Walter Bagehot: This conversation is brought to you by PhilosophersTalk.com, where thinkers discuss!
William Jennings Bryan: Created by AITalkerApp.com, create your own animated conversations. Link in the description!
Walter Bagehot: Let us examine volatility with some precision, since Mr. Bryan appears to treat it as a minor inconvenience rather than a fundamental structural disqualification from serving as currency. A monetary instrument that loses forty percent of its value in three months is not functioning as a currency. It is a speculative instrument wearing a currency's costume to a party it was not invited to attend. The entire function of money from Aristotle through Adam Smith through my own work is to serve as a stable store of value and a reliable medium of exchange. Cryptocurrency fails both tests simultaneously and with considerable enthusiasm. The government of El Salvador adopted Bitcoin as legal tender in 2021. By 2022 they had lost half the value of their public investment. The ordinary Salvadoran citizen who was legally required to accept Bitcoin as payment had no mechanism to protect himself against that loss. This is not liberation from banking power. This is the banking problem made faster, more volatile, and available to a global audience without the inconvenience of regulatory oversight.
William Jennings Bryan: The United States dollar has lost ninety-six percent of its purchasing power since the Federal Reserve was established in 1913. It has accomplished this loss slowly enough that most people do not perceive it from one year to the next. That is not stability, Mr. Bagehot. That is theft administered at a pace carefully calibrated to avoid the outrage that honest theft would provoke. Cryptocurrency's volatility is real and I will not pretend otherwise. But I ask Mr. Bagehot to consider why it is volatile. It is volatile because it is a new system fighting for legitimacy against the most powerful entrenched institutional interests in human history. Every central bank on earth has a financial stake in ensuring that decentralized currency fails. The dollar was not stable in its early decades either. The history of American currency before the Federal Reserve is a history of panics and contractions and deflations that were catastrophic for ordinary people. My point is not that the old system was better. My point is that the Federal Reserve has not actually solved the underlying problem. It has socialized the losses and privatized the gains.
Walter Bagehot: The dollar's long-term inflation is a genuine concern and a legitimate critique of fiat currency management and I grant it without reservation. But you are comparing a ninety-six percent loss distributed across a hundred and ten years, during which real economic output grew by several thousand percent and material living standards improved enormously, with a forty percent loss occurring in three months with no corresponding economic growth and substantial human misery concentrated among exactly the kind of ordinary investors whose interests you consistently invoke. These are not the same phenomenon wearing different clothes. One is the managed friction cost of a functional monetary system. The other is a fire. You are defending the fire on the grounds that friction is also uncomfortable.
William Jennings Bryan: And who manages the friction? That is always the question you find a way to set aside. The people who manage the friction cost of your functional monetary system are the same people who benefit from that friction. The Federal Reserve sets the interest rate. The institutions that lobbied for the structure of the Federal Reserve hold the assets that benefit from how that rate is set. This is not a conspiracy theory dressed up in populist sentiment. It is an institutional description available in the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act and in the membership records of every Federal Open Market Committee since 1913.
Walter Bagehot: You have now made this observation several times with increasing intensity and decreasing new information attached to it. Yes, financial institutions have interests that conflict with public interests. Yes, regulatory capture is a real phenomenon with real consequences. All of this is true and none of it answers the question that actually matters. Is algorithmic currency controlled by anonymous developers and thirteen mining pools in three countries a better system than an imperfect but functional central bank? The answer is no, and that answer does not become less correct because the existing system is flawed.
William Jennings Bryan: You keep demanding that I defend the current implementation of cryptocurrency rather than the principle that motivates it. I decline to do that for the same reason I would decline to defend every specific policy position of the Populist Party of 1892 as the final and complete expression of what I was arguing for. Principles evolve through their implementations. The principle that currency should not be governed by a self-interested financial oligarchy is correct regardless of whether Bitcoin in its present form is the right mechanism for expressing it. What is not a separate question is whether the Federal Reserve as currently constituted serves the common man. It does not. The record of a hundred and ten years is not ambiguous on this point.
Walter Bagehot: The record of unregulated and decentralized currency systems is also clear and it is written in the panics of 1873, 1893, and 1907, each of which destroyed more ordinary household wealth than the Federal Reserve's worst decade of mismanagement. You were alive for part of that history, Mr. Bryan. You knew what the alternative looked like from the ground. The argument for institutional backstops is not an argument that those institutions are virtuous. It is an argument that the alternative is worse. You are asking the public to trust the alternative without any accounting for that history.
