's one person, do you think it's multiple people? Is it interesting to you? Do you think it's one person, do you think it's multiple people? Is it interesting to you? Do you think it's fundamental to the coin itself, to not the coin, the entirety of the concept that it's founders and animus, and how much guts do you think it takes if it's one person to just walk away from so much money? I've considered all these questions many time. it's very hard to formulate a definitive answer

to all of them. I don't know who it is and I don't know why he or them or she are not spending the coins that they most likely have. I think what really matters in Bitcoin about Satoshi is the fact that he's not there. And this is what's truly astonishing about it. The most important fact in Bitcoin is the fact that the creators disappeared and the thing has continued to operate now for almost 12 years without him being there, or 11 years I think it's been since he's left.

This is really the most important thing. Maybe he died or they got into an accident on a road trip or whatever. And that's why they have an access to their coins. Maybe they are incapacitated for some reason. But whatever reason it is, I really think it's fate or serendipity that is giving us this very vital, very, very, very vital building ingredient in Bitcoin, which no other digital currency would ever recreate, which is that, you know, because it was the first, it was the one that was able to establish the first mover advantage and get all the people who were interested in the technology to get into it. And so that's an enormous advantage, but you know, the

cherry on top or what made the whole thing really function well is the fact that the guy who made it disappeared and that it continued to operate, which is just a clear illustration that this is a network with no admins. And I'm tempted to think that they're incapacitated in some way, probably dead or gone because I can't believe the I don't believe any human being would have this level of self-control to not get into not want to metal with their invention so much. Even even if they you know they might have had the self-control to like mine the first million coins to get the network going and then throw away the coins or send them to an address that they don't have the cookie to because they really just wanted the network to take off.

They may have no access to the coins and that's why they can't move them. I could see that happening, but I find it harder to believe that they would resist the temptation to mess with the network. You know, it's funny. I find that the founders of ideas are often principled and have the integrity that the eventual users of those ideas don't fully have. I tend to, you know, we have the kind of

cynical view, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And we tend to, in our mind, generalize that all humans are corruptible and perhaps that's true to some degree but I think that some people are more corruptible than others and I find that there is I mean I like to think that Satoche Nakamura is out there and you know just like George Washington chose to walk away. And it's a principle. And the principle is more powerful than the financial award or any of those kinds of things. It's a principle that stands for freedom.

And there's a lot of people throughout history, even recent history, that are willing to die for these principles or live a life full of suffering and sacrifice because they're still living a life of Principle and choosing that day after day after day. So I mean, there's power to that money. What's what's the worth of money in the end? In terms of just personal financial gain versus Knowing how much positive impact there is so the person that chooses to walk away like that, I think is the same kind of person that chooses to live by that principle. You have people like that,

you know, in Gregory, Grisha Pearlman, in mathematics, who turned down the field's metal, because he was... Yeah, that's the metal, not $50 billion. because he was, yeah, that's the metal, not $50 billion. Well, that's, no, no, I know I'm joking. Well, that's actually interesting, just a brief comment. You know, when people talk about Bitcoin in the cryptocurrency space, this often mixed up financial interest and ideas. And I think there's often correlated,

but that good feeling you get when you win or you the number go up or you just somebody, you know, I found 20 bucks on the street the other day. And just that feeling of just like, ooh, like more money, that positive feeling, that's correlated, but it is distinct from the power of the idea to change the world, to change the world for the better. For the to alleviate, it's like Alex Glassstein, in the case of Bitcoin, the decreased the amount of suffering in the world because of the authoritarian regimes. And just because your number goes up like that gambling feeling of, like, yes, yes, this is good. And I mean, short-term number go up.

There's a long-term no go up, that's more like investment and so on. And there's a short-term no go up, that's just a good feeling. That you can't, you have to, in your mind, keep those distinct from the power of the idea that transformed the world. And if you focus on the power of the idea, maybe a billion or billions of dollars don't matter as much. At least that's what I would like to believe. Perhaps, but what matters ultimately is that the thing works without him. The things worked for 11 years without him. And I think this is the reading important thing. If they

had stuck around for whatever reason, and they had continued to metal with it, it's not clear to me how decentralized it could have been. This is the problem with the other currencies. It's like how do you lose control of the Frankenstein that you've created? The only way that this Frankenstein continues to survive is if the person in charge of it continues to feed it. And so it continues to be yours. And that's the problem with all the other digital currencies. If you've heard about any of the other 16,000 digital currencies out there, you've only heard about it because there's a small group of people behind it

that are working on it, that are promoting it. And that's why, and I think Michael Saber's discussion with you was a magnificent illustration of the difference between Bitcoin and altcoins in that. They are securities. And I think he makes a very compelling brilliant case for why this is, makes them categorically different from Bitcoin, Bitcoin you're buying property. I think he mentioned he's a huge fan of dogecoin, but I might be misremembering. You are, Mr. Remembering.

Okay. Maybe I'm quoting a lot of context. Yes. Okay. Let me just ask you about some possible criticisms of Bitcoin. So on centralization, so there's a criticism on the mining and on the node side, or the node is not really the criticism, but Bitcoin mining is not fully decentralized because a small number of miners control a majority of the hashing power. I looked it up this 10,000, 15,000, whatever the number is of

computers that have the full that are full nodes that have the full that are actively connected to the network. So you could argue that's decentralized because it's global it's all across the world, but the miners they're still it's more centralized. So if you're thinking of making a case for Bitcoin being decentralized, do you worry about the miners being somewhat centralized? Is the nodes the important thing to think about? Yeah. And what number of nodes counts as centralized and not? The nodes are what matters because the nodes are what determines Bitcoin's consensus parameters. I think the best way to think about it is that miners simply sell a commodity to the nodes

and that commodity is Bitcoin blocks. So what a miner does is they solve the proof of work problem so they keep operating their computers until they can get a solution to the problem. And then they attach that to a bunch of transactions and present it to the nodes for the nodes to ratify and approve it. So therefore, this is, and this is, I strongly recommend people learn about the 2017 lock size war to understand why miners don't control Bitcoin. I discussed this briefly in my Bitcoin standard, but there's a

recent book that discusses this in detail called the Block Size War by Jonathan Beer. It's a great description of, in 2017, essentially the miners thought that they could control Bitcoin. There was one mining company that produced the majority of the machines that were on the network. And their allies had a control of the machines that were out there, and they controlled the majority of the hash rate. And they thought that they could change Bitcoin's supply, not supply, sorry, they could change Bitcoin's block size, which is a tiny little detail, technical parameters, not even all that big of a deal for the economics of it. But they thought that they could pass this change, they could force this change on the

network. And the members of the network rejected it and they weren't able to do it. So the nodes are what is sovereign, the nodes are what determine the rules of the game. The miners are a service provider, The miners invest capital up front. You know, they buy the machines, they buy the electricity, they buy the storage, they buy the locations, they pay the rent, and they invest all of that money based on the idea that if they behave according

to what the nodes want, the nodes will remodeling them with Bitcoin. So the miners are in no position to dictate terms for anyone. They've put up their capital up front and they will only recoup it if they do what the nodes want. So therefore, what really matters is the decentralization of the nodes. So you want to have as many nodes as possible. You want to have a system where there's a large number of nodes. And is of course the biggest problem with With other digital currencies is that you know because basically Bitcoin has cornered the market on a digital currency The only way that you can really get traction is to generate a whole bunch of buzzwords, but you know we're doing this and we're doing that and so

other digital currencies are optimized for And so other digital currencies are optimized for bells and whistles and buzzwords. And that means adding computational load, which makes the nodes bigger, harder to operate, and therefore you have a very small number of nodes. In fact, very few digital currencies are keen to publicize how many nodes there are, and they don't have full nodes in the true sense. And it doesn't even matter how many nodes they have because de facto, you know, you can spin up a million nodes tomorrow on AWS, doesn't really matter. What matters is de facto do the nodes dictate the rules of consensus. And the fact that with most digital currencies, you can have hard forks very frequently and they can change the supply all the time means that there's

a small group of people who agree amongst themselves how to move forward. Yeah, so you threw on a few criticism of all coins there, but so one is the small group that one we could talk about, it's a tricky one, and we talked about that with Satoshi Nakamoto. But the other one is a small number of nodes to push back on that as computational power increases, you can argue that it enables more and more cheap computers to serve as nodes. So at least it paints the future

where nodes are always increasing because computational power is always increasing and getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. So at least there's a hope for the future for greater and greater decentralization, decentralization on the node front. Yeah, but I mean, ultimately, again, it doesn't really matter how many nodes you have if you have a, you know, if the way that the currency is run is that you're going to have a hard fork every few months, which is the case with most other currencies.

Bitcoin is the only one that's not have the hard fork every few months, which is the case with most other currencies. Bitcoin's the only one that's not have a hard fork. Basically, the unique thing about Bitcoin in a technical sense is that you could get the original software, the Satoshi himself ran in 2009 to start the network. And you could run it today, and it would sync with the blockchain. There's one bug you need to fix One mistake that was owned that would have only appeared. I think in around 2013 or 14 or something like that That he wasn't aware of back then so you just need to fix this one time a little bug and then the consensus parameters are still the same So you're able to sync to it This is not true for most other digital currencies I'd say probably all of them because they've all had many hardforters which they think of as upgrades.

And they market this thing as, you know, well Bitcoin can't upgrade, but we upgrade all the time. Well, yeah, you know, what else upgrades all the time? Facebook, Apple, Amazon, anything that centralizes very easy to upgrade. And as precise, they why, as Michael Saito says, these things are somebody's liabithy. They are security you're carrying on somebody's technical and economic liability they can hard fork they can 10x the supply tomorrow. Yeah they can fall victim to the same corrupting forces that governments of all victim to share and for people who don't know, yeah, hard fork is a

reverse incompatible change to the underlying function of a cryptocurrency. Of course, there is hard forks of Bitcoin as well. I'm sure all of which you love dearly. anyway, but that doesn't matter. The original Bitcoin for the most part is not undergone any changes. And that's one of the times I mean has undergone changes, but none in the important parameters of the network. So another criticism is about energy. So the proof of work, consensus mechanism uses a lot of energy. What's the response to that criticism of Bitcoin? Yes, because it's worth it. Okay. The airplane uses a lot more energy than a kayak.

You know, when you're going to cross the Atlantic next time, what are you going to take a kayak that is environmentally friendly according to this insane definition? Or are you going to take an airplane that consumes a lot of energy? So the cost-benefit analysis here is such where you have to consider both the cost and the benefit. Exactly. And I think it's an astonishing testament to just how far backward people's scientific and technological thinking has devolved to the point where we think of energy consumption as a bad thing. I think it's just, and in the Fiat standard, I discussed the whole hysteria around energy, and I think it's a product of Fiat inflation because it's a way of trying to

covering up the fact that energy fuels that are reliable and necessary for the current world are becoming more and more expensive because of inflation. And so governments are always looking for excuses for why you should not be using those things. And so they promote all kinds of stupid pseudocyances that tell you about why these things are bad. But really, you know, all technology is, well, not all, but the vast majority of technological innovations involve economizing on human time and judgment and replacing it with machines with reliable machines that spend a lot of energy So that's what a telephone does instead of having to send somebody across the world to tell somebody something else or send a letter Telephone allows you to do it. The car is like that you could walk

But a car consumes a lot more energy, but it allows you to travel much faster and safer and more reliably. An airplane is like that, modern telecommunication. Human prosperity is an increase in the consumption of energy. And I think it is an absolutely criminal thing. And I genuinely mean the word criminal to portray energy consumption as a bad thing, because it is truly depriving people of the chance to live a life that makes life better. In this sense, it's truly criminal to tell poor countries that they should not consume the same energy sources that are being used in rich countries, on which our modern infrastructure

and modern life relies. That's what life is. If you reduce the consumption of energy in the US to the levels that you have in poor countries today, the US would become desperately poor. A lot of people would die, cities would collapse. The quality of life, a high quality of life, often requires giving the current technology a high expenditure of energy. Yeah, and I should be clear, it's not a quality of life in the sense that many people think of this as, oh yeah, well, you know, taking needless flights for vacations. No, no, these are the cherries on top of the cake, but the substance of the cake and

the real benefits of energy is the fact that children premature babies survive in countries that have reliable 24 hour cheap electricity. If your child is born premature, they put it in an incubator, put him in an incubator or her. They're highly likely to survive. If you don't have 24 hour electricity, that child is not going to make it. And you see it, you know, the level of energy consumption per capita is highly correlated, not just to income, but also to health outcomes, to infant mortality, to all of the things that you care about. And Bitcoin is just another technology.

It does consume a lot more energy than central banks. A lot of Bitcoiners like to take a cop out of this by saying, well, you know, central banks consume money and ATM's consumer energy. And I think if you calculate how much central banks and banks consume, I think it's a rounding error next to what Bitcoin consumes. I think Bitcoin is just maybe not a rounding error, but it's still Bitcoin is, I think, going to consume a lot more. And that's a good thing. You know what's humbling is to look, because even just looking into this forces me to

look at the energy expenditures for many of the things we take for granted. Obviously computers and digital our digital lives. I just Bitcoin becomes a rounding error relative to how much energy spent on all the computers in our world. But also like things like home appliances, microwaves and yeah hair dryer and stuff. Yeah, yeah, I mean, this is that's being hilarious. It's like, oh, these things that are just part of our modern life, they're either the

same order, at least the same order of magnitude as Bitcoin, and they seem like trivial parts of life. Yeah. And this is the thing, all the people that complain about Bitcoin's energy consumption, I presume they use washing machines. Now, why should their desire for clean and dry clothes get to consume energy? And I mean, I used to live in Lebanon. Lebanon had hyperinflation.

I escaped from hyperinflation. I escaped. It prevented my life. Could have been ruined by hyperinflation. And the reason that it wasn't ruined is because I have Bitcoin. So, I don't know, am I allowed to swear on your hypothesis? Yes, please. So fuck your washing machine.

Given the choice between my washing machine and my Bitcoin, I'll choose Bitcoin. It's a technology that has already saved my life, and I think it's going to save the lives of many, many, many, many more people. So, but of course, I don't have to choose between my Bitcoin and my washing machine, because this is, you know, we're just constantly consuming more energy and we're gonna continue to consume more energy in this world. And that's just what progress is.

And a small remark, so in principle, I don't think this is a problem, but the other thing about Bitcoin, where it is different from washing machines, Bitcoin is, so in principle, I don't think this is a problem, but the other thing about Bitcoin, where it is different from washing machines, Bitcoin is truly unique in this, is the only thing whose energy consumption can be produced absolutely anywhere. Your washing machine needs to be in your house

where you live, and you live in a city surrounded by 10 million people, and they all have their washing machines, and they're all connected to the grid, and they generally tend to do machines and they're all connected to the grid and they generally tend to do their laundry around the same time and so you have to put the load of the washing machine on the grid at the same time. There's needs to be one power plant and all of the infrastructure needs to work at the same time and the electricity is pretty expensive because it's being done in a place with high demand. Bitcoin does not need to buy electricity

from places where it has high demand because it can buy electricity from anywhere. This is what's truly mind blowing about it. You can buy, you know, what you need to, the electricity that you need for mining can be done anywhere. So you can mind, you know, you can have a waterfall in the north of Canada, 300 miles away from any population center. There's water falling, there's energy. You can have a waterfall in the north of Canada, 300 miles away from any population center. There's water falling, there's energy. You can put hydroelectric dam there, and then you can use that energy to operate the miners, and then the miners just need a satellite internet connection, and effectively you're selling

that energy that is isolated to the grid. And because of the way the Bitcoin functions, because of the difficulty adjustment, the only profitable miners are the ones who can get cheap electricity. Basically, if you're mining at grid cost, if you're mining at around the average electricity price in the world is around 14 cents. If you're mining at 14 cents in Bitcoin, you're most likely not going to make it. If you're running your miners at 14 cents, because everybody could mine at 14 cents. And so what happens is if everybody's mining at 14 cents, 14 cents stops being profitable. And then only the people mining at a lower price are profitable. So that's why Bitcoin mining is not competing with your washing machine. And this is this is the absurd thing about this kind of energy scarcity viewpoint where, oh no, it's

like a catastrophe. Bitcoin is taking all the electricity. As if the electricity is just one fixed pie that we all have to share and fight over. And this is how I keep making fun of these stupid headlines. They put out where Bitcoin is consuming more electricity than Portugal. All right. Well, maybe you should shut down Portugal then. What the hell is Portugal giving us?

Like, obviously, it's not, it's not the beat. He doesn't mean that I've gotten so much criticism of saying Christian out in Kishana or no, there's not in the top five. I apologize. Ooh, I love Portugal. That's another discussion we should get into. What would you do? Because you posted a few soccer things.

I realized how passionate people are about this. Listen, it was a joke. All right, he does not love Portugal. I'm not. Yeah. I realize how passionate people are about this. Listen, it was a joke. All right. He doesn't love people. I love Portugal. And even though I'm a Liverpool fan, I still respect Cristiano Ronaldo a lot. In fact, I hold a very unpopular opinion where I think Cristiano Ronaldo is the greatest football player ever. Number one, overpelling Maradona, Messi, better than Messi. Yes, he's been doing it for 20 years at the top. Nobody's ever done that. He's won everything everywhere. Everywhere he goes at the top, at the Champions League. He needed strong argument to be made for him.

And Messi's never done anything outside of Barcelona. That's the thing. So you appreciate performance, long term, versus the genius of the actual play on the field. I mean, the geniuses, Ronaldo's the top scorer of all time. He's a part of the actual play on the field. I mean, the geniuses Ronaldo's the top scorer of all time. He's a genius in scoring not the actual dance of the play, the creativity. Well, I mean, I don't know. Messi's been absolutely mediocre since he's left Barcelona.

This is strong words. He's got two goals in PSG season this year. They're out of the Champions League. What about Muhammad Saleh? You've posted... Is he climbing up to be sworn in? I think he should win the Ballon Dwarf this year. He probably should have won it last year as well. He's been absolutely outstanding. But I mean, just people are so crazy about Messi. They keep giving him Michael. He hasn't deserved, I think, Messi the last couple of Ballon Dwarfs that he got.

