Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: This piece is my attempt to finally map the terrain I'd been circling for years.
Bitcoin's hardness, its fragility, its human governance and its uneasy relationship with a world that increasingly runs on elastic money and digital abundance. It's not a defense, it's not an indictment. It's an audit.
The best in Bitcoin made Audible I am Guy Swan and this is Bitcoin Audible.
[00:00:45] Speaker B: What is up, guys? Welcome back to Bitcoin.
[00:00:47] Speaker A: Audible I am Guy Swan, the guy
[00:00:49] Speaker B: who has read more about Bitcoin than anybody else. You know, we have got a fantastic read today. This is going to be a part one and a part two. I think I can do this in two sections followed by a guy's take.
Rather than putting. I mean I do have. I. I put way more commentary at the end of this one than I intended to.
But this is just a really fantastic piece.
[00:01:14] Speaker A: I love the, the honest and really
[00:01:18] Speaker B: in nuanced assessment of Bitcoin and its rigidity and the idea of quote unquote perfect or mathematical scarcity and its genuine enforcement mechanism. The. The mechanism of consensus as the arbiter
[00:01:36] Speaker A: of whether or not it remains scarce and how there is a social layer
[00:01:40] Speaker B: to this and, and why.
Why the. The notion of bitcoin scarcity isn't even. May not even be a mathematical one. It may be an understanding the economic and social incentives to keeping it scarce when pressure becomes as bad as it
[00:01:56] Speaker A: possibly can be that usually rigid systems break under pressure.
[00:02:02] Speaker B: And I thought that was just. It's a really, really interesting piece and this is published on.
[00:02:08] Speaker A: There's.
[00:02:08] Speaker B: He has two pieces actually that are
[00:02:10] Speaker A: talked about in this article. This specifically is on Zero Hedge, but
[00:02:14] Speaker B: it's from this guy's substack is Hugh Henry. It's Bitcoin in the Problem of Hardness. And the. His other one was Bitcoin and the Human Problem.
But honestly, I think the only genuine introduction this needs is that this is a absolutely incredible read and that you
[00:02:36] Speaker A: should definitely listen to it.
[00:02:38] Speaker B: So we'll stop.
[00:02:39] Speaker A: We'll.
[00:02:40] Speaker B: We'll go no further.
[00:02:40] Speaker A: That's all we need.
[00:02:42] Speaker B: And with that, let's go ahead and get into today's read.
[00:02:46] Speaker A: And it is titled Modern Money Only works by Cheating if you're long Bitcoin or not long Bitcoin.
Read this too long. Didn't read.
Bitcoin exists not to replace fiat money, but as a provocative hard object in an elastic monetary world.
Modern fiat succeeds by cheating, deferring pain, socializing losses and bending rules to absorb crises.
Weimar rigidity led to hyperinflation 1929 rigidity was abandoned for elasticity in the 1930s, 2008 and Covid responses bent rules to survive.
Fiat buys time during trauma but creates ratcheting inflation that disproportionately burdens the asset poor while rewarding mobile capital.
Bitcoin recreates gold's elusive key trait non discretionary issuer risk free scarcity in digital form.
Unlike gold, which responds to price via new supply, Bitcoin's 21 million cap is mechanically enforced by code and time refusing incentives.
This makes it a potential anchor beneath fiat collateral for credit expansion if it scales to gold like market value, roughly 45 trillion versus Bitcoin's roughly 1 trillion.
Yet the real risk lies not in math 256 bit cryptography remains robust against classical attacks, but in human coordination, governance, quantum threats requiring consensus upgrades and holder temperament during violent drawdowns.
Markets price Bitcoin's gap to gold not from doubts about scarcity, but from uncertainty about whether humans can endure its rigid, psychologically demanding process without capitulating.
Bitcoin tests endurance more than code.
Its value hinges on who holds it and for how long.
For the OG0Hedders, Hugh Henry's name will be well known and well respected for the others, the infamous Scott made his bones being the ultimate contrarian to the world's order and making a killing through the great financial crisis for himself and his hedge fund partners.
Google is your friend to find the
[00:05:27] Speaker B: many times we post on Hendry's musings
[00:05:28] Speaker A: in the late 2000s and early 2000s on the nature of panics and capital destruction. From eclectica Fund Commentary, August 2007 quote panics do not destroy capital. They merely reveal the extent to which it has been previously destroyed by its betrayal into unproductive works. End quote on speculation ending August 2008
[00:05:51] Speaker B: interview amid the crisis escalation quote There
[00:05:54] Speaker A: is no role for speculation or speculators today. This is kaput. If we were Second World War generals, we've exposed our flanks and the enemy is advancing.
