Systems of Value: who's money is it anyway?

The Monopoly on Money: A Critique of David McWilliams’ Economic Narrative

What is money? If you listen to renowned Irish economist and broadcaster David McWilliams, money is not a rigid fiscal tool, but the ultimate human storytelling device. It is a shared social technology that allows us to organize, trade, and collectively manifest the future.

But while McWilliams treats money as an epic human narrative, he draws a sharp line in the sand when it comes to who gets to tell that story. As a former central banker, McWilliams firmly believes that money must remain the exclusive purview of the democratic state.

I think that perspective is fundamentally flawed—and it misses the very essence of how human value works.

The McWilliams Thesis: Why He Rejects Crypto and Defends Fiat

In his books and podcast episodes, McWilliams routinely argues that cryptocurrency is not real money. He frames it as a private, speculative asset—a high-stakes gambling game driven by hype. His core arguments against decentralized currency come down to a few key pillars:

• The Stagnation of Fixed Supply: He argues that money must be elastic. A currency with a hard cap (like Bitcoin's 21 million limit) encourages hoarding rather than circulation, which he believes leads to economic stagnation.
• The Necessity of a Social Contract: To McWilliams, money requires state backing, taxation power, and democratic accountability to absorb macro shocks and fund public infrastructure.
• The "Lender of Last Resort": In times of crisis (like 2008 or the pandemic), he believes only a state-backed central bank can print liquidity to save regular citizens from systemic collapse.

Essentially, McWilliams looks at the 5,000-year history of fiat—riddled with hyperinflation, debasement, and financial crashes—and argues that the system isn't broken; it just needs better democratic regulation to protect everyday people.

The Counter-Argument: There is No Sovereign Monopoly on Dreams

Where McWilliams’ logic falters is in his insistence on a state monopoly over value.

Humans are hardwired to dream up systems of value. We prop them up with collective belief, marketing, and hype. We’ve done it with real estate, tulip bulbs, physical gold, and yes—bits of promises written on a digital ledger.

Historically, money was not handed down by a king's decree or invented in a central bank boardroom. It emerged organically from the bottom up. Merchants and regular citizens chose shells, salt, tobacco, and silver because they solved a practical problem: the need for a trusted, friction-free medium of exchange.

When a government commands an absolute monopoly on money, history shows it eventually abuses that power. Unchecked money printing acts as a hidden tax, inflating asset prices and pricing the younger generation out of housing and financial security.

The Clash of Narratives

As the economist Friedrich Hayek argued in The Denationalization of Money, why shouldn't currencies compete? If multiple systems—public, private, digital, or commodity-backed—coexist, citizens can choose the ledger that treats them the fairest. Competition forces issuers to remain honest.

McWilliams is right that money is a story. But the story of value doesn't inherently belong to the state. It belongs to whoever can successfully solve the problems of the everyday person and maintain their trust.

When central banks fail to protect the purchasing power of regular people, society will naturally start looking for a better story to believe in.