Bitcoin Forum

Very interesting video where Stefan Molyneus talks about Bitcoin vs Political Power..

"Cryptocurrencies are the first self-limiting monetary systems in the history of mankind, and could be our greatest chance to check the growth of political power since the Magna Carta. Join Stefan Molyneux, the host of Freedomain Radio - the most popular philosophy show in the world - as he reveals the hidden political and military power of government currencies, and shows how cryptocurrencies could be greatest revolution in human history, and the foundation of a truly free and prosperous planet."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joITmEr4SjY

his youtube got temp banned for this video

its a stab at bankers and the banking system and how bitcoin can be a tool for positive change away from banks

Oh and people continue to believe no one is out there attempting to take your wealth..  why is the average person such a fucking sheep.

Very interesting talk. But tell me about the ban? Vid works fine now and did when I watched it about 7 hours ago

OP is right, Bitcoin vs. Political power is an absolute must-see. Seriously, this is the best and most important talk on Bitcoin ever.

I've started watching other Molyneux vids as well, and am quickly realizing this is a brilliant and prescient individual. If you're interested, check out his lecture on Ending the War on Drugs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlD6OdbuDK4).

Just world fallacy is indeed a huge problem, especially for the 'murican sheeple. But we're waking up - slowly.

We actually don't know which video cause the temp ban, but I'd bet it wasn't a Bitcoin-related video.

My first guess is that a lot of people complained to YouTube because of his "Estrogen-Based Parasites" video.

yeah but some days ago his account was banned out of nowhere without a reason... :-X

It truly is a great video.

Stefan thinks exactly how I think. Very rare breed we are.

I, too discovered Stefan Molyneux recently, through another very clever Bitcoin proponent, Erik Voorhees in another interesting YouTube vid: Bitcoin Myths Exposed! - A Conversation with Erik Voorhees http://youtu.be/XBF7Sev2dZM

BEST STUFF! CHECK HIS RADIO SHOW ! 8)

Awesome stuff, I always keep up with his youtube videos. ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM    his truth about voting is a  must watch as well.  so glad the dude is into bitcoins. we need more  motherfukers like this.

This one stays at the top. Keep it there, you hear me you fucks?

Don't let it touch page 2.

Stefan is more controversial than not. This is one of his best performances however.

http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/5/8/breaking-all-out-assault-on-libertarians-both-online-on-the-.html#

Seems there has been a bit of a concentrated attack on people outside the herd.

guys... what's missing important? I drank n typed, took me 3 hours  :'(
-----------------------------------

Bitcoin has the ability to stop the seemingly endless growth of political power that literally appears to be eating up the world and our next generation. The unfunded liabilities of this gubbernment are estimated at over 100 TRILLION (!) DOLLAR. The reason for this is gubbernments can print anything they want. The plutocratic buisiness/financial INTEREST had the era of the government- the PEOPLE did not. Fiat-money made this disaster possible... and Bitcoin has the ability to stop it ! Simple. 2500 Years ago money had to be portable, long-lasting, divisable and the most intruistic value was it's limitation. That was gold. In the 19th century prices went down because of gold, today all evaporates in our hands. The limiting of money is the limiting of political power ! Fathom this !

The financial oligarchy has not to fear anything, while 2500 Occupy-Wall-Street protestors went to jail. Bankers are estimated to have destroyed 40% of the U.S.wealth with Fractional Reserve Banking and still walk free. Picking in the pocket of a fetus is just beyond unfair.The limiting of money is the limiting of political power.

Everyone expected the first world war to be over in 6 months because war is feroucisly expensive and they had no money. During that time european banks one by one went off the gold-standard, so nobody had to ask us to choose between food and death, between life and murder, between guns and butter. WW2 cost 15 times more the gold that they had. War and gold/limited currency don't mix very well. If they had waged first world war on gold it would have ended christmas 1914 without the infinite blenders of human parts they shoveled into this madness and saved the lives of MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, People! This is how serious inflating fiat money is.