Hendry frequently emphasized contrarianism, asymmetry in bets, for example Tail risk, protection with high upside in disasters and skepticism of consensus. He drew inspiration from existentialist ideas, once saying principles like God is dead, life is absurd and there are no rules guiding his investing. Fitting for someone willing to bet aggressively against the crowd. Pre crisis his was the best performing macro hedge fund in 2010.
During Trump 1.0 he warned about the decline of Europe.
In Europe we anticipate further duress in the political commitment to the European project, as the success of Trump's economic stimulus
[00:06:46] Speaker B: plan keeps US growth humming along, leaving
[00:06:48] Speaker A: the continent badly exposed as a politically fractured economy without the resolve to implement successful growth strategies, end quote this was him in 2020 before the inflation crisis.
[00:07:02] Speaker B: Chaos is coming.
[00:07:03] Speaker A: The mood of the nation is what unleashes the inflationary genie. It is not a monetary phenomenon, end
[00:07:09] Speaker B: quote A few years after apparently retiring
[00:07:12] Speaker A: to St. Barts, the former Eclectica Asset manager co founder and is living his best life and sharing his thoughts via substack Hendry recently opined on Bitcoin and the Human Problem, explaining why certainty breaks us before price does.
Quote Bitcoin is down more than 50% from its high, and that fact alone is not even the bad news. Historically, it usually gets worse. 70% drawdowns 80%. This is not an anomaly. It is the pattern. The real question, however, is not why Bitcoin does this, but why we keep pretending that this time will be different for us.
Every cycle, people search for external explanations. Leverage, regulation, China, quantum computing. The excuse does not matter. What matters is that the moment the price falls hard enough, belief collapses. Not because the thesis changed, but because the human brain cannot tolerate certainty paired with delayed reward. Under stress.
When the future is clear but distant and the present is painful, we choose relief now over reward later. Always.
This is where monetary ideology dies and psychology takes over.
Under threat, we rewrite reality to avoid pain. We call it cognitive dissonance if we want to sound clever, but it is really just survival instinct. Beliefs are luxuries. When belief becomes dangerous, it is abandoned instantly.
Peter denies Jesus the moment belief threatens his safety. Bitcoin does the same thing to its disciples. The king of hard money is worshipped right up until holding him becomes intolerable.
Bitcoin's fatal flaw, if it has one, is not technological. It's revelatory.
It shows you the future too early and too clearly. A million dollars per coin is not a vague hope. It is a vivid image.
[00:09:01] Speaker C: Our brains are not designed to hold
[00:09:03] Speaker A: that vision steady through violent volatility.
We are not wired to lose money while knowing with unbearable clarity that patience would eventually make us rich. That contradiction fries the nervous system, so the price falls. The new money panics and belief evaporates on contact with stress. Bitcoin is not failing. We are gullible, imaginative, hysterical creatures who can glimpse the future but cannot emotionally survive the path to get there. The asset does not break. The holder does.
This is also why we will be replaced by machines. Not because they are smarter though they are.
[00:09:41] Speaker C: But because they can tolerate certainty without
[00:09:43] Speaker A: emotion, they do not flinch at drawdowns. They do not seek relief, they simply execute. The bitter punchline is that nothing has changed. The future remains intact, the path remains unbearable. Accumulation only becomes possible when holding becomes intolerable. Below 50,000, really below 40, that is the ritual. That is the prayer. Bitcoin does not need faith. Humans do, and we keep losing it at precisely the wrong moment.
End quote but his latest note, bitcoin and the Problem of Hardness, is a masterpiece in seeing the big picture as he wins his way from the old world to the present day, explaining why mathematics, trauma, and human temperament matter more than ideology. In Modern Money, Hendry writes in a unique style, without using capitals. We have chosen to preserve that style here, though we have bolded a few sections for particular interest.
Quote for years, I treated Bitcoin as something I understood well enough to have an opinion on, but not well enough to take apart properly. That wasn't laziness. It wasn't lack of curiosity. It was the quiet assumption that whatever Bitcoin was trying to solve modern finance had already found a workaround.
This fourth violent drawdown forced me to reconsider that assumption. Not as a trade, not as a belief system, but as a monetary object with consequences.
At this point in its life, repeated collapses are no longer a curiosity. They are a feature that demands explanation.
This piece is my attempt to finally map the terrain I'd been circling for years.
