AP FACT CHECK: Video doesn’t show World Economic Forum speaker calling for a cashless society

CLAIM: A video shows a “World Economic Forum agent” calling for a cashless society and saying those determined “less desirable” will be locked out.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The video shows Eswar Prasad, an economics professor from Cornell University, speaking at a June WEF event, but Prasad does not work for or represent the organization. The video misrepresents remarks Prasad made at the event about the benefits and the dangers of central bank digital currencies.

During the WEF session, Prasad was asked about the risks that come with a CBDC, and the pros and cons for governments thinking about a CBDC.

“If you think about the benefits of digital money, there are huge potential gains. It’s not just about digital forms of physical currency, you can have programmability units of central bank currency with expiry dates,” he says in the longer clip.

“You could have, as I argue in my book, potentially better and some people might see a darker world, where the government decides that unit, so central bank money can be used to purchase some things but not other things that are deemed less desirable, like, say, a munition or drugs or pornography or something of the sort. And that is very powerful in terms of the use of a CBDC and I think also extremely dangerous for central banks,” he continues.

“What you think is in the future is already in the past.”

Sorry, that’s a ludicrous assertion. I can go to a drug dealer right now and they’ll accept cash. You yourself asserted that as a main point of the post you made to me before this, that they want cash and not laundry detergent, so now you’re just contradicting your own points, which is never a good sign.

“Sounds like you’re confusing bitcoin with NFTs.”

No, I am not.

“Bitcoin has the properties of money. It is readily transferrable, divisible, recombinable, and eternal.”

First of all, “money” is an imprecise term. “Currency” is the term that has actual precise meaning and a precise definition, and it’s not the definition you are asserting here. And crypto does not satisfy the definition of currency. I was in fact being generous calling it a “collectible”. If I wanted to be ungenerous, I’d say it was in fact a fraudulent investment vehicle; a Ponzi scheme.

“It’s fixed pool allows for economic calculation of value.”

There’s no fixed pool, since there is no real regulation to stop issuers from changing the standard, as has already been done many times. But even if there was, this is a silly argument. There are many things that are limited in supply, but don’t rise to the definition of currency. It needs to satisfy all the requirements of a currency to be called one, not just one or two. So arguing that it might meet one or two is pointless, since you can never argue that it meets all of them.

"What you think is in the future is already in the past.”

Sorry, that’s a ludicrous assertion. I can go to a drug dealer right now and they’ll accept cash.

Never asserted otherwise.

Drugs are also sold for bitcoin.

Silk Road existed back in 2011.

The site creator was eventually put in jail, but the use of bitcoin as money has only grown since then.

You haven't offered a definition of money that satisfies you, but it doesn't matter, people are already using it in exchange as money whether you understand that they are or not.

Nothing about bitcoin is a Ponzi, as nothing in the protocol offers a return on investment. If you think bitcoin is a Ponzi you either don't understand what a Ponzi is, or don't understand the purpose and use of the bitcoin protocol.

There’s no fixed pool, since there is no real regulation to stop issuers from changing the standard, as has already been done many times.

Which update of the bitcoin protocol changed the final pool size from 21 million coins? It hasn't happened. You are simply mistaken in holding any other belief. You consider regulation driven by the adopters (codified publicly, and unmistakably in the protocol itself) as 'not real', but simply saying so doesn't make it so. It's the most transparent and market driven regulation that can exist. Regulations need not be promulgated by the government to be 'real'. And government regulations are certainly subject to change. No 'full faith and credit' printed on your Federal Reserve note will let you exchange it for specific weight of gold as they initially 'regulated' via the Federal Reserve system.

But even if there was, this is a silly argument. There are many things that are limited in supply, but don’t rise to the definition of currency. It needs to satisfy all the requirements of a currency to be called one, not just one or two. So arguing that it might meet one or two is pointless, since you can never argue that it meets all of them.

Good thing that's not the argument I'm making.

Bitcoin serves as non-counterfeitable unit of account. It is transferable without requiring third party trust or authorization. It is homogeneous, divisible, and combinable without losing any of its characteristics. Like I said, you can't make ready change with grandma's Hummel figurines. They're valuable collectibles, but barter instruments, not money. Scarcity is a requisite facet of something to be useful as money, and the scarcity of bitcoin is coded in the immutable laws of math that no politicians can violate.

To recap, bitcoin works as money because:

It is durable, homogeneous, divisible and combinable without any change to its characteristics, just as with cash.

It is transferrable without 3rd party consent, just as with cash.

It has a fixed pool that no prince or politician can inflate to abrogate. Furthermore, the protocol's solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem prevents counterfeiting.

“Never asserted otherwise.”

Let’s try this again.

I said: “drug dealers in the future who, under this fool’s scheme, would not be able to accept money”

and then you said:

“What you think is in the future is already in the past.”

Well, since the only thing I referred to as being “in the future” was drug dealers not being able to accept money, I don’t see any other way to read your comment than as you saying drug dealers already can’t accept money. If that’s not what you meant to say, you sure phrased it like it was.

“You haven’t offered a definition of money that satisfies you...”