The total amount of gold on earth we hold in our hands is 174.000 tons while the war on Error cost 291.000 tons of gold. In terms of Bitcoin that's 500 times more Bitcoins than ever will be mined. The Internet has not slowed the growth of gubbernments around the world, it has not saved the next generation from the endless gutterhole of debt. Information empowers the people, but not with regards to political power. Political power is a monopoly of the initiation of force in a geographical area.Information don't stop bullets. But when you don't have money to fund bullets, the bullets stop. I strongly urge you to claim your power back, start using Bitcoin, everything peaceful, break out of the loop. Thank you ;D Billed shall be the warmongers !

He said it himself and I agree, that was the speech of his career.

yup

I get what he's saying and I agree to an extent.  Bitcoin threatens government power and corporate interests.  But, these are the two very strongest influences out there.  What I'm saying is that these are the two biggest bullies on the block and when their interests are threatened there will be tremendous blow-back. 

I believe there is a significant economic battle coming. 

Oh lord.  Do people actually take this guy seriously?  Just another shock jock like Alex Jones et al

I take Stefan Molyneux as seriously as a heart attack. He is a living sage of our time, although he's got it wrong to include capitalism in his vision.

Start with this one, "Sunset of the State (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLCEXtpTNYU)".

I also highly recommend On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-coVbPfh6k), if your mind is prepared. It's a whopping two hours and forty minutes.

Empty your cup.

Ancap here. I really wonder if a political (dare I say propaganda) speech given on a tech conference will really bring people to bitcoin? Plus there are several outrageous claims with no basis in reality.
He claims that war is supported by fiat currency and money printing.

Problem is lots of countries outside the US wage war even though they can't effectively print their own money (because they have to keep a good ratio of local currency to foreign reserves).

Russia and other petronations (Saudis) fund unrest all over the world with oil money. Using bitcoin will not change this, it's wishfull thinking by Americans who have no idea how the rest of the world works (I know Stefan is Canadian but he focuses on US news 99% of time)

I heard they are trading oil and gas in St Petersburg WITHOUT dollars, what about that?

Its a great video, but overly optimistic...Bitcoin is already becoming centralized and the foundation being taken over.

"Funding unrest" is not the same as "waging war".

There isn't anywhere close to enough oil money in the world to pay for invasions and multi-year occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.

What exactly did you find shocking? It's quite obvious the U.S. government has ballooned in size over 40 years and taken us to war over, quite frankly, lies. The dollar has been massively inflated, losing over 96% of its purchasing power since 1913. The fact is war is expensive. Yet there are those who do profit from it. That means in order to have war, where the people don't feel the financial cost you need to inflate the currency, something not possible if it's restrained by a hard gold standard.

Shocking? You don't find it shocking the government took us to war over lies? Or has been spying on us in violation of the 4th Amendment, treating innocent people like criminals including invasive pat downs at airports? What's shocking to me is you feeling everything is as it should be.

Seems like people are shocked by the truth and will have no problem trying to tear the head of the messenger..  I'm always amazed how someone can hear such damning information and attack the person bringing them the info.

What he says is factual but he politicizes it.  That's why you shouldn't listen to him.  He's a doom and gloomer w no valid proposal to fix the problems he bitches about.  Typical cynic that tries to rile up controversy

You've clearly never listened to any of his work, so why are you talking about him as if you have?

Yes I have.  I like w some of his shows.  Like the one about Trayvon Martin.  But he's like all political commentators.  He says things he knows are controversial.

I was curious about this as well.

Wars and currencies I am curious about, the civil war, the 100 years war.

I know the confederacy had confederate dollars, did the union have fiat currency not backed by gold?

Yes, and then he explains the reasons why, in brief.

If you want further information on the topic, a google search on "military industrial complex" should prove fruitful.

Not until after the turn of the century, when they needed to fund "The Great War".

Salmon P Chase, Sec of Treasury, he took out a bank loan from the NY banks and convert it to gold instead of spending the deposit.   The effect was that it depleted the  gold reserves of all the NY banks.  Because the banks has no reserve they had to "supend convertibility". Then he created the greenback legal tender so banks can back their deposits.  He forced the banks to accept fiat money thereby giving value to the greenback.  Pretty shrewed guy.

