Lessons From the Newest Electronic Money – Bitcoin

One of the more interesting developments of the modern electronic age of money has been the rise of Bitcoin, a decentralized digital form of money.  If you’re not familiar with it or you’re confused by what Bitcoin is, you’re not alone.  It’s a fairly new, innovative and complex form of money.  And that’s right, Bitcoin is definitely money.

Today’s Dominant Form of Money Versus Bitcoin

Anyone who understands the basic tenets of Monetary Realism know that many things can serve as money and many things DO serve as money.  After all, anyone can create money, but the trouble is in getting others to accept it.  And since money’s primary purpose is in the means of exchange, just about anything can serve as money as long as it meets that primary purpose.  The thing is, there aren’t all that many things that meet that need on a broad level.  For instance, lots of people like to claim that gold is money (which it is), but gold isn’t accepted for payment in many places.  Therefore, MR says that gold has a low level of moneyness (to better understand the concept of moneyness please see here).  Gold is money, but it’s just not a very good kind of money.  Bitcoin is actually very similar.  If you have Bitcoins you can buy certain things online that only a Bitcoin merchant will allow you to buy.  These merchants accept Bitcoins as a form of final payment.  To them, it’s a form of money with a very high level of moneyness.  But to a company like Wal-Mart a Bitcoin is like a gold bar.  It doesn’t give you access to anything in their store therefore its moneyness is virtually nil in a Wal-Mart.  Most retailers around the world view Bitcoins similarly.

In the USA, the primary form of money is bank deposits because bank deposits are the form of money that dominate the US payments system.  The US payments system, which is maintained by private banks, is the primary playing field for the purpose of exchanging goods and services.  In other words, if you want access to the most convenient and widely accepted form of payment (bank deposits), you need to become a member of the US payments system usually by becoming a bank client.  This gives you access to credit cards, debit cards, a bank account that allows you to withdraw/deposit cash, etc which allows you to interact on the US payments system.  Becoming a bank client is kind of like opening a Ticketmaster account so you can obtain access to the means of exchange to gain entry into a theater performance (you just want access to the tickets that give you access to a performance).  In the case of banking, you open an account in order to gain access to the US payments system so you can access the performance that is the US economy.  Obtaining Bitcoins is similar in many ways, but very different as I’ll describe below.

Bitcoin is a Truly Endogenous Decentralized Form of Money

Bitcoin is very different from bank deposits.  The US payments system is overseen and regulated by the US government.  In other words, the government has deemed the US dollar as the unit of account in the USA (in other words, money is denominated in US Dollars in the USA) and the government has given private banks the unique privilege to control and maintain the creation of the bank deposits (denominated in USD) that populate the payments system they operate.  This system isn’t decentralized (even though it’s controlled primarily by private entities) because it is regulated by the US government.  Bitcoin, on the other hand, is entirely decentralized, unregulated, etc.

Decentralization could be both good and bad for Bitcoin.  I think there’s a certain missing element of trust in an online money that has no oversight.  One of the key ingredients that stabilizes and maintains the US payments system is the backing of laws that enforce and regulate the proper use of bank deposits.  Banks can’t just issue deposits (loans) without working within the regulatory structure of US government law.  And the users of bank deposits can’t use this payments system for things that the US government might deem inappropriate.  When you legally exchange goods and services on the US payments system there is a certain level of trust derived from the fact that you have a legal system protecting your rights to use that system in a particular way.  In other words, the government helps embed a certain element of trust within the system by ensuring that its users operate within strict guidelines and by providing those users with certain protections against fraud, misuse, etc.  It’s by no means perfect (some might even argue the government has too much control over the laws binding the payments system), but having an institutionalized form of money helps to solidify the trust that is one component of its viability.  Bitcoin has no such integrated legal protections or oversight, which is both liberating, but worrisome in some regards.

Bitcoin is also interesting in that it circumvents the banking system.  In the US banking system money is created as debt in the form of loans which create deposits.  This means the money supply in the USA is market based (created by banks who compete for the demand for loans), but it’s debt based AND can therefore be costly to utilize.  In other words, you have to “pay to play” within the US payments system.  By decentralizing their payment system, Bitcoin is able to reduce the costs associated with money.  They’re also able to create money that is not directly tied to debt.  This is both innovative and liberating.

