The latest version, just released some three years after the original, is essentially unchanged other than the new foreword by the well-known BTC maximalist and promoter, Saylor. The previous foreword by Nassim Taleb was effectively withdrawn in an angry public disagreement with Ammous, implying he was “crankish” and a “lunatic”: Taleb pulled his endorsement of both the book and BTC as ‘digital-gold.’ So, what’s the fuss about? In other sections, the arguments were highly ideological. The argument about Keynes would more convincing if it was more disciplined particularly in describing specific positions. The argument that the gold standard could be characterized by price stability is made by comparing prices at the endpoints of gold standard periods. This doesn't mean there were stable prices during the periods and closer examination would, in fact, show otherwise. This volatility is mostly due to demand, and because it’s so new, demand is highly variable. But this variability has only undermined its status. People wonder how it can be reliable if it fluctuates. However, the author believes that as the market grows, these fluctuations should even out. Since the move from El Salvador, the leaders of developing countries, including Mexico, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, and Panama, have hinted at following suit. This shift has come to be known as the ‘El Salvador effect’.

Asking citizens in surveys is a meaningless exercise, because people’s choices are meaningless without a price to reflect the real opportunity cost involved in trade‐offs between choices. In ‘The Bitcoin Standard,’ economist and author Saifedean Ammous delves deep into the history of money, its evolution, and the transformative potential of Bitcoin as a game-changer for the global financial system. The book presents a detailed analysis of the fundamental principles of Bitcoin, its potential impact on economic systems, and its significance for the future of money. The Evolution of Money: A Journey Through Time The only way to make maturity mismatching safe is with the presence of a lender of last resort standing ready to lend to banks in case of a bank run. The fatal flaw of socialism that Mises exposed was that without a price mechanism emerging on a free market, socialism would fail at economic calculation, most crucially in the allocation of capital goodsNote: Argument is that this monetary nationalism administered by central banks created more upside as well as more downside. In an asymmetric world, AKA Extemistan, that is not worth it. Bitcoin’s volatility derives from the fact that its supply is utterly inflexible and not responsive to demand changes, because it is programmed to grow at a predetermined rate. For any regular commodity, the variation in demand will affect the production decisions of producers of the commodity: an increase in demand causes them to increase their production, moderating the rise in the price and allowing them to increase their profitability, while a decrease in demand would cause producers to decrease their supply and allow them to minimize losses. A similar situation exists with national currencies, where central banks are expected to maintain relative stability in the purchasing power of their currencies by setting the parameters of their monetary policy to counteract market fluctuations. This] should be required reading for everyone in modern society,” writes Michael Saylor, CEO of MicroStrategy, in his foreword to the latest version of The Bitcoin Standard (subtitled, the decentralized alternative to central banking) by Saifedean Ammous. Any industry in which people complain about their asshole boss is likely part of the bezzle, because bosses can only really afford to be assholes in the economic fake reality of the bezzle. The U.S. Fed’s inflationary policy ended by the end of 1928, at which point the U.S. economy was ripe for the inevitable collapse that follows from the suspension of inflationism.

Keynes expresses his opposition of liberalism and individualism, which one would expect, but also presents the grounds of his opposition to socialism […] that its end goal was increasing individual freedom […] Keynes wanted government enslavement for its own sake, as the ultimate end. Although gold was supposedly demonetized fully in 1971, central banks continued to hold significant gold reserves, and only disposed of them slowly, before returning to buying gold in the last decade. The larger the market, the more the opportunities for specialization and exchange, but also the bigger the problem of coincidence of wants—what you want to acquire is produced by someone who doesn’t want what you have to sell. The Bitcoin Standard podcast is releasing a recording of the weekly Saifedean.com discussion seminar. The sum total of the contribution of both these schools of thought is the consensus taught in undergraduate macroeconomics courses across the world: that the central bank should be in the business of expanding the money supply at a controlled pace, to encourage people to spend more and thus keep the unemployment level sufficiently low.