The Union has the upper hand because they financed the war w gold while the Confederacy had to use cotton barter

So you agree he's right, but you want to ignore him because you don't like how he said it?


I'm pretty sure the primary purpose of his talk was to illustrate that currencies in limited supply, e.g. gold or Bitcoin, were specifically one way to "fix the problems he bitches about".

This is pretty trivial to understand. If a government had to get money from the people to fund a war, rather than just magically creating it, there would be far, FAR fewer wars.

Interesting, thank you.

I don't agree that he's right.  I just said what he says is factual.  I just explained how fiat came into existence during Civil War.  Yes it was result of war financing.  However I don't politicize the information

Having fewer wars?  Lack of money never stopped anyone from going to war.  But if you go to war you need to finance it somehow

Well, it was a talk on political power...


But that's kinda the point. These magical ways to create new money (inflation of money supply is effectively wealth confiscation by stealth) mean that a government always has the ability to fund its wars. If currency is limited, that no longer holds true.

Do you realized that govt sells war bonds in order to BORROW from private sector.  Don't buy them if you don't wanna support

Yes. Do you realise that the US government effectively defaults on bond repayments every time it devalues the currency? In 1935, the US removed the "gold clause" from the bond, reducing the amount of gold a dollar was worth, described by the City of London at the time as "One of the most egregious defaults in history". Nixon defaulted again, completely removing the gold linkage.

Up you go.

So glad I watched that. Now I have a raging hard on for Bitcoin acceptance and adoption. Let's put power back in the hands of the populous!

Spread it to everyone you know! I host parties at my house once per month, where I show this and a few other educational vids. I pay people to attend in Bitcoin, $20 in BTC, plus free food.

It's very gratifying and always a good turnout. And they get their first Bitcoins for many of them, and they learn how to use it so they can spend it!

Dude that is awesome

Page 5? That is simply unacceptable. Everyone needs to see this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joITmEr4SjY).

Stefan Molyneus is sort of a cult leader.

Check it -- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JqngrsDHU6Y

"Molyneux believes the world needs his show for its survival" ... delusional people will be delusional

If Molyneux is a cult leader, his cult is the truth. I strongly recommend checking out his "the tyranny of illusion" video. The man is a very respected public intellectual, an easy target for a nobody to slander.

Why is this thread not stickied yet? At least for Americans, this is by far the most important video on Bitcoin. Sticky it.

Hahahahahahaha!!!! LOLOLOLOL He is NOT a "respected public intellectual".  He's a YouTuber fear monger and "truther".  He's a rebel rouser and tunnel visioned politically narrow minded libertarian know-it-all.  He just tries to instigate controversy.  No research no empiricism

No different than Ted Nugent, Alex Jones, Zietgeist dude.

Maybe. Can you point to anything he said that you think is wrong?

I don't like truthers or conspiracy theorists, but his thoughts on Bitcoin (specifically fixed supply currencies) as being useful for limiting political power are interesting.

1.  He claims "Historically, politicians have always fought for the power to create money out of thin air, so they can increase their spending without having to directly increase taxes." 

Wrong -- Most wars are over land disputes, ideology, religion, economics or a combination.  Please name one war fought over the issue of printing fiat.  He certainly didn't

2.  Trotsky, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pinochet, Castro, etc..  These guys had nothing to do w banking.  They are astute politicians and fierce military guys.  Their power didn't come from raising money but politics and convincing people to follow them.

3.  Limiting money limits govt from printing to pay for war.  Wrong again.  Govt borrow money for war by selling (war) bonds.  Or maybe raise taxes.  Or they might borrow it from foreign banks.  No govts can just print money for no reason.  They can increase money supply in form of gov debt though.


All he says on stage is that govt do bad shit and it costs a lot of money.  Blah blah blah.  Well how does he know what's overpriced?  what is he comparing to?  Like "war on drugs" costing 100s of billions.  How much is a war on drugs supposed to cost?  Is there an empirical comparison?  No because he just want to make people irate.  What about good shit that govt do that costs 100s of billions?  He picks his projects be he wants to rile up people.  Anyways it was a goofy speech.  Nothing to do w BTC and more to do with scare mongering

Stefan didn't say politicians have always fought wars for the power to create money. You implied that. There are many ways to gain political objective without fighting war.


