WBD245 Audio Transcription

Bitcoin: The Hardest Money with Richard James

Interview date: Tuesday 21st July 2020

Note: the following is a transcription of my interview with Richard James. I have reviewed the transcription but if you find any mistakes, please feel free to email me. You can listen to the original recording here.

In this interview, I talk to Richard James, the creator of Hard Money, a film looking at how money has been corrupted and co-opted. We discuss Austrian economics, the similarities between gold and Bitcoin, Hard Money and modern art.

“To really be in the right mindset, to be receptive to Bitcoin, you’ve got to realise that you’ve got a problem, you’ve got to realise that these people are stealing from you.”

— Richard James

Interview Transcription

Peter McCormack: Richard, how you doing man?

Richard James: I'm doing well Peter. How are you?

Peter McCormack: Good man! Good to talk to you a week late. Sorry about that, dude.

Richard James: No worries. I've seen some of the shows you've been pumping out, so no worries at all.

Peter McCormack: Kind of relentless! This bloody lockdown thing, I'll tell you, it changes it because usually I'm traveling all the time, so I just fit in the shows I can. But because I've got more time on my hands, I'm now actually making more content and I've made myself busier. Look, there's so much good stuff to do, stuff like watch your film man!

Richard James: Oh, that's great!

Peter McCormack: Well look, good to get you on. I don't know you, I don't know anything about you and I think most people first heard about you when this film came out that you put together. So you should probably introduce yourself. Tell me a bit about yourself man.

Richard James: Well it is the first bit of Bitcoin related content I've done. I've been lurking around on Bitcoin Twitter for a long time now and I'm interested in, I guess economics and Austrian economics specifically, for a long time. But probably only really got into Bitcoin within the last 12 months, so it's not like I'm a long-time Bitcoiner. But that journey that into Austrian economics and gold, I think laid the groundwork for my interest in Bitcoin, the typical rabbit hole where you learn more about the technical aspects of it and it's bit of a mind blowing thing. I've worked in film before, but it's not my main job these days. I've also worked as a writer.

At first, I was doing a lot of writing around Bitcoin, almost like trying to get my head around everything and get my thoughts straight, and thought, "Maybe I could write something that people would value." But there's so many good people writing so much good stuff. You read an article by Robert Breedlove or something, and you're like, "Oh my God, what could I add?!"

Peter McCormack: An article?

Richard James: These people are already articulating things so well.

Peter McCormack: Dude, he shouldn't be calling those things articles because...

Richard James: Each one's like a book, isn't it?

Peter McCormack: Yeah, it's like a thesis!

Richard James: The amount of work and just the depth of thought that goes into it is pretty impressive. But I thought that this was an area that was a bit untapped. I've listened to a lot of Bitcoin podcasts and the amazing work that's being done by the podcasters and the writers, but I thought, "Film content, there's probably room for something to be done there." It seemed like it resonated with people.

Peter McCormack: Dude, there's a lot of room there for film content. We've got a plethora of Bitcoin podcasters, there's so many right now. Look, it's funny, I always think there's never enough.

Richard James: Absolutely.

Peter McCormack: We need to raise this ocean together, like a high tide raises all ships. So, the more the better. But I've tried to dip into film because I agree with you. I think it's a gap. But let me ask you, Austrian economics came first?

Richard James: Yeah, which is a bit of the other way around, I think, for most people. Bitcoin is normally the introduction to that. Whereas I did study economics through school and university, I had that experience where I just lost interest in traditional economics. When we were introduced to the basics ... I'm talking when I'm, I don't know, 16 years old or something, and you learn economics. I was really interested in it and liked it, but then just fell out of love with it. At university, I tried to take economics classes, and I just was like, "This is just ... It doesn't make sense."

Peter McCormack: It's bollocks.

Richard James: It's irrelevant, it was really uninspiring and then you start getting introduced to stuff like Ron Paul or Hayek, Rothbard, Saifedean's book, which I guess I came to once I was interested in Bitcoin. All of a sudden, it's like, "Hey, this stuff actually makes sense. It's common sense to a certain extent." That was the a-ha moment for me.

Peter McCormack: So were you a gold bug?

Richard James: Yeah, I was and am still a gold bug, in as much as I appreciate, I think, the things that make gold real money. I think it's an important to understand. I don't know that you can truly understand the value proposition of Bitcoin without understanding the value proposition of gold because Bitcoin ticks all the boxes of gold, and then takes it to this whole next level.

Peter McCormack: Did you listen to my interview with Peter Schiff?

Richard James: Yeah I did. I listened to it today in the car, actually. I didn't get through the whole thing. Man, I thought you did a really good job with Peter.

Peter McCormack: I tried!

Richard James: You tried to say, "Look, we're sort of on the same team here." Another person who I read a lot is a guy called Jim Rickards. He's got a lot of books about gold and he's of Peter's generation. They understand the economic problems we have and the Federal Reserve, but can't take that next step to understand why Bitcoin solves a lot of problems where gold failed.

Peter McCormack: Well look, I like Peter Schiff. So when I criticize, I'm saying it still liking him. But there's a couple of things going on. Firstly, when you interview him, he just needs to shut the fuck up sometimes.

Richard James: He just was not listening to a word you were saying.

Peter McCormack: No.

Richard James: He was just on his own spiel.

Peter McCormack: Did you listen to him on Rogan?

Richard James: I haven't listened to him on Rogan yet.

Peter McCormack: I thought he was 90-95% brilliant. The 5-10% I didn't like is, again, he just didn't shut the fuck up. When Rogan was trying to talk, Rogan would get halfway through a point, and then Peter jumps in, and then just doesn't shut up. That's a really difficult thing to have a discussion with somebody about.

Richard James: It's not discussion. It's just one way traffic.

Peter McCormack: Well when you got two people like we've got here and you're remote, it's hard enough. When you're in person, it's a bit easier, but you both have to respect the fact that, at some points, the other person's trying to speak. You have to be aware of that. If you think they're trying to speak, you have to think, "Okay, I'm going to let them speak." He doesn't do that.

The second thing he doesn't do is that... Well, you'll be discussing one point, and Richard Heart does this, you'll be debating one point, and then you'll counter it and then he'll use that to move to another point. So you just leap from point to point and you never resolve anything. And then I think-

Richard James: No.

Peter McCormack: Then I think the last point that makes it difficult to discuss with him is I think he's set himself in a very hard position now, which he can't come back.

Richard James: He can't backtrack now.

Peter McCormack: It's very difficult for him.

Richard James: It's a fascinating study in psychology, Peter Schiff's opinion on Bitcoin, because you're right. He can't ever go back now. He's riding that train all the way to wherever it's going.

Peter McCormack: Do you know what it makes me think of? It might sound a weird example, but it makes me think a bit like Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong was down his cheating rabbit hole that everyone knew he was cheating, and he just couldn't admit it, and just couldn't admit it. Then finally, he had to go on Oprah to do it and confess.

Richard James: You fashion your own reality almost and you start believing what you're making up in your own head.

Peter McCormack: But the point is I didn't want to do that interview with him and think, "I need to convert you here." I knew he wouldn't be converted. But what I wanted to do is I wanted to get him to the point where at least he can appreciate or understand what we see from our side, that you see and I see, because I don't think he will become a Bitcoiner. Or if he is, he might be secretly.

But there's some kind of intellectually dishonest things he does or some of his opinions on Bitcoin are kind of intellectually dishonest because in the end, I was like, "Give me something." When we closed out, he said, "Well, I can see why people want to buy Bitcoin because they think other people might buy it because it will go up." So he basically called it kind of a Ponzi. But I actually wanted, there's some other things I think he could've agreed on, but he just didn't give any concessions.

Richard James: I think you approached really well, in the best way that you could. As you say, you're not going to convert Peter Schiff, but things like when he was trying to call you out by saying that, "Okay, you get paid in Bitcoin, but denominated in a fiat amount" and then you made the excellent point that, "Well, the exact same thing applies to gold. If you're going to get paid in gold, you wouldn't ask for an ounce of gold."

Peter McCormack: No.

Richard James: You'd ask for a dollar amount of gold. It's exactly the same thing.

Peter McCormack: Can you imagine that?

Richard James: All the reasons why gold is better, that's not one of them because they're exactly the same.

Peter McCormack: Could you imagine that, though? Could you imagine getting an invoice coming in saying, "Here's your invoice, it's five ounces of gold." You'd be like, "What the fuck is this? Are we living in the 1200s?"

Richard James: Well, this is what people like Ron Paul have been going on about for all these years. End the legal tender laws and allow people to denominate their contracts in gold if they want to. But you realize that the world has moved on a bit. Gold has these flaws that made it essentially fail as money, not fail for economic reason, but basically for political reasons because governments and politicians were able to take advantage of it.

Peter McCormack: Well there's actually four types of money I like to use. I'm happy with this. It reminds me a little bit, I don't know if you know, I went out to Venezuela and made a little film out there. They use five currencies there. They have the bolivar, which is local currency, they have the dollar, which obviously they want, they use the Colombian peso, they also use Bitcoin and there's was another one, I can't really remember why, but they're used to using different currencies for different reasons.

They have to buy certain things in the bolivar because things are priced in the bolivar, but they want dollars. I had a handler out there for my security and he was like, "Pay me in dollars." He wants the dollars, because he knows next week, the dollars will hold the majority of their value. Whereas, the bolivars will inflate easily 10% in a week. But occasionally, he'll go to a money changer, and he'll swap his dollars for bolivar, so he can buy things that he needs with the bolivar because the problem with the dollars is you don't have the coins, you just have the notes and you need the lower denominations. 

Same with the miner I met. He's the same with Bitcoin. He holds everything in Bitcoin and every week when he needs some bolivars, he transfers it. But they're used to using multiple currencies. I am too!

Richard James: Well just about everywhere in the world is used to having the US dollar as this standard by which you measure money. It's the best of a bad bunch in terms of the fiat currencies. Throughout all my travels, I've had the exact same experience. All these developing countries are holding US dollars as their main savings vehicle, and then, as you say, transferring to the local currency for their daily purchases.

Peter McCormack: Of course. I run my business in pounds, I pay the majority of my business in pounds, but I invoice all my clients in dollars because they're all American. I allow them to have the stable unit of account rather than me have the stable unit account. So my pound amount varies, but I also run part of my business in Bitcoin. Some people, I pay in Bitcoin, some people, I invoice in Bitcoin.

I'm about to transfer some of the savings into gold because I don't want to hold too much pound. I'm happy with multiple currencies for different purposes. That was the point I was trying to make to Schiff. They all serve different purposes, gold has a purpose to me, the dollar has a purpose to me, Bitcoin has a purpose, but he just wouldn't have it. He was like, "I'm not having it!"

Richard James: He just can't past this idea of Bitcoin being nothing more than a speculative asset, which there is obviously an aspect of that.

Peter McCormack: Of course.

Richard James: But his inability to understand some of those fundamentals.

Peter McCormack: Which is a shame. I think if you get him to a point where he would agree to debate and actually listen, and fairly give concessions, then I think some of the points are hard to argue. You can actually have a very good debate about the trade-offs between gold and Bitcoin because I think also... I don't know about you, but I think there's some Bitcoiners who are so anti-gold, full on Bitcoin, but they're also a little bit naïve.

I know they believe that, on a long enough timeframe, we'll all group around the dominant form of money. But there are threats to Bitcoin, there are state level threats to Bitcoin and there are technological threats to Bitcoin. I find it, for me, to be prudent to hold Bitcoin and gold.

