The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
54 votes

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


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

A strong and rational argument... well as a good capsule explanation by way of example of the law of unintended consequences. Non-confiscability is a good and powerful value, but does it overcome the Can-I-put-it-in-my-pocket argument? Neither you nor I can creditably answer that one; it's another case of "time will tell".

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
to be continued


with bitcoin participants trying to come up with a pocket-able version, there can be enough supply in that form to meet that need while most of it is still decentralized enough to keep the confidence in the currency up.

It seems like a certified, pocket version could exist. You'd have to be confident the issuers were good for it, just like with any check or property certificate. Whatever level of decentralizing the supply among multiple issuers is needed could be achieved, too. I'd worry about counterfeiting, but how much more or less than with other attempts at a competing currency?

There's also the argument that bitcoin is too vulnerable to a collapse in computing. True, but the current stock market was responsive to a single Twitter account getting hacked. We all would be better off having something worth trading to cover a scenario of collapse where even de-centralized computing fails. It's not Federal Reserve notes or bitcoin.

Defend Liberty!

Physical Wallets

Physical wallets can exist and some independent parties already are working on them. In my mind, using the physicality issue as your only argument is to ignore the larger concept of BitCoin.

I think it's clear Ron Paul hasn't looked too heavily into the issue. Mises did a report on it recently and they were less harsh on BitCoin than many of the folks around here. I think the debate is still open, and I hope Ron Paul learns more about it because to be honest I don't think he'd thought it through much if at all before being asked there.

Is it "Money"? Depends what definition you use, everyone seems to have their own. The simplest definition of money would definitely allow BitCoins if people did indeed use them:

money is the general medium of exchange, the thing that all other goods and services are traded for, the final payment for such goods and services on the market. -Rothbard



Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Dearest Mods,

I care not who's links you use, but can we get the YT video of this Bloomberg interview up on the FrontPage, along with the Tweet?

purtty please? .o)

PS. if you guys are watching the vid, @1:51min mark the Bloomberg lackey scoffs condescendingly, the most predictably moronic thing: "...we're seeing the opposite of inflation now!"

seriously, people actually PAY to get Bloomberg wire service?? yikes.

his financial arm is as full of BS as his MAIG group.

can we for once have someone on TV who is actually competent, propaganda, or not? geesh. too much to ask, my dear Ruling Class killers?

rhetorical. I know. yadi yadi yada.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

People might

also want to see the answer I gave a few months ago to the question "is bitcoin sound money?"

Correct, Dr. Paul.

BitCoin is not money, it is a currency. Just like the US Dollar is not money.

Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul will be on the Alex Jones Show, this

THURSDAY April 25, 2013.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

In 2007....

Ron's very first media appearance after he announced his candidacy for president was on the Alex Jones Show. :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Me gots the YT vid right here:

Ron Paul on Gold: No One Knows Value; I'm Buying - Bloomberg April 23, 2013

Published on Apr 23, 2013

April 23 (Bloomberg) -- Ron Paul, Former Congressman from Texas, discusses his views on gold, central banks, and the weakened Republican Party. He speaks on Bloomberg Television's "Market Makers." (Source: Bloomberg)

-- For more "Market Makers" videos:
-- Subscribe to Bloomberg on YouTube:

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

So that people know...

Dr. Paul starts talking about Bitcoin at about 6:10 in the above video.

He says he is NOT opposed to it. He says he admits he doesn't fully understand it. However, he doesn't think it fits the definition of money, the reason apparently being because you can't see/hold it and put it in your pocket.

However, there was a proof of concept done for physical bitcoins. I even own one. A person well known in the Bitcoin community gave his real identity and packaged bitcoins into physical coins, with the value (private key) hidden under a tamper evident hologram. This was to show how Bitcoins might evolve in the future to be used in some places.

yeah, it's not surprising that

most who work at financial 'news' channels actually would be clueless of the difference between real money, vs. "currency."

in fact, these days, I damn near expect them to be, until proven otherwise.

for those who may be interested in the more academically delineated difference between the two, I personally found this to be an excellent primer, to share with others in discerning the two:

The Case for Natural Money

Mises Daily: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 by George F. Smith

[An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Floy Lilley, is available for download.]

