I already have a critical response from a good friend of mine who says:
[i have permission to post his email here]
While parts of the article are true, there are a few points that are not correctly leverated or over-stated:
1) The ruling last week from the federal judge in the fraud cause was not that Bitcoin is a currency - end of statement. That was only related to the fraud case. That's like stating that a bag of frozen peas is a deadly weapon.... but leaving out the fact that someone used it to what another person in the head and killed them. As I wrote to you last week, that ruling sets neither case law or precedent, and is far from the last word on the subject. So that little fact alone (or rather, its reckless and misleading use) makes me view his writings a little more closely.
2) Guess what: we ARE the government. All of the spending of fiat money is for our benefit, like pensions that are unjustifiable and unaffordable. WE are the ones who want everything without paying for it. Want to see at least half of the root of the problem? Go look in the mirror, or look at your neighbors.
3) He is correct in saying that if you use BitCoin, there will be alternatives. It's called taxation. Oh My God, what a revelation!!!!!!! So I got paid in Euros last year, and I have to pay taxes to the US government. What's next? They're going to tell me that the world is round?
4) The only appeal of BitCoin (other than the anonymity for people who want to avoid taxes or buy illegal items) is that it currently has speculative potential in that its absolute value may increase. But guess what? It's increasing against a fiat currency. If fiat currency disappears, so does the appeal of BitCoin.
5) Any currency has the advantage of being a medium of exchance, so that you don't have to find someone who sells bread and wants to buy beer if you want bread and have only beer to sell. In his example, gold is truly being used as an alternative means of exchange (e.g. a currency), but it's being used by people who are side-stepping government taxation in countries where regulations (not just the rule of law, but also things like land registries) are in very poor condition. That's not the case in the Western world. So the example doesn't apply here.
I could go on and on, but here's the bottom line: BitCoin cannot work in the current economy because, among other things, it does not support a credit market (so that people can borrow), and that's a vital part of our economy, and our way of life. But beyond that, if fiat money fails, the government will make BitCoin it's own currency, and the game will go on.
Now how's THAT for a conspiracy theory!
What do you think of this
Heavily indoctrinated, narrow-minded viewpoints.
1) I agree that it's not significant, but instead because this judge was
any magistrate, and so has little authoritative capital on his "ruling" that so many reported.
2) Where's my vote on legislative matters then? Even the government is not the government, your friend forgets that the will of the people is systematically emboldened, dumbfounded and then ignored in it's passage through the course of the electoral cycle: rinse and repeat
3) This point isn't even coherent, by "alternatives" I can only assume he means "consequences". What he doesn't understand is where Bitcoin is different to either cash or banked fiat: you cannot be compelled to pay. It would involve jail time if it could be proved that you were refusing to pay, but even then, you still cannot be forced to pay. They can lock you up for as long as you're alive, and they still won't be able to confiscate the BTC
4) Valued only because it has a corresponding exchange rate? He's very short on monetary theory as well as Bitcoin's properties. Oh dear.
5) Alternative currencies aren't being used in the West because... property rights and rule of law? Um, how about that people have been using alternative currency even before Bitcoin, and not even despite the existence of property rights and rule of law?
When it comes to 21st century Economics (even 20th century), this guy's not anyone's friend, not least his own. If he's successful in finance or economics, it's a sad case of hiring Stevie Wonder as a house painter: I'm sure he's really enthusiastic and non-defeatest, but he cannot possibly have a clue what he's really doing.