The Iraq War.

Was Operation Iraqi Freedom fought over land dispute? Ideology? Religion? Economics? That's certainly not what we in the U.S. were told. Iraq is nowhere near our borders.

We were specifically told it was over weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and further we knew where they were. Although I wouldn't hold my breath for an official government explanation of what went wrong let me propose a guess. Let me first remind viewers Americans in general didn't seem to be clamoring for war over WMD. There was also the Rwandan Genocide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide) in 1994 where 500K to 1M were killed with no intervention from the U.S. If we are so concerned for the well being and slaughter of distant people, why not?

The real downfall of Saddam Hussein was interests of a powerful nation (the U.S.) were aligned against him. An empire the size of the U.S. which doesn't produce much domestically needs something else to export to sustain a debt fueled economy: war. The Iraq war cost over 2 Trillion dollars (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314) of additional U.S. debt. Second, as Stefan mentioned there are those who do profit from war and somebody got paid from those dollars.

Third, Saddam proposed selling oil for euros which threatened the petrodollar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar). While Iraq wasn't the world's biggest oil producer, others could get ideas and Iraq was small enough to be made an example of. Combine all this with the fact Saddam wasn't the most saintly ruler and you probably have the real basis for that war. Now that explanation I'd argue makes far more sense, and is certainly about the ability to continue printing fiat (the U.S. dollar).


I'd agree with the fierce part.


You're missing the point. It's not printing money that restrains government. It's cost. The two are not the same.

If the barometer for what people use as money is gold, something which government can't simply create to dish out, then people will feel the cost of things like war in a more pronounced way, rather then gradually over years by inflation.


Maybe the speeches of George W. Bush in the lead up to the Iraq War were more to your taste.

I took that quote right off the youtube page.  

Iraq War was about economics and land grab of oil reserves and strategical positioning in Middle East.  If you follow the careers of Bush-Cheney-Romsfeld & PNAC you can see where the ideology comes from.  

But besides the point it has nothing to do w his speech.  BTC would have not prevent Iraq, cause Iraq has nothing to do w whether Fractional Reserve Banking exists or not

His speech was about how the power of govts to print money and in return this pays for wars.  This hypothesis is so wrong because he is drawing causation where there is none.  Wars existed before the Govt could print money.  Wars don't have to be paid by govt money.  Most Communist uprisings aren't paid for by govts or bankers

He tries to portray that he discovered some "alternative" view of history that's somehow hidden from the masses.  However, his views is not supported from rigid research.  Maybe it appeals to you, but to me it's very weak academics.   The guy is a shock jock.  He's not as bad as Alex Jones and that ilk.  I'll give him that.  

Apparently you didn't read it carefully. As I tried to point out the word war isn't in the quote. Fighting to achieve something doesn't always mean you're fighting war.


I agree there has probably been in place a U.S. military wishlist to invade and occupy Iraq, Iran, Syria, regardless who landed in the Oval Office. Also as my Rwandan Genocide example shows it must be about oil, not morality.  What I'm saying is Saddam Hussein allowed enough interests to align to turn a wish into action.


Aha, but this is my (and Stefan's) point. If BTC (or gold) was used by Americans as the dollar is it absolutely could have prevented the Iraq War. Why? As I pointed out that war cost over 2 trillion dollars, all borrowed. If everyone was using BTC those costs would have been due and payable in BTC.

The problem is the government doesn't have the ability to create BTC on demand. It would have to actually get BTC from its citizens in some way, all bad: taxation, bonds (lending), or confiscation. In the case of taxation with such a large cost taxes would be high enough to anger the populace, and the war would be over quickly. In the case of borrowing with such a large cost interest rates would be high (remember things like gold or BTC hold or increase in value over time) and repayment would be steep so as to again require higher taxes. Confiscation, well you should know the rest...