I mean, he's a great player and everything, but no, he didn't. I think Messi the last couple of ballon doors that he got. I mean his great player and everything but no he didn't he did not deserve it last year. We can agree to disagree. I think you're a Barça fan or a Messi fan? I would say no I wouldn't say I'm a Barça fan but Barça fan because of Messi and I just, I think it's like, there's certain things. So when I was growing up in the, in the, in the Soviet Union, Russia, I remember, um, Aradona, he was the first person I saw that I was like, Oh, wow, this could be, um, this is greatness in sport. And I just footballed sport, right? And for some reason, I mean, something about like, yeah, God, I'm on the Maradona, like the way they were commentating, the genius of us play, the mix of ego, and again, the performance, but being able to carry a team

on his shoulders, that I just fell in love with whatever he represented and then by that Argentina. And then messy, I saw when he was like 16-17 when he was just like right in the early days. And we first see a person and you see the genius and you notice that and then it turns out to be actually a great player. For somebody's name you're invested. You're emotionally invested. You're, I don't know. So you kind of just fall in love and then you get you pick size I mean, that's the thing about football. Part of the fun things about football soccer is like, you pick a guy, you pick a team, and fuck everyone else. And you just have fun talking shit.

I mean, this part of it, you know, that's great. It's great because I think, you know, obviously it's a very stupid thing to do, but I think if you don't do it in football, you're gonna do it in real life. Elsewhere. That's right. That's why it's very good.

Like, just that I, you know, instead of hating people for their religion and for their skin color, hate them because they support Manchester United. Exactly. So you're a Liverpool fan. Yes. Yes. Hardcore, long term. But yes, so to go back to the original point on Portugal, energy, yeah, energy.

Bitcoin is not competing with Portugal because Bitcoin is buying energy from places where we can't buy it because all the places where we can buy energy for our washing machines, we're bidding up the price enough to make it non-viable for Bitcoin. That's why, you see those headlines about Bitcoin consuming more energy than Portugal. Well, if you look at Portugal, I mean, they've got giant power plants in Portugal. They've got millions of people and they've got enormous amounts of infrastructure. Where are all of these infrastructure for Bitcoin mining?

You don't see it in the cities. It's all isolated. It's all out away from the cities or it's connected to grids that have serious overcapacity. So Bitcoin is not out there buying the expensive energy, taking energy away from people who can't afford it. It's out there buying its own energy,

because it doesn't need to buy the expensive energy that people really need. So one other criticism from an investment perspective, from a gambling perspective that people see is the volatility of Bitcoin. Of course, there's been somewhat decreasing over time, but what's your answer to the sort of criticism that Bitcoin is too volatile? I want to stay away. It doesn't

seem like a safe place for me to invest either short-term or long-term. There's no denying there's a volatility and there's a high oscillation in the value in the short-term. So I think the safe way to approach that is in terms of position sizing. If the volatility bothers you, then you are over-invested perhaps. So maybe you should maybe you should reduce the size of your position so that the volatility doesn't bother you. This is the short answer that you know, like stack as much as your conviction will allow you to tolerate the volatility. But the, and of course, the reason you should try and consider tolerating the volatility more is the options are you hold Fiat assets which only go down stable, you know, relatively

stable, not a lot of volatility day to day. The value of your dollar doesn't change 40% overnight, 20% overnight or something like that, but it does go down reliably. It's going to go down 40%. You can count on it. It might take a year, two years, five years, ten years, compared to the things that you want to buy. It's going to go down by 40%.

And it's not going to come back%. And it's not gonna come back, and it's gonna go down another 40% and then another 40% and then another 40%. So the option really is relatively short-term stability with long-term decline or short-term volatility with long-term rise. And so that's another way in which Bitcoin teaches people to have a low time preference

and think about the long term. So stack, accumulate, and think of it in the long term. It's a function of the fact that Bitcoin is new. Bitcoin is currently less than 1% of the global money market. So there's about $100 trillion of money out there in the world. $100 trillion is roughly of fiat and about $10 trillion of gold. And Bitcoin is less than $1 trillion. So, one rich guy decides to get into Bitcoin. That's going to show up on the Bitcoin chart. You look at it. Elon Musk decides to buy Bitcoin. You see the buy. You see the news and happens,

and you see the pump. Elon Musk decides that he doesn't like Bitcoin. You see the drop. But a few years ago, it used to be that one random millionaire would cause that. Now you have to be the richest guy in the world to do that. In a few years, you're going to have to be the richest country in the world to be able to do that to the Bitcoin price, maybe many years, maybe not a few years. But as Bitcoin grows, think about it as a liquid pool of money. Currently, it's a small pool next to a much larger ocean, which is the entire money market. And so, one person jumps from that to this small pool, they can make a big splash. As the pool grows, essentially, the salability increases. And the likelihood

of one individual purchasing, affecting the price so violently increases, decreases. And so, over time, you know, as the size of the market increases, I think we're going to see the volatility decline more and more. Ultimately, if you look at gold, historically, gold's been very, very stable. It did not achieve its stability, because the central bank was in charge of gold supply,

or because there was a gold committee that decided how much gold gets produced. It achieved that stability because it became the most salable good and so therefore became the good that contains the most cash balances in the world. And the end of the 19th century everybody held cash balances in gold. And the new production was a tiny little addition to global production to the supply. So that's what made gold the most relatively, I shouldn't say stable because nothing is stable in economics,

but relatively it holds on to its value and it's much less volatile than digital currency than national currencies. That's because it has the highest stock to flow ratio and that's because its supply is a tiny fraction of the liquid market. As the liquid market grows, as the size of cash balances grows and trades in Bitcoin cancels each other out, you get only slight changes in value. I think as Bitcoin matures, that's going to decline. Effectively, the end game is Bitcoin is huge. Bitcoin is worth something. I think the total addressable market for Bitcoin is not just national currencies

and golds addressable market, but also government bonds. That's the really big one. So how do banks compare the goals? You're saying it's ill-served past gold with the 10 trillion. Yeah. What's bonds? Where's bonds then? So then there's also national currencies, which is about 100 trillion, and there's government bonds, which are around 120 billion dollars. And sorry, trillion dollars, trillion. They're trillion, sorry. Yes. If we're saying billion, we meant trillion. Yeah. So you think bonds can move to Bitcoin. I've always held this is the prize. This is the main dish. Gold is the appetizer.

Bonds are the main dish because bonds have a whole lot of the appetizer. Yeah. I mean, bonds have replaced gold in people's portfolio. People remember when we were saying gold was you'd held it as a saving as the secure part of your portfolio and then you you take risk with the equity. Currently people do that by holding a part of their portfolio in bonds. That's the part that they treat as their saving account. And then the rest they use for not speculation for investment, in which they take risk. And yes, speculation. And that's stocks and equity and other high-risk assets.

I think Bitcoin is not going to replace equity. There will always be equity. There will always be companies and people who want to have equity. But it will probably replace a big chunk of current equity markets. Because right now, if you want to save, it used to be that you hold bonds.

Now, if you want to save, you go into stock indexes. So I think Bitcoin likely eats a big chunk of equity markets because currently it's people are using it as saving. And I think it eats all bonds. That's my most ambitious statement. Well, the question is the scale of time that happens across, but the most important statement you're making is about trend. Yeah. And also, I mean, let's also remember, currently bonds nominally don't beat inflation, and in real terms, they don't come close to beating inflation. So currently, you know, with bonds, you're taking on credit default risk to buy a bond

and also getting less money back in real terms. Well, Bitcoin doesn't offer you returns, but in real terms it appreciates much more and it has, I believe, a lot less risk associated with it than any company or government. So let's make things spicy and ask if Bitcoin fails in the long term future. As all you just said, economics volatility, things happen in this world about the human civilization might end in this century I hope it doesn't but it might that could be catastrophic events if Bitcoin fails It goes to zero loses its number one spot What would be the reason if you're

An alien visiting earth a hundred years from now and just were to analyze the situation. Bitcoin is a pretty new thing. So the possible trajectory of how the world evolves together with this new monetary technology is nearly infinite. So if it fails, one of those trajectories surely involves Bitcoin failing. What would be the reason? I think the most likely reason that it could fail. I don't think this is likely in general, but I think it is the most. I think the most likely reason that it could fail. I don't think this is likely

in general, but I think it is the most likely of all the unlikely things that could destroy Bitcoin is, uh, government's go back on a gold standard. So they make, in your view, a better decision than the current system, just not the best decision. Yeah. And I thought you would go much darker. decision. Yeah, I thought you would go much darker. But so that's, you're okay, interesting. So maybe because of Russia, because of China and so on, because the current war, they might reconsider the power that America holds because of the monetary, because of being the primary currency, and they'll start thinking about going on a gold standard. Yeah, but it would also require the US and the Europeans and everybody to want to join

in this system and sink, come by on, play nice with each other around the gold standard. I think, given that gold already is about 10 times larger than Bitcoin, so it has a first mover advantage. If governments were to go and peg their currencies to gold, again, the price of gold would shoot up five, ten X, and it would rise in value a lot more. Of course, that doesn't necessarily kill Bitcoin. No, again, I'm not saying it's likely to happen. I'm saying it's, I imagine less likely, less unlikely than all the other unlikely scenarios, because even with a nuclear war, like 90% of the planet was destroyed, the 10% continued to run Bitcoin.