Bitcoin's hardness, its fragility, its human governance, and its uneasy relationship with the world that increasingly runs on elastic money and digital abundance. It's not a defense, it's not an indictment. It's an audit.
Writing it surprised me. I came away less certain about price, more certain about structure, and far more interested in the question of whether Bitcoin's biggest risk has ever been the mathematics at all.
If you felt confident dismissing Bitcoin or confident believing in it, this is written for you. It left me sharper. I hope it does the same for you.
Q
[00:12:06] Speaker B: A hard object in an elastic
[00:12:09] Speaker A: world Bitcoin is not here to save the world.
It's here because the world learned the hard way that modern money only works by cheating.
Cheating time, cheating pain, cheating death. We built systems that survive by bending, by socializing loss, by pretending tomorrow can always carry what today can't. And it mostly worked. Worked well enough that America never failed, markets never cleared, and catastrophe was deferred again and again.
But in doing so, we quietly erased something that used to matter.
The idea that there should exist at least one asset that doesn't bend, one thing that refuses discretion, one thing that doesn't care who's in power, who's desperate, or who's about to break.
Bitcoin is not an improvement on the system. It's a provocation aimed at it. A hard object thrown into an elastic world to see what happens.
That provocation only makes sense once you recognize what elastic money left behind.
As societies embraced fiat, the global pool of savings did not become defenseless. Inflation arrived, but it was hedgeable. Equities, property, credit, productive ownership, capital learned how to run. What didn't reappear was another asset that hedged inflation without introducing credit risk.
Gold has, of course, played that role for centuries. Scarce, apolitical, jurisdictionless, created without leverage, owing nothing to anyone. An inflation hedge that was simultaneously riskless. When gold was demoted as a monetary standard, that role was tolerated, not replaced. When gold was ransacked between the long years of 1980 and 2011, curious minds looked for an alternative.
Bitcoin emerged inside that gap not as a rejection of fiat and not as a tool for managing economic cycles, but as an attempt to recreate gold's most elusive property in digital form. Not merely scarcity, but scarcity without issuer risk.
Not just protection against dilution, but insulation from discretion.
This is why bitcoin's design is so severe. If the objective were simply to hedge inflation, the world already has dozens of ways to do that. The harder ambition is to build an asset that can sit beneath the monetary system as collateral rather than inside it.
That ambition now collides with modern finance. Credit expands not on trust, but on what can be pledged.
This is why stablecoins matter. They fuse the credit risklessness of US Treasuries with hard constraints elsewhere in the system. They are the clearest signal yet that the future of fiat will be built on better collateral, not moral restraint.
Bitcoin has a seat at that table only if it can scale into a recognized liquid, riskless anchor. And that requires market value.
Not sentiment, not belief, but a market value deep enough to support global credit creation without fragility.
This is why the comparison with gold is unavoidable. Gold is roughly $45 trillion. Bitcoin remains under 1. The gap is not philosophical. It is functional.
Geology has already earned its role. Mathematics is still auditioning.
The question is not whether Bitcoin is scarce enough, portable enough, or clever enough. The question is whether an asset enforced by code and human coordination can ever be trusted at scale, in the way an asteroid once was.
This is what this paper is about. Not whether Bitcoin replaces fiat. It will not. Not whether elasticity is immoral. It is not fiat. In an age of abundance.
The defining monetary lesson of the 20th century was not ideological, it was traumatic. It emerged not from debates about socialism versus capitalism or Keynes versus Hayek, but from the lived experience of what happens when economic systems impose rigidity on societies already under extreme stress.
After the First World War, Germany was not a failed society. It was bruised, diminished, politically unstable and deeply resentful. But it remained functional. Industry existed, labor existed, institutions existed. The system was strained, not yet broken. The collapse came later, and it was not inevitable.
Versailles changed that. The treaty was not merely punitive, it it was vindictive and economically illiterate. Reparations were demanded in hard terms, payable in gold at precisely the moment Germany's productive capacity was being constrained. Forgiveness was absent. Flexibility was absent. Economic reality was ignored. When Germany struggled to meet these obligations, the response was not renegotiation, but enforcement. In 1923, French and Belgian forces occupied the Ruhr Valley south, seizing control of Germany's industrial heartland, its coal, its steel, its metal production, while still demanding gold payments to the Allied victors. Output was taken. Gold was still required. Rigidity was imposed from both ends.
This was the breaking point. What followed was not ideological radicalization in the abstract, but economic paralysis in practice. Unemployment surged, production collapsed. A growing share of the adult population became economically useless, not inefficient, not underpaid, useless, idle, watching, waiting. That condition does not produce reflection or moderation. It produces rage and hyperinflation.
