Media personality Tucker Carlson and economist Peter Schiff engaged in a wide-ranging debate this week over whether Bitcoin could one day replace the U.S. dollar, touching on inflation, government spending, and the future of global monetary policy.
Schiff, a longtime cryptocurrency critic and outspoken gold advocate, dismissed the idea that Bitcoin could serve as a reserve currency. He argued that Bitcoin functions primarily as a speculative asset rather than a true form of money, describing proposals for a U.S. strategic Bitcoin reserve as a taxpayer-funded bailout for early adopters.
According to Schiff, Bitcoin lacks intrinsic value and non-monetary demand, making it unsuitable for long-term monetary stability. He said demand for Bitcoin is driven largely by expectations of selling at higher prices later, a dynamic he likened to the “greater fool theory” rather than productive investment.
The discussion took place against a broader backdrop of inflation and fiscal policy. Schiff argued that official inflation metrics underestimate the true rise in household living costs, claiming changes to the Consumer Price Index have obscured real price pressures. He attributed inflation to decades of monetary expansion and credit growth rather than corporate pricing behavior.
Schiff criticized both Democratic and Republican administrations for excessive spending, singling out President Donald Trump’s proposed “Big Beautiful Bill” as exacerbating deficits through higher expenditures and tax reductions. He traced today’s economic challenges back to the abandonment of the gold standard in 1971, arguing that prolonged low interest rates and loose monetary policy have distorted asset prices and eroded purchasing power.
Global monetary trends also featured prominently. Schiff said the dollar’s role as the world’s primary reserve currency has allowed the United States to sustain large trade deficits, but warned that this privilege is increasingly under pressure. He pointed to sanctions on Russia as a catalyst for countries to reconsider dollar exposure, citing increased central bank gold purchases as evidence of diversification away from U.S. assets.
Carlson pressed Schiff on whether Bitcoin could replace the dollar as confidence in fiat currencies weakens. Schiff rejected the premise, arguing that central banks require assets with stability, deep liquidity, and real-world utility. While acknowledging that both fiat money and Bitcoin rely on confidence, Schiff contrasted them with gold, which he described as a tangible asset with industrial, medical, and technological uses.
The debate reflects a broader divide in financial and policy circles. Bitcoin proponents increasingly frame the cryptocurrency as “digital gold,” highlighting its fixed supply and independence from sovereign control, especially as U.S. national debt surpasses $37 trillion. Critics like Schiff, however, continue to argue that traditional hard assets remain the only reliable stores of value in an era of mounting fiscal and monetary uncertainty.