One of the more interesting elements of Bitcoin is its rise as a purely endogenous form of money.  I often refer to bank money as endogenous in that it is created entirely INSIDE the private sector, but even bank money exists on a centralized system (the US payments system) that is regulated by US government law.  But Bitcoin is completely decentralized and a purely endogenous form of money.  So the decentralization creates a form of money that has grown entirely independent of government and its taxes.  In other words, Bitcoin proves that money can exist ENTIRELY for the private purpose for the means of transaction. This not only shows that money can be entirely endogenous and independent of government, but that it can also grow entirely independent of government taxation.

The Bitcoin Money Supply and the K-Percent Rule

Bitcoin’s money supply is also automated.  It kind of reminds me of Milton Friedman’s k-percent rule to automate the growth of the money supply.  I won’t get into the way the Bitcoin money supply is automated because the computer based growth is WAY over my head, but all you really need to know is that it’s not controlled by a central bank or any bank at all.   This is a very interesting approach to managing the money supply.  The innovative thinking and creativity behind this concept should be embraced and explored further as money evolves in the future.

Where Does Bitcoin go From Here?   

Bitcoin is an extremely interesting and innovative concept that shows that money can be entirely endogenous and exist entirely independent of government.  But can it be sustained within our economy without the laws that help bind money as a social construct?   Can the element of trust be borne into such a decentralized digital money?  And more importantly, is this form of decentralized digital money inherently at odds with the existence of a money system and economy whose primary payment system exists on a government regulated and government taxed playing field?  Call me hopeful, but skeptical.

I think the innovation and creativity behind Bitcoin is brilliant.  It’s an incredibly cool and forward looking form of money.  But money is a social construct and within any nation that social construct is designed in such a manner that it serves primarily private purpose, but ALSO public purpose.  In other words, without a system of taxation attached to that money it is at odds with one of the essential components of money as a social construct.  After all, it is through taxation that public purpose is generated so a money system that is entirely for private purpose could be seen as being at odds with one of the main purposes of money.  The US government organizes and institutionalizes money within the government regulated banking system so that it can maintain a private market based money system that has strict oversight and tracking.  This not only allows for enforcement of rules and regulations, but also helps the government ensure that this money can be used for public purpose.  A truly decentralized form of money like Bitcoin has no such government attachment allowing for any form of public purpose.

I think Bitcoin can continue to exist as a subordinate form of money with a very low level of moneyness, but if Bitcoin were to grow to a point where it becomes a highly competitive form of money, but circumvents the laws, regulations and taxation of a system like the US banking system, my guess is that the US government will make it illegal for merchants to receive Bitcoins for payment.  And then 100 FBI agents get a few thousand Bitcoins each, buy something from US based Bitcoin merchants and parade them out on national TV for the entire nation to see why Bitcoin acceptance results in a $250,000 fine and 5 years in prison.  In other words, Bitcoin could very well become a victim of its own success as the US government would never allow another form of money to detract from public purpose due to high levels of monetary competition.  Of course, I am referring to the US government, but this view would likely be embraced by many governments around the world.

So Bitcoin is an interesting and extremely innovative form of money, but probably not a viable form on any grand scale since its inevitable competition with the US banking system will likely render it at odds with the goals of the US government.  I know the anti-government and anti-banking crowd won’t like that conclusion, but that’s how I view it.  A purely private purpose money is at odds with the formation of money as a social construct that partially serves public purpose as the US banking system does.

Hopefully, Bitcoin will continue to exist on a smaller scale so we can see how this de-centralized, electronic, innovative and forward looking form of money evolves.  There is much to be learned here and I think the US government should proceed with caution regarding any potential clamp down on this money system.  While we wouldn’t want the Bitcoin money system to detract from public purpose I think it is useful and educational to see how this form of money evolves and takes form over time.  But I worry that the party could come to an end as soon as the US government recognizes it as a very real threat to the US banking system and the payment system it regulates in the means of public purpose.


Understanding Inside Money & Outside Money

Understanding the Modern Monetary System

*  It’s more accurate for me to describe Bitcoin as being endogenous up to its fixed level at which point it becomes a purely exogenous fixed money supply.  


