Did Austrian economics still apply if the monetary commodity was redeemable for nothing and less useful than gold? Deflation might be good for the hodlers, but wasn’t that at the expense of everyone else, many of them hard-working, wealth-creating people, who weren’t hodling? And nobody ever, ever, talked about commercial banks and the 97% of money which they issued, as debt, for profit, in such quantity as suited them. In this respect the nascent field resembled neoclassical economics, which Steve Keen memorably dismissed with “Neoclassical macroeconomics ignores banks, and private debt, and money”
I started to realise that credit wasn’t just excluded from the narrative, it was completely outside the paradigm. Part of Bitcoin’s being ‘trustless’ meant that debt, negative balances were unthinkable.
Add new comment