Коротко об электронных "деньгах" и теореме регрессии Мизеса
(постинг на английском, т.к. взят с фейсбука)
When I last wrote on my Russian-language blog about how electronic means of payment like Bitcoin can't become money in the praxeological sense because they violate the condition of the Mises's regression theorem, one of the counter-arguments was that government-sponsored fiat money violate it, too.
Back then I didn't find an adequate response. But now I think I've found it. There is something about the fiat money that gives it initial non-monetary value. That something is the expected enforcement by government of the acceptance of such money. This applies even to the US where there is no official legal tender statute. People intuitively understand that if a significant number of people and organizations cease to accept treasury bills for payment, the US government will force them to, and the Supreme Court will find it constitutional (probably under the so-called 'necessary and proper' clause).
When I last wrote on my Russian-language blog about how electronic means of payment like Bitcoin can't become money in the praxeological sense because they violate the condition of the Mises's regression theorem, one of the counter-arguments was that government-sponsored fiat money violate it, too.
Back then I didn't find an adequate response. But now I think I've found it. There is something about the fiat money that gives it initial non-monetary value. That something is the expected enforcement by government of the acceptance of such money. This applies even to the US where there is no official legal tender statute. People intuitively understand that if a significant number of people and organizations cease to accept treasury bills for payment, the US government will force them to, and the Supreme Court will find it constitutional (probably under the so-called 'necessary and proper' clause).