There's a quote. Okay, there's a movement, a community of people referred to as Bitcoin maximalists. I've seen you refer at least in the past as the leader of the Bitcoin maximalist, probably because of your book, you know, Bitcoin standard, consider the Bible in general, you're one of the leaders in this space. Do you regret any of the toxicity and derision that often or perhaps sometimes originates from this community? Definitely not. I'm not in the position to regret other people's actions. So let's just be clear. I think the rhetoric of community is, I reject this rhetoric because I think it's a way for kind of political manipulation and subversion to try and portray people as

part of a community and hold people responsible for other people's actions, which I think is ridiculous. So, you know, some guy on the internet said something mean to somebody, and then this is very common, and I always try and not get involved in these things. So some guy who identifies as a bit-qucoiner says something to somebody that's very wrong. Of course, it happens. Tens of millions of people use Bitcoin around the world. And a lot of these, I'd say, parasites.

There are people who don't have anything productive to do with their life. Outrage merchants, they'll come out and say something along the lines of, you know, outrage merchants, they'll come out and say something along the lines of, you know, the Bitcoin maximists are toxic, they're holding Bitcoin back and they need. And of course, it's manipulative. The point behind it is they want to get to you, to, they want to get people who are, you know, not that nobody with 300 followers who said something silly, they want to get the notable people to basically change their message. So the idea is, you know, I'm supposed to apologize because somebody with 300 followers I've never met in my life who calls themselves a Bitcoiner, said a mean word, and then I need to apologize, and I also need to cut down on my rhetoric about other digital currencies and I need to do that.

So I am only responsible for my own actions actions and I don't recall regretting anything. Okay, well let me push back or push further into that direction. Fine, let's see the community aside, label suck for sure. But you have a spicy way about you on Twitter. Even in this conversation, you know, you had some good, strong words to say about. I've always believed in life is too short to mens words. One day I'm going to be dead. And I'm on my deathbed, I'm not going to look back and say, I wish I was a little bit more circumspect in expressing my opinions. I'm far more likely to think, you know what, I wish I said what I really think. Yes, life is too short to hold back your opinion. The question is, what is really your opinion?

Because you're many people in one. So there's a person that loves, there's kindness for their human beings, there's a person that gets annoyed, there's a person that enjoys this agreement, there's a person that enjoys collaboration. And you can emphasize all of those different things, each of those different things, way it differently in your online interaction. There's some aspects of an online interaction that encourages and different communities. Online interaction is one community that encourages kind of derision and mockery and so on. So you get, you can choose if you want to engage that part of yourself or some other part of yourself

economics is another community that enjoys being like very straightforward about their disagreements pretty harsh It's fun to watch because it feels like you arrive at the truth much faster because you tear each other apart but because it feels like you arrive at the truth much faster because you tear each other apart. But, you know, that's a choice. That's a deliberate choice. I mean, I don't want the label and entire community of people by its extremes. I don't think you should do that. But there's cultural characteristics you start to notice. When you go to France, that's a certain way. When you go to Britain, London is different than rural. A Britain in, you know, in New York is different than Iowa.

You start to notice things. I mean, you don't want to generalize. There's all kinds of people everywhere, but there's a certain way of communication on crypto, Twitter, and general, but also Bitcoin Maximus that I even early on received a bunch of heat. It's like, what the hell? So it, listen, there's definitely a difference when I go to the computer science community, machine learning community. It's

way from there than the cryptocurrency community. I have much more freedom to actually be what I enjoy being, which is asking simple dumb questions. Even when I've already spent years, sometimes decades with an idea, I like asking dumb questions anyway. The crypto folks punish you for this, for curiosity, for like exploration. I understand the mechanism because so many other people come into that community and they might masquerade as curious,

but really they're trying to inject, they're trying to sell some kind of alcohol, there's some scheme, there's some scheme to make money. And so I understand, maybe that's just the dynamics of the community by nature. It's not like you respond appropriately to the amount of charlatans in the community. So if the fraction of charlatans is low, maybe you can afford to be more loving and so on. And when the fraction of charlatans is high, you have to be harsher. Perhaps. Perhaps. But I think also, you know, the stakes are extremely high in this situation. And I think, you know, if you don't like Bitcoiners, if you think Bitcoiners are toxic, wait till you meet fiaters, you know, the fiat community has financed world wars and genocides and

tyrants and the mass death and destruction Fiat community, if you want to use that term, I don't believe that you should but I mean, you know fiat has destroyed the savings of pretty much anybody who's lived through the last 20th century pretty much much anybody who's lived through the 20th century, no matter where you lived, Switzerland, US, Ethiopia, Russia, you've gone through the out problems. You've had hyperinflation, you've had bank confiscation. There isn't a family in the world today that hasn't had its wealth destroyed over the last century.

You know, they all have a story about inflation and the hyperinflation. Bitcoin offers us a way out of this. And shit coins, altcoins are essentially fiat worlds, blast gasp attempt to try and salvage fiat, to try and salvage the idea that some people will continue to be able to print money and other people will have to use that money. You know, this is Twitter, it's a free market, it's the internet. You don't have to follow anybody, that's the thing. So what I found, what I find really objectionable about the people who are so but hurt always about Bitcoin Maximum is you don't have to click follow on people you don't like. There are 300 million Twitter accounts

and if you choose to follow the accounts that say things that annoy you and then complain about the fact that they say things that annoy you, I'm sorry about you are an idiot and you don't know how to use Twitter. Just follow the accounts that you like. You don't have to be part of this. You don't have to listen to those people. You can choose there are a lot of bitcoins that don't act like this. You can just unfollow the ones that you don't like. And I've been lost since in the past year, man, time flies. I've met a lot of them. I enjoy them a lot. And you build that community of people that you enjoy. They're less the communicate. No way you enjoy. And it's become a meme at this point that I block with love, I think. Yes. Because I did not. I block very prolifically. And I strongly

recommend that people continue to block. I think Twitter is, you know, you're not going to get to interact with 300 million accounts anyway. So you want to be constantly curating the experience by getting rid of people you don't like and following people that you like. And that's just how, you know, after 10 years of using Twitter, you know, you get, you accumulate the block list, which is very big, which I'm very happy for. I'm gonna pass on to my children.

That's, that's, that's, that's, that's, it's in your deathbed, the grandchildren will gather around and your grandfather can finally share the full list. Yeah, so like, again, it's just a Twitter account. If it bothers you so much, ask yourself why it bothers you that some people are so I'm not referring to you obviously, but I mean the people that are constantly aggravated about this, I don't get bothered by anything on Twitter. I just block immediately and I'm getting to curate the experience that I enjoy.

And I recommend people do that. It's really a lot less pathetic than complaining about strangers saying things you don't like, which a lot of... And of course, the reason for it is, you know, when I say it's stupid, it's not really stupid. There's an ulterior motive there. And the ulterior motive is, hey, I have this shit coin that I made with five other friends of mine. And I'd like you to... I'd like to ride your coat tails, bitcoins, and I'd like you to please help me promote this shitcoin. Like this is, I get this practically every week, whether through email or through Twitter, where, hey, you know, this is our shitcoin, you know, it's just like Bitcoin, but it's better because it does this and this and

that. And, you know, basically, how can we get you to promote this shitcoin for us? And being straightforward and forthright is a great productivity hack because you know, you just tell those people, no, I'm not interested as a stupid shit going and I wish you a quick and swift failure before you take a lot of people, it's money, and that's what I genuinely think. Well, but I'll just be up front with the fact, at least for my taste, just labeling everything as a shit coin worries me.

So this is my own preference. It's not a judgment on you. It's just my own preference that I'm afraid I'll miss good ideas. I think when you're, me personally, when I'm too certain about things, when I'm too tribal about things, I'll miss actually really strong ideas,

outlier ideas, totally new ideas. So that that worries me. One of the downsides of the way Bitcoin is, how much is a stake financially, is that it's less open to good. Actually, by design, that it's not changing, like the hard forks and so on that there's not a kind of curiosity about exploration of ideas. Of course in some way that curiosity can start getting injected when you start talking about other layers built on top of Bitcoin you start talking about applications or different things like lightning network that's where the curiosity can emerge. But still, that's why with cryptocurrency in general,

I just tried to keep an open mind. And just the shit coin as a term is just a statement that I'm gonna close my mind to. That's the way I hear it. And but coming out of your mouth, because you say a lot of other IG stuff, it's just more you having fun. That's the way I hear.

But if I said something like that, that's a, I feel like I would feel like I'm closing my mind. I mean, let me give you the counter argument to that. How much time do you spend emailing back all of these Nigerian prince emails cams that you know email you tell you send me $5,000 and I'll send you $15 million. None. None. Why are you being closed minded to all of these great ideas Oh, no, but I'm also, you know, maybe one of them will actually send you 15 million dollars. But I don't know if I know the difference between the Nigerian prince and many other people I do talk to who are colleagues and so on that are also emailing me and they're also offering me things, but they don't sound as ridiculously spammy. Yeah, but I mean, the moment that somebody tells you, hey, I'm going to give you $15 million for nothing.

