Bitcoin

To us, the ECB's superficial, amusing take on BitCoin was merely a source of (Friday) humor.  To others, such as Tuur Demeester, the ECB's report on "Virtual Currency Schemes" which was merely a confused attempt to validate the Euro by bashing a prototype electronic currency that others have written far more informed articles on, has far more profound insights into central banker mentality. We are skeptical: the ECB has far more existential issues to worry about than whether people will be paying for that house in Calabria with BitCoin (they won't; at least not any time soon), such as how fast until Spain and Greece run out of rehypothecatable and repoable assets, that allow the ECB to continue creating its own version of electronic money (in this case named Euro) out of thin air. But for those seeking more than what meets the central-planner's eye (because what better ploy than to divert attention from where it truly needs to be focused: such as Spanish bonds for example getting a 0% haircut instead of 5%), here are some answers to the question whether "the CB’s toolbox have what it takes to contain a private, decentralised cryptocurrency? Or: Bitcoin seen through the eyes of a central banker."

From the ECB's Virtual Currency Schemes, aka the "Bash Bitcoin Boondoggle" (p. 27): "A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity." Considering that this elucidation comes from the very same entity that launched the SMP, LTRO, OMT, EFSF, ESM, oh, and of course, TARGET2, and whose head said to not short the EUR as there is "no risk" whatsoever in holding said currency, one would expect that this definition is absolutely spot on...

Monopolies contribute to many problems - the record of evidence illustrates the potential inefficiency, waste and price fixing. Yet the greatest trouble with monopolies is what they take away - competition. Competition is a beautiful mechanism; in exercising their purchasing power and demand preferences, individuals run the economy. If we are for competition in goods and services, why should we disclude competition in the money industry? Would competition in the money industry not benefit the consumer in the manner that competition in other industries does? Why should the form and nature of the medium of exchange be monopolised? Shouldn’t the people - as individuals - be able to make up their own mind about the kind of money that they want to use to engage in transactions? Earlier, this year Ben Bernanke and Ron Paul had an exchange on this subject. It is often said in Keynesian circles that Bernanke is too tame a money printer, and that the people need a greater money supply. Well, set the wider society free to determine their own money supply based on the demand for money.