None of those war finance options are preferable to a government that wants to remain easily in power, due to the cost felt by its citizens. This is how sound money prevents, or at least limits, war. Wars are then only fought over legitimate conflict, not frivolous, profiteering motives.


That's a false dichotomy. You're implying either govts can print money or there will be no war. Other possibilities exist, such as starting limited, less costly, war.


I'd argue there is a lot hidden from the masses, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, but either way the masses remain ignorant of much.


The fact is both he and Alex Jones have amassed large and growing audiences, so what they're saying obviously resonates with someone. Even if they don't get all of their information 100% correctly proven and presented in the best possible way, it seems foolish to dismiss the whole of their content as worthless and never deserving any attention.
  

Yeah but you can't single out War Financing.  If the govt cannot print money then nothing else can get financed (or limited financed).   Govts don't want the power to print money in order to engage in war.  They want that power to finance whatever they want to finance

Also you & Stefan are conflating separate issues.  Wars still occurred when money was backed by gold.  WW1 & WW2 are examples of huge wars that occurred when currencies backed by gold

The flaw of his arguments goes like this:

Wars cost money
If money is limited then war is limited
Therefore, to limit war we should limit money

I could try to make a similar illogical argument

Wars are fought by soldiers
If less soldiers then less wars
Therefore, to limit wars we should limit soldiers

It seems to me he had a hypothesis about war finance & banking.  Then he tried to connect BTC to that somehow.  Poor academics for a guy who claims to be a "philosopher"

Pretty much this.  I'd be spreading the video around if I hadn't seen some of his prior videos which put me off the guy.  He might be right about Bitcoin.  In fact, I sincerely hope he is, but if other people start looking more closely at his other videos, they might end up taking him less seriously and that in turn casts doubt on what he's saying about crypto.

I can see why the more radical people out there are drawn to Bitcoin, but in terms of helping spread mainstream adoption, we ideally want to publicise details coming from a more moderate source to avoid alienating the general populace.  If we give the impression that Bitcoin is just for extremists and anarchists, it's going to hinder the cause.

Can I get $20 for trolling?

Then how did the U.S. survive prior to 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created?


Governments want ability to print money to do whatever they (and their special interests, including war profiteers) want to do. This includes financing popular social programs which help politicians win election, but put a costly drain on the economy.


That's our point. Governments did suspend gold standards and inflate for those wars. Check out the following:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/war-causes-inflation-and-inflation-allows-government-start-unnecessary-wars

From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard


It was the newly created Federal Reserve in 1913 which inflated for WWI leading to a bubble facilitating the "roaring twenties". The subsequent popping of that bubble caused the stock market to crash in 1929 ushering in the Great Depression.

World War II cost the U.S. 15 times more gold than it had in Fort Knox and the Fed.

Exactly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3_lVSrPB6w). Like Stefan says, government doesn't want to have to make people choose between bread or war, because people will always choose bread. But war is profitable. Extremely profitable.

So fiat (=fake) money was invented. Print as much as you want, it doesn't matter! Now we can do war-for-profit forever! Hell, we can base our entire economy off that! Problem solved.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-war-is-a-racket-it-always-has-been-it-is-possibly-the-oldest-easily-the-most-profitable-surely-smedley-butler-215696.jpg

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/p526x296/1234854_566670710047788_872828662_n.jpg

Nation states devour their children. Just watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GRR_n_yQGA) repeatedly until you get it.

OK I get your point now and perhaps you are right.  I'm glad you debated me.  I had to go back and watch that video again and ignore the distraction of his political ranting to figure out what point he is trying to make.

Still i think he must be some kind of nutcase to want to LIMIT money supply.  Again, my point is you can't single out war finance when it comes to economics.  And I don't agree that you can arrive at simple conclusions like "If we only limited money then the wars would only last a few months"

If history has proven anything is that once war is engaged there is no stopping til someone wins.  And the state will do whatever it takes to win.  So I think he has the cause & effect backwards.  Its not that govts print money because they want to wage war.  Its that once war is engaged you have to print money to win at all costs.   Imagine if you were Churchill, would you let Hitler occupy the UK cause you couldn't come up w couple hundred billion pounds?