Just if you send me $5,000, you're getting something for nothing. And essentially, with all the digital currencies, it's the same pitch. Hey, come use this thing that will allow you to do things that all of the things that they pretend that they can do, they can be done with computers without having digital currencies. We already have a WS that does cloud computing that does everything that

shittcoins pretend to do. The only difference is a WS doesn't have its own monetary system tacked on top of it to allow Jeff Bezos to basically print his own money. But don't you think there's some gray area? So let me, let me go for the historical record. And let's see if you've changed as a philosopher economist human being. You tweeted three years ago. Oh no. Anyone who believes proof of stake in work is either one completely clueless at how and why Bitcoin works at all or two, a con artist using it as a buzzword to promote a worthless scam like Ethereum. Do you still believe that

Ethereum is a scam and in general proof of stake? You're either clueless if you think it's interesting. Yeah, no, I still stand by that. I think the... Would you classify Ethereum as a shit coin in you? For sure. It's the mother asshole from which the shit coins spring. The Royal, the King's Bitcoin. Yeah. I think the key thing is, you know, the way to think about this is another tweet from a couple of years ago,

which is essentially proof of work was like the invention of flight. Like we've got in this machine and we managed to get it to fly off the ground. And proof of stake is, hey, we found a great way to make airplanes cheaper and faster by not making them fly. By keeping them on the ground. The invention of proof of work, the reason the entire digital currency space exists is because Bitcoin operates based on proof of work. If Bitcoin was based on proof of stake, it would have died or been shot down from day one.

But that's a hypothesis, and a lot of people believe that, and I think they have a lot of strong support. But basically, proof of work is grounded in physics in the real world. The proof of stake is more about politics. It's the federal reserve. It's exactly what we have. It's exactly what we have. It's just a group of people who get to decide the rules.

And it's essentially a system that is, you know, it's a security. It's a company. So, it's not an innovation in any sense. It's a step backward to what we already had, which is you get a bunch of people in charge of the money. Now, the only reason it survives in this, and the reason I call these things a scam, and I have no problem with calling them a scam is because they fraudulately present themselves as being decentralized.

They present themselves as just a different way of doing decentralization than Bitcoin. When it's not, it's just their writing Bitcoin's code tails, and they're writing the fact that most people don't quite understand what Bitcoin is and how it works to portray themselves as a cheaper, better, more efficient way of doing what Bitcoin does, it's not. It's a less legally accountable way of doing what central banks do. Right. So, and the basic criticism is that there's a group of people, sometimes a very small group of people that can control the parameters of the operation of the system.

Except for time, you can't trust, it's not gold under the mattress. It doesn't have that kind of heart structure. It's not property. I really, very strongly recommend your discussion with Sailor for people who want to elaborate more on this. There's a bunch of people in charge, which means that, you know, legally, they should be doing this under securities law. But even as an anarchist, if I don't want to

care about that, the technical implication of it is this is never going to be adopted as a neutral way of transferring value on the internet because you need something that enemies can trade with one another. You can't have something that has a small group of people in charge because A, the small group of people themselves can be corrupted and b they can be coerced you know you can put a bunch of people in a room put a gun to their head and you can change everything in any of these digital currencies and that's why that's why I think you know you'll find a lot more sympathy among fiaters to shit coins. The Keynesian economist to Ethereum fanboy pipeline is a very strong one

because it's the same thing. It's like, you would like the idea of people being in charge in money and you think you're going to be the one who's going to be in charge of money. So you see a lot of this phenomenon and you see the same people that want gold and don't like central banking, they get into Bitcoin. Yeah, so just to actually push back a couple of things. So one is theater. It sounds like I'm trying to be a sophisticated Brit talking about theater. But for many reasons, it's not making me feel good about that. So day by day things change.

You used to be one of those. So people evolve, people learn, people that are supported at Bitcoin, my eventually become supporters of Ethereum or go back to supporting Fiat. We don't know, people evolve for different reasons. You grow up, you mature, or you become enlightened. So I think every single person sort of,

as this technology is evolving, as this world is evolving, as wars break on, as geopolitics change, as the monetary system is constantly put under stress, people will evolve. So we're trying to all figure it out together. That's why like open-mindedness here, I think, for people like me at least, seems essential. I know. So I expect you to be answering all of this bad emails you get I will Prince by prince by prince, but no, I I don't have a clear understanding What is the good investment my time? What is the good investment in my money? That's doesn't seem clear because things

Things are good at promoting themselves. I'm not talking about the different kinds of things like a Theorem, altcoins and so on. I just mean life like dating, jobs, friendships, like everybody's advertising themselves as a great investment, right? But you don't know and you have to keep an open mind. And also, I don't, and be sort of self-introspective about what, how, like biases I operate under, and ways I dilute myself, like hallucinations that I'm living under, is like breaking, you know, breaking out of all these hallucinations. It's very hard to introspect thinking, like,

what are the assumptions under which I lived my entire life that might be actually false assumptions? That's a really a difficult thought process to take. It's a dangerous one. It's the niche, if you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gaze into you. It's like, Alex Jones does. I mean, he's living, he's got demons in his head.

So he has like all these conspiracy theories that it holds in his head, but it begins to really destroy him. So it's a psychological burden to carry. So if you question, if you question authority, if you question government, if you question culture, the way things have been done, it's really difficult. And the biases you operate under, it's really difficult to question them. So I think like being constantly open-minded and self-critical, not constantly, but a little bit every day is important, I think. Yeah, but I mean, you're talking to somebody.

I grew up in Ramallah and Palestine in the West Bank. I've changed my mind on all kinds of different things. The fact that I was even open to the idea of Bitcoin is required and enormous amount of money. It's a heck of a journey. So I'd much rather appreciate direct arguments rather than these kind of general fluffy, you know, you should be, oh of course, yes, you should be open-minded, but also you come up with conclusions and you delete spam email sometimes when you know that it is spam because you have to move on with your life. There's an opportunity cost to considering every spam email. Well, to me, okay, so I'll just say from my relatively shallow perspective,

almost like a technical person, mostly, my understanding of economics is weak. any of economics is weak. Proof of stake is not obviously weak consensus mechanism relative to proof of work. So that's not obvious to me that that goes wrong and becomes corrupted in the way that governments get corrupted because it still seems decentralized. Now your criticism of governance is an interesting one, but if you put that aside, it's still a decentralized mechanism, and it's more transparent than the mechanism that governments operate on. It isn't. It's exactly what the Federal Reserve is. The Federal Reserve is a proof of stake system. The Federal Reserve is owned by its constituent banks, and so the

rules of the Federal Reserve and the regulations are determined by the ownership, which is the banks. And so the rules of the Federal Reserve and the regulations are determined by the ownership, which is the banks. So it's exactly what the Federal Reserve is. But it's too bagged door. The agreements between the banks and the Federal Reserve, it feels like a lot of those agreements are made between individuals that sort of behind the scenes. It's not hard to, it's opaque. Yes, but the only way that a proof-of- of stake system will take off is if you have a military to force people to use it. That's the thing. Ultimately, there's no way that it's going to take off on a free market. And that's why, you know, for all of the bluster about one tick to move to a proof of

stake system, Ethereum have been saying this since 2014. It's not been eight years. You know, they've been talking about it. We still haven't seen the proof of stake system operation in the wild. It's vaporware for all practical and test. Ordano, proof of stake. It's potential. I mean, you can do it in a centralized way, but can it survive? Can it last for a long time? I don't think so. And I think it can last, perhaps, initially with marketing, with centralized marketing, you know, it can last perhaps initially with marketing, with centralized marketing,

you can promote it, but ultimately, user demand. The people that are not interested in speculating because they want to get rich on this, the people that are going to use it, they're going to want to use it because they can trust that it is not going to be messed with. Yes. But there's also applications that I was letting you network. But there's applications on top, like, well, the reason I'm interested in things like Ethereum is you might think as ridiculous. I thought it was ridiculous, but

NFTs. So what's the you can have NFTs probably on top of Bitcoin, but you don't because there's no marketing on Bitcoin because all these ideas get promoted on proprietary shitcoins because yes. But there's the network effects of ideas of applications. So they just take off for some reason. And human civilization is such that you get excited about stuff and large amounts of people believe a thing and they start to get excited and actually has impact.

Like the fact that NFTs can have an impact on the art world or the world in general is wild to me. But it worked. Well, you know, a question is, there's a draw call has an impact on the art world. This is so much. Well, saying the ideas have, you know, we're collective intelligence beings and we can believe a thing and that has power that has led to major wars and all those kinds of things. So, it's interesting to me that NFTs took hold.

And the question is, is there distributed, there are dApps, is there distributed apps built on top of different blockchains that might somehow transform the world? You have to kind of keep an open mind to that. Because right now it's like, it's like I'm the same place with that as I am with like virtual reality.

It's like, all right. This seems like a really intellectually promising set of ideas here, but there's something either technically or socially not quite taking hold. Why? And I don't know what the right answer is. So with virtual reality, what's the right answer? Is it just technically the latency is too high or the games are not good enough or is it a fundamentally flawed idea that you can live in a virtual world and enjoy it, that the physical world is just orders a magnitude better or a two-dimensional display is just as good

as a three-dimensional world. I don't know, why is virtual reality not taking off? It's been since the 80s, right? I don't have strong opinions on it on the prospect of the technology. I personally, I don't want to ever imagine myself having something on my eyes. I'd rather just go out into the real world. But I don't have strong opinions on virtual reality. I do have on Daps and NFTs. Yeah. What's your criticism of sort of Daps and NFTs? Is this a distraction? It's a way to sell a flawed technology. The problem with Daps is, I mean, it's just the economics of it make no sense in the sense that, you know, currently,

if you wanted to run an application, whatever the application is, you want to run it on AWS, you pay a specific amount of money, you want to run it on your own laptop, you pay a specific amount of money, you want to run it on your own laptop, you pay a specific amount of money per kilobytes of data. If you want to run the same thing on a distributed ledger where you're distributing the data over thousands of computers worldwide, it's infinitely more expensive. And that's why we haven't seen any of these dApps take off.