Richard James: I agree, I do the same thing. I think as time passes, I move more towards Bitcoin. Bitcoin's been around for 11 years, I have a lot of faith in Bitcoin and I think all the possible threats to Bitcoin, they're out in the open and are discussed. There's a good answer to why Bitcoin is strong enough to meet them all but it's that black swan that you haven't even conceived that makes me still want to have a diversification between Bitcoin and gold.

Peter McCormack: Like you said, you came to Bitcoin via Austrian economics. Do you remember how you actually discovered it? Was it reading online?

Richard James: Yeah.

Peter McCormack: Do you remember, did it even make sense straight ... Was it like, "Ah, this makes sense" or you were a bit dismissive at first?

Richard James: I remember quite well. I was listening Preston Pysh's podcast and I'd been listening to that for a long time because talking about value investing, Warren Buffet style of investing in stocks, which I was interested in. Then he started bringing on Bitcoin guests, this is probably in 2019 sometime. I think he had Tuur Demeester on, and then maybe Trace Mayer. So I was listening to these Bitcoin podcasts, and I was like, "What is this?" Because I'd heard about Bitcoin in the 2017 bubble, it was the classic case of your friends telling you, "You got to buy some of this Bitcoin." 

So I just had the classic response, like, "What is this internet thing? Is it a scam? I don't really know where it is." It was listening to Preston, the guests that he brought on and then when he finally had PlanB on, talking about his Stock-to-Flow model and that was what made me go, "Wait a minute, what?! If there's even the slightest chance this guy is right, then you just can't ignore this." That was what made me take a much closer look and realize the real soundness of the economic theory that was behind it, which basically agreed with all these other things that I'd been working on independently.

Peter McCormack: Do you think Stock-to-Flow is holding up? Because it's been challenged.

Richard James: It's interesting watching this play out. Look, I don't know that I want to wade too far into that, if only to say that from my point of view, the thing that I think PlanB did with that model that really changed my perspective was just to put the Bitcoin price on a log scale instead of just a normal scale and the way that changes the trajectory of price regardless of the regression or the R value or anything like that.

You got people criticizing the model and trying to project some other variable, but it was just the fact of changing the scale, I think that was what... Then if you just draw a line of best fit, it keeps going. As far as I'm concerned, for me, that's the most important out of the model. Whether the Stock-to-Flow is technically a driver of the price, this whole argument about co-integration, I don't know. But that was, I guess, never the thing that made the real difference for me.

Peter McCormack: I think, for me, it was slightly different. I can't study the mathematical models around it. I've read one of the articles, which was kind of like... I don't want to say a take-down, but more of an analysis of it. These mathematical models are quite complicated and it was a bit much for me. But the thing that really changed it for me was I actually really like these evolutionary steps that he identified. I think they're actually what it really important because you look at the model now, you look at the evolutionary step and now we're at that stage where we've got derivatives.

Bitcoin is accepted as a commodity, as speculative asset and we have these derivatives. The next logical step is that, perhaps, we move to some form of nation state adoption. That feels like an evolutionary step. Then if that is the next of the evolutionary step, then the demand will massively increase. That will then have a massive impact on the price. That, for me, was like, "Yeah, these logical steps, I can follow that." As far as the mathematical models goes, that's just way over my head, dude.

Richard James: Absolutely, I agree. This newer model that he brought out only in the last few months, the cross asset model, I think that's a very persuasive argument that he puts forward. For me, that was also a big deal on his initial time series model where he also... He had the time series of Bitcoin, but then he also had gold and silver on that same regression. That was what really opened eyes, seeing the Stock-to-Flow of those assets, which have nothing to do with Bitcoin, is on the same line of regression for market cap.

Now, he's got real estate on there, he's got diamonds on there, a bunch of other stuff and I think that really persuasive. As you say, the different narratives with Bitcoin as it evolves, that seem to tie into these four year halving cycles, I think the nation state era is inevitable. I just think it's inevitable, that whether it's the smallest, weakest country in the world, I'm sure there are some that already doing it, but yes, I think that's the inevitable next step.

Peter McCormack: Well, I've kind of got a theory about nation state adoption. Firstly, if we're honest, it's already happening. We know it's being used by Venezuela, it came out recently that you could pay... Was it your passport?

Richard James: They had a BTCPay server for passport application.

Peter McCormack: But some of the people I've interviewed... We know about them confiscating mining equipment, I think they've just banned mining in homes again now. It's a way to access money. We know North Korea has been hacking and stealing Bitcoin or using Bitcoin as ransom. We have suspicions that it may be used by Iran and it may be used by, perhaps, Russia to avoid sanctions.

There is this more nefarious nation state use, but my theory is that if that continues to happen, and these nations continue to build up a certain amount of wealth within Bitcoin, it might be something that leads other nation states saying, "Well, hold on, we don't want to fall behind Iran in terms of Bitcoin holding because if there is that chance that Bitcoin becomes this huge assets, we're going to need to own this." That will create an imperative amongst other nations to start considering it. A nation is going to declare their hand with Bitcoin at some point. Once they do, I see that as just a gold rush.

Richard James: I agree. I think it's just this gradually-then-suddenly thing where if it came out in the open that one of these nations was doing it, whether it was Iran or North Korea, or Venezuela, that's one thing. But it's when, I guess, a nation state that's seen as legitimate in the eyes of the Western nations comes out and says that they're doing it, I think that's a bit of turning on a tap.

Peter McCormack: I think it's Sweden, it seems like a Swedish thing to do. They were the outliers with COVID. It's like, "Yeah, we're not going to lock down, we're the outliers here." I think they might be the Bitcoin outliers.

