He's generally fair all the way up to the end, where he dismisses Bitcoin for not being an investment. Ya, that's true, Bitcoin is not an investment: it provides no cash-flow. But neither does any other currency; cash cannot provide a cash-flow. What a revelation! By his logic, all currencies are dellusions because they don't provide a cash-flow.

In reality-land, currencies are valuable for reasons unrelated to why investments are valuable. The other name for a currency is "medium of exchange". That is, currencies allow us to trade final goods indirectly, thus eliminating the problem that barter has. I can indirectly trade a computer for food by selling my computer for currency and then using that currency to buy food. Without any currency, I'd have to find someone with food who likes my computer -- such a person could be very difficult to find.

But don't tell Dr. William Quinn about such rudimentary economics; he thinks currencies are dellusions that solve no problems. And he believes investments are far better than currencies -- even though investments don't solve the one big problem that currencies solve!

I am baffled that an economic historian is ignorant of this important aspect of rudimentary economics. He appears to be a decent historian (e.g. he got the Tulipmania stuff right), but economics elludes him. If he ever sees this, I encourage him to go get a bachelor's degree in economics. It will be a more valuable revelation than pointing out that cash doesn't provide a cash-flow.