Studying Jörg Guido Hülsmann's latest book, The Ethics of Money Production, is a vastly enriching experience. After building his case for natural money on the inviolability of an individual's right to his own property, he then shows us how the state has spent the last 400 years usurping this right for the benefit of a privileged few through its protection of fractional-reserve banking.

It is the state's insatiable appetite for revenue, he argues, that is the motivation behind the various monetary schemes it imposes on us, which on an international level begins with the classical gold standard and runs through today's paper-money agreements. Although he doesn't discuss the current economic crisis directly, his observations provide a much-needed correction to government's "do something" approach.

In this essay, I will touch on some of Hülsmann's more salient points, beginning with the origin of money.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul


To which I ask the question: What is the / your / his definition of money? It might be evident that the definition of money is different between Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke. So... What is the definition of money? What is money? (don't say "it's gold"... that is not the question I'm asking) Who's definition governs?

Going all the way back to the

Going all the way back to the "father of causal-realist economics, Carl Menger:

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."

Ron Paul only recognizes...

SOUND MONEY. Money based on commodities. (***see Bastiat and Menger)

*** commodity = intrinsically useful outside use for exchange ; wealth = commodities ; sound money = wealth

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


Many would argue that gold has very little utility outside of it being "money".

Dude or dudette...

Non-jewelry industrial gold usage runs about $100 billion annually. Jewelry usage is 2 or 3 times that.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Thanks for that!

I honestly didn't know the answer one way or the other. I had only heard arguments the other way (no utility outside of storing wealth). I only really seen gold's application (outside of money) in jewelry myself, which I don't put in the category of utility, but decoration, or something like that. And I suspect it is prominent as decoration because of what gold represents... not it's utility, per say. But that gold is a useful commodity otherwise is news to me.
I thought one of the argument for gold as money was that gold isn't consumed, per say... ???

LOL what?!

LOL what?!


durrrr :p

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


the man speaks. :)

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


I love it when people think for themselves. I love it when people can ascertain things for themselves, and not conclude something as being so just because someone else said it was, be that Ron Paul, Ben Bernanke, or the apostle Paul... That is what I love about this movement. We are coming to a place of not believing, but to a place of knowing!

How about....

flinging accusations with ZERO research or vetting?

I have been objecting loudly to bitcoin in the halls of Daily Paul as long as anybody. Go fling your baseless hoohaa somewhere else. :D

Ron Paul's judgement on the matter is just icing on the cake...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Touched a nerve?

My apologies for having been perceived as flinging baseless hoohaa at you... Not my intent. Peace :-)

You wish...


~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Bit coins are like coupons...

it will never be money.

Thank you Ron Paul.

The Inception of the Currency World

The question as to is it money is actually a very explicit question. What Dr. Paul means is that in his opinion, bitcoin does not satisfy the demands of Mises' Regression Theorem.

Some Austrians argue that it does indeed satisfy the RT... I've read the arguments, and I am still on the fence.

Regardless, whether it is money or not does not matter to me. What matters is that it is innovation and it challenges dogma. Bitcoin very well may not be money. But what it IS, is the Inception of the currency world. It plants an idea... that money need not be monopolized by government. That alone is a powerful thing.

I haven't seen any *credible*

I haven't seen any *credible* Austrian argue that bitcoin satisfies the regression theorem. By credible I mean one who is well versed in Austrian monetary theory, and I do not mean to use the word in a disparaging sense. If you can point me toward such an argument I'd appreciate it - I find the topic very interesting.

Regarding planting a seed that money need not be monopolized by the government, the sentiment is nice but it could backfire if a lot of people get screwed. And that screwing will be a direct result of not understanding what is and is not money. I can see a lot of these people concluding that money *has* to have government backing.

Nah, it's even simpler than

Nah, it's even simpler than Mises's regression theorem.

The definition of money is "the most sale-able good". Different objects have been the "most sale-able good" at different times and in different areas of the globe, but money has always been the "most sale-able good" under the specific circumstances at the time.

Remember, a "defintion" can be used in place of the word, itself. For example:

"I wish I had more money" = "I wish I had more of the most sale-able good"

This is what he means by "I don't think it fits 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."

bitcoin will be future money imo

gold will not imo