Richard James: But if you were a nation state, you wouldn't want to necessarily be announcing it. The other thing that I find fascinating, this is something that Pierre Rochard's talked about, is a government is, in the end, nothing more than a bunch of individuals, really. So this idea of whether governments are for or against Bitcoin, it's hard to separate the will of the government from the will of the individual actors involved even if they're trying to clamp down on Bitcoin.

If the individual bureaucrats know what's good for them, they're basically going to sabotage that from the inside. I thought about this with the Venezuela thing. Who's actually holding the private key? The government obviously, but who's actually in charge of looking after the keys? It's just fascinating.

Peter McCormack: Maduro!

Richard James: You think he's got a Coldcard hidden under the mattress?

Peter McCormack: Yeah, Maduro's got a coldcard and he's got a BillFodl hidden in his safe in his ... But that's a really good point because even if it was a... I don't know. Say it's a 3-of-5 five multisig they had arranged. Who are the three? Is Maduro one of them? That, to me, is one of the most interesting scenarios I would love to hear mapped out. How does a nation state manage its private keys? How many signatories to the multisig? Who are they?

Richard James: It's funny and I guess you apply the same analysis to these central banks trying to create their own digital currency, I don't see how they've got the ability to...

Peter McCormack: That's bullshit.

Richard James: You see the kind of innovation that's happening on Bitcoin. It's obviously not a threat from an economic analysis because it's not a threat to Bitcoin's value proposition at all.

Peter McCormack: No.

Richard James: The ability to actually create it from a technological point of view, I don't really see it.

Peter McCormack: Well someone smart would be thinking about this and planning for it. I'm a Casa customer, only recently, I signed up. Obviously they're a sponsor as well now, but one of the cool things is they hold one of the keys, which is a really, really interesting scenario because it gives me a lot of protection to myself. But rather than being my Bitcoin, say it's a company's Bitcoin, say it was always a, I don't know, 3-of-5 scenario, but say one of the keys always had to be Casa.

Casa could potentially have their own checks and procedures for checking that there's isn't collusion within my company to steal the Bitcoin. But then I guess you could even have the collusion at the Casa level. God, it's mad, isn't it? I don't know how this pans out.

Richard James: No, absolutely. But look, I've been looking into the best avenue for multisig because I'm at that stage as well where I think it's the natural step to take or you're getting worried about your back up seed. I think looking at Casa and Unchained, I guess it's just an example of the innovation that's going on in the Bitcoin space.

Peter McCormack: Well listen, let's talk about the film. You've been writing a little bit, I wasn't aware of your writing, so I'm not sure how much you've got it out there and then you come out with this big splash to this film. I'm reading Marty Bent's email and I'm like, "There's a what? What's this movie? I didn't even know this was coming." So I end up watching it straight away, loved it, reached out to you almost instantly, but what was the background? Tell me how you actually came to idea of making a film.

Richard James: Well it was a bit of a COVID lockdown project. It was like I set myself this goal, "Can I make a film without leaving my desk and not spending a single dollar?" That was the idea and to do it in a pretty quick time. So that was when I realized that there's so much good content out there already being created by you and all the other podcasters, it was like, "Okay, if we're going to try and craft a narrative out of Bitcoin, well, it would be crazy for me to go out and try and interview all these people when the content is already there."

That, I think, was the main thing, was, "If I can leverage off this stuff that's already been put out there, all the hard work, in lot of ways, has already been done. That's going to make the thing go much faster." It does have a fundamental impact on the project because it's not my material. I don't have a copyright over an interview on a podcast. That's the first thing, is that it's not really my material. I'm not going to monetize the film in any way, which was never the point.

It was just, "Can I put something together to just expresses the way I'm feeling about this at the moment?" That was the first step. Think about the hundreds of hours of podcasts that you've listened to, the ideas were formulating in my head and then there's so many good people out there how express these ideas so well. That was first step, is to collate this narrative through podcasts. There's also lectures in there like Murray Rothbard, Dan Sanchez, stuff from the Mises Institute and then it was just pulling stuff, in terms of the visuals, from online.

With enough time digging online, I just found all sorts of interesting stuff, all these old cartoons, old films that make you realize that it's not like it's a recent phenomenon. In that sense, it worked and it was something I was able to put together relatively quickly. I then reached out to some of the people who were involved in terms of the guys who do some of the narration and the people who own some of the material. Everyone was really supportive, so it worked well.

Peter McCormack: Dude, you fucking nailed it! Honestly, I've watched it twice now. Well there's one area, which I'm not keen on. We're going to talk about that obviously and we'll get to that. But I thought you absolutely nailed it I thought you nailed the combination of the economics, education, why Bitcoin's important, but also the problems in the banking sector. It wasn't overly long. What is it? Like 35 minutes?

Richard James: Yeah, exactly! Like 35 minutes and I guess it deliberately doesn't mention Bitcoin. Maybe it's in the song at the end. Well I don't know that I set out deliberately to do that, but I think I liked that approach. You can't ram Bitcoin down people's throats, especially people who use the pound or the dollar who don't... It's like death with 1000 cuts, this inflation thing.

It's not something you notice over the course of a year or a couple of years, so to really be in the right mindset to be receptive to Bitcoin, you got to realize that you've got a problem. You've got to realize that these people are stealing from you, literally stealing from you and I think that was the message to get across. Then it takes you that step closer to really being ready to accept Bitcoin.

Peter McCormack: It's still hard to get that message across as well, I think, for a couple of reasons. I think we're conditioned to believe inflation is necessary and a natural part of the economy. I was taught economics at school, I studied Keynesian economics, but it wasn't until I was like 35, 36, when I discovered... No, a little bit later, about 38 when I discovered Bitcoin. I was going down the rabbit hole and it was explained to me what inflation is and why it's bad to me and it had never even crossed my mind that inflation was something that eroding my own wealth.

Richard James: I was exactly the same. Even having studied economics, I didn't really understand inflation properly. I thought, like you, that it was somehow this natural consequence of economic growth when it's actually the opposite. That was the mind blowing thing for me, when you realize that if the money supply is held constant and the economy grows, you actually get deflation because there'll be more goods and services chasing the same amount of money. Whether it's a deliberate con or... It's just not explained properly in modern economics.

Peter McCormack: That's funny you should say that because it's spelt out us in the Bitcoin world like it is this huge con, which it is. But at the same time, I actually think there are people who fundamentally believe we need inflation because they believe that deflation is too scary and too risky, and too dangerous.

Richard James: Absolutely.

Peter McCormack: But when I've tried to talk to friends about this, I've been gradually posting things on my Facebook and I use my Facebook very different from my Twitter. My Twitter, I share other people's ideas. But my Facebook is almost a testing ground for me forming my own ideas, or sharing some things I found on Twitter. I've been talking about inflation now for about six months and it's really, really hard to get people to listen and understand. I've had like two or three people reach out to me and go, "Okay, I'm listening, tell me a bit more."

But most people are just struggling with that. I've also had people say, "No, you need inflation. If we don't have inflation, we have deflation. People won't be buying goods, and the economy will crash. Blah, blah, blah." Obviously, I try and throw the argument back, "Well we need good productivity, blah, blah, blah" all that kind of same stuff. But I think people are so conditioned it now and it's a different inflation that we have here.

If you go to Venezuela or even Argentina... I was in Argentina last year, they don't want inflation. They hate inflation because they've had 40% inflation, 30% inflation and they know it's bullshit. Because we have this slow insidious 2%, 3% inflation, we don't really notice it year and year and it's like, "Oh, a pint of beer is now £4.10 rather than £4.05." You just don't notice it.

Richard James: You don't notice it. Look, it's not as if it's a deliberate conspiracy because the people in the Central Bank or the government, it's not like they really perceive the damage that they're doing. They genuinely think that they're doing the right by pursuing this inflation target of 2% or whatever it is. But as you say, the price of your pint of beer going up is almost the least of your worries because... Look, we're not really seeing consumer inflation, certainly not now, with what's happened with this virus.

But that's not to say that increasing the money doesn't ... This is the thing I hate about this modern monetary theory thing where they're saying, "Look, there's no visible consequences of increasing the money supply and printing money. So we just keep printing money because it means we can just give money to everyone." That, I think, is where your Austrian economic analysis comes in, which says, "Look, the way we're analyzing is we don't need to see the data or analyze the consequences in the real world.

We just know that if the money supply increases, if we print money, that makes everyone who holds the money worse off." That's just an a priori deduction. It doesn't really need to be proved in the real world. It's like saying, "If we increase the length of the tape measure, that's not going to make the wall that we're measuring any bigger." It's in that same kind of category of statement, that the second order affects the hidden effects, the future negative effects that we're not seeing right now, but we will see. There's all sorts of reasons why... Just because we're seeing the CPI go up now doesn't make it okay.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, exactly. Well like I said, I think you nailed it. I thought it was great, especially the fact that you've assembled it from stuff that was already out there because... I don't know who it is, it might be someone I know, but there's a guy who feels like he narrates part of it, especially towards the start. I think this might be an English guy?

Richard James: I'm just trying to think. There's the guys from Bitcoin Echo Chamber, like Heavily Armed Clown. Oh, no. I think I know the guy you're talking about, that's this guy, G Edward Griffin. He's this older guy and he's really interesting. He's got this book, it's the called "The Creature from Jekyll Island". It's all about the creation of the Federal Reserve and how they had this secret meeting in 1913. It is a fascinating story, the way these private bankers got together in secret to create the Federal Reserve.

That is a real conspiracy theory that has a lot of truth to it and so he's excellent. He's obviously not interested in Bitcoin necessarily, but his analysis is fantastic. I even came across some lectures he was giving back in the '60s maybe, that I came across on YouTube, so 50 years ago, talking about the same thing. His stuff really is excellent.

Peter McCormack: I've got the audiobook for that. I'm about three hours in. But I also checked out his Wikipedia page, and it kind of put me off him a little bit.

Richard James: Oh, really?

Peter McCormack: Yeah, he's been involved in some weird conspiracy stuff.

Richard James: Oh, okay.

Peter McCormack: I'd have to go and dig it out. But at the same time, that book is super interesting now and it lands the message very well, that bankers never lose.

Richard James: Absolutely, I know! This is something that Murray Rothbard talks about as well. He's got a book on the Federal Reserve. That, I think, was the one that really opened my eyes and then delving into it deeper with Griffin's book... The bankers have been running this for almost 100 years. It's a cartel in the same way that any other industry comes together to try to form a cartel to protect their own interests. It's just amazing how successful it's been and how good of a job they've done of just disguising the original intent.

Everyone thinks that the Federal Reserve or the Central Bank is an arm of the government and working in the interests of the people. I hear both sides of the coin argued. I hear when people realize that, "Look, it's almost like a private company." It's owned by these private banks, it's got nothing to do with the government, it's not answerable really to the government, it's not answerable to the people and it can basically do its own thing.

Peter McCormack: How well has it been received? Because I saw a lot of people share it, but did it go down well? Has it been viewed a lot?

Richard James: Yeah, I didn't really know what to expect. I just reached out to a few people on Twitter and asked if they'd share it, which they did and then it got going. The trailer had something like 25,000 views over the first week just bouncing around Twitter. That was amazing to see! Then a lot of people, maybe half of that, have gone onto to watch the film online. I think in terms of where it'll go now, maybe it's a bit of a slow burn. It's there and it's a resource that people can use. Look, whether it's the best introduction for someone who's got no idea about any of this, I don't know. 