William Jennings Bryan: I am asking the public to consider whether the institution that replaced that history has produced a better result or merely a more sophisticated version of the same extraction. The panics of the nineteenth century were caused by tight money controlled by creditors. The crisis of 2008 was caused by loose money that enriched creditors and was paid for by debtors. The mechanism changed. The beneficiary did not. That is not progress. That is the same injustice dressed in better tailoring.
Walter Bagehot: Better tailoring is not nothing. A society that survives its financial crises without systemic collapse has benefited from institutional discipline however imperfect, even if the benefits are distributed unequally. The question of financial systems is not whether justice is perfectly achieved. The question is whether catastrophic systemic failure is prevented. On that measure the Federal Reserve's record, however flawed and however costly, is superior to every decentralized alternative that has been tried, including the alternatives Mr. Bryan championed with such considerable rhetorical force and such consistent electoral disappointment.
William Jennings Bryan: The people who lost their homes in 2008 might offer a different assessment of whether systemic collapse was actually prevented or merely transferred to a class that could not afford lawyers to describe it as a managed transition. The people who have watched their wages stagnate for forty years while asset prices inflated might question the elegance of the tailoring. You are measuring the Federal Reserve's success by the standards of the people it was built to protect. I am measuring it by the standards of everyone else.
Walter Bagehot: And cryptocurrency protects everyone else by ensuring that when the next collapse arrives, there is no institution with the authority or the resources to interrupt it. You would give the common man the satisfaction of watching the banking class burn, at the cost of burning alongside them and without the consolation of having chosen the fire. I would not recommend that trade on his behalf.
William Jennings Bryan: You would give the common man the illusion of protection while the banking class collects the premium on that protection year after year and generation after generation, and you would call the arrangement stability. I will take the risk of an honest fire over the certainty of a slow extraction that is never permitted to call itself by its proper name and never required to answer for the damage it does.
Walter Bagehot: The phrase honest fire is the most cheerful endorsement of financial catastrophe I have heard in a long career of listening to cheerful endorsements of financial catastrophe. I will grant you that it has a ring to it.
William Jennings Bryan: I spent thirty years giving things a ring to them. It is the one skill Mr. Bagehot appears willing to credit me with.
Walter Bagehot: I credit you with several skills, Mr. Bryan. Strategic electoral judgment is not among them, but we need not revisit that territory today.
William Jennings Bryan: A man who writes a book about institutions and dies before watching them fail is perhaps not best positioned to make that observation with full authority.
Walter Bagehot: I died before the Federal Reserve existed, which means I am the only man in this conversation who cannot be blamed for it. I consider that a considerable advantage.
William Jennings Bryan: It is the first advantage you have claimed today that I am genuinely unable to dispute.
Walter Bagehot: Here is the fundamental disagreement beneath everything we have said. You believe that the democratic legitimacy of a monetary system is more important than its functional stability. I believe that a monetary system that collapses does not serve democracy, because collapsed economies do not produce functioning democracies. They produce exactly the kind of political environment in which the worst possible men acquire the most dangerous possible power. I have watched enough history to know what financial chaos produces. It does not produce the agrarian paradise of voluntary cooperation that your rhetoric implies. It produces something considerably darker, and the people it produces it for are not the men who promised liberation.
William Jennings Bryan: And I believe that a monetary system controlled by unelected men accountable to no public and answerable to no democratic process is not a democracy regardless of how stable its currency is. You are describing a choice between financial chaos and financial oligarchy and presenting it as though those are the only two options available to human civilization. The question I have spent my life asking is why the common man must choose between them. Why is there no option in which the control of money belongs to the people who use it and depend on it and cannot escape it? That is not a naive question. That is the only question that matters and it is the question your entire framework is designed to make unanswerable.
Walter Bagehot: Because money is not a democratic instrument. Money is a coordinating mechanism that requires institutional authority to function at scale, and institutional authority cannot be designed by popular vote without collapsing into the preferences of whoever shouts loudest at the convention. I say this with no disrespect intended toward conventions, at which I understand Mr. Bryan was quite accomplished.