And that's why I've said this many years ago, the only working application of blockchain technology is Bitcoin, because with Bitcoin, you know, you're with a few hundred bytes of data, with a few bytes of data, you could move a billion dollars worth of economic value from here to China and move it safely and reliably. So that power, I can't see it being justified for anything that is not as mission critical as moving large amounts of value, which require very little amount of information. So when you look at all of the buzzwords that the Ethereum and other altcoin marketing people like to use, and you know, if you want to wonder really why we come to this kind of aggression is because we've heard all of this, you know, I've had all of these hucksters come to me for years,

you know, it's been, I've had, you know, people in 2016 talk to me about how Ethereum blockchain technology is going to revolutionize real estate deeds in India. Now, remember this guy, I'm not gonna mention his name, but this guy was, you know, 2016, and he sold a lot of shit coins, and he got made a lot of money off of shit coins, based on all these silly ideas. We can have Blackjack on a distributed ledger.

We're gonna have Indian real estate on a distributed ledger. And it's just, it's concerned trolling marketing. You know, oh, there's a problem with real estate in India, real estate deeds. Blockchained fixes this by my shit coin. And then people buy the shit coin, Indian real estate isn't fixed. And the guy gets rich and they move on. But I mean, I'm still waiting for a dip to actually emerge. Like, you know, it's I mean, I'm still waiting for a nap to actually emerge. Like, you know, it's the promise that we keep hearing is something completely world changing, world transforming.

And the reality is not one app. Like, there's one of my good friends, Jimmy Song. Eventually they refused to go ahead with the bed. He wanted to bet with one of the Ethereum people about these dApps. You know, the Ethereum people are constantly saying those dApps are gonna grow and they're gonna have so many applications and they're going to have so many ideas. And the reality is all the apps that work are centralized apps. So there is no Uber on the blockchain. There is no Twitter on the blockchain. There is no social media on the blockchain because these are businesses and businesses require centralized authority to make decisions. You can't have it be decentralized.

Yeah. Listen, you're frustrated and I could see it over a few years of just having dealt with humongous influx of charlatans. I wouldn't say frustrated. I'm amused. It's water off my back. No, but a man they use this and a community, they use the word shit coin, is a little bit, you call it a amusement and I think amusement is the way to deal with the frustration. It's a channel in your frustration.

Like, sometimes when you have to deal with bullshit, the best way is just to laugh at the absurdity of it all and that's what you mean by amusement. But the fact is, like, there's things like artificial intelligence for what is it? How many decades, seven decades has been often on promising to change everything. And it has failed time and time again to deliver to the promise. But that doesn't mean there's something fundamental and really powerful about both the small and the big things going on within the actual research and development within those communities. There's a lot of exciting developments and the scale at which those developments might actually have a transformative impact. The time scale is unclear.

It seems like we're certainly over-promising. We dream too big and too aggressively. In AI community, but a lot of it. Yeah, and I'm happy to give people the benefit of the doubt when they're over-promising, but not when they're making their own money. When you start making your own currency, then you don't get the benefit of the doubt. Because if your idea needs you to have a new currency that you print when Bitcoin is out there, then I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're doing this for the money. It's a quick time to mention that I am actually launching my coin called Lex coin.

You mean shit coin? Yes. No, God. I'm going to have to block you with love. Yes. No, God. I'm going to have to block you with love. Okay. One thing I want to ask you about is the feds. This paper they released in January 20th on the potential central bank digital currency, CBDC. What are your thoughts about that? Is it just another, like, is there pros and cons to this? Is it all interesting to you that they're even considering this kind of thing? I used to think that it's just basically waffle, it's meaningless, because as it exists, the dollar is a central bank digital currency.

The vast majority of dollars are digital. And but I think the way that over the last couple of years, I've changed my mind on this. I think there's some serious substance behind these ideas. And what they mean effectively is the disintermediation of the banking system and giving everybody an account at the Federal Reserve. This is, this is kind of the really dangerous idea. And I think this is enormously significant.

Effectively, as somebody who's lived in the Soviet Union, what this is, is the return of the Ghost Bank on a global scale with modern technology. So under the Soviet Union, there was something called the Ghost Bank or the People's Bank. And that was the only bank in the country. And you had an account with the national bank. And if you've said something wrong, your money

got terminated from the Goss bank. Now imagine that combined with the power of digital technology. And you can see that this could be an enormously powerful technology really, because if banks are out of the picture, then we change the fundamental reality of Fiat as being the creation of money through lending, and then it becomes the creation of money truly by Fiat, by government Fiat. So we move to a system in which money is just basically. It's like we have money that is pieces of paper, and every time we've had money, we've

had Fiat money that was just pieces of paper, it collapse very quickly. With the current system, money is credit, and the creation of credit is restricted to some point, and the creation of credit is self-correcting, I discussed this in the V outstandard. If the central bank allows banks to create too much credit, that creates a bubble, and then there's a collapse in the money supply, which prevents hyperinflation from happening because the money creation is self-destructive, it's self-correcting. So you end up with an average of like 7% per year increase because you have 10% for five years and then you get negative 20% for one year and it's correcting. But now if you get rid of the credit creation

mechanism and it's just assigning money directly, we're likely going to get much faster inflation. I mean, it's just assigning money directly. We're likely going to get much faster inflation. And I think that's obviously a big huge problem. And perhaps then even bigger problem is the enormous amount of power that it gives to governments. It allows them to create an awful dystopia where, you know, you've got your money on your phone. And anything you do is completely supervised and controlled

through your spending. So they want to introduce a new lockdown, then they'll just make your money not work. Your money is broken today. You can't spend money or you can only spend money in your local supermarket for the next three months because you can't leave your neighborhood. Your money stops working outside of your neighborhood. The Chinese social credit score system is an example of this. And I think, I don't know, I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know what the likelihood is of implementing something like this in the US. I've discussed it with Michael Seller, he thinks

it's highly unlikely he thinks, you know, the people who've been pushing this are very far from the position of power and the traditional monetary and financial system is going to survive intact. I certainly hope so. I think this would be a terrible thing if it comes to pass. But I don't think many people think that it is something that would undermine Bitcoin. Like a lot of common objection to Bitcoin is, well, governments are just going to launch their own digital currencies and then Bitcoin is going to die. And I think this is completely missing the point.

People think Bitcoin is important because it's digital. It's not. National currencies can be digital. Bitcoin is important because it's not inflationary and because nobody controls it. Central bank digital currencies are likely to be very inflationary. And they're likely to have very inflationary, and they're

likely to have very strong control at the top. So if anything, they are an advertisement for Bitcoin, rather than a replacement for it. If it's Bitcoin, if it's gold, it's the way for multiple nations to partake. So if you were to imagine a future where we move from the Fiat standard back to the gold standard and then to the Bitcoin standard or skipping that going directly to the Bitcoin standard, what would it take? The gradual is immediate. What are possible trajectories that take us? Well, basically where the final sort of empirical observation is that you overtake Bitcoin overtakes first gold and then bonds in terms of its

monetary power in the world, but just specifically from a government perspective, how do we move the United States, China, Russia, India, European Union to Bitcoin standard? I'm not entirely concerned about whether governments move or not. In fact, I'd be very happy for them not to move as long as possible so that individuals can accumulate more and more Bitcoin while it's still cheap. So the people will move and the governments will catch up. Yeah, and I think this is kind of what I allude to, I mean, the point of the Fiat standard is really a Bitcoin book. It talks about Fiat most of the time, but it's does so to analyze Bitcoin and the rise of Bitcoin in the final chapter. I discuss

how I think this relationship plays out. The way that I tend to think of it is that most likely what's going to happen is we're going to have a kind of financial apartheid where there's going to be two monetary systems. One is government controlled and it comes with increasing amounts of surveillance and inflation. And then if you want, you can just opt out of that and get into Bitcoin and it's likely going to be difficult for governments to stop people from getting into Bitcoin for all of the technical reasons that make it very hard to stop Bitcoin. So then we have this alternative that is Bitcoin which is not inflationary and does not have

central authority that can censor it. I think gradually is my hope, and I also think my most likely scenario, but maybe I am biased because everybody thinks what they want is what's going to happen. I think we're just going to witness the same relationship because governments make their currency so that they can devalue them, and Bitcoin thrives on that. And more and more people are going to learn, more and more people are gonna learn, more and more people are gonna find out. And whether it's through curiosity or self-interest or through the destruction of their national currency, all roads lead to a Bitcoin.

