54 votes

Ron Paul on BitCoins: "I don't think it fits the definition of money"


Source: https://twitter.com/KatyFinneran/status/326714607190306816

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Seekers of knowledge and truth

Are we not seekers of knowledge and truth? And to that end, should we not always approach subjects with an un-biased angle?

There are too many people who post Bitcoin articles with a noticeably positive or negative slant. Where's the option to make up our own minds?

Yes, Dr. Paul did say, "I don't think it fits the definition of money" but he also said, "I don't understand it."

Why couldn't the title of this post be, "Ron Paul weighs in on Bitcoin" or something similar?

When you lead a subject topic with your biased opinion, you are no better than the MSM, who seeks to plant their angle/agenda into the minds of their readers/watchers. To prematurely close the debate.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty!

If your mind is made up about Bitcoin, fine. You will have no problem engaging in a ligitmate debate with other undecided (or decided) DPers... WITHOUT the cheap tricks.


Bitcoin needs to go away. It's just more conditioning for the upcoming cashless society. We of all people should be able to recognize that.

He also says

"I'm not opposed to bitcoin."
"It was created by the free market... its not regulated."
"I don't understand it."

The only reason he says it doesn't fit the definition of money is because you can't hold it.

I would argue that 99% of the money spent in the US today is money that is not being physically held. Instead we hand a card to a cashier, they swipe it, and electronic money is moved from one account to another.

Ok, I give up. I've posted

Ok, I give up. I've posted the definition of money 3 times already and here's another "can't hold it" post.

The definition of money: whatever you want it to be :/

The good doc really meant the actual definition of money, though. Really, I swear. He meant bitcoin is NOT THE MOST SALE-ABLE GOOD!!! Nothing more, nothing less. The DEFINITION OF MONEY is the most sale-able good. Bitcoin IS NOT the most sale-able good, therefore, wait for it......

.... it doesn't fit the ****DEFINITION*** of money.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

I don't need an interpreter.

He explains what he meant. If you would listen you would know what he meant also.

Another definition of money is - a means for exchange. Bitcoin is a means for exchange. So it is definitely money. Not only that but bitcoin is sale-able. It might not be the most sale-able across the board but it is in certain circles. So even by your narrow definition it is money for certain groups of people.

Nope. All media of exchange

Nope. All media of exchange are not necessarily money, because all media of exchange can't possibly be the MOST SALE-ABLE good.

Tokens from Chucky Cheese, stock in a corporation, and even favors can be used in an indirect exchange, but none of these classify as money, because they aren't the MOST sale-able good.

It can qualify as a currency, because it has a market price expressed in other goods/currencies.

Maybe someday bitcoins WILL be the MOST sale-able good, however unlikely that may seem. Right now, they are NOT the most sale-able good.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Then only one form of money can exist by your definition

Only one thing can be MOST sale-able, but more than one thing can function as money. The only reason that dollars are MOST sale-able is the force of law. Since competing currencies are generally illegal, who can say what would be most sale-able in a free market. In addition, who is to say that multiple forms of money would not exist in a free market with competing currencies? If bitcoin had higher liquidity, it would be easier for it to function as money, but it doesn't have to be THE most liquid item on the planet to be money.

What would it take for you to

What would it take for you to trade something you have for something you DON'T want? Well, the item you DON'T want better be easy to exchange for something you DO want.

Yes, we only use FRNs because that is the only way to pay taxes and the goons will enslave you if you don't pay. The reasons WHY a certain item is the most sale-able are secondary.

Yes, different goods will compete, different goods will be the most sale-able under different situations.

No, money doesn't have to be the most liquid item ON THE PLANET, it only has to be the most liquid item IN YOU AREA for you to consider it money.

Why would it work any other way. Why would we NOT naturally want to use the MOST SALE-ABLE good when we trade for something we value ONLY because it is easy to trade for other things.

May I'm misunderstood because I'm stating the blatantly obvious. The most sale-able good obviously is the most sale-able good... and when you're talking about an object that you only value for it's sale-able-ness, then the MOST sale-able is obviously what you are after, although you may settle for LESS sale-able items if you have no access to the MOST sale-able, and the MOST sale-able item may change when conditions in the real world change.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Here are a few links

that show you have no idea of what you are talking about. None of them mention "MOST SALE-ABLE" as money. Why don't we just stick with generally accepted definitions.

yahoo dictionary

... and here's a link for you...


Hopefully someday modern causal-realist economics WILL be the "generally accepted" economics. Until then, the "generally accepted definition" of certain economic terms will continue to cause confusion. Thus, the problem. ;)

it is a fact that people use whatever they think they can trade away the easiest as their preferred medium. Why wouldn't we function like this?

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

The definition of "money":

The definition of "money": The most sale-able good

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."


I'll leave it at that.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

wonder if that was intentional? He is pretty quick on his feet


"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

He said Bitcon! hahah

He said, "bitcon", Freudian slip?? You be the judge, :D

Look at all those books behind Ron Paul.

I would surely enjoy spending some time examining his library.

I disagree with Dr. Paul on this one

Money doesn't need to have intrinsic value of utility to be used as a medium of exchange. Sound money just needs to be easy to authenticate, difficult to counterfeit, and easily divisible. Bitcoin has all of those properties.

I'm curious what Bill Still has to say about bitcoin. In Still's "Money Masters" documentary, he never espoused the opinion that sound money required intrinsic value.

"doesn't need to have intrinsic value of utility"

For something to become a medium of exchange, it must already be valued as a commodity (regression theorem). More to the point, for something to be widely used as a medium of exchange, it must already be widely valued as a commodity. Bitcoin arguably meets the condition of the regression theorem (a handful of techies valued it as a commodity originally: "digital jewelry" as they say), but it is definitely not widely valued as a commodity, nor is it likely to be, and so it has very limited potential as money.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Gold doesn't really have intrinsic value from its utility

Gold doesn't have much utility other than decoration...but central banks don't hold gold because of its use in jewelry. The use in jewelry is not the main factor in determining gold's value either. Gold is money because it is not easy to manipulate, easily divisible, and difficult to counterfeit. Nothing in principle would prevent bitcoin from have a similar role as money. Just because bitcoin isn't widely used as money doesn't mean it couldn't be widely used as money.


$100 billion worth of gold is used annually in industrial applications. Gold doesn't have much utility???? o_O

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Gold isn't an industrial metal...it is money

Copper, iron, even silver and platinum have major industrial applications. Gold does not.

78% of gold consumed each year is used in jewelry. I guess you can call jewelry an industrial use. I just referred to it as decoration.

Huh??? Ignoring and


Ignoring and downplaying the utility of gold doesn't make it's utility disappear!!!

Besides, NOTHING has any objective, intrinsic value. Value is subjective. Individuals value things based on.......... their perceived UTILITY.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Markets Priced in Gold

Equity markets are still significantly depressed priced in gold. Ron Paul is right:

(click for live version)

Is ByteTurd real money?

Is Ron Paul ready to endorse ByteTurd, the digital monetary innovation that's sweeping the nation?


hmmm... It sounds like he's warming up to the idea.

The beauty of a pyramid scam is that each time a conman extracts any profit, it's one step closer to dying. Ultimately I don't have to do anything to destroy BitCoin, but that doesn't mean I won't suggest a conman face justice for his scams.


I really enjoyed seeing him talk as oppose to being on the phone. Once again Ron Paul making fools out of the talking heads on MSM.

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?

People can trade any object,

People can trade any object, but that doesn't make it money. The current BitCoin fad has even less value than the dollar, which can at least be used for some things in the real world... such as as wallpaper.

Better yet...

what about toilet paper?

Wouldn't be a good move

Paper money is generally covered in bacteria, dead skin, and bits of fecal matter, making it very unsanitary. It'd actually make you *more* dirty.

Silver, on the other hand, doesn't face that issue, though I imagine wiping with that would be awkward...but fancy!

A signature used to be here!

Is McDonald's FOOD?

Our opinions don't matter.


You may drive past McDonald's and say "I don't think McDonald's fits the definition of FOOD..." and you may know alot about nutrition and how McDonald's makes their products.


Great to hear

Dr. Paul's motivating words once again.

Thanks for posting

Not being able to hold it is part of the point

The ringer of a competitor against Federal Reserve notes would be a backed version of currency with encrypted certificates for use on-line. But since what can be held can be confiscated, the backing then becomes its weakness.

The resolve was there to put enough support behind backed currencies that they should have succeeded, but the government smacked those down. Future attempts may not gain traction because participants will be wary of further interference by the government.

Bitcoin has its weaknesses, but the new criterion the government has unintentionally created for a competing currency is that it be un-confiscatable. On the playing field that operates under these rules, a weaker champion such as bitcoin can gain traction.

Bitcoin is not the strongest player, but it's the upstanding underdog that has managed to exist on a policed field. Another currency may emerge yet, but the un-confiscatable hurdle will remain.

Defend Liberty!