Got a comment or question about this post? Feel free to use the Ask Cullen section, leave a comment in the forum or send me a message on Twitter.

Cullen Roche

Mr. Roche is the Founder of Orcam Financial Group, LLC. Orcam is a financial services firm offering research, private advisory, institutional consulting and educational services.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:

  • esb

    Frankly, my dear, I prefer the Combibars in gold AND silver to something that could very easily go POOF in the night.

    You need to ask yourself one question, and that is do you trust the gang that actually controls Bitcoin issuance, regardless of how they claim that they do it at the moment?

    My answer to that question is, “I think not my Lord.”

    And may the odds be NEVER in your favor.

  • GLG34

    Good post. Lots of good nuggets of knowledge in there.

  • Frederick

    Thanks for this post cullen. You should try to do more lecturing and teaching. After seeing your Bloomberg video you seem like someone who would be a good fit for that sort of thing. And you have a unique and simple way of explaining very complex concepts. Just a thought.

  • artifical investing

    Cullen, I remember emailing you asking about bitcoins in late 2011. If we had put money in then (at 20$) we could sell today for 200x profit. What a lesson! Would have been a great trade.

  • artifical investing

    well, 20->90 isn’t 200x, but we would have quadrupled our money. needs to be an edit button :)

  • Money Theorist

    Great to here a money expert chime in on Bitcoin. I agree with you. The worst thing that could happen to Bitcoin is massive popularity.

  • LVG

    Bitcoin is money? April fools, right?

  • art
  • Wulfram

    No individual controls Bitcoin insurance because Bitcoins are solutions to a problem that is widely believed to be mathematically hard. The same types of problems underpin the security of anything that is encrypted. So no one can just issue (come up with answers to computationally hard mathematical problem) Bitcoins that will be validated by the network without spending lots of computational power.

    If anything, the problem with Bitcoins is that merchants, exchanges, brokerages, and banks are completely unregulated third parties (that is where theft and fraud occurs). So you don’t have a FBI looking to find your bitcoins when they are stolen, a legal system and lawyers to recover damages when a third party broker misuses them, FDIC to prevent against their permanent loss, and a Federal Reserve to inflate or deflate their value.

    Of course, as the Cypriots are finding out, having the currency being under the control of the government is no guarantee of value either.

  • http://www.highrevsopenhouse.blogspot.com HighRev

    Money is any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given socio-economic context or country.[1][2][3] The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally in the past, a standard of deferred payment.[4][5] Any kind of object or secure verifiable record that fulfills these functions can be considered money.

    Bitcoin is NOT money. Bitcoin is just another Ponzi fraud. Period.

  • NK

    esb, you are a very confused person.
    Bitcoin isn’t claimed to be a store of value.

  • NK

    completely wrong!
    the truth is diametrically opposite to your statement.

    the more they try to ban it, the more popular it becomes. like the drugs.
    in fact i hope they try to ban Bitcoin, so that they help Bitcoin with free marketing funds… it’d be like trying to ban Debian Linux. laughable.

  • NK

    The level of denial in comments is astonishing.

    As to the post, I don’t understand what the author is “hopeful” about.
    It seems to me MMT is based on coercion and the government’s (CB’s) manipulation of currency.
    Bitcoin, to the annoyance of statists, Keynesians, MMT-ers and other groups who like to “fine-tune” other people’s money, doesn’t lend itself to coercion, manipulation and abuse. (Yes, there is manipulation of the HFT kind, however, unlike the stockmarket where one is forced to participate if not directly, then indirectly via forced retirement funds, his government debt, etc.; there’s no such coercion with Bitcoin).
    Cryptocurrencies are the 2nd (the first is precious metals) greatest threat to fiat and government coercion.

  • Dennis

    Cullen, Thanks for bringing this topic up for discussion. It’s beyond MR but something to think about because it could have some value on a small scale. I found this very interesting:


    That being typed, I don’t see anyone that relies on MR today (banks, governments, traders etc.) would want any part of this. Millions of people might actually have to go to work for their moola ! OMG

  • Stephen

    “Bitcoin”…funny ,that is exactly what people used to do with coins to test their content.Do I detect some unforeseen irony to be had here.

