Blog

M. Primakov/Shutterstock

Why The U.S. Dollar And Bitcoin Keep Rising

Understanding utility-driven demand
Friday, January 6, 2017, 11:12 AM

I have covered the many reasons why the U.S. dollar (USD) has strengthened in dozens of posts over the past 5 years, (Could the U.S. Dollar Rise 50%?January 12, 2011), and I described the positive dynamics of bitcoin last summer in An Everyman's Guide to Understanding Cryptocurrencies (June 13, 2016), back when bitcoin was under $600.

The USD (as measured by the US Dollar Index) has gained almost 40% from 73 in 2011 to 102 recently, and bitcoin recently topped $1,000 (trading at $921 as this article goes to print).

These gains aren’t trivial, nor are they magic. They are the result of basic economic forces: supply and demand, utility, liquidity, capital flows and risk management.

Capital migrates to where it flows with the least resistance, i.e. to forms of capital that are liquid and offer low transaction costs—what I call ease of flow. Capital also migrates to relatively safe havens that are liquid and offer low transaction/holding costs, and to forms of capital with global utility.

Lastly, capital flows to the highest yield/return with the lowest perceived risk.

Given these fundamentals, it isn’t difficult to understand why capital is flowing into USD-denominated assets and bitcoin.

So what do the fundamentals suggest about the valuation uptrends in the USD and bitcoin? Have they topped out and due for a crash, or have they just started their appreciation cycle?

To formulate a coherent answer, we need to consider two things:

  1. The foundations of their value
     
  2. The inability of central states and banks to control their currencies and their place in the global economy.

Why Don’t the U.S. Dollar and Bitcoin Have Zero Value?

There’s a fair amount of confusion about why currencies (or in the case of bitcoin, digital commodities that share the utility functions of currencies) that are unbacked by tangible assets such as gold don’t just drop to their tangible value, i.e. zero.

After all, most USD are just digital entries and the rest are just paper. Bitcoin is also just a digital construct with no intrinsic value.

The answer boils down to utility-driven demand.  If, as David Graeber discussed in his book Debt: the First 5,000 Years, notched sticks are needed to pay one’s taxes, then notched sticks are in demand because they have an essential utility; notched sticks acquire value (i.e. become “money”) if you can pay debts (such as taxes) with them.

As long as they retain this utility, they retain the value ascribed to them by the system that recognizes (or demands) payment of taxes in the form of notched sticks.

A notched stick has near-zero tangible value. Its value is entirely a social construct, as a placeholder for the goods and services produced by labor and capital.

It frustrates many observers that the U.S. dollar stubbornly refuses to drop to its intrinsic value, i.e. zero. This peculiar resistance melts away once we understand that state-issued currency (“money”) is ultimately a claim on the issuing nation’s wealth and capacity to generate wealth, and on the state’s ability to collect taxes from the residents and enterprises that are generating the wealth.

In other words, the value of state-issued currencies is not based on a tangible commodity such as gold but on the wealth generation capacity of the nation and the state’s power to skim that wealth as taxes, which can then be used to pay state debts.

The state can (and as history shows, often does) abuse its privilege by issuing currency far in excess of the wealth generated by the nation’s people and enterprises.

If the economy generates 10 units of new wealth (surplus goods, services and capital) and the state prints 20 units of new currency, the new currency devalues the existing stock of currency.

If the state issues 10 new units of currency in alignment with economy’s expansion, the issuance will not devalue the existing stock of currency because the new “money” is in essence backed by new wealth in the form of goods, services and capital.

The expectation that fiat currencies (state-issued “money” that is not backed by a store of tangible commodities) should all decline to zero because they have no tangible value makes sense only if we ignore non-tangible sources of value.

The wealth of a nation is tangible, and so is the state’s power to collect taxes to pay its debts.  These are as tangible as gold once we realize that demand creates value, whether we consider it intrinsic or a social construct. In other words, even so-called “intrinsic” value forms of money are, beneath our cultural assumptions, social constructs.

Once we understand that demand creates value, then the source of the demand matters more than our assessment of what is “intrinsic.”  There is a built-in demand for stores of value (the time-honored driver of demand for precious metals) but there is an equally built-in demand for means of exchange that offer all the characteristics listed earlier: liquidity, utility, ease of flow, relative safety, potentially high yield with low risk, etc.

Those who focus on the scarcity value of gold to back a currency are overlooking the equally potent means of exchange sources of demand. Scarcity (supply) is only half the equation—ultimately, demand drives value.  If something with zero intrinsic value (notched sticks, paper currencies, digital cryptocurrencies) provides utility value—it can be used to pay debts and taxes, it is liquid, relatively safe and has low transaction/storage costs, etc.—then demand for the currency is what creates its value.

Broadly speaking, any utility value that creates demand for the currency creates value. Creating new currency in excess of the expansion of its ultimate base, the economy of the issuing state, devalues the existing stock of currency. But if demand exceeds supply, the currency appreciates regardless of the expansion of the currency.

This is what frustrates those who keep expecting the U.S. dollar to falter because new dollars are being created in what they reckon are excessive quantities.  But if global demand for dollars exceeds supply, the value of the USD can only appreciate.

This brings us to one of the most confusing aspects of state-issued fiat currency: the reserve currency. I have addressed the unique characteristics of the reserve currency many times, for example: Understanding the "Exorbitant Privilege" of the U.S. Dollar (November 19, 2012).  What many observers seem to overlook is the utility value of a reserve currency that can support the expansion of debt and currency in the nation that holds reserves of that privileged currency.

In other words, the U.S. dollar is not just the currency Americans need to pay their taxes, or the currency used in the U.S.—it is a form of relatively predictable, highly liquid capital with low transaction/storage costs that is the collateral for the holding nation’s own currency and debt issuance.

Why would any nation hold reserves of USD over, say, reserves of gold?  One part of the answer is global trade and capital flows.

Nations with surplus goods and commodities to sell on the global market will generally find buyers in the U.S. willing to buy the surplus goods and commodities with USD. That trade generates a flow of goods and commodities to the U.S. and a flow of dollars back to the exporting nation.

These dollars have a variety of utility value. They can used to buy other goods and services globally, serve as collateral for loans, earn interest with low transaction costs when converted into U.S. Treasury bonds, and so on. In certain ways, USD offer more utility value than gold or any tangible form of collateral/capital.

If we refuse to recognize the high utility value of USD and its global ease of flow, then we will continue to misunderstand the demand for the dollar and its appreciation.

Bitcoin is quite different from the USD but it, too, has unique characteristics that drive its demand and thus valuation.

In Part 2: Estimating Bitcoin's Fair Value, we consider the global circumstances that will govern demand for bitcoin and thus its valuation in the global marketplace.

Our analysis shows that it's quite easy to make the argument for valuations higher its current trading price. Far higher.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

 

Related content

8 Comments

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1392
So, How do I buy bitcoins?

I have googled this question and been guided to several commercial sites that offer this service such as coinbase. 

https://www.coinbase.com/buy-bitcoin?locale=en

Is this a good place to purchase bit coin?   (I am requesting a specific company name and website.)

charleshughsmith's picture
charleshughsmith
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 15 2010
Posts: 570
I use coinbase

I have not done exhaustive research on exchanges, so this is not an expert opinion. I use Coinbase because it's easy and seems to have an interest in maintaining the security of their exchange.  It is based in the US and some may view that as a liability should the US decide to outlaw bitcoin at some point. Coinbase has already been asked for customer data by the IRS, which may put off those trying to avoid US taxes. Personally, the US position--that BTC is a commodity--seems fair enough, and so paying taxes on gains secured by trading commodities (including BTC) is to be expected.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1392
China cracks down on Bitcoin

Talk about a timely entry from ZH:  China cracks down on bitcoin

charleshughsmith's picture
charleshughsmith
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 15 2010
Posts: 570
please see mycomment in Part 2

please see my comment in Part 2 -- it's not clear if this is a step toward outlawing BTC or merely a tactic to scare off non-elites...

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2172
The concept of "utility-driven demand"

Charles  said:

There’s a fair amount of confusion about why currencies (or in the case of bitcoin, digital commodities that share the utility functions of currencies) that are unbacked by tangible assets such as gold don’t just drop to their tangible value, i.e. zero.

After all, most USD are just digital entries and the rest are just paper. Bitcoin is also just a digital construct with no intrinsic value.

The answer boils down to utility-driven demand.  If, as David Graeber discussed in his book Debt: the First 5,000 Years, notched sticks are needed to pay one’s taxes, then notched sticks are in demand because they have an essential utility; notched sticks acquire value (i.e. become “money”) if you can pay debts (such as taxes) with them.

As long as they retain this utility, they retain the value ascribed to them by the system that recognizes (or demands) payment of taxes in the form of notched sticks.

Charles, thanks for explaining the concept of utility-driven demand.  It helps make sense of the rise in the USD and bitcoin -and why they are valued despite not being backed by tangible assets.  I just didn't "get" that before, and previously wrote bitcoin off entirely as an investment option because of their lack of "tangible" value.  Looking at bitcoins through the lens of utility drive demand really puts a different  perspective on things. 

Am I still leery about investing in such an asset?  You bet!  But now my mind is at least open to considering and assessing the potential risk-reward associated with investing in bitcoin, and the potential benefits associated with diversification into a non-state digital currency with global utility value. Thanks!

nigel's picture
nigel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2009
Posts: 116
This is what frustrates those

This is what frustrates those who keep expecting the U.S. dollar to falter because new dollars are being created in what they reckon are excessive quantities. 

I've often pondered if the same thing isn't being done in the price of gold. I know you can't create new gold, but you can create gold ETFs', effectively printing gold. I've read from various sources that the ratio of ETFs' to physical gold range from 150:1 to 220:1 I assume that gold will not have a fair price until such time as there are no more gold ETFs'. This makes a great case for buying bit-coin ahead of gold, or it would but lets assume there are no more ETFs', then I have to assume there will not be a functional internet to trade bit-coins on.

The topic is a moot point. In Australia trading in bit-coins will get my bank accounts closed. It is functionally banned. There are ways around it, but it's really not worth it.

aggrivated's picture
aggrivated
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 22 2010
Posts: 462
Good for trade but no intrinsic value

When I was eight years old there was an offfice near our neighborhood that used IBM computer punch cards. (no age related comments please) A group of us guys would scavenge the trash for what became the neighborhood currency. Color was important. Pink was rare, white common and various other colors rated in between. Values fluctuated on a daily basis. Some trades were cards only. Others involved an exchange of real goods.

It did require a form of mining. Relative rarity determined value. Regional acceptance gave it a street value. These were just rectangular pieces of card stock with small holes in then and one corner lopped of at 45 degrees.

It was my first experience in a non fiat, non commodity currency. It is ironic to me today that those cards were the data input to a digital world. When I was eight we were clueless about that. It was money to us.

RossFlint47's picture
RossFlint47
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 21 2014
Posts: 5
O so sad ...

As someone from outside of the US and have researched the Trump phenomena - which Is undoubtedly linked to the rise in the US$ and Bitcoin, I can't help but wonder if those prospering from the hike are blind to the tragedy that is about to unfold? Is it a last grasp for profit before it all goes belly-up? It is fascinating yet tragic to observe.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see". The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.

Ross K Flint

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments