Bitcoin Forum

Other => Politics & Society => Topic started by: Severian on April 23, 2013, 09:18:00 PM



Title: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Severian on April 23, 2013, 09:18:00 PM
Quote
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/23/ron-paul-slams-stability-of-u-s-dollar-and-bitcoin-in-pro-gold-rant/

...With regards to the collapse of the Internet currency venture Bitcoin, Paul said he wasn’t interested.

“To tell you the truth, it’s little bit too complicated,” he said. “If I can’t put it in my pocket, I have some reservations about that. But it has been designed in the free market. If it is a means of exchange, it would not ever be illegal. You shouldn’t regulate it in the free market, but I do not think it fits the definition of money, which has been around for 6,000 years.”

Dr. Paul is blinded by his own emotional and financial investment in gold. Money is anything that people agree upon, not what goldbugs or the political class say it is.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: myrkul on April 23, 2013, 09:19:53 PM
Yeah, sadly, like many of the Mises old guard, he just can't wrap his head around a "hard" currency that you can't put in your pocket.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Lethn on April 23, 2013, 09:22:57 PM
I think it's one of those analogue vs. digital moments, I despise touch screens for example on mobile phones and I'd be perfectly happy with just using buttons, but for whatever reason there are people out there who go mad for them now, I think we need to find more practical ways of demonstrating to people the way Bitcoin operates or just get them to go and download the Bitcoin client and try it.

Disclaimer: I will always fucking hate touchscreen and when I can afford to I will buy a proper phone with buttons on it that do stuff when you press them, sometimes it's better to just leave us old guys alone with what we're comfortable with :P


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Severian on April 23, 2013, 09:26:49 PM
Yeah, sadly, like many of the Mises old guard, he just can't wrap his head around a "hard" currency that you can't put in your pocket.

I think Ron is smarter than that but playing a role here. He knows very well that if Bitcoin keeps rising, we're going to take his gold away from him someday.

He's playing dumb to scare off those that might listen him from Bitcoin.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Severian on April 23, 2013, 09:27:48 PM
Disclaimer: I will always fucking hate touchscreen and when I can afford to I will buy a proper phone with buttons on it that do stuff when you press them, sometimes it's better to just leave us old guys alone with what we're comfortable with :P

+1.

But Dr. Paul does need to upgrade his internal software.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: wolongong on April 23, 2013, 09:28:42 PM
For most people money is what the political class makes you pay tax with.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Hawker on April 23, 2013, 09:31:49 PM
Yeah, sadly, like many of the Mises old guard, he just can't wrap his head around a "hard" currency that you can't put in your pocket.

I think Ron is smarter than that but playing a role here. He knows very well that if Bitcoin keeps rising, we're going to take his gold away from him someday.

He's playing dumb to scare off those that might listen him from Bitcoin.

He may also be trying to do the right thing.  He has strongly advised people to invest in gold.  Many of those people are now out of pocket as a result.  If he talks up gold, then those people are made good.  Of course they are responsible for their own losses just as they were entitled to their own gains but Ron Paul may feel obliged to try to help them.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: canada on April 23, 2013, 09:34:08 PM
he does say that he doesn't understand it - this is really what it comes down to. also said he doesn't oppose it. definetly a hard sell saying he slams bitcoin.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Richy_T on April 23, 2013, 09:35:31 PM
I quite like Ron Paul but he has been wrong on some things (I'm probably not thinking what you think I'm thinking) and, truly he is an old man in the twilight of his political career. I'd be more interested in what Rand thinks at this point (though Bitcoin doesn't care what anyone thinks, of course).


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Severian on April 23, 2013, 09:38:16 PM
He may also be trying to do the right thing. 

I'd like to think so. But Ron is heavily invested in gold mining so he has an interest in getting people to like gold.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Hawker on April 23, 2013, 09:39:28 PM
He may also be trying to do the right thing. 

