Key ideas: Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan was published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, ed. Ayn Rand (1966). It's important to note that Greenspan wrote this essay before he was appointed as Chairman of the Federal Reserve System.
When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one—so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital...
A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold, and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession.
(Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post- World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly re-established a sound basis to resume expansion.
But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline—argued economic interventionists—why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely—it was claimed—there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913...
Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks (“paper” reserves) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.
But the opposition to the gold standard in any form—from a growing number of welfare-state advocates—was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state).
Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes.
A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.
Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy’s tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government’s promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited.
The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit.
They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which—through a complex series of steps—the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold.
The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets.
The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods.
When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold.
If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the “hidden” confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.
To paraphrase Greenspan, if everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to bitcoin, and thereafter declined to accept checks and dollars as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. In other words, people would successfully separate state and money.
Alas, it's unlikely to happen because bitcoin, in its current state is not private. KYC killed bitcoin's pseudonymity and made it possible for government to link a bitcoin UTXO to its owner. What the Canadian truckers bitcoin donation fiasco showed was that when the state feels an existential threat, it forgets the laws and starts to attack people. The same would happen, I believe, if a significant number of people started to use (not private) bitcoin as digital cash in the parallel economy. They would be tracked and punished. A few public "executions" would scare off the rest.
If bitcoin was private by default (like monero, for instance) then people maybe had a chance because surveilling them would no longer be a trivial thing and would require enourmous resources. But, it's not the case. Bitcoin might be a great store of value but it's not yet digital cash. Cash implies privacy and privacy is exactly what bitcoin doesn't have.
What's more concerning, though, is that for many bitcoin "maximalists" and core developers, this lack of bitcoin privacy doesn't seem to be a pressing issue. I might be wrong, of course, and I hope I am, but it appears that they are more concerned with "mass adoption" and "number goes up" aspects of bitcoin than with its lack of privacy.
If "HODLing" is your bitcoin philosophy then, of course, lack of bitcoin privacy is not an issue for you. And as to the urge to achieve "mass adoption", I agree with Albert Nock: "in such circumstances the popular favorite is generally some Barabbas." Masses "will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction," it's the Remnant who "build up a new society" (Isaiah's Job).
Perhaps the reason bitcoin ETFs were approved was because the government no longer considers bitcoin a threat. To be a threat, bitcoin would have to be (and currently is not) what Satoshi had in mind when he built it: p2p digital cash.
Or perhaps they believe that it will be much easier to capture bitcoin (or to tame it one way or another) once it gets sufficiently centralized by all these bitcoin ETF companies (rushed mass adoption). Either way, bitcoin ETF approval, in my view, is not a cause for celebration but a wake up call.
The more I think about it the more I realize that unless bitcoin is made private by default (like monero, for example), it will not become digital cash. By default I mean private on the blockchain level, not on the application level. It's naive to expect that an average person (the masses) will do coinjoins, swaps, and other clever techniques in order to make bitcoin private.
2024-01-15