But as a argument for BTC I think war financing is a weak argument.  Because if you limit money supply you limit ALL economic activity.  I could easily make a counter argument that Federal Reserve System was necessary for the Industrial Revolution & the Information Revolution to happen because it modernized banking.  But I won't because thats also a simplistic economic view

In his talk Stefan longed for the "good old days" of the 19th Century.  I don't know why he thinks times were better back then.  Wealth inequality today is at historical highs since levels of 19th century.  The wealth distribution was most even post WW2.  So perhaps prices were more stable back then but less people had access to wealth.  If you don't know about this economist, Thomas Piketty you should check out his work.  He writes about wealth inequality.  He actually says that WW1 & WW2 destroyed capital & reset the wealth inequality.  If you look at empirical data -- these wars HELPED the middle class

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674430006

http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-on-us-inequality-2014-4

I think all this talk about gold standards & fractional reserve banking are all smoke and mirrors used by people who simply want to transfer wealth from one population to another --namely themselves.  If you limit money supply then it becomes easier to one class to monopolize money supply.  No difference than when Marxists tried to convince the proletariat to uprise against the bourgeois.

If you want to stop wars then create stronger treaties.  If you want to balance out wealth inequality then limit wealth monopoly thru progressive taxation.  If you want to avoid systemic risk then regulate banking.  Its not like these issues aren't being discussed and debated all the time by super smart people.  Maybe the solution is already out there but there is no political will to make the changes necessary.  In any case changes have to made made from within the system not by creating noise outside the system.  BTC is a non-solution as far as I'm concerned because it ignores existing institutions that built over long spans of history.  Maybe that's why Communism also failed.  It doesn't work so lets destroy everything and start over is just crazy 20th Century 'tabula rasa' ideology.  Who the hell wants to experience that again?

I guess you don't appreciate why limits are necessary. Without limits you lose meaning. It would be like a basketball game with no limit on how many players each side could bring onto the court. Pretty soon that game becomes meaningless because there is just no point to passing the ball.


War would have a heck of a lot better chance at being over quicker. As Stefan says when the money stops so do the bullets. War is expensive, yet governments don't have unlimited wealth without ability to create/counterfeit/inflate fiat money.


Really? Who won the Vietnam War, which spanned almost 20 years? The U.S.? What about Iraq? Did the U.S. win that war? What exactly were we fighting over again and what was the win?

Do you see how murky these answers get? That's the problem with going to war without clear impetus and objective. The wars drag on and because governments can mask the cost via currency inflation, there is little deterrent to those favoring war, for whatever reasons.


Well it's a slippery slope. If you provide people no restraint on drinking and driving that will inevitably get abused. Then you get the casualties of that policy.


Why so? Even if you follow a hard gold standard global human population increases by roughly 2% per year, which is about how much gold enters the supply as well.


I think that's an over simplification. The fact is that inflation of a currency provides an automatic, gradual transfer of wealth from lower to upper classes. That's a key reason wealth inequality is so high currently, that along with crony capitalism. Those wars and inflation certainly had effects on the economy, but the real way you help the poor is by allowing open access to a free market built on top of sound money.


The talk about gold standards and fractional reserve is about keeping the upper echelons of society, government and banks, honest. Once you have those two, which can do much damage due to the power they wield, under control then you let the free market work. I agree there should be common sense policies against unfair, uncompetitive monopolies.


I don't know why you have faith words are the simple answer. Even the U.S. Constitution has clear language, for example, which is routinely ignored.

Then what are you doing on a Bitcoin forum?

@acoindr  the purpose of war is NOT to end it quickly.  The purpose is to have victory over your enemies and make them legally comply by your demands afterward.  That might take years so money is needed.  No general can accept defeat because he didn't have enough money to win.


