Economics is semantics. It is emotion, it is euphemism, it is improvisation, it is narrative, it is Greek, it is fudge. It is breeding for ill or for good character; it is status enforcement for ill or for good society, it is constant work for feast or famine — but it is not numbers [Remember that the next time we hear an oraculation from the Fed. Only human work will solve economic problems, and humans won’t work long for numbers.]

Bitcoin is not economics, but “pop-Econ.” It is Cinderella at the Ball — a welter of hopes, dreams, schemes, flirtations, sex, wheeling, dealing, satisfying, faking, social climbing, inheritance; of peer competition, invidious comparison, conspicuous consumption; of frantically watching the clock, and of revenge. That worthless pumpkin on the stoop — that figurine of Darth Vader your kid never opened — suddenly somehow IS valuable! The gods must be crazy! Your kitschy hoarding has paid off! Cinderella’s squash became her ticket to ride. Cinderella’s elation is infectious, but it is magic, not economics. The amount of her glee at getting a handsome prince can not, itself, be priced and sold, only her story can. Nobody ever stops to ask: the footmen and scullery maids and vintners at the Ball needed, actually, to be paid for working that night, right?
(Assume a 16-year-old girl, as the economists say, and there will be a Ball, whether there is money to pay for it or not.)

This is an important piece, the best piece I’ve ever read on Bitcoin. It explains the fallacy of money as an intrinsic collectible; and thus explains why Bitcoin is popular among gamers, geeks, Trekkies, Marvel fans, comic book collectors in general, gold bugs, and Ren-Fest “Game of Throners.” Bitcoin is money as if.