www-us.org

Chapter 50: Digging Our Own Grave

The carbon tax proposal had firmly established Julian’s environmental credentials. It was a serious plan for a serious problem. But in the hyper-charged, often irrational world of modern finance and politics, he knew he had to address two other, seemingly unrelated topics that were deeply intertwined with the conversation about value, energy, and the environment: cryptocurrency and gold.

He chose to do so in an interview for a major financial podcast, one hosted by a sharp, skeptical journalist known for her deep knowledge of market dynamics.

“Mr. Corbin,” the journalist began, “many of our listeners are deeply invested in the cryptocurrency space. They see it as the future of finance, a hedge against inflation, a new and decentralized store of value. What is the role of Bitcoin and other digital assets in a Corbin economy?”

Julian, who had been waiting for this question, leaned into the microphone. He did not attack the investors. He attacked the asset itself, with the cold, dispassionate logic of an engineer assessing a flawed design.

“I will be direct,” he said. “The true, intrinsic value of a non-fiat cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is zero.”

The journalist was taken aback. “Zero? That’s a rather bold statement.”

“It is a statement of simple, economic first principles,” Julian replied. “An asset’s value is a function of its utility and its scarcity. Let’s start with scarcity. You are told that Bitcoin is scarce because there will only ever be twenty-one million of them. This is a clever but misleading piece of marketing. The supply of Bitcoin may be finite, but the supply of cryptocurrencies is infinite. Any competent programmer can create a new one tomorrow, and they do. When the supply of a category of asset is functionally unlimited, its price should, in a rational market, trend towards zero, for the same reason we do not pay for the air we breathe.”

He continued, his voice calm but his argument relentless. “Now, let’s talk about utility. You are told it is a store of value. It is not. Its volatility is so extreme that it is, by definition, a speculative gambling token, not a stable asset. You are told it is the future of payments. It is not. It is painfully slow, transaction costs are high, and it has no central system to reverse a fraudulent charge. It is a technological solution in search of a problem.”

“But its greatest sin,” he said, his voice now hardening, “is that it is an environmental catastrophe of the highest order. We are, as a civilization, burning the energy output of a medium-sized European nation to solve pointless, arbitrarily difficult math problems. For what? To generate a digital token that has no intrinsic value. It is a pyramid scheme that is actively boiling the oceans. My administration would treat it as such: a non-productive, speculative asset with a massive negative environmental externality that will be regulated and taxed accordingly.”

The journalist, still processing the ferocity of his critique, pivoted. “So you are a hard-money advocate, then? You prefer the original store of value, gold?”

“No,” Julian said, without hesitation. “Gold is simply the original sin. It is the analog version of the same profound, systemic wastefulness.”

He leaned in again. “What is gold mining? We burn rivers of diesel fuel to power colossal machines that move entire mountains of earth, often poisoning the local water supply with cyanide in the process. For what? To find a few microscopic flakes of a shiny, soft, and fundamentally useless metal. It produces no dividends. It builds no factories. It cures no diseases. It is a deeply irrational, pre-modern fetish for a shiny object, and the environmental cost of that fetish is staggering.”

He then delivered the final, systemic argument, using the real-world example he and Anya had researched. “And the idea that it can save a failing economy is a dangerous fantasy. Look at Iceland after the 2008 financial crisis. Their currency, the krona, collapsed. They did not start digging for gold to prop it up. They allowed the market to work. The collapsed currency had a profound, self-correcting effect. Foreign goods, like cars, became incredibly expensive, so Icelanders stopped buying them, preserving their capital. At the same time, visiting Iceland became incredibly cheap for foreigners, so their tourism industry exploded. A painful but honest price signal, delivered by a flexible currency, healed their economy. Gold is not a solution; it is a rigid, backward-looking dogma that prevents a modern economy from adapting to reality.”

The interview was a firestorm. The online communities dedicated to crypto and gold erupted in a furious, coordinated rage. They called him a tyrant, a Luddite, a central banker’s puppet.

But for everyone else, the vast majority of the public who looked at these assets with a confused skepticism, Julian’s clear, first-principles-based takedown was a moment of profound and satisfying clarity. He had taken two of the most hyped, almost religious, assets of the modern era and had calmly, logically, and ruthlessly exposed them as being, in his view, worthless, wasteful, and dangerous.

The Discourse, Chapter 50; The Deconstruction of "Magical Thinking"

Section 50.1: The Unification of Non-Productive Assets

The core intellectual move in this chapter is to take two assets that are often seen by their respective proponents as opposites—Bitcoin (the new, digital, "nerd gold") and Gold (the ancient, physical, "hard money" standard)—and to argue that they are, in fact, philosophically and economically identical. This argument is an act of synthesis. It ignores their surface-level differences (digital vs. physical) and focuses on their shared, fundamental characteristics:

1. Lack of Intrinsic Productive Value: Neither asset is productive in an economic sense. Unlike a stock (which represents a share of a productive company that creates goods and services) or a bond (a loan that funds economic activity), they do not create new wealth. Their value is derived solely from a shared, collective belief in their scarcity and worth—what some economists call the "Tinkerbell effect" of value.

2. Massive Negative Externalities in Production: The "mining" process for both is presented as incredibly destructive, consuming vast amounts of real-world energy and resources to produce a non-productive, abstract good.

By unifying them, Julian Corbin is not just critiquing two specific assets; he is mounting a broader attack on a certain kind of "magical thinking" in economics—the belief that wealth can be created from nothing, without a corresponding increase in real-world productivity or human ingenuity.

Section 50.2: The First-Principles Argument Against Cryptocurrency

Corbin's critique of cryptocurrency is a textbook example of a first-principles argument. He does not get bogged down in the complex and often confusing technical details of blockchain technology, which is where many critiques fail. Instead, he goes back to the most basic, foundational principles of economics: value is a function of utility and scarcity.

• His Attack on Scarcity: The argument that the infinite potential supply of new cryptocurrencies makes the finite supply of any single cryptocurrency (like Bitcoin) ultimately irrelevant is a devastating and clear-headed piece of economic logic. It cuts through the industry's most powerful marketing narrative.

• His Attack on Utility: He systematically tests crypto against its purported uses (a stable store of value, an efficient medium of exchange) and finds it to be a technologically inferior product in every respect when compared to existing financial systems.

This method is deeply characteristic of his mind. He is not interested in the hype or the complexity; he is interested only in the foundational logic. By demonstrating that the foundational logic is flawed, he is able to dismiss the entire, multi-trillion-dollar edifice that has been built on top of it.

Section 50.3: The Icelandic Model as a Counter-Narrative

The use of the real-world example of Iceland's post-2008 economic recovery is a brilliant and crucial piece of evidence. It provides a powerful counter-narrative to the "hard money" argument that is central to both the gold and crypto communities. The hard money narrative is one of rigidity and fear—the belief that in a time of crisis, a nation must retreat to a "safe," unchanging, external asset.

The Iceland story is a narrative of flexibility and adaptation. It is a real-world demonstration of the power of a modern, fiat currency system to absorb a massive economic shock and to self-correct through honest price signals. By using this example, Corbin is making a profound philosophical point. He is arguing that the health and resilience of a modern economy lies not in its rigid adherence to an old, external standard, but in its dynamic ability to adapt to new realities. It is a deeply optimistic, pro-innovation, and forward-looking economic vision, which is a direct contrast to the fearful, backward-looking worldview of the hard-money advocates.