Really no idea. Great food for conspiracy, but they just as well could have slapped it on there as it is on the dollar. But then again, it is The Economist.The Economist's goal is to "take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress."
I am more interested in what you think of blockchain technology. Do you think it could facilitate a transition to a world of trade that can more accurately track value of human interactions with a foundation of trust and reputation?
Absolutely. Not necessarily bitcoin specifically, but something like it. Ethereum is pretty amazing. Not only is it turing complete, they are planning a transition from 'proof of work' to 'proof of stake' later this year to secure the Ethereum blockchain. That is, they will be using an internal metric (control of ETH) rather than hashing power to make the addition of new blocks an expensive game. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake If they pull it off, I could see Ethereum being put to use in a wide number of applications, rapidly replacing traditional agents of trust.
This is my general impression as well. It seems like a general case with a big innovation that the particular content of the innovation is not that important (i.e. in this case bit coin), but that the universal property (i.e. in this case digital currencies supported on a system of open, transparent trust) nonetheless presents us with an immanent emergence. Would be nice. Of course it is ironic to consider our current "agents of trust" as such. I think the existence of money itself is an explicit sign of mistrust.Absolutely. Not necessarily bitcoin specifically, but something like it.
replacing traditional agents of trust