  • Andrew P

    A medium of exchange has to be at least a temporary store of value. Otherwise it is useless.

  • Andrew P

    Bitcoins are not a long term store of value because advances in computing technology could eventually break the encryption schemes that underlie its foundations. But as long as Bitcoins are traded, they are a very efficient means of circumventing capital controls. This explains the sudden interest in Bitcoin. Even the sheep in Europe now realize that the Eurozone banks could fail, and capital controls are part of the template. If you are in the EU and anticipate capital controls and political unrest in the future, how do you prepare? You could put your money in US dollars on Treasury Direct, but how do you know that the USA will remain open for business if the EU goes under? You don’t. And the UK? It has 3 of the 12 weakest big banks in the world, which inspires lots of confidence. If you don’t know where you might be escaping to, having some of your money in a form that is hard to confiscate at borders is a good idea.

    I suppose that countries could confiscate all thumb drives and disks at borders and firewall the internet if Bitcoins became too popular a way of moving money, though.

  • http://kiddynamitesworld.com Kid Dynamite

    I think that the reason that Governments will eventually have major problems with Bitcoin and try to legislate against it is not fear of competing currencies/money, but rather, simply: money laundering…

  • http://www.linkfest.com Druce Vertes

    The number of bitcoin cannot exceed 21m under the current protocol. (currently about half that outstanding). In that sense it’s not like a Friedman growth rule.

    The rate of growth was recently halved; that, plus new ways it can be accepted, plus a new cycle of breathless hype, may account for the recent surge.

    Not a stable store of value; not a unit of account; very limited ‘moneyness’ in transactions => not a currency, more like digital pet rocks.

    (something I wrote in 2011 – http://blog.streeteye.com/blog/2011/06/the-great-bitcoin-robbery/ )

  • waspoza

    You can hide bitcoins in your brain. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Brainwallet

  • David Lentz

    This blog post needs a chart … how about a chart of gold, priced in bit coins?

    It seems appropriate …

  • Geoff

    The beauty of the current US monetary system is its flexibility. The money supply (be it bank deposits or cash etc.) fluctuates to meet the demands of the system. One could say that the money supply is demand driven. Bitcoins, on the other hand, are supply driven. Their supply grows at a fixed rate regardless of the needs of the system. This is inflexible and ripe for speculation.

  • yhvd

    The supply of bitcoins is not endogenous. The distribution of new bitcoins may be distributed, but as opposed to endogenous bank created money there is a limited supply that when reached will stop any new creation of money. The fact that it isn’t a central bank but rather an algorithm that put a hard limit on the amount of money in circulation really doesn’t matter.

    If you want to look at a way of implementing digital money in a fundamentally endogenous way, then I’d suggest you take a look at Ripple.

  • Geoff

    yhvd, I think you and I are on the same page, though I haven’t read Ripple. Do you have a link? I think what Cullen means by “endogenous” is that it is created “inside” the private sector. Personally, I tend to think of endogenous money as growing organically, driven by demand, fluctuating to meet the needs of the system. The current US monetary system really is ingenious.

    It is endogenious :)

  • But What Do I Know?

    So what would be the justification of prosecuting merchants who accept bitcoins (as long as they recognized the revenue/paid the sales tax, etc.)? As I understand it, I can accept anything as an exchange for my goods/services; the difference with US dollars is that I *must* accept them.

  • yhvd

    It is described at some detail at https://ripple.com/how-ripple-works/

  • yhvd

    There are rules to enforce traceability of electronic payments. Since the merchants cannot comply with that, they’ll receive attention sooner or later.

  • LVG

    I’d like to see how much people use Bitcoins after the government bans it. Like seeing how much people use Intrade now. Hint: they don’t.

  • LVG

    Bitcoin is accepted for payment. That’s all it takes for something to have a certain level of moneyness. Ask anyone online using Bitcoins to buy things if they think they’re using a medium of exchange? Of course they are.

  • DanH

    Cullen hates MMT. He wrote a huge primer on the reasons why MMT is wrong because he hates their statist views of the world.


  • LVG

    Exogenous money means any money whose quantity and value is controlled from outside. Endogenous money is a money whose value and quantity is controlled from inside. Bitcoin, being decentralized is definitely endogenous money even if its quantity will stop growing at some point. Its value will always float in a market not controlled by the government.