It hits the ground running pretty hard if you haven't even thought about these concept of, "What is fiat money?" Or "The Central Bank creates money?" For some people, even that hurdle takes a long time to get your head ahead. But I don't even know if that was the intention of the film to get... If it works as a way to bring people into this world, then great.

But it's something that it's been so rewarding to me to listen to all these people and get involved in this community, I guess. In some ways, it's almost like just me trying pick out the things that resonated most with me, and put it out there in a way for people to take in.

Peter McCormack: I think it is a great intro. I put it up on my Facebook, I sent it all my friends and said, "Look, if you want to understand the bullshit within banking and how money works, this is great start." I shared it out there. I think you nailed it! All right, should we talk be the issue I have?

Richard James: Let's do it.

Peter McCormack: Let's do it! Right, so this is big issue of mine. Me and Mr. Saifedean Ammous, we've fallen out, we're not friends anymore and we don't talk.

Richard James: I didn't realize there's obviously a history there between you guys.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, we're mutually blocked. We just have different opinions on certain things. I believe global warming is something that humans have caused and is getting worse, and we need to deal with it and he doesn't. I think he wrote a very good book, of which, I really like 80% of it. But I got to whole bit on art, and I just found it offensive and bullshit. I did, it's something I don't accept and I'll tell you where it pisses me off. We have this thing in Bitcoin, of course, everybody has free choice, do what you want, blah, blah, blah.

But there's almost this kind of cult of personality traits and lifestyle choices that are getting attached to Bitcoin, which is fine, it's cool, there's a carnivore thing, which is cool. People, if they want to be carnivores, it's cool. I think there needs some good analysis on whether it really is healthy, as I'm not sure if just eating meat is really healthy and I think we need other nutrients in our diet. So sometimes, from my side, I think, "Are we giving the best advice if people coalesce around particular ideas?"

I've been a vegan at one point in my life, but I don't support a carnivore diet because I think I don't know enough if that actually is a good idea, if that will present issues down the line. Do we need nutrients? I've seen the debates between vegans and meat eaters, and meat eaters and carnivores. Everyone's got an idea. But at the same time, I don't think I would put my kids on a carnivore diet for a reason, because I don't think it's healthy.

Richard James: Saifedean has these extreme views, obviously. Look, the meat thing, if you look at the way it's presented in the film, I think we don't go there in terms of advocating any particular diet. He uses a rib-eye steak or whatever as an example to talk about this, I guess shrinkflation issue where a certain good is presented and it's analyzed in the basket of the CPI, the Consumer Price Index. The price isn't going up, so you can say there's no inflation. But the quality of the thing is going down. So you have a piece of meat...

Peter McCormack: Oh, I agree.

Richard James: ... A cut of a steak, so I think that's a really worthwhile point to make. But then, look, I don't disagree with you about the extremity of some of these views.

Peter McCormack: I agree with that part of the documentary. I also agree with that, some of the centralized health and diet guidelines that have come through central government have been terrible, absolutely terrible. I don't disagree with that. I think a carnivore only diet is quite extreme. Saifedean would probably put up this really amazing argument for why it's healthy, blah, blah, blah, I also think that people will put out an argument that is moronic, and that you should have vegetables in your diet, whatever.

But I just wouldn't put my kids on it. Where I take real issue is with art. I've taken a real issue with this, I don't accept it and the reason I don't accept it is because, one of the things I find frustrating is that this is probably the premier book on Bitcoin. Despite my thoughts on a Saifedean and his debating and blocking people and all that stuff, I still think it's a very good book and I would recommend to people. But I would just forewarn them that there's some bullshit about art in there. The reason I take such issue with is that because of this sometimes kind of, I don't know, cult following of ideas.

I believe some people will read the book, and then believe they should have a carnivore diet and because of that, they've been told that there's fiat money, there's fiat this, there's now fiat art and believing to be supporter of Bitcoin, you have to discredit a whole area of art. I think that's dangerous because the kind of people who've taken issues against art and culture historically have been the fascists. Particularly this term, degenerate art. This use of the term, degenerate art, particularly pisses me off because that is what Hitler and the Nazis did.

They cast a lot of modern art and abstract art as degenerate art. They even put on a degenerate art exhibition. I have a real issue with that because I think you can be objective about money, and you can debate MMT versus maybe Austrian economic views on our money, but you can be quite objective about this and say factually, this has happened. But I think art is one of those things that needs to be free and it needs to be entirely subjective.

I dislike a whole category of art being discredited as fiat art and degenerative art because I think you're almost shaming people away from a certain aspect to creativity. I think Banksy is a revolutionary, but his work is modern art, it's graffiti. It is often political graffiti, but it's a really important form of revolutionary art. But it's modern art, so it's therefore degenerative art.

Richard James: Look, I suppose if anyone who hasn't seen the film or maybe hasn't read The Bitcoin Standard, I guess what we're talking about here is Saifedean has a section where he talks about art. He tries to say that during the Renaissance or in previous centuries when... Well, he's trying to make a connection between sound money and the quality of art. He calls modern art degenerate art. Upon reflection, I agree with you. I probably don't like the word, degenerate art.

Maybe if I had my time again, I wouldn't include the word. But to try and put my position forward, and I guess all I can do is defend my position and the exact words that Saifedean says in the film... Whatever else he talks about in other forums, I guess, is something different. He may disagree with me. Look, The Bitcoin Standard, it's a book about economics, but it does put forward this broader thesis to try and say that the quality of money has a broader influence on society than just economics.

I think that's an interesting take. Whether or not you agree with all aspects of it or not, I do find it interesting. It was one of the things that I did enjoy about The Bitcoin Standard. I suppose the issue that I have and the point that I was trying to put forward about the art, I wouldn't say the problem's modern art, I wouldn't say it's a thing of abstract art versus realist traditional art, I think the real issue... And the artworks that were shown as examples in the film, it's really postmodern art. It's not the art that the Nazis were putting display and calling degenerate, it's more something that's happened in our own lifetime.

