- Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, said mining gold was a better use of resources, because even if it lost value, it could be used to fill teeth. “Once the Bitcoin power is burned, it is never coming back,” he said.
- Mr. Read, who is also an economics professor, said he would rather sell the city’s supply of cheap power to companies employing large numbers of people. Mold-Rite Plastics, which makes bottle caps, also uses about 10 percent of the city’s power, but it employs about 200 people. The mining companies? “They hire a security guard,” he said. “And a guy who comes when something breaks.”
You know what's wrong with kids these days? they don't do what they're told.
Paper warehouse! Dang, man paper is such a waste of energy and resources. It may be destroying America! Deforestation, dangerous lumberjack jobs, bleaching chemicals, and waste products. Just so people can jot down temporary information and toss it out the next day. Maybe we can come up with a virtual ledger of sorts that could do away with this paper waste!
The quote from Tyler Cowen seems to suggest that he is "against" bitcoin. But he's merely observing that gold has an industrial value whereas there is no such analogous industrial value for cryptoassets. That does not mean that he's against it, that bitcoin is useless, or that he thinks its in a bubble (cryptoassets could be, he's agnostic). Would he also be for hiring people to dig holes in the ground? At least with hole digging, I can't imagine there are the negative externalities that a "Mole-Ride Plastics" bottle cap farm probably produces. This seems like a problem with government price-fixing, not arbitrageurs. Venezuela is a huge source of bitcoin mining because the government imposes a price ceiling on electricity. What costs us $40 of electricity costs them 6 cents. This article is rank pearl-clutching.Mr. Read, who is also an economics professor, said he would rather sell the city’s supply of cheap power to companies employing large numbers of people. Mold-Rite Plastics, which makes bottle caps, also uses about 10 percent of the city’s power, but it employs about 200 people. The mining companies? “They hire a security guard,” he said. “And a guy who comes when something breaks.”
Colin L. Read, the mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y., also sees it as a public nuisance. The city was guaranteed a fixed supply of cheap electricity as part of the construction of power-generating dams on the St. Lawrence in the 1950s. Bitcoin mining companies are plugging into that power supply like a swarm of hungry mosquitoes.
I understand the basic problem: those electrical prices were created to foster industrial employment. They are not doing that. I would like to see the fine people of Plattsburgh employed. Bitcoin is not doing that, either. I would imagine it took some wrangling to get those credits and now the people who argued for them look foolish which doesn't help. Governments are less agile than corporations and corporations are less agile than individuals so a dude with a warehouse full of Antminers is gonna win every time. And I can understand the basic problem: cryptographic hashing is not, at the moment, is not an energy-efficient method of security. Or, if you take the perspective that the government and military of the United States provide security of value for our currency, cryptographic hashing isn't good for employment either. But fundamentally? Cryptocurrency is innovation and it's a direct consequence of the current financial structure. Cryptocurrency exists solely because reserve banks tilted the scales such that large corporations stayed solvent while small businesses and individuals got crushed. Cryptocurrency is a symmetrical response to the asymmetry of the financial system. And that's the basic problem here: if you're the city planner for Plattsburgh this shit came out of left field and negates all your holies. If you can't see the opportunities all you see is threats.
I'm neither a crypto defender or an economist, but I don't agree with either of these statements. I'd say money is supposed to be a store of wealth, and the hottest investment is a store of wealth. clutches pearls The only issue I might have with crypto is if they socialize their costs. Electric infrastructure is expensive and costs socialized. The risk of lost investment is usually mitigated by the other costs (whether homes or large businesses) the new electrical demand is investing in. It's a trust that they'll stick around to help pay for the electric infrastructure cost. The bill an end user sees doesn't tell the whole story; actual costs aren't so easily divided.Money is supposed to be a means of buying things. Now, the nation’s hottest investment is buying money.
"Money" or "currency" is, as I see it/feel it (it is 2 am and I have had some alcohol) is an esoteric system which society has created and bought into essentially so we may assign specific and mutually understood values to, essentially, everything. I wouldn't say money is supposed to be a store of wealth; "store" implies a certain inherent static intent and purpose engineered into currency at creation. I don't believe anyone came up with the concept of a currency with the sole or even primary intention of then hoarding it; money is created so that people may trade and barter. Money is a quantifier. Money can be a measure of wealth; but in and of itself I'd argue it was never supposed to be a store of it. In a one-man society money doesn't exist, but a one-man society can store and stockpile all sorts of goods and valuable items. Money is a form of communication almost. It only exists when two people or more want to exchange things (different things).
I think I mostly agree with you. Me saying it's a store of wealth is much too basic of a statement in the same way the statement that it's a means of buying things is too basic. You're right; money is a way of converting something into a widely accepted commodity that can then be converted back into something else. My job doesn't want to pay me in cat food, granola bars, and sleeping bags. I do think there's an important storage or accumulation aspect, though. Money lets one take long duration effort and turn it into a very short term purchase (saving to buy a car, for example) or sell a single large item and use the proceeds over a long duration.
First hit for "three functions of money" was at cliffsnotes.com, why not? Store of value. money must hold its value over time ... Money may not even be the best store of value because it depreciates with inflation. However, money is more liquid than most other stores of value because as a medium of exchange, it is readily accepted everywhere. Furthermore, money is an easily transported store of value that is available in a number of convenient denominations. Unit of account. Knowing the value or price of a good, in terms of money, enables both the supplier and the purchaser of the good to make decisions about how much of the good to supply and how much of the good to purchase.Medium of exchange. Without money, all transactions would have to be conducted by barter ... in a barter system, exchange can take place only if there is a double coincidence of wants between two transacting parties.
The distinction often seems to rest on how much if it you have.I'm neither a crypto defender or an economist, but I don't agree with either of these statements. I'd say money is supposed to be a store of wealth, and the hottest investment is a store of wealth.
Seen a "documentary" recently about how Bitcoin is going to be the end of humanity. Not in the metaphysical sense of "it will change your life forever": in the most apocalyptic way you can imagine. Because its conspirator author(s) plan(s) to crash the world economy. After waiting ten years to do so, while maintaining perfect secrecy. People have done it inadvertantly in less time, within current conditions.