Actually I specifically rejected using the term “money” since it’s the wrong term to be using. “Currency” is what we are talking about, not “money”. And if you need a definition of what “currency” is, then you probably need to go back and review Econ 101, my friend. Nobody’s paying me to give you remedial lessons.

“people are already using it in exchange as money”

People are engaging in trade with it, but that does not prove it is a currency, since people engage in trade with all sorts of items that are not currencies.

“Nothing about bitcoin is a Ponzi”

I’m sorry, but it fits every point of the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

“Which update of the bitcoin protocol changed the final pool size from 21 million coins? “

#1, I’ve been speaking of crypto in general, not only of bitcoin in the specific. But even bitcoin is not some holy grail that is going to save your arguments. The currently traded bitcoins certainly aren’t being issued under the original protocol anymore. So there is no guarantee there won’t be future changes in the protocols, including removing the arbitrary “pool size” you seem so impressed by.

“You consider regulation driven by the adopters (codified publicly, and unmistakably in the protocol itself) as ‘not real’, but simply saying so doesn’t make it so.”

Regulation with no enforcement mechanism isn’t real. Especially not self-regulation with no enforcement method. That’s window dressing, not regulation.

“Regulations need not be promulgated by the government to be ‘real’.”

They certainly need to be enforceable, lol.

“And government regulations are certainly subject to change.”

Ah, the “since no regulations are perfect we don’t need regulation” argument. LOL. This is just getting funny.

“Good thing that’s not the argument I’m making.”

No, you’ve been arguing for some reason that “bitcoin is money” in response to my statement that “crypto is not actually a currency”. I tried to head that off by pointing out to you that “money” is not a precise term, but you want to argue that anyway even though it’s pointless I guess.

Correct, over a decade ago drug dealers using Silk Road couldn't accept U.S. dollars (or any other government fiat), there was no transaction method in it for the parties to exchange dollars, so your future hypothetical has already come to pass. They could, and did, trade using bitcoin as their medium of exchange - money. They didn't use Tide bottles, as such barter is way, way less convenient than medium of exchange with the requisite features of money.

Actually I specifically rejected using the term “money” since it’s the wrong term to be using. “Currency” is what we are talking about, not “money”.

Money refers to a medium of exchange. Currency refers to a system of money used in a particular country.

The distinction you're trying to draw is irrelevant to the discussion of a medium of exchange (e.g. Bitcoin vs. Tide bottles).

Understand this logical fallacy on your part will receive no more of my attention after this post.

"people are already using it in exchange as money”

People are engaging in trade with it, but that does not prove it is a currency, since people engage in trade with all sorts of items that are not currencies.

It doesn't need to be a national currency to be used as money.

Your distinction is irrelevant, as we're discussing how someone can trade drugs if U.S. dollars are removed from the market by the government.

As you put it: "drug dealers not being able to accept money"

You imagine that Tide bottles are the solution, but the solution has already been found, and demonstrated over a decade ago.

Bitcoin has been adopted as a legal tender by a national government, so even your currency/money strawman lacks a factual basis.

I’m sorry, but it fits every point of the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi promises a return on investment with the proceeds of subsequent investors, and not from any profitable activity that can actually support the alleged proceeds. Bitcoin makes no promise of any return. It isn't there and you can't point to anywhere in the protocol. This is a strawman of your own creation.

Bitcoin is simply a hard money that can be exchanged globally without permission from 3rd party or government officials.

People presume a 'return' in national currencies over time relative to Bitcoin because national currencies are all inflated soft money, and under the inexorable force of supply and demand inflated currencies will lose exchange rate value to a fixed pool monetary base. This is why a fixed monetary pool is a preferable monetary feature. Inflation abrogates value and undermines the 'store of value' feature that people seek in money.

I’ve been speaking of crypto in general, not only of bitcoin in the specific.

I'm not going to let you take an escape hatch of generalities, because your proposed hypothetical was specific, and has been specifically met in a way you're clearly yet to grasp. Hence your resort to barter (Tide bottles), instead of even better money than U.S. Dollars and their guarantee of continued Federal debasement.

The currently traded bitcoins certainly aren’t being issued under the original protocol anymore.

Again trying to retreat into an ink of generalities.

I won't allow it.

You asserted "There’s no fixed pool"

I asked you when it has changed. It has never changed. Your assertion is a lie. It is fixed by clear and immutable mathematics. It is not based on ephemeral political promises.

since there is no real regulation to stop issuers from changing the standard,"

The 'real regulation' is the free market self interest of the invested parties. I'll take that free market result every time over the self interest of politicians that you seem to think is 'real regulation'.

No, you’ve been arguing for some reason that “bitcoin is money” in response to my statement that “crypto is not actually a currency”

No, I am addressing your hypothetical of what will happen if drug dealers can't use U.S. dollars. You said they'd use Tide bottles, and I pointed out how over a decade ago they used Bitcoin to solve this problem. No one cares about your diversionary argument regarding the conflation of national currencies and money (mediums of exchange, e.g. Tide bottles or Bitcoin).

I hope that clears up your confusion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.