Hard money did not cause the collapse of Weimar Germany, but it failed catastrophically to absorb the trauma. And when institutions fracture under mass unemployment, money fractures with them. Hyperinflation wasn't softness, it was panic. It was the monetary expression of legitimacy evaporating in real time.
That sequence mattered, and it was remembered. A decade later, the world faced another shock that threatened to replay the same pattern at a far larger scale. The Crash of 1929 produced mass unemployment, collapsing demand and the genuine possibility that the American system would follow Germany down the same path.
The ingredients were idle men, shuttered factories, political stress and a rigid monetary framework that transmitted pressure rather than absorbing it.
This time, the response changed.
Gold was abandoned as the governing constraint, not because it was immoral or discredited, but because it was brittle, too rigid to cope with systemic trauma. Under gold, pressure concentrates until something snaps under, fiat pressure disperses. Elasticity replaced purity. Monetary doctrine abandoned to keep the system intact. The response was Ugly. It was unfair. It produced deserved anger, but it worked. The United States survived intact. Unemployment was brutal, but the political center held. Extremism remained marginal. Fiat didn't heal the trauma, but it prevented it from metastasizing. That became the lesson in moments of economic shock. Hardness accelerates entropy, while monetary elasticity buys time.
And time in stressed societies is the difference between repair and collapse. This was not an argument against scarcity. It was an argument against rigidity. In the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Fiat emerged not as an ideological triumph, but as an adaptive response to the catastrophic failure of hard constraints under conditions of mass unemployment.
That distinction matters because Bitcoin did not arrive to overturn this lesson. It arrived long after. In its aftermath, Fiat's ugly success.
Over the subsequent century, that logic has been tested repeatedly, and each time it has been reaffirmed under pressure. The global financial crisis of 2008 was not a scare or a stress test.
It was a system wide cardiac arrest.
The banking system was insolvent in any meaningful sense. The only open question was whether circulation could be restarted before institutional damage became permanent. The response was not elegant. Rules were bent. Balance sheets were expanded. Losses were socialized. Hard constraints were suspended to keep the system alive. It was ugly, unfair, and morally nauseating. To me and many others, it also worked. The same pattern repeated during the pandemic. Supply chains froze, borders closed, hospitals filled. The phrase human extinction escaped the laboratory and entered the bloodstream of culture. Belief alone was enough to threaten collapse. Once again, fiat leaned in too much. Some say money expanded, credit expanded, time was frozen. People were paid to stay home while the system was held upright.
Once again, rigidity was rejected in favor of elasticity. Once again, the worst tail events were avoided.
This is what fiat does well. It absorbs shocks that hard systems transmit. It disperses pressure instead of concentrating it. It allows societies to survive periods of mass dislocation without forcing immediate liquidation of people, institutions, or legitimacy.
In a world repeatedly exposed to financial crises, pandemics, and geopolitical shocks, this has proven to be a feature, not a bug.
Elasticity, however, is not free.
The cost shows up as inflation, not as a temporary inconvenience, but as a ratchet. Prices spike, settle, and then remain elevated. Grocery bills do not return to their old levels. This is the mechanical consequence of pushing risk forward in time. Fiat smooths the present by borrowing from the future.
This matters most for those without assets. For the disenfranchised. Inflation is not a macroeconomic abstraction or a debate about models. It is a daily budgetary pressure. Rent before Wages. Food before leisure, energy before dignity. When prices ratchet higher, there is no portfolio adjustment, no rebalancing, no clever hedge. There is only less room to breathe. Modern financial systems are exceptionally effective at protecting those who already participate in them. The franchise holders. Equities rise with nominal growth. Property absorbs inflation and then some. Credit leverage. Index linked instruments, real assets, productive ownership. The menu is broad. Liquid and proven. Elasticity doesn't destroy capital. For insiders, it often enriches them. Asset prices inflate faster than wages precisely because the system is designed to keep capital mobile and solvent.
The burden falls elsewhere. What inflation punishes is not thrift in some moral sense, but exclusion. Money left idle because it must be capital that cannot move because it does not exist. Patience without agency. This is not a judgment about behavior. It is a structural outcome. Fiat rewards participation and mobility, not fairness. And over long periods of sustained monetary elasticity, that distinction compounds into something corrosive, something unfair.
This is where Bitcoin enters the story.
Not as a solution to inequality and not as a replacement for fiat, but as a strange and uncomfortable experiment.
A mathematical object offered to the world without permission, leverage or jurisdiction. A bearer asset in digital form. One that could in principle be owned by anyone with access to a phone and an Internet connection. No bank account required, no credit history, no gatekeeper. For the disenfranchised, that possibility mattered not because Bitcoin guaranteed protection, but because it offered asymmetry. If the experiment failed, little was lost. If it succeeded, if a provably scarce, apolitical, non discretionary asset could be recognized at scale, the upside was transformative, not charity. Social escape velocity.
That truth remains, but the promise remains unresolved. And it brings us back to the central tension of this paper. Bitcoin's relevance, credibility and ultimate utility depend not on ideology, but on scale. To function as an anchor inside a fiat system, to serve as collateral, to support credit to matter, the market capitalization must approach that of gold.
Anything smaller remains a speculation.
Anything larger becomes infrastructure.
This is why the question is no longer academic. After 15 years, Bitcoin is no longer a curiosity. It is a lab rat, running in real time, being tested as to whether mathematical scarcity can earn the trust, liquidity and legitimacy that geological scarcity acquired over centuries, and whether doing so can widen access to riskless inflation protection rather than merely creating a new priesthood.
This distinction sharpens as economies approach a shock larger than Weimar or 1929. The displacement of labor by machines, automation and artificial intelligence are not just productivity stories. They are redundancy events. Entire categories of work will vanish faster than societies can reassign income, purpose or dignity in that world. The fragile variable is not capital. It is employment.
Fiat will almost certainly be called upon again not as ideology, but as necessity. Universal credit, fiscal transfers, monetary elasticity. These are the tools required to cushion employment shock and prevent social fracture when labor is displaced at scale.
This is not conjecture. It is the only mechanism modern states possess to manage such transitions.
And importantly, this world does not lack inflation hedges. What is missing is something narrower and more non discretionary Scarcity at industrial scale. Assets that can sit at the base of the monetary system as collateral, not because they promise growth, but because they promise constraints.
Gold once played that role. Perhaps it will again.
Bitcoin is an attempt to recreate it digitally, not as salvation and not as an alternative to elasticity, but as a potential anchor beneath it. The unresolved question is whether Bitcoin can grow large enough, liquid enough, and trusted enough to serve that role when the singularity arrives.
How gold actually works Gold has long been understood as money that sits outside politics. It is trusted precisely because it is not governed by decree, not issued by states, and not altered by communities.
Its neutrality is earned through distance. It is dug from the ground, refined at cost, and accumulated slowly.
For centuries. That physical constraint has made it a reliable anchor when confidence in human institutions has has failed. But gold's scarcity is often misunderstood. When gold traded at roughly $300 an ounce in the early 2000s, global proven and probable reserves were estimated at around 45 to 50,000 tons.
Exploration budgets were thin. Lower grade ore was uneconomic. Entire jurisdictions were ignored. Supply looked finite because at that price, it effectively was.
That picture changes when the price changes. Today, with gold trading around $5,000 an ounce, estimated proven and probable reserves are closer to 65 to 72,000 tons. Despite decades of continuous mining, higher prices reclassify rock into ore, tailings into assets. Deposits once dismissed as marginal, suddenly become viable.
Jurisdictions previously considered uneconomic re enter the map.
This is not debasement, it is response.
Gold does not dilute itself politically. It expands itself industrially. When price rises, supply responds. Not instantly, not recklessly, but structurally. Historically, global gold supply has grown at roughly 3% per year. That rate is slow enough to preserve trust, but persistent enough to matter over long horizons.
By the end of this century, if history is any guide, the total stock of gold mined, plus proven and probable reserves will have roughly doubled. No votes will be taken, no rules will be changed. Physics will simply do what physics allows. This is both Gold's strength and its limitation.
Gold's hardness is governed by geology.
It obeys natural law, not human coordination.
That makes it politically neutral and socially legible. But it also means that gold cannot refuse incentives. When the reward is high enough, more effort is applied, more technology is deployed, more supply eventually emerges.
Gold responds to price.
That property does not make gold inferior. It makes it comprehensible.
Markets understand geological scarcity instinctively. They know how it behaves under stress. They know how it leaks slowly, predictably, impersonally.
This is the benchmark against which Bitcoin is inevitably measured. Not because Bitcoin is trying to replace gold, but because gold represents the oldest and most trusted expression of non sovereign scarcity. Bitcoin enters this landscape not as a moral challenger to gold, but as but as a mechanical one. Its claim is not that gold is weak, but that there exists another form of hardness, governed not by physics, but by time and rule.