It's this whole postmodern philosophy that's like, "The only thing that matters is the interpretation." It's relativism. It's like, "There's no objective truth here. There's no such thing as objective beauty. So, anything goes." It's like the Andy Warhol thing where art's whatever you can get away it. So I think this idea that modern or real postmodern art treads this line between garbage and beauty, it's not even a controversial thing. Modern artists would almost celebrate that as, beside your shock value, being an important part of modern art.

Look, your point is very well taken and I agree that you can't generalize. There's this art museum here in Australia in Tasmania, it's called MONA, the Museum of Old and New Art. It's a big deal here in Australia and it's the premier new art gallery. Look, people probably don't want to hear my opinions art, I'm not going to go too much into this, but look, the only thing I took away from my visit there was... The main thing on display is basically obscenity, which is fine. But I don't know, I've sort of taken issue with this idea that anything goes, or art is totally in the eye of the beholder.

You look about what's going on in other areas today with this cancel culture and social justice warriors, and this idea that... It's this postmodern idea that there's no objective reality. The only thing that matters is these power dynamics between different groups, and that's why you're just categorized into your group as a white person, as a male and so you're not allowed to have a voice. You're not allowed to express an opinion because your whole identity is only based on this group identity and this power dynamic. We can't actually have a legitimate discussion, I guess that's where I'm coming from. It's this attack back towards postmodernism more than anything.

Peter McCormack: It's a really tough one because I think there's a lot of complications with trying to be objective about art because it really is subjective. The reason I know it is, because I've always encouraged my children by taking them to museums and galleries, We have this great gallery in London called Tate Modern.

Richard James: I've been there!

Peter McCormack: Great! It's my favourite building in the world. It's a good mix of art and there's a broad range of different sculptures and paintings that you can see. There's some great galleries on. I know my two children like different things, and they're children, they don't look at a painting necessarily just for the detail. They won't look at a Monet and think... They will just look at something, and they'll appreciate different things. My son, like me, likes Rothko.

They've got a Rothko room at Tate Modern and a lot of people would argue that Rothko, "This isn't art. This is just squares on a canvas" which I think if you've never seen them in person, you might even agree. But I think it's very difficult to objectively say it's impossible to be moved by the Rothko room in London because it's fascinating. I could sit in there for ages. I don't like Picasso, for example. I just do not like the work of Picasso. I like some of Van Gogh's work, and it's completely different. There's another painting there, which I love to wind up the fiat art people, by Klein.

It's called the Klein Blue and it's just a square blue. But it's a fascinating blue to look at when you see it in person. The point being is that I think you need full creativity with art. You need the option to feel like anything you want to make, anything you want to create may have value to someone, which will allow people to have creative freedom to create different things. I've seen some amazing works of art in my time, I've been very, very lucky, this transcends just gallery art. We're talking creative freedom in film, in literature, but I think people need their creativity.

Once we start classing even any form of... Even if you say postmodernism, I think the fiat art haters would class Rothko as a degenerative art. But I don't like having that lens with Bitcoin because if Bitcoin... This is what I worry about. Bitcoin may become the dominant form of money. Over a long enough timeframe, it may. What if we create this lens with this, that the acceptance of a new dominant form of money comes with these rules around diet and art that actually take away freedoms in some ways?

So I just don't like treading into that area. The use of the term, degenerative art, I find that dangerous because of where it's been used historically. Sadly, I'm not an art scholar, so I don't have my knives sharpened into a coherent, succinct argument, but I just reject...

Richard James: I don't disagree with anything that you've said necessarily. Look, I think it is important to make this point, that criticism, no matter how distasteful the criticism is, and actual censorship, is like a Rubicon, they're totally two different things.

Peter McCormack: I agree.

Richard James: I think treading on the right of anyone to express themselves artistically however they want... I think the other saving grace in all of this is if you look at Bitcoin from a purely economic analysis, I think the momentum and inertia that Bitcoin has, us arguing about this, I don't think there's any... If Bitcoin fulfils the potential that we think it will, I don't think it's going to make any difference. If Bitcoin becomes the global reserve currency, then us, as a group on Bitcoin Twitter, our opinions on art aren't obviously going to make much difference one way or the other.

Look, I understand this criticism about Bitcoin carving out a certain opinion, whether it's food or art, or whatnot. I don't know where I stand on that. I find it a fascinating idea, the idea that fiat money creates its own culture. Look, I find the art point interesting. The one that resonates more with me, personally, is architecture. I'm also not an expert by any means on architecture. Since I was a kid, I've wondered why it is in every city I go to, the buildings that I like and I find beautiful are old buildings and old houses. Why don't we create these kinds of things anymore?

This is going to tie back to the whole inflation thing because I was with a really good friend of mine the other day. He's the smartest guy I know and we were walking through a park in Melbourne. We came across this drinking fountain, it's a 150 years old and this thing is carved out of granite. It's got this brass coping on it, it's got little tongues and little dog heads on and it's the most intricate thing you could ever imagine. He's like, "Huh, we don't make that kind of stuff anymore, do we? I wonder why that is." I was like, "I think it's got something to do with the money."

Peter McCormack: It could be. Sorry, I would throw in there, we do have engineering and economies of scale that have developed over years. If you want a water fountain built in like 1800, you have to go to the local carver and get him to build it, who maybe can do one a week. But we now have engineer and economies of scale where you can go to a factory, and you can order 2000.

I think, yes, you can make the fiat money argument, but capitalism drives towards efficiency as well. So I think that needs considering, but I agree with you on the architecture, by the way, I do. But I also like a lot of modern architecture. I like Lieberman, I love looking at massive skyscrapers as much I love looking at an old church.

