And the 0.2 Prof carries on

But all money is credit

Bitcoin is not credit

It cannot therefore be money

And it cannot meet the need for credit creation that any real money does

It is just nothing that it claims to be

Cowrie shells were used as money. Cowrie shells are not credit.

What he’s missing is that the definition used in one part of one argument is not the thing itself. Sure, we often equate credit and money. But that doesn’t not mean that something which is not credit cannot be money.

12 thoughts on “And the 0.2 Prof carries on”

  1. He’s not bit on the map-territory distinction, is he? What is the point of such semantic games? “Bitcoin” is a computer programme, for a start, and claims nothing.

    The computer programme lets people trade the ability to make certain modifications to a de-centralised public ledger. It would seem that it is possible to swap bitcoins for goods and services. What else matters?

  2. Oh, and why can’t I offer you credit (a loan) in the form of Bitcoins?

    Okay, there would be a lot of risk on both sides of the transaction, given the instability of the crypto-currency, but why ever the ff not?

  3. When I took Economics O Level in 1970, we were taught a useful mnemonic for the necessary attributes of money: DADPHIS

    It should be:
    Identifiable and
    reasonably Scarce

    It has stuck in my mind these last 46 years. It contains no ‘C’ for Credit.

    I passed Economics O level, which I assume makes me more qualified in the subject than at least one professor.

    Where’s my Chair?

  4. I offer my neighbour credit in the form of my lawnmower. By Richie’s argument my neighbour has no debt to me because my lawnmower isn’t money.

  5. Reading his responses to the comments made on the thread, Murphy really is a terrible cunt (but in no way humorous like Uncle Monty).

  6. LizardKing

    It is staggering – and don’t forget, with the utmost kudos to the people on that thread (who I’m guessing are bitcoin supporters) he has banned almost anyone who has outargued him in the past – (which is almost every commentator on these pages from Tim down) – so he still can’t control the information and interaction on the blog. Even in print he comes across like a violent, thuggish ignoramus – which is (based on Broadcast appearances) an accurate reflection of reality

  7. “(based on Broadcast appearances)”

    Surely all someone needs to ask Murphy about live on air to pop his bubble is why the champion of open information won’t reveal the name of the secretive trust giving him financial backing and why he refuses to publish his own tax return. Any interview should start and would end on those questions.

  8. He really is a tool. A complete charlatan. Tattered corduroy jackets with arm patches, trying to convince the public he really is an academic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *