Bitcoin Forum

Please sign my White House petition (http://wh.gov/bzc) to nationalize the banks.

I also have one (http://wh.gov/btJ) for instating reporting standards on private health insurance companies.

-Thanks

wrong forum  :P

That would be unconstitutional and would make something that was too big to fail impossible to fail. Wonderful.

We don't need to nationalize banks.... We just need to put a cap on assets, or an aggressive tax schedule past a reasonable size.  That way, when they fail, we can afford to let them.  That's what the FDIC is for.

Never, keep the government out of the banks.

Small government is better.

+1. The average American politician is more corrupt than the average businessman.  Promises become broken and people lose faith.  With a little luck, maybe Ron Paul can finally slay the demon and we can all have a little breathing room again.

This is a great plan that allows me to longer buy toilet paper, because what value is left in the "governments" fiat currency would be gone in weeks, hence putting to use as TP. Where do I sign?

The last thing that we want to happen is the bankers gain access to the legalized force of the state even more directly than is presently so.

Lets start with no more fractional banking....

^This

If I was allowed that scam I'd be wealthy too. What's amazing is banks still managed to fail with a 1:9 money creation scheme.

+1

Demand deposit accounts are supposed to be 100% backed with currency reserves. Anything less is a fraud.

Savings accounts and term deposits should not have to be held in reserve since by their very nature the funds are being used to lend at interest and earn the savings account or term deposit holder a portion of that interest.

Instead of nationalizing the banks why not just have US Congress pass a law to increase the amount of US Notes the Treasury can print. Then they can print debt free money and pay back the federal reserve and all the debt holders and enact another law to limit the amount of fiat printed.

Nations issuing money by themselves again is probably better than the FED system that we have today.

But still, it's a good idea that nations aren't allowed to do it. That is just the next step in Separation of powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers) (not that those powers are really divided nowadays).

The FED isn't really owned by the state as many believe, but it isn't entirely private either, as there are laws in place to secure its monopoly.

The real solution is that banks issuing money should be in competition, which actually means competition of currencies (and gold, silver, bitcoin etc), which is what Ron Paul is advocating.

I'm not gonna accept anyone's funny monopoly bills. This is only really feasible with a Satoshi type client. Competing currencies would be alternate block chains, but they would run on anyone's system. The only question is what makes anyone's currency any better than Bitcoin?

Its the old story.  Socialism for the rich and free market economics for the rest of us. 

It's your choice. You as an individual are part of the market. Nothing more, but also nothing less.

Explain why you think this will be beneficial.

Not any more funny money then buying corporate or municipal paper (bonds).  That is the great thing about free markets.  People will demand accountability, transparency, and stable value.  Those that fail to

For the record you already accept monopoly money.  The federal reserve is a private corporation.  They only difference is a lack of free market.  They have a absolute and Congressionally enforced monopoly on the issuance of monopoly money.  So when they decide to "help" the economy by creating inflation and eroding your buying power you have no alternative.

How would 20 entities be worse than 1 private entity.  Is there any other industry that you think a single monopolistic power is best?

That would make counterfeiting much more lucrative. I don't pay for a happy meal with junk bonds, though that may be appropriate.

No need for it to be paper money.  Honestly there is very little need for paper money.  You could just buy your happy means with electronic payments.  VISA currently processes 100+ different currencies globally.  Adding a few private versions wouldn't be much more difficult.  The only difference is that you would be paying in xyzBucks instead of USD.

Well sure, local currencies are fine when I'm traveling. If VISA can offer a lower exchange rate and processing fees than a Bitcoin based exchange and money processor, then good for them. Personally, I think VISA will migrate to Bitcoin, change their name, and restructure their entire business within ten years.

Why the hell would VISA do that.  If I was a shareholder I would move for the CEO to arrested for violating fudiciary duty.

Hey we have this ultra profitable near global monopoly with massive transaction volumes and no real competitors ...

Lets scrap all that and move to a network when anyone can be out competitor and our gross profit margins fall 90%+.

If VISA is unable to compete with Bitcoin based money processors, then the CEO would be in violation of fiduciary duty for not remaining competitive. Besides, who knows where the global economy will be in ten years? Complete transparency of all financial transactions may become the only thing that saves us from the ravages of corporate/political corruption. Bitcoin can provide that.

If your time horizon is 10 years you are going to be disappointed.  I say maybe if Bitcoin is very lucky in 20 years it might have Paypal like acceptance (which is still only about 2% of VISA transaction volume).  To put it into perspective Bittorrent (probably the most successful p2p application ever) is about 10 years old and only a tiny fraction of the world uses it.

Maybe so, but do you notice that everything is going faster every day? Population is growing geometrically. Communication technology is growing exponentially. Social changes are happening faster. Timelines are shrinking. I don't think ten years is unrealistic at all.

Bookmarked.  We will see in 10 years.  My guess is that 99% of population won't be using Bitcoin in 10 years.  Still if 1% is it would be a massive win for Bitcoin (although not being a significant threat to VISA).

I'd wager 99% of the Bitcoin users available now won't be using it in ten years/

Easy to say, but how would you define that wager?  You can't identify how many use it now, you would have to make guesses.  How many users do you think there are?

There should be no monopoly on money creation. Bring all comers. Let the market decide. If there's fraud, prosecute otherwise let everybody decide what they want to use.

My guess would be silver, gold and some P2P currency will become prominent. But I'd be just guessing. I personally would like to see an energy currency of some sort (oil, NG, food).

Yay! Then the poor will be guaranteed to starve and freeze as well!

Government guarantees this happens. Can you point to example where government money has not? I would be interested.

Or a example where "free Market" currency has harmed the poor, in the absent of government perversion?

US Government did partially or mostly nationalize some banks during the bailout. They still own 73% of Ally Bank.

I did not know this. I am absolutely dumbfounded yet not surprised.

Just one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization#Cochabamba.2C_Bolivia

And I know you won't read it, so here:

"In the previous years, despite funds made available by the World Bank to support the public utility of Cochabamba, access to piped water in the city had decreased to 40%, water losses had remained high at 40% and water was supplied only 4 hours a day. Those not connected to the network paid ten times as much for their water to private vendors as those who were."

For water. This is a good example pretty much because it's one of the few "goods" we need to live.

Private != Free market

Crony state-enabled capitalism is not properly incentivized services and goods. Sub-contracting a state monopoly is not the free market at work.

Please elaborate on how a voluntary money material system would starve and freeze anybody. I mean in a direct sense of the word. Why would any market of free people contracting for goods and services (or monetary equivalents) in a uncoercive way result in the death or starvation of anybody?

Excuses. I know you think "but it's not perfect, that's why it doesn't work" is your answer to everything (i.e. redefine it every time to make sure counter examples don't apply), but this is reality. You have your examples, and they work great, whether you like it or not.

Nothing in life is a closed system. And unless you want to float high above the level of practice all day, you have to come down and try stuff in real life. This happened, and you can't deny it's failure because it wasn't "perfect".

But you will, because you are completely inept at any serious attempt at arguing a point. Seriously, go away, Atlas.

Why are they excuses? They sucked because the state was involved. There is no doubt about it.

You're no better, my friend. You have yet to prove why genuinely free services are worse besides providing pure myths.

"Profit is exploitation!"

No, theft is exploitation. Fraud is exploitation. Making money while providing equitable return is not exploitation.

The problem is that banks are guaranteed so they take the profits when they bet right and we take the losses when they bet wrong.

I don't think nationalisation could remotely help this problem but it has to be said that bank profits which derive from having the taxpayer guarantee are exploitation.

I see your wikipedia.org article and raise you a author John Perkins http://www.johnperkins.org/ (http://www.johnperkins.org/) author of "confession of a economic hit man"

His book is really great and I suggest everyone read it. My socialist college professor made this book assigned reading in her English class. It is one of the books that made me realize that the "state is never moral".

End The State?

You can't end the state.  The most you can hope for is to dissolve your own state and then someone else's state will invade and be your new masters.

That's right "lay down your guns gentlemen, this other "king" and "his" men in shiny uniforms are here to rule us".

 

Maybe for you.  I live in a democracy.

No you don't.  There is no democracy as a national political structure anywhere on Earth.  The US is a federated republic, and nearly all of Europe are parlimentary republics. 

Don't waste time on semantics.  If you say "Property is theft" or "America is a democracy" we both know you don't expect me to call the police or to start insisting that Americans must all get together on every trivial thing. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

"Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives" - where I live, we have a close approximation of that.  I know America has its stupid Senate where small States voters have massive over-representation and you have judges that make law so things are less democratic for you.  But its still preferable to being occupied by a foreign power.