  • Geoff

    Ha, I assumed from your comment above that Ripple was an economist! My bad, and thanks for the link. It doesn’t look much different than paypal, but cheaper.

  • Geoff

    LVG, Bitcoins are created “outside” the system in that the quantity is controlled by a computer rather than by the “inside” demands of the system. Bitcoins are purely exogenous in my opinion.

  • http://www.orcamgroup.com Cullen Roche

    Yes, I am definitely not a MMTer. MMT says the state creates all money in the way that taxes “destroy money” and spending “creates money”. I think this is totally wrong. I say the govt is a redistributor of money because the whole system is designed around bank money and govt MUST, by necessity, spend all inside money back into the system or it would create a bank run type effect where it takes inside money out of the system and fails to put it back in.

  • http://www.orcamgroup.com Cullen Roche

    The supply is fixed up to a certain level, but until then it’s created inside by the Bitcoin miners.

  • Geoff

    You mean Bitcoins grow organically up to a certain cap?

  • LVG

    Exogenous money is controlled by the interest rate or the cost of money which neoclassicals say is controlled by the central bank. Bitcoins and technically all forms of money outside of a central planning regime, are basically endogenous.

  • yhvd

    By that reasoning a gold standard with 100% reserve requirement would be an endogenous money supply, as there is a limited amount of gold to dig up.

    I don’t buy it – there is a fixed amount of it and the fact that you have to expend resources to find the existing amount doesn’t really matter. There is no mechanism for banks to create more of it and therefore it really can’t be said to be created within the system.

  • http://www.orcamgroup.com Cullen Roche
  • yhvd

    There is a hard limit of roughly 21M bitcoins that can be created. Each new bitcoin is a little harder to find than the previous one. The half point mark was recently passed.

  • William Bedloe
  • http://www.orcamgroup.com Cullen Roche

    In endogenous money, the supply is determined by the demand for money. In Bitcoin, the supply is determined by the miners who compete to solve problems and create new blocks.

    I guess you could say that Bitcoin is endogenous up to the 21MM supply limit at which point it becomes purely fixed exogenous supply.

  • FrankH

    Bitcoin is a moderately interesting distraction from the real problem in the world – almost no one outside of the readers of this website actually understand how the monetary system works.

  • Geoff

    A system in which supply is determined by demand would seem to be far superior to one that is determined by arbitrary “miners”.

  • Frederick

    Cullen despises M M T. Where have you been?

  • http://www.orcamgroup.com Cullen Roche

    “Despises” is a bit strong. More like, I just think they get some things wrong by creating a far too govt centric view of the money system….Lots of good insights in MMT though.

  • RAEckart

    Anyone remember Green Stamps? That market collapsed fast. And Warren Buffett was involved.

  • http://www.lostoutputclock.com Austerity Sucks

    Something not really outlined is what the demand for bitcoin breaks down to, which is essentially these components:

    1) Speculation (I’m buying a Bitcoin with $€ so I can sell it later for more $€)

    2) Black market industrial trade needs. (I’m buying a Bitcoin to buy Drugs/ChildPorn/etc.)

    3) General storage of assets in a system where you see value in anonymous transactions due to trust issues (I’m buying a Bitcoin because I’m paranoid/think it’s neat).

    Also worth noting is that a bunch of hackers have essentially played up a market that started at $0 and is now worth over $1 billion.

    Think long and hard about what that means. The value is created only because bitcoin is an anonymous payment system that facilitates black market trade and of course speculation/novelty/distrust.

    I’ve written about this at a different angle if anyone is interested.

  • http://www.lawrence-lawyer.com Fletcher, Rohrbaugh, & Chahine

    Very informative article for people who have not heard for Bitcoin. This is an interesting invention, and now we will be able to recognize it.

  • Android

    if the social contract of money is that society accepts it as a medium of exchange, then could not bitcoin also have a social contract if it is accepted by society? And if accepted by society, would not the government adopt bitcoin for its own use and maybe tax bitcoin transactions to fund itself? In other words, is there a way the government could be inserted into the bitcoin system?