That distinction is where the argument begins.
A different kind of hardness.
Bitcoin's claim is not philosophical. It is mechanical.
Unlike gold, Bitcoin does not respond to price.
It does not expand when demand rises, and it does not contract when demand falls. Its supply is governed entirely by time, according to a schedule fixed at inception and enforced by the network itself. That schedule does not care about recessions, wars, elections, panics, or the Bitcoin price.
Bitcoin was capped at birth, 21 million units. Not an estimate, not a reserve calculation, not a probabilistic assessment signed off by a committee. A hard ceiling defined in code and indifferent to circumstance.
Roughly 94% of that supply has already been issued. The remainder will be released slowly on a predetermined path, with issuance effectively exhausted by around 2040. After that, the supply does not grow.
This is what makes Bitcoin unusual.
Gold's scarcity is governed by geology and incentives. Bitcoin's scarcity is governed by rules and time. When the gold price rises, supply eventually responds. When the Bitcoin price rises, supply does not. Instead, issuance tightens mechanically through the halving process, which reduces the flow of new coins roughly every four years, regardless of demand.
This is not a moral hierarchy. It is a structural asymmetry.
Gold is scarce because it is hard to extract.
Bitcoin is scarce because it is hard to change.
Gold's constraint is physical. Bitcoin's constraint is social and procedural. One obeys physics, the other obeys consensus.
Both are forms of hardness, but they behave differently under stress.
By the end of this century, the total stock of Bitcoin will be Unchanged. There will be no technological breakthrough that unlocks new Bitcoin deposits. No reclassification of marginal code into viable supply. No price signal that induces expansion. Scarcity is enforced by design, not discovered over time.
This is why Bitcoin is often described as algorithmically scarce. Not because it is digital, but because its supply dynamics are explicitly non responsive.
It is a system constructed to refuse incentives. Where gold yields, Bitcoin remains inert.
That inertness is the feature and is also the source of discomfort.
Markets are comfortable with scarcity that leaks slowly and impersonally. They are less comfortable with scarcity that depends on rule adherence and human coordination.
Geological systems do not argue back.
Social systems do. And the harder the rule, the more attention is paid to whether it can be broken.
Bitcoin's hardness, therefore, is not just a question of numbers. It is a question of credibility.
Not whether the rules are strict, but whether they can remain strict under pressure.
Not whether scarcity is defined, but whether it can survive stress without being renegotiated.
This is where Bitcoin stops looking like a commodity and starts looking like a monetary regime. A red flag, perhaps. Its scarcity doesn't rest on trust in institutions or authority, but it does rest on the collective willingness of participants to enforce rules that cannot be appealed, amended or suspended for convenience.
That is a powerful design choice, and it is also a demanding one. And it's why Bitcoin cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of its supply curve. The market is not just pricing scarcity. It is pricing the process required to maintain it.
That process is where the real uncertainty begins.
Abundance and the exception.
What happens to scarcity in a world where almost everything else becomes abundant?
All right, this is where we're going to stop for part one.
[00:36:07] Speaker B: We're just about, or may maybe even
[00:36:10] Speaker A: just over halfway through this piece.
[00:36:12] Speaker B: And I think that's a really good kind of stage setting for the rest of the conversation. And we'll do part two and then I'll follow it with a guy's take because I've already got like seven things quoted from this that I think is so important to dig into. One of the things that I'll just go ahead and touch on before we close this episode out, is the idea that modern money is elastic to absorb shocks and pressures.
[00:36:35] Speaker A: And it's funny that all of the
[00:36:37] Speaker B: things he points to, especially knowing a
[00:36:40] Speaker A: little bit about his history and like
[00:36:42] Speaker B: things he's written and the hedges that he has played and the way he's made money is. I'm actually surprised that he doesn't see it.
[00:36:50] Speaker A: He doesn't reach the same conclusion or the perspective that I have on it
[00:36:53] Speaker B: because it seems like he does have a lot of the same foundations. But to understand that something that is
[00:36:59] Speaker A: that rigid, it is not about the,
[00:37:02] Speaker B: the notion of having money that is that scarce and that rigid or inelastic
[00:37:07] Speaker A: isn't even about the point of collapse. It's not about like what we do when price shocks happen. It's about preventing the buildup that causes those collapses. 1929 being a perfect example. The US debt expansion ballooned to 350% from 100% in 1920.
[00:37:29] Speaker C: We tripled the amount of money in one of the most aggressive growth system
[00:37:34] Speaker A: growth periods purely on credit.
