It is not only India, governments across the world have started banning them. The cryptoprophets expected this, but they underestimated the power of the state. That the state is an actualization of an ethical idea might be a lie, but a successful myth. And old successful lies are hard to dislodge.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]
Since 2009, when Bitcoin was created, some of the brightest tech Bohemians have sold the world a lemon. That a new kind of global currency will end the monopoly of governments and central banks over money. This new currency will not exist in physical form, it will be created from nothing by a vast network of computers as they perform a vast number of computations to randomly create it. The currency will have no intrinsic value beyond the perception that it has value, and its own predetermined scarcity.
The lure of a cryptocurrency is that it can make transactions between two individuals secure and possible without inefficient intermediaries like banks and rule-makers like governments. It offers complete anonymity and freedom—two things that governments, including democratic ones, dislike. In fact, governments dislike even their own currency notes, as it provides anonymity and too much freedom.
So, why did some people think governments would allow cryptocurrencies to thrive, or even survive? Why would governments permit a system that could end its own relevance ?
But then, who would have thought in the golden days of monarchy that all of the affluent world and most of the poor world, too, will come under the spell of a laughable idea called democracy where ordinary people elect who wields power over them?
Cryptocurrency is only a type of extreme financial and emotional democracy. Even so, it is doomed in its present form. Its technology platforms, like blockchain, will become standard as governments themselves adopt them, but the cryptocurrency as we know it today will stand no chance against fiat.
Fiat currency is based on trust in the authority that issues it. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is built on a fascinating misanthropic question: Given that two humans cannot and should not be trusted, how can a network of computers confirm that a transaction is fair?
The way people are drawn to anonymity, you would think they do something very interesting and naughty every day, and the way they react to security, you would think some transaction vanishes from their digital ledgers every day. In reality, most people are mostly dull. Yet, there is no doubt the world is in the grip of a Bitcoin mania. And it is entirely a creation of extraordinary storytelling. It has a hero who is mysterious, brilliant, moral, austere and philosophical.
His name is certainly not Satoshi Nakamoto. In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, a person who went by that name created, completed or revealed an elaborate computer programme that cryptographers say is an exquisite piece of work, and he also wrote a series of essays laying out the moral reason for a new kind of money—governments and central banks were corrupt and unfit to regulate money.
And he raised a philosophical question: Do we need the inconvenience of trust to transact? What if computers make a dishonest transaction so mathematically improbable that it is impossible, and also grants anonymity? He has since vanished, leaving us a revolutionary monetary system that is today worth nearly $1 trillion.
Nakamoto showed that absolute anonymity was possible and not always shady. He even made it look sacrificial in a world desperate for fame.
Some people believe he is too good to be a single person; that he is probably a group of people. What if Nakamoto is the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)? Or something like that? After all, the National Security Agency of the US did ponder the idea of cryptocurrency in an academic paper years before Nakamoto published his essay on it.
Creator of cryptocurrency is not known defeats the very freedom Bitcoin stands for. This is why the government always wins. It has a face, however ugly. And the face reassures a majority.
History is filled with wild things that were supposed to be free, but eventually got regulated by governments. The internet itself was supposed to diminish government control, as no single power can destroy it. Yet, every government has the power today to regulate it.
Social media, too, was expected to transform the world, especially through photogenic rebels on Twitter and Facebook. But these platforms are now begging governments to let them be. Streaming channels were suppose to force conservative societies to accept the freedom of artistic expression, but, as evident in India, they have meekly agreed to censor themselves to massage the thin skin of a majority.
Cryptocurrencies, too, will fail. You may argue that they’ll survive in a less rebellious form. But then a crypto has a binary quality. Either it is entirely free of state control, or it’s just another fiat currency in digital form.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.