Behind Buffett's re-approval of Bitcoin: the Theory of Labor value has gone bankrupt

SMM5: recently, Buffett, the "god of stocks", once again expressed his attitude towards Bitcoin in the media, saying that Bitcoin has no value and is a gamble. Buffett also called Bitcoin a rat poison.

The underlying technology of Bitcoin is blockchain, a new decentralized "distributed account book" that greatly reduces transaction costs arising from the existence of centralized institutions, so it is recognized by many people. Some even threaten that blockchain technology will subvert the existing trading model in the future and become one of the most competitive technological inventions in the new century.

Of course, there is no way to predict the future, maybe the block chain can succeed, maybe not, no one knows, anyone now says that the block chain will be successful in the future, that is only a family's words, let's just let it go. So, an important question is whether bitcoin is valuable or not.

Bitcoin is an encrypted virtual currency that can be issued through a computer operation called mining. The number of issues is decreasing year by year, and it is becoming more and more difficult to dig. The upper limit is 21 million, which can avoid the inflation caused by spamming money. We know that the central bank issues banknotes because of the needs of the real economy. There must be real goods or wealth behind every piece of money. If more money is issued, it will cause inflation, and less money will lead to deflation. Money corresponds to real wealth one by one. However, in the virtual world, the issuance of bitcoin only depends on computer computing, there is no corresponding wealth behind it, and there is no authoritative institution or state to endorse it, so the value of bitcoin is very suspicious. This is the most important point of view held by those who oppose the value of bitcoin, such as Buffett.

But, on the other hand, does value have to exist only in real wealth? Is there any value in virtual things? This question is, of course, a very complex question. In order to answer this question, countless economists have thought and discussed it. Among them, quite famous is the theory of labor value, that is to say, the value of an article is determined by the amount of labor. Smith, Ricardo, Marx all hold this view, but immediately the theory of labor value was hit in the face, there is a problem deeply perplexed Ricardo, let him want to give up the theory of labor value completely. The question comes from an audience: two bottles of wine, one for £10 right away and the other for £100 a year. Who created the extra £90? is it labor? Obviously not. After the efforts of many economists, it was found that it was not only labor, but also capital, land, technology, and so on, that could create value, and not only on the supply side, but also on the demand side. Including personal preference, marginal utility and other factors. In this way, those who admit the value of Bitcoin actually acknowledge the value of the technology behind it, the value of the blockchain, and of course, technology can also create value, who says it must be the state that endorses the currency, or the real technology.

At this point, you will find that the debate over the value of Bitcoin actually recognizes the value of the blockchain. If you recognize the new technology and think it will subvert the traditional centralized trading system in the future, then you will certainly recognize the value of Bitcoin. If you do not recognize the blockchain, it is impossible to think that blockchain subverts the current transaction. Then you certainly won't admit that Bitcoin is valuable. At present, the reputation of Bitcoin is also related to the use of Bitcoin by some malicious people to commit crimes, which is not related to the future development of the blockchain, but the gold will always shine. Time will tell the world whether blockchain technology is a blessing for mankind.