So more and more people are gonna buy Bitcoin, the price of Bitcoin is going to go up. And as it goes up, Bitcoin becomes a more significant part of the world economy. And then this is something that skeptics don't get, like a lot of the academic skeptics to Bitcoin, you know, they offer up all of these theories about why they think Bitcoin can't work

and then they present it and they think, you know, they've delivered the knockout blow as if Bitcoin needs their permission or the word is going to need their permission. Well, the reality is people are gonna join Bitcoin out of greed, out of self-interest. Number go up technology is, is really what's going to get everybody in. And that's really the Trojan horse for fixing the world. You know, come for the greed and stay for the revolution. It's going to keep going up because people don't like to be poor, except for most

economists and academics. People don't like to be poor. People don't enjoy getting their wealth destroyed. And they care more about their self-interest than they care about economic theories about whether this works as money or not. They see their cousin escaped hyperinflation and managed to get a bigger house because they bought Bitcoin five years ago. They realized maybe I should stop mocking my cousin and start buying more Bitcoin. This is, I think, an indomitable force that's going to continue. And one thing, the most Bitcoiners tend to lean toward an apocalyptic transition. You know, there's fiat's going to collapse, we're going to get hyperinflation, everything

is going to be terrible, and then we're going to move to Bitcoin. And I present the case for why I think maybe that might not be the case. Maybe we won't get this kind of apocalyptic scenario. And this was like the conclusion of the Fiat standard, which is once you realize that mining Fiat is creating debt. And Bitcoin is allowed... So in order to have Fiat money, we need to have people borrow. We need to have people make loans.

And the problem that Fiat money runs into today is that if you want to save money, if you want to hold savings, you have a problem. Where do you put your savings? So you put your savings in debt, in the creation of more bonds. Wherever you take your savings, you create a bubble in those things. And this is why we see a bubble in the stock market, a bubble in the bond market, a bubble in housing. It's because people are looking for savings, looking for a place where they can save.

All of those things are crappy saving instruments because they're like copper in that there's nothing to stop the people behind them to make more of them. House builders can build more houses, governments can issue more bonds, the crappy fraudulent companies can list on the stock market and make more stocks. Well Bitcoin finally offers us an outlet. We don't need to keep creating more debt. We can invest in this asset that is hard and that is internationally liquid and that nobody can make more of. So there is no bubble in it.

There is no mechanism for somebody to increase the supply and bring the price crashing down, like with copper and real estate and bonds. So Bitcoin is the way out. And this is why I think there's a good case to be made for why the Fiat authorities might embrace Bitcoin because they'll see it is their way out of this enormous debt bubble that everybody is stuck in. Particularly, the richest and most powerful people in the world and the richest and most powerful governments in the world are the words biggest borrowers. There are ones in a lot of debt. So a continuous slow devaluation of the value of that debt,

as people upgrade and move on to a hard asset that continues to appreciate is The way that we is the peaceful way that we wind down the fiat Ponzi, I think you could see it being like a political part of a political platform for future People that run for president those kinds of things to address obviously It's not just for the powerful and the rich. The people are bothered by the debt. The people are bothered by everything that you describe with fiat. And if you want to sell yourself in a democracy as a good leader, you might want to make that part of the platform. You mentioned you know Michael Malis. He just texted me asking me to ask you what do you like best about

Michael Malice? If you can spend 5 to 10 to 20 to an hour talking about the genius of Michael Malice. What do you like? What does one even start? Well obviously the haircut first. Yeah, he just gets sexier with age. That's for sure. That's it. Yeah, he just gets sexier with age. That's for sure. That's it. Do you know his ideas, his trolling and humor? Have you gotten a chance to interact with him? Yes, yes, I've met Michael maybe 10, 12 years ago in New York. I used to live in New York when he used to live in New York. I met him a couple of times. There was a bunch of anarchists in New York used to throw a happy hour. Once a month it was called the High-Time Preference, Hoppe Hour, in honor of Hans Erman Hoppe. So I met him there a couple of times and

we followed each other on Twitter for a while. Is there interesting that you're aware of philosophical differences in your world views? No, I think we pretty much see eye to eye. I think the difference is mainly that he's, he spends a lot of time focusing on American politics and American pop culture, which I don't pay much attention to, I guess. You look more at the monetary system, the economics of it all, and just the history, and just looking at zooming out at the big picture of it all and just the history and just looking at it, zooming out at the big picture of it all. Although, the reason he's working on a book called The White Pill, and he's been every time I see him, I mean, he's in some dark aspect of the 20th century. He's just like, I just finished writing about Hall of the More. As you might imagine, he's not taking much, I believe, of a monetary perspective on things,

his book is writing at least for time, his kind of philosophical ideology perspective that is outside of the monetary system. But you argue that those are actually inextricably linked. But yeah, and I don't think he would disagree, but a book has to be, you know, it can only be so long as opposed. It can only focus on so many things.

If you can put on your wise sage hat and give some advice to young people, I mean, you know, the past four hours have been a kind of advice, but if you can focus and if somebody in high school or college is thinking about what to do with their career, I can have a successful career or to have a life that can be proud of what would you tell them. I'd say probably the most important advice that I would give is to find a way to give value to other people. This is really the key thing. You need to wake up every morning and figure out how to serve others. This is the key to everything you want in life.

Everything that you want is on the other side of you serving others. So figure out how you can serve others in a good way, how you can do it in a way that they value. And you've got an incredible mechanism for figuring that out, which is the market. Go out there and do things for other people figuring that out, which is the market. Go out there and do things for other people. And the market will tell you, the market will tell you exactly. If you're young, you have the enormous advantage of being able to make mistakes, essentially, and learn from them.

So go out there, do things of value for others, figuring out how you can do something that what is it that you can do that contributes the most value to other people in lives. And increasingly, I think with modern technology, this is increasingly becoming online. And it's, I think, you should consider how you can create value online because that scales beyond anything that you can do in the physical world. In a very, very, well, maybe not beyond, obviously, there are profitable businesses in the physical world. But I think online is enormous potential. And coding, I think, is enormously powerful. I'm not a code of myself, but I strongly recommend people get into learning how to code. And I think it's probably the thing that carries the most power.

So initially we were working with our hands. We started working with machines. Machines are much more productive. Well, code is an even higher level of productivity, where you basically program the machines to produce things. So, you know, few clicks of a keyboard and you can move millions of machines around the world in certain ways. So it carries an enormous amount of value. I think I always tell all young people to learn to code. It's the best thing. I used to tell it to my students when I

was at university. It tells me to drop out and go learn to code. It's probably a better use of their time and money. We could probably do both. University has an interesting function. I mean, probably you and I have different perspectives on this. Probably has to do with a little bit of a different journey in terms of fields, because I'm so, I've stayed engineering focused for a long time, and there's less some of the troubles you might highlight in the education system. There's less troubles of that kind There's less trouble you might highlight in the education system. There's less trouble of that kind in engineering because math hasn't changed for a whole time. So, a lot of it is just doing hard things, being forced to do hard things and becoming

a bit of a journalist while on the side you're also becoming a specialist based on your own passion, driven by your own passion, during your own passion. So school, at least high school, I don't know about the university, but high school has a really nice, one of the only times in your life, at least in my life, I was forced, but now I see, given the opportunity to spend my entire day learning broadly.

And that's something, I don't know, the way time works, it just runs away from you. You never really get a chance to do, learn quite that broadly. Again, that's the curse of specialization, as you kind of never get a chance to study biology, chemistry, if you're a physicist, you know, time runs away from you. So it's enjoy the the broad The broad education, but yeah like you said Find the things that valued by the market And on the other side of it you said all the good stuff. So that's also way to get happiness

Yeah, and I'll also add the the horse that I like to whip all the time is the low-time preference aspect of things saving with Bitcoin. So I think my advice to young people is, you know, when you're young, you think of the world in a very short term generally. You're focused on the present and you think that everything that's happening in the present is the most important thing that's ever going to happen in the history of humanity. Lower your time preference, think about the future, think about, think further down the line, think about the consequences of the things you do and then what, you know, and so you do this now, it feels good today, but then what happens tomorrow, you know,

you go out, you drink, you enjoy yourself, well, think about the hangover, but in long term, think about the implication of living this kind of life, think about every decision that you make the long term implication of it, and part of that. Think about every decision that you make the long-term implication of it. And part of that is Bitcoin. Part of that is save in Bitcoin. I urge everybody to put savings in Bitcoin for the long-term. Don't buy Bitcoin for the short term. You know, don't buy Bitcoin today so that you can sell it. You know, don't put your savings in Bitcoin today so that you can sell it all next month and buy a house. Put money in Bitcoin that you expect to keep in Bitcoin for another 5, 10 years or so, at least 4 years is what I recommend for people. So keep a low time preference, focus on the future and save in Bitcoin. And learn about

how to buy Bitcoin, how to learn about all this technology. Part of this is this conversation, but there's so much awesome material out there. And thank you, by the way, for this gift of a hardware wallet. So you should definitely invest it in it yourself. And what would you call this? These are open dimes. Open dimes, yeah. So this is like USB that you can,

like a hardware device that stores Bitcoin. Yeah, so you don't have to worry about us knowing the passport. It contains the passport within it and it's tamper proof. So you can save the Bitcoin on it. And so when the apocalypse comes, you need the value to be stored an actual thing that you can have in your physical possession. Yeah. It's exactly what this is. You've had a heck of a life.