I'd like to think so. But Ron is heavily invested in gold mining so he has an interest in getting people to like gold.

Ah - did not know that.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Severian on April 23, 2013, 09:43:30 PM
Ah - did not know that.

I discovered rather late into the last Ron Paul campaign. I stopped supporting him because it made me realize that he's as blinded as any other member of the political class by his own investments.

I also found it a little shady that he was stumping for public policies on gold so hard while in office and while invested in gold concerns.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: myrkul on April 23, 2013, 09:51:15 PM
Ah - did not know that.

I discovered rather late into the last Ron Paul campaign. I stopped supporting him because it made me realize that he's as blinded as any other member of the political class by his own investments.

I also found it a little shady that he was stumping for public policies on gold so hard while in office and while invested in gold concerns.
To be fair, that's a silver round he's holding up, not a gold one:

https://lh3.ggpht.com/-G5pfrxfpB4w/T0_jrBHbtVI/AAAAAAAAEi0/_yjECReeciU/s400/ron%2Bpaul%2Bsilver%2Bcircle.jpg
(A Silver Circle "Rebel Round," to be precise.)


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: JimmiesForBitcoins on April 23, 2013, 09:53:24 PM
To me it just looks like simple ignorance. I don't suspect malice.

Dude is old, probably not very computer savvy, and I doubt he even has much time to wipe his own behind with as busy as he is. Much less spend a chunk of the remainder of his time left looking into some new-fangled cryptogizmo on a computer that he hardly knows how to send emails on. Temporal preference; gold is his weapon of choice. He's familiar with it and he knows how it works. He stands to gain little (supposedly) from paying attention to Bitcoin.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Severian on April 23, 2013, 09:59:04 PM
To be fair, that's a silver round he's holding up, not a gold one:

Ron didn't issue "The Case for Silver". ; )


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: myrkul on April 23, 2013, 10:07:45 PM
To be fair, that's a silver round he's holding up, not a gold one:

Ron didn't issue "The Case for Silver". ; )

Fair point. So he did not. Gold is the poster child. :)


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: ffernandex on April 23, 2013, 10:15:34 PM
In any case Ron Paul was the guest speaker in a seminar held by sovereignman.com in Santiago, an organisation that has been supporting bitcoins, and gold.



Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Spendulus on April 24, 2013, 02:36:08 AM
Yeah, sadly, like many of the Mises old guard, he just can't wrap his head around a "hard" currency that you can't put in your pocket.

"Ron my good friend, it's like this.  You know how the calculator's been made an app on your phone?"

"Sure."

"You know how the typewriter's been made an app called a word processor?"

"Everyone knows that.  Get to the point.  We're talking about mon-"

"Okay, well, money's been made an app on the phone in your pocket.  And they can't inflate or print more of this kind of money."
"Oh, you mean that bitcoin thing.  I tried to run that, but it was always updating and never finished.  Of course my pockets are full of American Eagles, and so the phone doesn't get very good reception in my pockets."

"You buried your phone in gold?"









Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: myrkul on April 24, 2013, 02:43:10 AM
Yeah, sadly, like many of the Mises old guard, he just can't wrap his head around a "hard" currency that you can't put in your pocket.

"Ron my good friend, it's like this.  You know how the calculator's been made an app on your phone?"

"Sure."

"You know how the typewriter's been made an app called a word processor?"

"Everyone knows that.  Get to the point.  We're talking about mon-"

"Okay, well, money's been made an app on the phone in your pocket.  And they can't inflate or print more of this kind of money."
"Oh, you mean that bitcoin thing.  I tried to run that, but it was always updating and never finished.  Of course my pockets are full of American Eagles, and so the phone doesn't get very good reception in my pockets."

"You buried your phone in gold?"

lol....

You forgot one thing:
"You buried your phone in gold?"
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/004/592/my-brain-is-full-of-fuck.jpg


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Elwar on April 24, 2013, 02:46:20 AM
As long as I can use my bitcoins to buy things, I do not care what people call it.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: steelhouse on April 24, 2013, 04:19:45 AM
Ron Paul is correct it is not money.  Bitcoin is no different than a pokemon card.  But unlike a pokemon card they are each identical (there is no Charizard).  The only reason bitcoin has value is people give it value.  If it drops to $1 a certain type of person will buy more.  If people use it in a transaction, many will keep a couple coins for later purchases.  These coins are collectibles, as are pokemon cards.

Bitcoin as a collectible give it value.  Once it has any value, it can be traded as a currency.  Everyday bitcoin usually strengthens as a collectible.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: JimmiesForBitcoins on April 24, 2013, 04:38:25 AM
Ron Paul is correct it is not money.  Bitcoin is no different than a pokemon card.  But unlike a pokemon card they are each identical (there is no Charizard).  The only reason bitcoin has value is people give it value.  If it drops to $1 a certain type of person will buy more.  If people use it in a transaction, many will keep a couple coins for later purchases.  These coins are collectibles, as are pokemon cards.

Bitcoin as a collectible give it value.  Once it has any value, it can be traded as a currency.  Everyday bitcoin usually strengthens as a collectible.
Except that the term "currency" is synonymous with "money". "Money" is any medium of exchange. In this case, Bitcoin exists for the sole purpose of fulfilling that very role. It exists only to facilitate trade. Unlike physical commodities, it is good for nothing else. You will never see Lil' Wayne with a grill full of Bitcoins unless he has his public key printed in gold on his grill so he can accept donations.

If a community started accepting Pokemon cards in exchange for goods and services, Pokemon cards would be money. Anything can be money, if people are willing to accept it as such. That's why little green pieces of cotton paper with serial codes written on them are money.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: canada on April 24, 2013, 06:06:06 AM
To me it just looks like simple ignorance. I don't suspect malice.

Dude is old, probably not very computer savvy, and I doubt he even has much time to wipe his own behind with as busy as he is. Much less spend a chunk of the remainder of his time left looking into some new-fangled cryptogizmo on a computer that he hardly knows how to send emails on. Temporal preference; gold is his weapon of choice. He's familiar with it and he knows how it works. He stands to gain little (supposedly) from paying attention to Bitcoin.

+1
he's most likely of the camp: the internet is just a series of tubes


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Jobe7 on April 24, 2013, 03:14:34 PM
Ron Paul is correct it is not money.  Bitcoin is no different than a pokemon card.  But unlike a pokemon card they are each identical (there is no Charizard).  The only reason bitcoin has value is people give it value.  If it drops to $1 a certain type of person will buy more.  If people use it in a transaction, many will keep a couple coins for later purchases.  These coins are collectibles, as are pokemon cards.

Bitcoin as a collectible give it value.  Once it has any value, it can be traded as a currency.  Everyday bitcoin usually strengthens as a collectible.

What people chanting the whole "Bitcoin is not money because its only value is imaginary, its just because people give it value, etc, etc."

Is WHY people give it value.

It has value BECAUSE of the reasons WHY people give it value. It does not have value just because 'people give it value'.. Media and such tend to ignore this point, which is kinda key ..


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Spendulus on April 25, 2013, 02:15:52 AM
Ron Paul is correct it is not money.  Bitcoin is no different than a pokemon card.  But unlike a pokemon card they are each identical (there is no Charizard).  The only reason bitcoin has value is people give it value.  If it drops to $1 a certain type of person will buy more.  If people use it in a transaction, many will keep a couple coins for later purchases.  These coins are collectibles, as are pokemon cards.

Bitcoin as a collectible give it value.  Once it has any value, it can be traded as a currency.  Everyday bitcoin usually strengthens as a collectible.
But I seek the Great Bitcoin, and possibly the Greatest Bitcoin the Most Holy.

The one that is the sum of two prime numbers, each of which is the sum of two cubes.

O Greatest of Mysteries!

What is your value?

<<< Yes I just made this up and yes it's a joke and yes you can take it seriously and hey, dude, like, the chase is on now, and let the rumor fly, that it may be found, and great treasure awaits>>>



Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: JimmiesForBitcoins on April 25, 2013, 05:31:38 AM
But I seek the Great Bitcoin, and possibly the Greatest Bitcoin the Most Holy.

The one that is the sum of two prime numbers, each of which is the sum of two cubes.

O Greatest of Mysteries!

What is your value?

<<< Yes I just made this up and yes it's a joke and yes you can take it seriously and hey, dude, like, the chase is on now, and let the rumor fly, that it may be found, and great treasure awaits>>>
Pythagoras didn't want his followers repeating transcendental numbers in public. He held numbers in extremely high regard. He believed they ruled the world.

https://i.imgur.com/nElZw2h.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/v1cYXYz.jpg


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: Spendulus on April 28, 2013, 06:14:10 AM
But I seek the Great Bitcoin, and possibly the Greatest Bitcoin the Most Holy.

The one that is the sum of two prime numbers, each of which is the sum of two cubes.

O Greatest of Mysteries!

What is your value?

<<< Yes I just made this up and yes it's a joke and yes you can take it seriously and hey, dude, like, the chase is on now, and let the rumor fly, that it may be found, and great treasure awaits>>>
Pythagoras didn't want his followers repeating transcendental numbers in public. He held numbers in extremely high regard. He believed they ruled the world.

Hmm...

No doubt he'd be greatly offended by my joking about prime numbers being the sum of two cubes.

x^3 + y^3 = (x+y)(x^2-xy+y^2)


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: AlgoSwan on May 02, 2013, 03:52:12 PM
Ron was a bit angry over BTC, mostly because of recent BTC performance on Cypriot banks news. Mark my words: Ron will be a late-joiner to the party. He should consult Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.


Title: Re: Ron Paul on Bitcoin: "I do not think it fits the definition of money"
Post by: rider650 on May 08, 2013, 04:57:26 PM
If Bitcoin does not fit his money definition, then what does Ron Paul define as money?

Concerning money definitions, I`m with Murray Rothbard:

Quote
"This process: the cumulative development of a medium of exchange on the free market - is the only way money can become established.
Money cannot originate in any other way, neither by everyone suddenly deciding to create money out of useless material, nor by government calling bits of paper "money".
For embedded in the demand for money is knowledge of the money-prices of the immediate past;
in contrast to directly-used consumers`or producers`goods, money must have pre-existing prices on which to ground a demand.
But the only way this can happen is by beginning with a useful commodity under barter, and then adding demand for a medium for exchange to the previous demand for direct use (e.g., for ornaments, in the case of gold).
Thus, government is powerless to create money for the economy; it can only be developed by the processes of the free market.

A most important truth about money now emerges from our discussion:
money is a commodity. Learning this simple lesson is one of the world`s most important tasks.
So often have people talked about money as something much more or less than this.
Money is not an abstract unit of account, divoceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a "claim on society"; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level.
It is simply a commodity. It differs from other commodities in being demanded mainly as a a medium of exchange.
But aside from this, it is a commodity - and, like all commodities, it has an existing stock, it faces demands by people to buy and hold it, etc.
Like all commodities, its "price" - in terms of other goods - is determined by the interaction of its total supply, or stock, and the total demand by people to buy and hold it.
(People "buy" money by selling their goods and sevices for it, just as they "sell" money when they buy goods and services.)

Now, if you agree to that definition, is Bitcoin money?
It evolved from the free market, even though its first, very small, value was assigned to it not because of being a commodity (which it definitely is not!), but because people recongized its unique value as a medium of exchange. Everything else applies, it even has a limited stock.. I think its a very tricky question, and I can`t come to a definitive answer for myself.
But I like it anyway  ;D