[00:37:38] Speaker C: In other words, we had a fake
[00:37:40] Speaker A: interest rate because we had no way
[00:37:42] Speaker C: to actually tie it to real to true scarce collateral. And thus we were able to actually
[00:37:48] Speaker A: expand debt way, way past what was actually viable.
[00:37:53] Speaker C: And then we had a collapse that
[00:37:54] Speaker B: we had to deal with.
[00:37:55] Speaker C: The point of an insanely rigid, absolutely inelastic monetary supply is to never allow 1920-1929 to happen. It's so that you get punched in the face in 1921 halfway through the year for being an idiot and thinking that you can, you can create credit and an interest rate. This bullshit modern money only needs modern elasticity because the elasticity is what creates the destruction, creates the collapses and the pressures that monetary elasticity has to be used to fix.
Talking about political instability and global crises and cardiac arrest in the financial system. These are not features of a stable and strong foundation. They are features of an insanely unhealthy, mis imbalanced and broken system that has to use its broken mechanism to save what it's what is broken about it. But the brokenness is the fact that it has no tie to real scarcity. When everything in the real world does, regardless of how much we can produce, it all has genuine real world on the ground. On the ground Scarcity, that is the point of money is to tie us back to reality. And it's the very elasticity of fiat that causes these buildup of imbalances and
[00:39:12] Speaker A: pressures and fake prices over 15 years
[00:39:15] Speaker C: that then has a collapse that then we have to socialize to prevent a total destruction of our society. When the point is not to figure out how to deal with the collapse is how do you prevent it? How do you make it so that the collapse happens in a year rather
[00:39:27] Speaker A: than in 15 years, so that it's
[00:39:29] Speaker C: actually a small manageable thing that's a correction for how the world is actually moving for what? The reality of economic scarcity even is that we can't fuck our future by borrowing from it when we actually don't have the ability to pay it back. How do we constrain today's resource use against today's actual scarcity and properly price the cost of waiting into the future? You can only do that with an absolutely scarce instrument or with one that's scarce enough to provide an instant feedback signal. And the reason gold failed is because it, it became disconnected from the actual credit mechanism. And it wasn't because like oh, we needed elasticity is because gold is no longer could prove itself in a virtual environment. All of our money became paper, all
[00:40:17] Speaker A: of our exchange became paper.
[00:40:19] Speaker C: All of our settlement became quote unquote digital and virtual. It became a promise on top of a promise on top of a promise. Because it was too hard to move gold in a world where we talked over telegraph and radio and television. Gold's failure wasn't because it was inelastic, it was because it was physical. It was because it was physical. It took too much to actually settle. And that's exactly how we were able to have these 10 year imbalances against the actual scarcity of what gold would
[00:40:44] Speaker A: have kept in constraint.
[00:40:45] Speaker C: And like there's a God, there's a
[00:40:47] Speaker A: great quote in this. Where is it this world does not lack inflation hedges.
[00:40:53] Speaker C: What is missing is something narrower and more structural, non discretionary scarcity at industrial
[00:40:59] Speaker A: scale assets that can sit at the
[00:41:00] Speaker C: base of the monetary system as collateral not because they promise growth, but because they promise constraint.
God, that is such a good quote. And I can't believe he doesn't, he doesn't have the picture that I have when he's able to say something so eloquent and perfect as that, that it is about, well not even, not even about constraint.
[00:41:21] Speaker A: My word would be restraint is don't over leverage.
[00:41:25] Speaker C: What signal is the real world telling us so that we don't make stupid
[00:41:29] Speaker A: decisions and we don't waste resources, we
[00:41:32] Speaker C: don't have that signal.
[00:41:33] Speaker A: Gold died not because it was, or
[00:41:35] Speaker C: gold became, it was kind of evicted as a standard, not because it was inelastic but because it failed at being able to enforce the restraint and, and thus having to stay on the rigidity caused so much instability. Because the, the elasticity of our credit system and of the actual, the virtual money system that we were forced to use because the economy was to, the economy was now virtual, the economy was now over telegraph. It was from New York to California
[00:42:05] Speaker A: in 10 minutes, we. Which you could never do with gold. Not physically settled, but only with promises. So when, when all of our, all
[00:42:14] Speaker C: of our actually actual transactions and our agreements and our actual purchases settled with promises, then the restraint of those promises was tied to the speed of the physical movement of gold and importantly the physical cost.
[00:42:29] Speaker A: And think about that.
