economist

Monetary economist: Selling the Federal Reserve's gold to buy BTC is equivalent to the government's "backdoor loan."

ChainCatcher news, according to Jinshi reports, U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis's previously proposed funding plan for Bitcoin purchases partially relies on the large gold heritage owned by the United States—these gold reserves were left over from the era when the dollar was pegged to precious metals, allowing dollar holders to exchange dollars for gold at a fixed price.Although the dollar has not been convertible to gold since the early 1970s, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve still hold about 8,100 tons of gold. The government values this gold at $42 per ounce, which is far below the current market price of $2,650.Cynthia Lummis hopes the Treasury can reassess this gold at current market prices and use the paper profits to fund Bitcoin purchases without raising taxes or issuing new national debt. However, critics point out that this operation is not a free lunch; it would require the Federal Reserve to cover the difference between the gold certificates held by the Treasury and the new valuation through a combination of printing money and asset sales.Monetary economist George Selgin argues that this operation amounts to a "backdoor loan" from the government, bypassing the regular appropriation process to avoid new debt and obscuring the truth. Lummis's bill relies heavily on gilded magic, and George Selgin said, "What better way to win public support than to make people believe this plan won't cost a dime?"

European Central Bank economists publish a paper stating that the continuous rise of Bitcoin will exacerbate social poverty and other consequences

ChainCatcher news, according to The Block, a new paper by economists at the European Central Bank titled "The Distributional Consequences of Bitcoin" points out that even in the case of a sustained increase in Bitcoin prices, early adopters will be the only beneficiaries, while latecomers and non-holders will suffer severe consequences, even in the absence of a "bubble burst."The economists argue that Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision of Bitcoin as a global payment system has largely failed, and people's perceptions are shifting towards viewing Bitcoin as a continually appreciating investment asset. Economists Ulrich Bindseil and Jürgen Schaaf believe that Bitcoin "......does not generate any cash flows (like real estate), interest (like bonds), or dividends (like stocks), nor can it be used for production (like commodities). Therefore, "...most established methods for calculating or estimating the fair value of assets fail when applied to Bitcoin."The paper states: "The new Lamborghinis, Rolexes, villas, and stock portfolios of early Bitcoin investors do not stem from an increase in economic production potential; rather, they are funded by the consumption and wealth reduction of those who initially did not hold Bitcoin." "Thus, 'missing out' on Bitcoin is not just about losing the opportunity to accumulate wealth, but it also signifies real poverty compared to a world without Bitcoin. This redistribution of wealth and purchasing power is unlikely to occur without adverse effects on society." These harmful consequences include "......the corresponding poverty of other parts of society, jeopardizing cohesion, stability, and ultimately threatening democracy."
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovators