
The Bitcoin Standard – a critical review - hudon
http://www.coppolacomment.com/2018/04/the-bitcoin-standard-critical-review.html
======
gwbas1c
I stopped reading when the author blamed US currency on the recent global
financial crisis.

The same things happened when the world used gold and silver.

~~~
robertAngst
No?

Fractional Reserve Banking is less than 100 years old. We didnt have
fluctuating interest rates among the working class.

When the world used gold and silver you would have trade deficits causing
economic troubles.

These are vastly different problems, still problems though.

~~~
Lazare
> Fractional Reserve Banking is less than 100 years old.

Fractional reserve banking is centuries old, and originally involved deposits
of gold and silver (first at goldsmiths, but as early as the 1660s at banks).
Europe's first bank run happened in 1664, when people tried to redeem bank
notes for the underlying reserves.

> We didnt have fluctuating interest rates among the working class

Interest rates fluctuated, and the working class were deeply exposed to the
impacts.

> When the world used gold and silver you would have trade deficits causing
> economic troubles.

Global financial crises were routine during the era of metal-backed currencies
and did _not_ only (or mainly) relate to trade deficits. See, eg, the panics
of 1819, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857, 1866, 1873, 1884, 1890, 1893, and 1896. (And
that's just focusing on US and UK history during the 19th century; the list
could be much longer!)

> These are vastly different problems

Citation very much needed.

------
altoz
Not surprising: Keynesian economist doesn't like Austrian economics
explanations.

Surprising: Bitcoin part is largely left uncriticized.

I would say the author of this article is clearly biased against the Austrian
view that make Bitcoin attractive to the libertarian types so the criticism is
largely unsurprising.

What we do see is that the author of the critique and the author of the book
can't be both right, especially about history. The success of Bitcoin does
seem to favor the Austrian interpretation, though I'm sure many will disagree.
Whatever the case, the experiment that is Bitcoin will continue and give us
more data to make the case ourselves.

~~~
davidgerard
> Not surprising: Keynesian economist doesn't like Austrian economics
> explanations.

When an Austrian economics fan says "Keynesian economist", it's like a
creationist calling any sort of scientist who disagrees with them
"evolutionary".

Coppola's assertions on history are reality-based. If you have particular
objections, you'll need to go into more detail than just saying "Keynesian".

> Surprising: Bitcoin part is largely left uncriticized.

This was largely left to my review:
[https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/04/07/saifedean-
am...](https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/04/07/saifedean-ammous-the-
bitcoin-standard-the-austrian-case-for-bitcoin/) He makes a lot of assertions
about Bitcoin that are simply _factually untrue_ in plain English, and would
only be barely true even being generous in assuming particular jargon.

To Ammous' credit, he appears to know more about the Bitcoin sphere than about
... basic economic history.