  • http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/Credit-Supernova.aspx momey

    ” gold isn’t accepted for payment in many places. ”

    US Dollar isn’t accepted for payment in many places outside USA, Euro isn’t accepted for payment in many places outside Europe, Japan Yen …

  • http://www.orcamgroup.com Cullen Roche

    That’s why a Yen has a lower level of moneyness in the USA than a dollar does. In order to participate in the US payments system you must transfer your Yen to USD….

  • Observer

    Deserves to be reiterated: “The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” – U.S. President Thomas Jefferson

    Why can’t we go back to Lincoln’s greenback-system? How can we tolerate that “the government has given private banks the unique privilege to control and maintain the creation of the bank deposits”??

    As congressman Charles Lindbergh (R-MN) rightly said a 100 years ago: “This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privileged class by any Government that ever existed. The system is private, the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other peoples money.”

    Lincoln has something else in mind before getting murdered:

    “The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers.

    The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity.

    By the adoption of these principles … the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.” / U.S. President Abraham Lincoln

    WHY WHY WHY is no one challenging the present system?? Almost every U.S. President during the 19th century tried to stand up against private banks holding issuing power. It was the most important political issue and still is. Except opposition vanished in the beginning of the 20th century. What the hell happened?

  • Rob Jones

    If Bitcoins were widely accepted, they could replace your bank account, your debit card, PayPal, etc. Bitcoin doesn’t pay interest, but because the number of new Bitcoins minted is strictly limited, their value will increase over time resulting in a much better return than a savings account. I could easily see people closing their bank accounts and asking to be paid in Bitcoins (are Bitcoin wages even taxable?).

    Since Bitcoins would quickly replace traditional currencies if allowed to, I expect that governments will band together and jointly outlaw Bitcoins. But until then, I think Bitcoins will continue to appreciate.

  • http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/Credit-Supernova.aspx momey

    Dollar has higher level of moneyness than gold only inside the US. Gold has the same or higher level moneyness than Dollar outside the US.

  • Dunce Cap Aficionado

    If they were widely accepted, the cap on the supply would prove disastrous over time.

  • theta

    Only if a debt bubble fueled by bitcoin-denominated loans develops.

  • T Black

    The other question you have to ask is when you are in a pinch in that if you don’t transfer your money out of or withdraw a bank account and need to transfer funds to another area is: Do you trust Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama, David Rockefeller, George Soros or even the Rothschild family? In for instance like the citizens of Cypus, had they turned their bank accounts into Bit Coin currency – all of them would still have their Savings in their possession today instead of in the hands of the corrupt European Union! Yes, Bit Coin is a valuable service!

  • http://charliguberman.blogspot.com Charlijg

    I think Mr Roche get confused about the origin of money. It was actually only for private purpose, and then came the state and claimed it “ownership” and imposed the monopoly on printing money.
    Is not that bitcoin proof that money can be entirely for private purpose it only reminds us that it was socially constructed for that, and then governments discover a good business on it.
    Unfortunately we do not have any way to proof that monetary system was more or less stable before official monopoly were established, as means to address the issue of which system would be better in terms of welfare.
    However, we do know that governments usually mess up the monetary system whenever they get short of tax revenues (and resort to inflation tax).

  • http://brown-blog-5.blogspot.com/ Tom Brown

    David Graeber (anthropologist) has an excellent book on the origin of money: “Debt: The First 5000 Years.” He shows that debt was the basis of money, and that “gift economies” were proto-debt based systems. Barter was never very important and still isn’t in primitive societies. Coins came 1000s of years later and have come in and out of fashion ever since, alternating with debt based systems.

  • SS

    Cullen is an endogenous money theorist. He doesn’t believe money cones from the government.

  • http://www.orcamgroup.com Cullen Roche

    I don’t say money comes from a govt monopoly. In fact, I argue exactly the opposite. Most money comes from the private oligopoly that is modern banking. I vehemently disagree with the concept that money comes from or has origins with govt.

  • richard

    The author of this article didn’t actually explain how BitCoin actually works. He came in with a viewpoint and built his writing around supporting his idea that it won’t work. Money is an idea back by confidence. If people decided they have confidence in it it will work and apparently it is working so far. These kind of articles are written by people who have vested interest in maintaining the status quo.