Richard James: Hmm, well look, as you say, it's a bit of an, "Each their own" isn't it? I guess that's what I was trying to explore. The good thing is in the end, with Bitcoin, our opinions aren't going to make any difference either way. If you are in that camp of thinking that there is a connection between the money standard and a society's time preference and ability to think about long-term projects, because that's the other thing Saifedean talks about.

We're not going into the subject matter of the art. He's almost talking about the whole concept of art patronage. If you go back to 1500s or 1600s, you've got these Italian families, dynasties that last for multiple generations maintain their wealth over such an incredibly long period of time because they hold their wealth in gold.

Art has a system of private patronage. Private patrons are commissioning this art and they've got a low time preference. You're not going to have anyone today say, "Oh, we'll start doing this cathedral. It's going to take us 300 years, but that's fine." That mindset just doesn't exist today. I just find that a fascinating concept. I know I've delved into these waters that might come across in a controversial, but I guess I'm just used it to explore that idea.

Peter McCormack: I don't disagree with your idea of analyzing whether there is patterns here, analyzing whether art has changed with regards to the money. But at the same time, I think what my issue is, it's not the analysis, it's more the degrading of certain forms of art, like I say, the use of the term, degenerative art, or the disregarding of certain forms of art based on the fact that subjectively a person may dislike it because this time theory of labour.

I've not looked too much into it, but I can imagine there are realists artists who can pull out some very detailed, amazing pieces of art that actually don't take too much time for them to do, maybe two, three days. I don't know, Van Gogh, could he do a painting in a day, one of his incredible paintings? I watched the film. It seemed like perhaps he could. Maybe! I don't know. I don't know.

Richard James: That's almost another whole area, this, "Does art need to have proof of work?" Thing where...

Peter McCormack: It doesn't, it's a dumb concept and I fully reject it.

Richard James: That's not the argument that I'm necessarily trying to make at all.

Peter McCormack: I don't think you are by the way.

Richard James: Hold on, it's such a difficult one because it's such a polarizing topic. Look, I included Saifedean's analysis because, like it or not, I think The Bitcoin Standard is that book's that defined the narrative on Bitcoin at the moment. It's got positives and negatives, but I found it a compelling argument and so I gave the space for Saifedean to put the argument forward in the film. In a lot of ways, the film is almost a film version of The Bitcoin Standard.

Peter McCormack: It is, yeah.

Richard James: Look, there's not much room for nuance in Saifedean's argument. There's certainly space for someone to explore those ideas, look more closely at that idea, trying to tread a path between the two.

Peter McCormack: Listen, look, it's not a criticism of you, by the way. It's definitely a criticism of...

Richard James: I've got to stand behind what I put forward in the film, so I don't take it personally. But I feel the need to address it because I think you make a good point.

Peter McCormack: Mine's more that I will... Because I'm such a fan of Bitcoin, I really support it, but I will fight any attempt to add a Bitcoin lens of time preference to art. I'll fight that to the death. Just as somebody who grew up as someone who was exposed to art, the freedom around creativity and to bring people into this world of Bitcoin, but to disregard a whole category of...

Whatever you think of it, for me, is dangerous. That's why it's such an important point for me to defend a attack. I probably need to sharpen my knives with my defence of it. But outside of that, I loved your film and I thought you nailed it! What's coming next, man? Are you going to make another one?

Richard James: Yeah, I think I will. I'm already working on some other stuff. I want to do something specifically about Bitcoin. I've sort of been working on that a little bit, but I got sidetracked. The project I've got going now, it's like a film version of Murray Rothbard's book, Anatomy of the State. It's his classic libertarian, well, anarcho-capitalist view, putting forward this really super critical view of the state, "What is the state?" And the monopoly on violence, and how that is the defining characteristic of the state. That's coming along well.

Peter McCormack: Wow!

Richard James: Using the same sort of techniques, drawing on the material that's already out there. Obviously, I found Bitcoin profound from an economic point of view. But it was really getting into Rothbard's work and his view or his whole political philosophy, that's been a life changing thing for me in terms of just the impact it's had on my views about the way the world works. That's coming along at the moment.

Peter McCormack: I need to read more Rothbard. I did download one of his books on Audible, For a New Liberty.

Richard James: Ah, yeah!

Peter McCormack: I often use my Audible books when I'm going running or I'm at the gym. The problem is you can't do something else. You have to stay entirely focused. What would happened is I would find like two or three minutes would go on and I'm like, "Shit, I don't know what happened." Whereas, other audiobooks ... I just did The Bitcoin Billionaires, you can consume it and go down the gym or go running. So I have to go back to it because it's one of those things I need to sit in a quiet room and just listen to it with a pen and a pad, and just keep notes. It's an entirely different experience. Well listen, I look forward to the next film man!

Richard James: Thanks very much!

Peter McCormack: Any kind of timeframe?

Richard James: Within a month or two.

Peter McCormack: Okay, well listen, I think you've made a good stamp in the world of Bitcoin. I thought what you did was brilliant. I have shared it, I will continue to share it and I appreciate you coming on and letting me have my anti-fiat art rant. But I appreciate it, and I'll share all your work. I think it's great. But tell people where they can find the film and follow you if they want to find out more.

Richard James: Thanks very much! The film's got a website, it's hardmoneyfilm.com. We've just thrown up a few other languages. It's up there now in Japanese and Spanish subtitles, and a few more on the way. My Twitter is rjames_btc for more updates on that and future work.

Peter McCormack: You taking donations?

Richard James: Yeah, there's a donations page at the website. There's a Bitcoin address there. I got to work a bit of my op-sec and my Lightning node and stuff like that. But yeah, you can send me some sats at the Bitcoin address. I'd much appreciate it.

Peter McCormack: All right, well I will chuck some sats your way. I appreciate you having on man. Listen, stay in touch, anything I can ever do for you, you let me.

Richard James: Thank you so much Peter. Appreciate it!