Argentina, Macroeconomics, And Bitcoin

TOPSHOT - Argentina's President Javier Milei arrives to deliver a speech at the World Economic Forum ... [+] (WEF) meeting in Davos on January 17, 2024. (Photo by Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP) (Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)

The exciting news last year of the election of Javier Milei in Argentina received broad acclaim throughout the Bitcoin community and libertarian circles. Argentina's decades of hyperinflation should lead to a natural skepticism of excessive central bank money printing, and it is reassuring to see that politics can follow this basic logic. This was a big win for the sound money movement, of which Bitcoin is a part. The election of the former TV commentator to head of state is a warning call to all central bankers everywhere, and a ripple of hope that democracies can in fact check the power of government bureaucrats.

Argentina also played an outsized role in the war of ideas battled in academic economics over the last 30 years. The giants of this field like Robert Lucas, Thomas Sargent, and Ed Prescott were all at the University of Chicago economics department.

Lucas offered the official critique of central bank stabilization policy in his Nobel-winning article “Expectations and the Neutrality of Money.” He makes a technical contribution establishing a new area of mathematics applied to macroeconomics, following in the footsteps of John Muth. Lucas was a master storyteller and his main idea emerges a simple parable even kids can understand.

Imagine a community of people at a circus who magically receive an extra $20 bill in their pocket. At first, everyone delights in the new money, and they buy more cotton candy, roller coaster rides, and hot dogs. New money now circulates throughout the circus, and yet the total supply of goods and services remains fixed. Over time, prices have only one way to go: up. There may be some adjustment time, but the increase in price is inevitable. And so purchasing power falls, and the general price level will rise.

But here's the rub: people are rational, so they know this will happen. Therefore, at the moment that everyone receives their $20 bill, they know in advance that everything will ultimately be $20 more expensive. And so it's impossible to fool them into spending more now. In economic terms, these rational expectations will not lead to changes in real consumption. This was a broad critique against Keynesian economics, which argued that increasing the money supply can in fact fool people. Keynesian economics gave a carte blanche to central bankers to manage the money supply to try to induce economic growth. But Lucas argued that such an exercise is a fool's errand. You can't trick people into changing their real consumption or investment if they are smart enough to form rational expectations about the future.

The rational expectations movement took hold in economics in the '70s and '80s at the freshwater schools of Carnegie Mellon, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Chicago as a pushback against the saltwater schools of Harvard and MIT. Lucas and Sargent often referenced the hyperinflation in Argentina as the prime example of central banking run amok. The University of Chicago at the turn of the century imported dozens of PhD students from Argentina who had lived this daily experience of hyperinflation where prices change not by the quarter or month, but by the week or day. And it's a sad tale that 25 years on, the same is true.

It is a loss to the academy that Robert Lucas died, as he pioneered many of the early critiques against central banks. But how does rational expectation square with Bitcoin? This answer is subtle and nuanced. At one level, rational expectations are a strong critique of central banks, as is Bitcoin. So, they have a common enemy. They are both critiquing the poor choices that inevitably ensue from human beings managing their own money supply. For Lucas, aiming to stabilize the macroeconomy by tinkering with the interest rate every six weeks is a waste of time, and ineffective.

But the arguments for Bitcoin go further. Bitcoin's issuance schedule is a strong endorsement of a very specific kind of money supply, one that is predictable and unchangeable. In rational expectations, money does not matter, because people are too smart to be fooled by changes in money. For Bitcoin, money supply does matter, and it's vital that everyone knows the supply in advance and that it cannot be altered. So at some level, there are different assumptions about the rationality of people. Lucas argued that people are too rational to be fooled by an errant central bank, while Satoshi assumed (in the design choices of his protocol) that people are not rational enough to completely adjust to bad central bank policies, which is why a fixed and unchangeable money supply is better.

An erratic monetary policy, such as those adopted by central banks recently, can damage individual investors and tear the social fabric. The roller coaster ride of interest rates constantly shifting between easy and tight money has a profound impact on an otherwise unknown but essential component of the economy: the allocation of our human capital. The search for yield induces individual investors to gamble in the stock market, and young students to pursue careers in trading rather than producing goods and services in the real economy. A fixed and unchangeable money supply prevents these worst of human instincts from taking over, just as a setting on your iPad prevents your children from excessive screen time.

And so, though Argentina has motivated the rational expectations movement in academic economics, that movement has now come full circle. Bitcoin places some decisions squarely within the hands of individuals (like mining a block or setting a transaction fee) but not every decision (like selecting the issuance schedule of new money). That, I believe, is the right balance, and closer to what we can and should aspire to in our economic policies.

Argentina would make a great candidate for Bitcoin and would give the world a proof of concept that it would surely need. But even if Argentina does not ultimately adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, Bitcoin has still succeeded in framing the conversation around sound money, which will ultimately discipline central bankers in the future. Even if this is all Bitcoin does or ever does, to me it is still a resounding success. It is the only technology that has ever been able to keep the power of central banks in check.