All the major technological disruptions have been described in this way before they took hold.
Bitcoin leaves no one indifferent. Everyone now has an opinion about Bitcoin. For Bitcoiners, whose numbers are constantly growing, Bitcoin is the only alternative for opting out of a monetary and financial system that is not working as it should.
The rapid spread of the coronavirus around the world was the spark that started the great economic crisis that everyone has been predicting for years. The decisions taken by the Federal Reserve and American politicians show once again that monetary stimulus is the only weapon they know to respond to all the ills of the economy.
The unlimited quantitative easing program announced by the Federal Reserve is complemented by a package of more than $2 trillion decided by the U.S. government and the U.S. Senate. Each American should receive a check for $1,200 to help them cope with the devastating effects of the coronavirus on the U.S. economy.
The main purpose of all these decisions is to save U.S. banks, financial markets and businesses. Helping American citizens is primarily aimed at stimulating consumption to help businesses.
These measures will once again increase the circulating money supply of the U.S. dollar, which will devalue what everyone has.
Thus, the bankers and politicians who criticize Bitcoin all the time saying that it is based on nothing have just decided to create more than 6 trillion dollars. The big question they should be asked is this:
What is the U.S. dollar based on if it is possible to create 6 trillion dollars so easily?
Unfortunately, I don’t think they’re going to give you a straight answer to that question.
Deep down, central bankers and politicians know that the fiat system has not been based on anything tangible for a very long time. Nevertheless, they are doing everything they can to save it, because the system benefits them, and they do not want to lose their power.
Their main power is precisely that of monetary creation.
If Bitcoin would emerge as a real alternative to the current monetary and financial system, central bankers and politicians would lose power.
They don’t want to risk this under any circumstances.
To avoid losing even a part of their prerogatives, central bankers, politicians, and even a majority of economists will do anything to denigrate Bitcoin. So they keep telling the general public that Bitcoin is a bad idea.
In July 2019, Donald Trump thus posted a tweet in which he said that he did not especially like Bitcoin, because its price was highly volatile, but also based on thin air:
Donald Trump’s tweet came just weeks after U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman called on his colleagues to officially ban Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
What was the reason given for this call for a ban? According to Brad Sherman, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies threaten the foreign policy power of the United States by allowing states to abstract themselves from the omnipotence of the U.S. dollar.
Brad Sherman’s speech to the U.S. Congress confirmed the fear that politicians will lose their power of influence if Bitcoin rises to prominence. I will stop here for examples of politicians fiercely opposed to Bitcoin, and making it known in order to discredit it to the general public.
In terms of bankers, the situation is exactly the same.
Ben Bernanke, a well-known economist who was Chair of the Federal Reserve from 2006 to 2014, gave his position on Bitcoin in October 2017:
“Bitcoin is an attempt to replace fiat currency and evade regulation and government intervention. I don’t think that’s going to be a success.”
— Ben Bernanke
In my opinion, Ben Bernanke’s position remains rather measured. He understands the purpose of Bitcoin, but says he does not believe it can succeed in its mission.
His predecessor as Chair of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, was much less measured in December 2013 when he gave his opinion on Bitcoin:
“You have to really stretch your imagination to infer what the intrinsic value of Bitcoin is. I haven’t been able to do it. Maybe somebody else can.”
— Alan Greenspan
For Alan Greenspan, Bitcoin would therefore have no intrinsic value.
I would be curious to get his sentiment on the $6 trillion that has just been created out of thin air by the institution he used to run in the past. If Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, does these $6 trillion really have any value?
Unfortunately, I doubt he will go against an institution that he ran for almost 20 years. Indeed, Alan Greenspan is an apostle of this type of monetary policy. For many, the easy-money policy he pursued in the 1990s was at the root of the bursting of the Dot-com bubble, and then the subprime bubble.
In the world of financial markets, many people also have a very negative view of Bitcoin.
You have probably already heard of BlackRock. It is the largest asset management and investment company in the world with almost 7 trillion dollars under management right now. Larry Fink is the chairman and CEO of BlackRock.
Regarding Bitcoin, he agrees with the position of many others in the financial world who believe that Bitcoin is used mostly for illegal purposes:
“Bitcoin just shows you how much demand for money laundering there is in the world.”
— Larry Fink
It is astonishing that he forgets to mention all the money laundering scandals involving banks in recent years. In fact, it is not so surprising because he too is trying to protect a system that benefits his business.
However, various analyses published in recent months have shown that Bitcoin is ultimately harder to use for illicit purposes than the U.S. dollar.
Everything I’ve just explained is intended to show you what central bankers, private bankers, politicians, and economists think about Bitcoin.
As you may have understood, Bitcoin is a very bad idea for them.
This is the message they are trying to convey to the general public at all times to discourage them from finding an alternative to the fiat system that benefits them completely.
The fact that they call Bitcoin a bad idea seems to me to be a very good omen that shows that it has a good chance of succeeding in its mission.
When Uber and Lyft started out, the taxis called it a bad idea. When Airbnb started to gain popularity, the hotels called it a bad idea. The music majors called Spotify and Apple iTunes a very bad idea too. When the Internet began to gain popularity in the mid-90s, the newspapers called it a bad idea.
I’m going to stop there, because there are plenty of examples.
In every case, disruptive technologies that were labelled a bad idea by the industries they revolutionized managed to make their mark. The reaction of threatened industries is simply fear. It is fear of change, but also fear of being overtaken by this new disruptive technology.
In the case of Bitcoin, it’s exactly the same thing.
Bitcoin is a disruptive technology that wants to revolutionize the monetary and financial system by offering everyone a credible alternative that is easier and fairer.
In fact, the powerful at the head of the current system feel threatened. They are afraid of losing their power of influence. Worse still, they are afraid of having to adapt to a new situation.
Yet, history is on the side of Bitcoin. And it shows us that central bankers and politicians will probably have no choice but to adapt, or risk being overwhelmed, by the inexorable rise of Bitcoin in the years to come.