pull down to refresh

Steve Hanke is a sour, anti-Bitcoin crusader who moonlights as an excellent monetary scholar. His name is all over research on hyperinflation etc.
In his new book with Matt Sekerke he goes haywire into MMT-adjacent thinking. And he dismisses Bitcoin in a single sentence... so I dismissed the rest of his book in the shortest, swiftest, most badass book review I ever published.
From Bitcoin Magazine Print:
Suppose two well-regarded, established economists at Johns Hopkins University write a long, dense, detailed book on how to make money work better. In the year 2025, no less, the 17th year of our lord Bitcoin’s continued, flourishing existence, they flippantly dismiss this monetary newcomer in a single sentence. In that case, they deserve to have their own book similarly relegated to the dustbins… so I stopped reading Sekerke and Hanke’s book after 33 pages, concluding ceremonially that this title wasn’t worth my time — or indeed the attention of anybody concerned with building a monetary future to fix the monetary ills of our past and present.
Bitcoin is for anyone, but certainly not everyone. Some people are just too salty, too infected by Bitcoin derangement syndrome (BDS), too enamored by their own egos, or too stuck in the rapidly devolving status quo. Science progresses one funeral at a time.
BDS, a severe illness at the end of the fiat age, has taken better victims than Messrs Sekerke and Hanke, but it’s still tragic to see. A huge disappointment and missed opportunity for otherwise quite sharp minds to engage with the most interesting monetary phenomenon in our lifetimes.
Got 'em
reply
Du-pu-dumpa-dum;dumdumdum-dumdumdum!

I look pretty badass here. Will steal
reply
I zapped this meme 🫡
reply
62 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby 3h
That certainly is savage. I'm still a little teeny bit tempted to look at their book, if only to gawk at how naughty the MMT sins are...
reply
On a more serious note, here are their dismissal sentences:

Behind every fiat money used in exchange lies a unit of account defined by a monetary standard [which is] underwritten by credible claims to future surpluses monetized by the government and/or the commercial banking system. […] Claims of a ‘Bitcoin standard’ or anything like it are completely indefensible” (p. 28)
  • The problem with this assertion is that it displays narrow present-bias, as well as loading a lot onto the word "credible". To what extent are future surpluses monetized by the government credible? In all parts of the world, at all times? Moreover, in what sense does Bitcoin not hold a credible claim to future surpluses? Just because it is not guaranteed by a government? Again, what is the guarantee of a government worth? Empirically, Bitcoin has been shown over a 15 year period to be a credible claim to future surpluses.

Rises in the bitcoin price do not prove the intrinsic value (or network value, or whatever) of Bitcoin any more than a lack of homes for sale in a neighborhood makes those homes infinitely valuable” (fn 48, p. 33)
  • The problem with this assertion is reducto ad absurdum / straw man fallacy. No one said that homes in neighborhoods with limited supply are infinitely valuable, and no one said Bitcoin is infinitely valuable. However, we can reverse the argument against them: why do homes in neighborhood with limited supply grow in value? Because there is demand. Similarly with Bitcoin, the only reason it has any price point is because demand exists.
reply