[00:42:30] Speaker C: If the cost of settling every single
[00:42:32] Speaker A: transaction in physical gold versus a virtual
[00:42:36] Speaker B: promise is 20% of the asset, and
[00:42:39] Speaker A: think about that, son. That's not a ridiculous, that's not a ridiculous comparison.
Consider, Consider how if you're making a
[00:42:47] Speaker B: purchase on Amazon from, on a package
[00:42:49] Speaker A: from California and you wanted to settle that in gold, how much do you
[00:42:52] Speaker B: think it would take to settle that
[00:42:54] Speaker A: instantly in actual gold, physical gold?
[00:42:57] Speaker B: What's the cost of the time?
[00:42:58] Speaker A: What's the cost of the shipment? What's the cost of the verifiability? And when you have to granularize that down to every single transaction and down to the utter speed and velocity that which, the frequency that we do transactions and payments in the digital age.
Think about it. If your, if your proof of settlement, if your, your system to anchor it, to be able to prove the scarcity of those things in the real world, to gain a real price would cost 20% of the actual delivery, production and structure of the industry to actually facilitate the settlement itself, in other words, it costs 20% of all of the goods in order to prove that those goods
[00:43:46] Speaker C: are actually backed or the money and
[00:43:48] Speaker A: promises are actually backed by real value, well then it means that you can
[00:43:52] Speaker B: have probably up to a 20% imbalance in the interest rate before it's worth
[00:43:59] Speaker A: having to deal with the scarcity. In other words, a 10% imbalance, a 10% lie in the interest rate is actually less costly than settling it and
[00:44:11] Speaker B: finding out the truth.
[00:44:13] Speaker A: And so it, it has to grow to a certain size, which will lead to all of these interlocked, these interdependent
[00:44:22] Speaker B: dependencies and promises on top of promises and leverages on top of leverages that
[00:44:27] Speaker A: will cascade through the entire economy. And if even worse, when we finally get to the point that the pressure is built so bad that we do have collapse and we do have to
[00:44:35] Speaker B: actually put the cards out on the
[00:44:37] Speaker A: table and see what the hell chips actually existed to begin with, the consequences are so dire that you're looking at the potential failure of the entire political system, well then you just print your way out of it.
[00:44:48] Speaker B: You just do more debt, you just make it worse.
[00:44:50] Speaker A: You just cover it up, you just
[00:44:52] Speaker B: offload it onto future generations and on the ever growing and nihilistic impoverishment and destruction of the standard of living of your entire society. And you only make the pressure worse and build it for a bigger problem next time. That is why gold failed is because it cannot settle.
[00:45:12] Speaker A: It cannot provide the signal that enforces restraint in the digital world. This is why Bitcoin must exist and why it is fundamentally different.
The notion isn't that a bitcoin standard would allow us to get through the 1929 collapse. It's that the collapse would happen at 1/10 the size in 1921 and we'd never have to deal with 1929. Because the rise of 1929 and the great Depression was because of the bullshit
[00:45:43] Speaker C: that is allowed to sustain for extremely
[00:45:46] Speaker A: long periods of time. When you have inelastic money and you have blind creation of endless debt and interest rate manipulation and no hard incorruptible monetary base to instantly settle and tie things back to the real world.
Of course you need a monetary system that you can cheat in order to cover up the consequences of a monetary system that you can cheat. The idea is that we should make cheating not work anymore. And an ocean of negative consequences that come with a monetary system built on cheating go away all of their own accord.
[00:46:24] Speaker C: And no, it doesn't make the whole
[00:46:26] Speaker A: world sunshines and fairy tales and skipping through meadows, but it does make it real and not a lie. Bitcoin doesn't necessarily mean that we have
[00:46:36] Speaker C: perfect economic health and we don't have
[00:46:38] Speaker A: any problems or any volatility or any issues in the universe to deal with or reality. It only stops the cancer from metastasizing so that the society doesn't die. But we will get way deeper into this in part two and the guys take to follow.
[00:46:55] Speaker B: So I hope you stick with me. This is Bitcoin. Audible A shout out to Hugh Hendry for this piece and Tyler Durden and Zero Hedge for publishing it. I will catch you on the next
[00:47:06] Speaker A: episode with part two.
[00:47:07] Speaker B: Much more to come.
[00:47:08] Speaker A: Really great piece. Really fun stuff.
[00:47:11] Speaker B: I am Guy Swan and until then guys, that is my two cents.
[00:47:31] Speaker A: If nothing within you stays rigid outward, things will disclose themselves Moving Be like water still be like a mirror. Respond like an echo.
Bruce Lee.
