Central bankers are claiming that Bitcoin (BTC<\/a>) is unfair. In doing so, they\u2019re laying the foundation for high tax rates on Bitcoin \u2014 from mining to capital gains taxes \u2014 and even an outright ban.\u00a0<\/p>\n But most of the economic evidence \u2014 even in papers they themselves publish \u2014 suggests that the central bankers are the true cause of our suffering via money printing and inflationary policies and settings.<\/p>\n In a new paper by the European Central Bank (ECB), J\u00fcrgen Schaaf argues that Bitcoin is inherently unfair<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cIn absolute terms, early adopters exactly increase their real wealth and consumption at the expense of the real wealth and consumption of those who do not hold Bitcoin or who invest in it only at a later stage,\u201d writes Schaaf.<\/p>\n Schaaf, who is an adviser to the senior management of Market Infrastructure and Payments, argues that the wealth of Bitcoiners was stolen from non-Bitcoiners.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe new Lamborghini, Rolex, villa, and equity portfolios by early Bitcoin investors [\u2026] are financed by diminishing consumption and wealth of those who initially do not hold Bitcoin,\u201d he writes.<\/p>\n Instead of holding the inflationary policies of central banks responsible for perceived asset misallocation and general misery, he suggests Bitcoin will create economic despair.<\/p>\n \u201cThis redistribution of wealth and purchasing power is unlikely to occur without detrimental consequences for society,\u201d he writes.\u00a0<\/p>\n According to Schaaf, non-Bitcoiners should oppose Bitcoin and even work toward legislation against it, aiming to prevent a rise in the price of Bitcoin \u201cor to see Bitcoin disappear altogether.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Even while arguing for redistribution away from Bitcoiners, Schaaf argues it\u2019s Bitcoiners are the ones doing the redistributing.<\/p>\n The paper also touches on Bitcoin\u2019s inelasticity \u2014 the inability for more Bitcoin to be created \u2014 in the form of a graph illustrating how little Bitcoin will be available for late adopters.<\/p>\n Total Bitcoin wealth, according to the ECB. Source: ECB<\/em><\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n The Bitcoin community lambasted the paper<\/a>, with some, like Tuur Demeester, viewing<\/a> it as a declaration of war.\u00a0<\/p>\n On X, Schaaf further expounded<\/a> on his theory. \u201cEarly holders\u2019 wealth and consumption rise while others get poorer, regardless of whether they ever own Bitcoin,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n While Schaaf blames Bitcoin for economic dislocations, there is perhaps more evidence that central bank financial engineering wreaks more havoc on fiat-holding non-Bitcoiners than does Bitcoin.<\/p>\n For instance, quantitative easing policies \u2014 often labeled \u201cmoney printing\u201d \u2014 might have increased the price of stocks, bonds and other assets in the hands of the wealthy.<\/p>\n In a report by the United Kingdom Parliament House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee called \u201cQuantitative easing: a dangerous addiction?,\u201d the committee examined<\/a> quantitative easing [QE] in response to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe policy has also had the effect of inflating asset prices artificially, and this has benefited those who own them disproportionately, exacerbating wealth inequalities,\u201d reads the report.<\/p>\n Furthermore, in a paper published by the University of Massachusetts, the authors examined<\/a> the effect of the Federal Reserve\u2019s quantitative easing policy on income and wealth inequality.<\/p>\n \u201cThe impact of quantitative easing on the distribution income was at least modestly regressive,\u201d the authors wrote.\u00a0<\/p>\n Highlights from Schaaf\u2019s thread. Source: <\/em>J\u00fcrgen Schaaf<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n They conclude that QE led to \u201cmodest increases in inequality despite having some positive impacts\u201d on employment and the refinancing of mortgages.<\/p>\n Ultimately, the true effects of quantitative easing may be unknown to even the high sages of economics in their ivory towers.<\/p>\n \u201cThe effects of quantitative easing are poorly understood, in part because standard models of monetary policy predict that it doesn\u2019t work,\u201d wrote<\/a> Vincent Sterk and Wei Cui of University College London.<\/p>\n A paper published by Ohio State University Press highlights<\/a> an international poll of 31,869 respondents in 38 countries:<\/p>\n \u201cThe disadvantaged on a number of dimensions\u2014the poor, the uneducated, the unskilled (blue-collar) worker\u2014are relatively more likely to mention inflation as a top concern than the advantaged.\u201d\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\nBitcoins The ECB argues Bitcoin is unfair<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Bitcoins Quantitative Easing<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Bitcoins Inflation<\/strong><\/h2>\n