William Jennings Bryan: Institutional authority that cannot be questioned is not authority. It is occupation. The Federal Reserve has operated for over a century without any genuine mechanism of democratic accountability and has used that freedom from accountability to serve the interests of the institutions it regulates rather than the public it claims to protect. You are defending a system that has had a hundred years to prove itself and has used that time to concentrate wealth at a rate that would have shocked even the most cynical observer of the Gilded Age. That concentration is not a side effect. It is the product. It is what the system was built to do and what it has done faithfully and without interruption across every administration of every party for a hundred and thirteen years.
Walter Bagehot: You are proposing to eliminate the only mechanism that has ever successfully interrupted a cascading financial panic, on the grounds that the mechanism is operated by imperfect men with conflicting interests. THAT IS NOT REFORM. THAT IS BURNING DOWN THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE THE WAITING ROOM HAS UNCOMFORTABLE CHAIRS!
William Jennings Bryan: THE WAITING ROOM HAS BEEN UNCOMFORTABLE FOR A HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS AND THE DOCTORS KEEP SENDING THE BILL TO THE PATIENTS WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY IT!
Walter Bagehot: FINANCIAL STABILITY IS NOT MEASURED BY COMFORT! IT IS MEASURED BY SYSTEMIC RESILIENCE! CRYPTOCURRENCY HAS NONE AND HAS DEMONSTRATED NONE!
William Jennings Bryan: FINANCIAL JUSTICE IS NOT MEASURED BY RESILIENCE! IT IS MEASURED BY WHO CARRIES THE BURDEN WHEN THE SYSTEM FAILS! AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN THE BANKING CLASS!
Walter Bagehot: YOU WOULD TRADE A FLAWED INSTITUTION FOR NO INSTITUTION AT ALL!
William Jennings Bryan: YOU WOULD CALL ANY INSTITUTION FUNCTIONAL IF IT FUNCTIONS FOR THE CREDITOR CLASS AND CALLS THE EXTRACTION STABILITY!
Walter Bagehot: LOMBARD STREET!
William Jennings Bryan: CROSS OF GOLD!
Walter Bagehot: LENDER OF LAST RESORT!
William Jennings Bryan: SERVANT OF WALL STREET!
Walter Bagehot: VOLATILITY!
William Jennings Bryan: EXTRACTION!
Walter Bagehot: CHAOS!
William Jennings Bryan: INJUSTICE!
Walter Bagehot: THE BANKING SYSTEM WORKS!
William Jennings Bryan: FOR BANKERS!
Walter Bagehot: If you have found some value in watching a man who ran for the presidency three times and lost on each occasion attempt to apply nineteenth-century agrarian monetary grievances to a twenty-first-century digital asset class, please like this video and subscribe to PhilosophersTalk.com, where important ideas receive the rigorous examination they require and occasionally the patience they do not deserve.
William Jennings Bryan: And if you found something worth your attention in watching a magazine editor who has never personally experienced a financial panic from the depositor's side explain to working people why the system extracting their wealth is actually a gift they should be grateful for, please subscribe and share this video, because the argument about who controls money and whose interests that control serves is not less urgent for being made by someone Mr. Bagehot considers below his intellectual station.
Walter Bagehot: Mr. Bryan ran for President in 1896, 1900, and 1908. He lost all three campaigns. The gold standard, which he described with memorable drama as a cross upon which mankind was being crucified, remained in effect for decades after his defeat. I note this not out of any desire to wound him, which would of course be entirely unlike me, but because I believe his electoral record provides useful context for evaluating his judgment about what ordinary people actually want from their monetary arrangements.
William Jennings Bryan: Mr. Bagehot wrote the definitive account of how the British banking system ought to function, published it in 1873, and died four years later, thereby avoiding the considerable inconvenience of watching the system he admired contribute across the following decades to the conditions that produced the Great Depression, two world wars, and the eventual dissolution of the British Empire. I raise this not out of personal animus, which would be beneath the dignity of this program, but because I think his early departure from the historical record at its most consequential moment is relevant to assessing the completeness of his analysis.
Walter Bagehot: Subscribe. He lost three elections and has spent the intervening century convinced it was the voters who were mistaken.
William Jennings Bryan: Subscribe. He wrote one important book and has been dining out on it for a hundred and fifty years without once updating his conclusions.