Libertarian or "Austrian economics" explanation of money. Discussing the history and social impact then anticipating the role of bitcoin. Pese a no ser lo que estaba buscando, es un libro que recomendaría a cualquier persona que se interese no solo en Bitcoin sino en la función y orígenes del dinero. En este sentido, la primera parte del libro es fantástica. Note: Gold, by comparison, is harder to mine – even with price increase it is hard to mine more thus hard to inflate This tension of imposing ‘liberty’ on people by seeking to deny democratic governments any policy space whatsoever underlines the whole book. The most obvious manifestation of this ideological lens is in the repeated mischaracterisation of John Maynard Keynes and his ideas. Keynes is the anti-hero in this morality play: the necessary foil for the angelic, low time preference heroes. The lambasting of Keynes is in the well-established rhetorical tradition of the Austrian School: unevidenced assertion and straw manning. Of all the faults of the book—and there are many—the wanton misrepresentation of Keynes is perhaps the most indicative of bad faith. While microeconomics has focused on transactions between individuals, and macroeconomics on the role of government in the economy, the reality is that the most important economic decisions to any individual’s well‐being are the ones they conduct in their trade‐offs with their future self.

Note: You need a single or few monies to allow specialization. This is part of memetic fitness. The people who adopt a money which facilitates greater specialization will outcompete those who don’t. See Lydia. Note: Once one power did it without causing a run on the bank then they sort of all had to do it because otherwise they would be outspent and lose the war. Could appeal to nationalism to prvent bank run. Civilization is not about more capital accumulation per se; rather, it is about what capital accumulation allows humans to achieve, the flourishing and freedom to seek higher meaning in life when their base needs are met and most pressing dangers averted. With the simple suspension of gold redeemability, governments’ war efforts were no longer limited to the money that they had in their own treasuries, but extended virtually to the entire wealth of the population. Unlike the Romans and the Byzantines, Arab and Muslim civilizations’ collapse was not linked to the collapse of their money as they maintained the integrity of their currencies for centuries.Y es que este es un libro más sobre historia del dinero y el impacto de distintos patrones monetarios en la economía real que sobre Bitcoin, al que solo dedica los tres últimos capítulos (Ch.8 – Digital Money; Ch.9 – What is Bitcoin Good For?; Ch. 10 – Bitcoin FAQ). Beginning with a history of gold, Ammous looks at different types of money in history and shows how Bitcoin fits in. While I'm sympathetic to many of the ideas in this book, they are very poorly argued. The first half of the book or so is about the economics of hard money. The author could have charitably considered the pros and cons of such a system and examined alternatives in detail. Instead we are presented with juvenile arguments that give the impression the author has read very little about monetary economics. To the extent alternative views are presented, the author does so only to strawman them. Professional economists would find this section of the book cringeworthy. While bitcoin is a new invention of the digital age, the problem it purports to solve is as old as human society itself: transferring value across time and space. Ammous takes the listener on an engaging journey through the history of technologies performing the functions of money, from primitive systems of trading limestones and seashells, to metals, coins, the gold standard, and modern government debt. Exploring what gave these technologies their monetary role, and how most lost it, provides the listener with a good idea of what makes for sound money, and sets the stage for an economic discussion of its consequences for individual and societal future-orientation, capital accumulation, trade, peace, culture, and art. Compellingly, Ammous shows that it is no coincidence that the loftiest achievements of humanity have come in societies enjoying the benefits of sound monetary regimes, nor is it coincidental that monetary collapse has usually accompanied the collapse of a civilization. bitcoinมันดียังไง” โดยการสาธยายว่าสกุลเงินต่างๆหรือสิ่งของแลกเปลี่ยน ที่เคยเกิดขึ้นมันเจ๊งหรือมีปัญหาได้ยังไง และการโดดมาของbitcoinมันจะปฏิวัติวงการนี้จริงๆหรอ