You've been in a bunch of places in this world, a lot of places. Life is not easy in some of those places. What has been, if you can take a step to, maybe a bit of a dark step for a short time, what has been a maybe darkest time period place you have gone in your mind, a dark period of your life, a struggle, they had to overcome, it to survive. Well, I'm Palestinian, so

that is the tragedy of my life. I'm Palestinian Jordanian, my family's suffered a lot because of this historically. I grew up in Ramallah in the West Bank. I wasn't ideal to see that. People like to think of it as this intractable conflict between two bitter enemies, but the reality of the matter is that it's not a foreign ideology came in with the idea that this country needs to be occupied by people from only one religion and the existing population, which, you know, I mean Jews had always lived in Palestine historically and at the turn of the 20th century, they were only 10% of the population, but then with the birth of Fiat money, the incidentally, you know, the link with all of this is that

when the Bank of England went off gold, big reason why they were able to pull that off was that the Rothschild Banking family supported them. And in exchange, the Rothschilds got Palestine. And the Balfour Declaration was written by the government of Britain to the Rothschild family telling them that They would like to make Palestine a homeland for Jews So obviously that's not very convenient for people who are not Jewish for whom that is a homeland and the past 80 years has been a very painful struggle If you happen to not be Jewish and

Obviously, you know Obviously Palestinians have done all kinds of things, trying to fight back and they've done all kinds of wrong things. But I don't think you can escape the fundamental reality underlying this, which is that if you're not Jewish, you are being moved out of the land. And so it's happened in 1947, 1948. It happened in 1976, my father, 67.

More land was taken over by Israel. Now you see it with the settlements. If you ignore the day-to-day headlines and you ignore the media propaganda and you ignore all of this, there's a very clear thing that is happening, which is more land owned by an exclusive ideology that believes this land needs to be owned by people

from one religion. And everybody else is being kicked out. And so that is the tragedy of my life. And my wife is also Palestinian refugee from Lebanon, and her family was evicted from Yaffa, which is today on the outskirts of Tel Aviv. They still have their homes in Yaffah, their homes are being lived, you know, they could got kicked out of their homes and their lands and their property. They became refugees in Lebanon. So my children, you know, it's an ongoing tragedy. It's not something that is,

a lot of the people that think of it as, you know, they think Palestinians are just out there to get Israelis because they hate them, but it's an inescapable tragedy. I don't have a home anywhere. Is there an escape from this tragedy in the future that you see if you zoom out across the scale of decades? Will we see... I hesitate to say peace, but a significant decrease in human suffering in this part of the region. I certainly hope so. And I think, you know, my interest in Bitcoin comes from, came from a place of desperation with the situation there.

Traditional politics is a dead end. I don't see what I can be doing to make things better there using traditional politics. And I think a good friend of mine, Pierre Rochard, you may know him on Twitter. One of the brightest minds in Bitcoin in my opinion. He told me his theories that Bitcoin is gonna bring peace to the Middle East because land is a shit coin.

And land is a shit coin, I love it. And I think he's got a very good point there. That this fixation with land and the bitterness of with which people have to land is likely to decline when people are going to have a form of property that they can keep. And so hopefully that will help in one way. And of course, the more obvious way is that this is a conflict of governments and it's a conflict that is financed by Fiat. From day one, the entirely insane notion that you could build a national and ethnic homeland. And of course, this is the early 20th century. So the idea behind Zionism is coming from the same place where all these other ethnic nationalism of Europe were emerging. And we saw how well how horribly these worked out. But the idea that you could, you know, it's one thing to say we want to build a homeland for Germans in Germany. It's one thing to say we want to build the homelands for Germans somewhere else. And that was Palestine, that was Zionism, and that

was only possible thanks to Fiat, thanks to the ability of the British government and all these other governments to continue to finance this colonial stefford over time. and it continues to finance war and it continues, you know, we see war all over the world continue to escalate because the people who make the decision to escalate the war are not the ones who are paying for it and they're not the ones who are fighting. They're the ones who sit in offices and in the case of most of the least the conflict, it's people who live abroad. You know, it's people who are abroad who are not part of the two, just are emotionally charged to it because they watch it on TV. So you have billions of Muslims around the world

and Jews around the world who feel extremely emotionally attached to it. They're not the ones fighting, they're not the ones paying their own money. They're just getting governments to send money, to send weapons and take part. And it's fun as a spectator sport from hosts of these people because they don't get to live in it. But I got to live in it. I saw it. I grew up there. I saw the settlement expansion. And you know, recently a few weeks ago, I went back to Romallulan, it's just, it's amazing every time you go the settlements are just growing in an astonishing way like it's not just housing units that are going up, it's an entire attempt to build, to basically suffocate

Palestinian areas and forced Palestinians to leave or keep them living in horrific conditions. And if I may, just because I have family, Ukraine, I have family in Russia, since this war, echoes of similar things are happening in that part of the world too. And I shatter to think about the decades to, of the hate that is brewing, the suffering that is brewing, based on decisions and pressures, and from not always people directly impacted by this. So again, it feels like that military conflict

is not just a creation of like people on the ground. It's a creation of leaders, power centers, and and perhaps again I'm not smart enough but even the monetary system probably has a role to play. I absolutely think it does. Monetary system is what allows is what allows people to just continue to treat war as a spectator sports. Yeah, that's really what it comes down to. And it starts with World War I, and it's continued. And this is why I really, I think, I've said this before, I've tweeted this before. And it was a pretty popular tweet, but it also got a lot of people to dismiss the idea

with mockery, of course. But I really think Bitcoin is the only technology that's going to end World War One. Once World War One started, we got into this endless conflict. It's been going ongoing since then. If you look at all the world's conflicts, today, pretty much they halted race back to World War One. And it's because when that Pandora's Box of government control of money was opened, there was no longer a real restraint on war, except complete defeat and complete destruction and complete death. The war had to be total. Before that, you know, under the gold standard, kings would send professional armies to fight each other

in battlefields. And as soon as it became clear that one side was establishing an advantage, As soon as it became clear that one side was establishing an advantage, the fighting would stop and the kings or the would settle, you know, would agree to new terms because it was extremely expensive to build a professional army and you ran out of money. So it was always the smartest thing to do is to just stop fighting whenever you could. And wars would take place, you know, countries would fight each other in the battlefield, but in the cities, life went on as normal, and people within the same cities, within the cities of the two countries would be trading with one another. Life would go on, but the war would be there, and it was just an independent part of politics

that, all right, we have a problem over this piece of land let's do you know let's take it outside we don't fight in the civilian areas we go to the battlefield we fight with professional armies and in fact sometimes the complex would be you know the armies would line up and they would just have a small contingent of the two armies fight with one another and as soon as one of them establishes an advantage then all right well you won let's move on with it. Governments were far far far more careful about their monetary policy and their sorry they're more policy when they couldn't print their money and that has changed with Viat and that has allowed this new emergence of this class of what I like to call chicken hawks, of people who sit

in office like the entire foreign policy establishment in Washington DC, people who have never fought unmore, whose children will never fight a war, who will never pay to fight a war, who will never suffer a broken window in their house because of war. Sitting there and based on these fucking moronic garbage that they teach at Moronic Fihat University is about politics and geopolitics, making decisions about, you know, we need to invade that country and we need to send war there. And they can do that because they have this endless money printer, and that's why, you know, back under gold, if you wear a warrior, you know, you went and actually joined the war and That you know the the people who pontificated about war where the people who had experience with war the people who were

sending their own children to war the people who were fighting with their own money now you have all these fat parasitics come sitting in Washington DC deciding and Washington's just an example but all over the world this exists People have never fought who never carry the consequences, are going to devalue the world's money in order to go and have other people's children fight each other because of stupid garbage they learned about politics and university. You said you value low time preference, but I have news for you that one day you will die as far as we know you're mortal being. Do you think about your death? Do you think about your mortality?

Are you afraid of it? I've spent a lot of time introspecting and thinking about these things and I value life a lot of time, introspecting and thinking about these things. And I value life a lot. I value my time on Earth a lot. And you'll see this in my dealings with people, you know, go back to Twitter. Why am I sort of brash and straightforward? It really is because life is short because I don't want to waste. I think, you know, on my, I've said this before, on my tombstone, let it be written. He never let anyone waste his time twice in his life. You can waste my time once. You can get me to do something and then I realize that was a waste of time.

You will never get me to waste my time twice. And so you show up in my Twitter with something stupid. You're never showing up in my Twitter. You're a fast learner. You give people in my Twitter. You're a fast learner. You give people a chance, but you're a fast learner. Yeah, so I try and I try and use my time very wisely. And I'm unapologetic about it. My time is the most precious thing.

And the way to get on my shit list forever is to try and take away my time and to abuse my time. If you do that, it's the one unforgivable sin for me. And I think that's really, I think that's my way of coming to terms with mortality. We're all going to die. And so let's make the most out of it while we're still here. And of course, the other way you come to terms with mortality is you have children. Given what you just said, doubly so, it's a huge honor that you will spend your valuable time with me. This is the first time you did it so you probably regret all of it so who probably never see each other again.

But I'm glad you did great to do it. It's a huge honor man. I've been a huge fan of yours. Thank you. Thank you. Impact on the world that you probably are not even aware of. It's tremendous. A lot of people love you and your work is important. Even, you know, I disagree with some things. You say, there's people that disagree with you, but everybody respects you. And thank you so much for spending your really valuable time with me today. Brother, thank you, sir. I really appreciate it. This was not a waste of time, and I'd be happy to do it again Thanks for listening to this conversation with Savedina Moose to support this podcast

Please check out our sponsors in the description And now let me leave you some words from the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life Which can be separated from the rest. It is the control of the means for all our ends. Thank you for listening and hope to see you next time. you