Print
I’ve read a lot about Bitcoin this year, and I’ve learned a good deal. I’ve learned that it’s a dangerous speculative bubble. I’ve also learned that it’s not a bubble, and this year’s explosion in price is only the beginning. I’ve learned that Bitcoin will inevitably replace all government fiat currencies, as well as that governments will inevitably ban Bitcoin. It’s been explained to me that Bitcoin’s underlying blockchain technology is far more important to our future than Bitcoin itself. I’ve also been told that Bitcoin is the only application of blockchain technology with any usefulness.
It turns out there are a few things about the cryptocurrency world we haven’t quite worked out yet. So why do the above commentators, all smart and competent economists, investors, and journalists, reach such vastly different conclusions? Do some have hidden agendas or misguided economic ideas? It’s possible, but I’m going to propose something a bit more mundane: we genuinely have no idea what the world will look like with respect to cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology 10, 20, or 50 years down the road.
What good is economics if reasonable people can’t come close to reaching a consensus on even the most basic predictions? Russ Roberts wrote an excellent article earlier this year on what economists can and can’t do. Because of the complexity of the real world, and the impossibility of controlled experiments in most situations, economists rely on some combination of intuition, math, and statistical analysis. Roberts demonstrates how reasonable minds can disagree on longstanding questions such as trade and tax policy.
It therefore isn’t surprising that the future of Bitcoin and related technologies is extremely murky. These are new concepts that mostly didn’t exist 10 years ago. The market has had very little time to develop new blockchain applications or financial instruments based on cryptocurrencies. Most people have barely begun trying to understand the basics of the technology. But as economists and other observers form opinions about what’s going to happen, false certainty is rewarded. After all, people are intrigued and want to know what’s going to happen.
Some will say my take on this is a cop-out, that certain outcomes are inevitable for reasons x, y, and z. And then someone else will give you the reasons why the opposite is true. I challenge my colleagues to inject a little humility into their predictions, and write in terms of possibilities rather than inevitabilities. Because in reality, the future of Bitcoin and blockchain technology will look nothing like what anyone is predicting today.
Max Gulker
Related Articles – Bitcoin and Blockchain
Why Is the System Rigged?
It’s crazy season, that special time on the American calendar when aspiring candidates for the nation’s highest office try to outdo each other in an effort to attract more voters to their platforms. This time around, background support is provided by a virtual anvil chorus of anti-capitalism clatter. Senator Elizabeth Warren, for example, frequently unleashes criticism of American capitalism by asserting that the “system is rigged,” a complaint that seems to resonate with meaningful populist appeal. It’s an old refrain that has echoed across the years from Karl Marx onward.
Nobel Laureate Robert J. Shiller explains why this may be the case in his new book, “Narrative Economics.” As Shiller points out, when a story is repeated enough, the viral message may be accepted as conventional wisdom, more like an article of belief than a matter of reason.
I’ll also emphasize that for a message to prevail, it helps if its content rests on a preexisting and inherently moral foundation that reflects our tribal instincts as an evolved human species. And what works for a small tribe doesn’t necessarily work so well for a huge industrialized nation.
Consider this: Some may inquire, “Do you believe in capitalism?” almost as if the position one takes is a matter of religion. When answering, we reflect on our tribal preferences, and cooperating and sharing with our family and neighbors is often a key to success. Thus, many people will almost instinctively answer “no,” or at least “yes, but …” followed by some serious caveats and exceptions.
Yes, the beneficial-but-invisible hand of commerce driven by self-interest has never been an instinctually lovable idea. Gains from trade, while well-documented since the days of Adam Smith, can be more elusive than we may first realize. Given the widespread negative views on the subject, politicians’ calls for greater accountability and government intervention may not be welcomed by all, but they’re understandable.
Shiller adds another dimension to his narrative economics story by using data from Google’s Ngram Viewer. The viewer produces charts based on the frequency of particular words and phrases in Google Books, which include some 8 million downloaded volumes in various languages.
Consider an Ngram we might apply to Senator Warren’s comments. The nearby figure contains one for “system is rigged” that shows the frequency of the phrase’s occurrence from 1940 through 2008, the final year in the database. I have smoothed the data by using a three-year running average:
The data show four viral periods: 1940-1950, 1960-1985, 1990-1998, and 2000-2008. The first period encompasses World War II, a time of draft, rationing, price controls, defense contracting, and related cronyism that may in some cases have been highly profitable for hand-picked firms.
The second viral period is much longer and encompasses a period including the Vietnam War and related draft, Watergate and significant social unrest.
The third period includes the first Iraq war, and the fourth contains anti-capitalism protests and budding expressions of concern about income inequality as a version of the economy closer to what we know today took shape.
The Ngram suggests that in seeking to communicate to her base, Senator Warren artfully chose a phrase that had gone viral before—which is to suggest that there may be an embedded tribal norm that reacts during periods when a relatively small number of people are able to build large fortunes or avoid burdens, such as the draft, as a result of government actions and favors.
Oddly enough, Senator Warren and other capitalism critics seldom ask how the system got rigged and what might be done to undo the rigging. But of course, the rigging is done in Washington, sometimes when special interest groups—including corporations—lobby congress for favorable treatment.
And how might that be undone? By trimming away uneven regulation and adopting policies that expose all business firms to the refreshing winds of competition. Put another way, by forcing capitalists to act like capitalists and not lobbyists.
Bruce Yandle
Bruce Yandle is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and dean emeritus of the Clemson University College of Business and Behavioral Science.
Related Articles – Economic Education
Holiday Spending Off to a Modest Start
Retail sales and food-services spending increased 0.2 percent in November following a 0.4 percent gain in October. Excluding gasoline station sales, retail sales and food services were up 0.1 percent in November after a gain of 0.7 percent in October. Over the past year, total retail sales and food services were up 3.3 percent through November, while retail sales and food services excluding gas have increased 3.6 percent (see chart).
The November performance was mixed, with gains in 7 retail-spending categories, two posting declines and one essentially unchanged. Gains were led by a 0.8 percent increase for nonstore retailers (primarily online shopping), and a 0.7 percent rise for electronics and appliance stores – two traditional holiday spending categories. Gasoline stations also posted a 0.7 percent gain which is a surprise since average retail gasoline prices (which often drive monthly changes in retail sales spending) were actually down 2.0 percent. Also posting gains for the month were motor vehicles and parts (autos), up 0.5 percent, food and beverage stores, up 0.3 percent, home furnishings stores and general merchandise stores, each up 0.1 percent.
On the negative side, health and personal care stores saw sales fall 1.1 percent, clothing and accessories stores had a 0.6 percent fall, sporting-goods, hobby, musical-instruments, and book stores posted a 0.5 percent decline, miscellaneous retailers had a 0.4 percent setback, and food services (restaurants) saw a 0.3 percent fall. Building materials, and gardening supply store sales were essentially unchanged for the month.
The mediocre retail sales data for November suggest that the early predictions of a booming holiday spending season may have been premature. Certainly, consumer fundamentals are generally solid with a low unemployment rate, decent income growth, and positive consumer sentiment. Government data are subject to revisions and there is plenty of time for consumers to spend, but today’s data suggest slow growth remains the most likely path.
Robert Hughes