I don't understand the basketball analogy at all.  Economies need money and if money is limited economies cannot thrive. This is simple

Viet Cong won the "American War".  Vietnam became a Communist state after that.  The deterrent would be a treaty.  An agreement that we will not go to war.  Something like NATO

You overlooked my example of Pikertty research.  Wealth inequality happens when R (return on capital) is greater than G (growth).  pls refer to his research of empirical data

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/chart-01.jpg

The middle class benefitted from post WW2 because the war destroyed capital and it reset the wealth distribution.

I don't get what you are trying to say but hope these few lines emphasize what I'm saying

Nonsense. Humans (for the most part) have a natural aversion to violence. Are you a spokesperson for the Military Industrial Complex? If you end up in a street fight, if it came to that, would you rather it dragged on as long as possible or would you rather it culminated in some result sooner so both sides could move on?


Yes... and now we get to the root of the problem. For whom is war fought, generals or the state they represent? If the answer is the state, then whom does the state work for if it's not a communist regime? If the answer is the people then what you're really talking about is not money, but support. To win generals need the support of the people they fight for, but can do much without any support whatsoever so long as they have funding, and that can come from a state even if not willingly from the people, via inflation.

If a war is unpopular its funding will be withdrawn by the people and be over, that is unless the people don't feel the direct costs of the war while it can remain funded, as in Vietnam where as you correctly point out the U.S. lost that unpopular war, which dragged on nonetheless. We now trade with the Vietnamese.


I believe this is a key argument of Keynesians. It is false. You can have a thriving economy, by some definition, without money at all. Wealth comes from things people produce, not units of account. I should define "wealth". When I say wealth I mean things which provide directly for or some enhancement to the basic needs of humans. If your house is filled with useless trinkets, although pleasure may have been taken in buying them I wouldn't say it makes one truly wealthy.

In this light we see it's goods and services which are produced by people, such as quality farm fresh food and the skilled chefs to process it, which are examples of valuable products within an economy and these things can be bartered for in the absence of money. Money simply makes barter more efficient, by providing a common medium through which various goods are traded.

Let me put it another way. Say there was an isolated neighborhood of a few city blocks, completely cut off from the rest of the world. Within this neighborhood there are people with different skills, doctors, chefs, musicians, etc. These people get together and determine to make an economy. They find a special sheet of paper and cut it up so that everyone has an equal amount of squares. They ask the doctor how many squares he would charge to do a life saving surgery. The doctor upon seeing everyone had 100 squares said 30 squares, this thereby giving each square measurable value. For example, the musician couldn't charge 30 squares to play a song.

For years this community lived happily enjoying fine food and music, trading squares for things they want, and building fine houses for say 1,000 squares. There would be no need to increase the money supply if the population didn't increase.

One day a stranger with zero skills arrives, but he finds a hidden trove containing three sheets of that special paper. Realizing he has stumbled into enormous wealth he calls over a few friends and they cut up the paper between them. They enter the economy wealthy men though they have contributed nothing of value. What effect does their lavish spending have on everyone else? The extra paper in circulation bids up prices, aka inflation, causing the other square holders to become poorer. That's what simply adding more money into supply does. It doesn't inherently add valuable GDP.

Very good. Every human is fundamentally anti war, do what you can do abolish this war state which exists to provide revenue to the big defense contractors, fuck them all.

Well said. The warmongers and murder-profiteers will extract every last drop of blood-profit they can from humanity, until we strip them of all power. Bitcoin just happens to be the first effective way to achieve this goal.


http://8tracks.imgix.net/i/001/269/213/73092.original-2131.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AToIEh8p8i0/Tg3DcwkfuaI/AAAAAAAAAFs/t8OU8LiP4pU/s320/st-21.jpg

To the top you go, little thread.

And deservedly so. The ramifications of a fixed (or decaying) supply currency cannot be underestimated. This must be understood.

Other important fact:

At just 2% annual inflation, a currency loses 75% of its value over a lifetime. Great investment.

Molyneux believes the world will be better off without coercive force and fraud.

This may be the best thread I have read here. SM was one of the people that got me excited about bit coin in the first place.

Good to see this thread back on page 1 where it belongs.


The Sunset of the State (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLCEXtpTNYU)

I was highly unimpressed by his talk. He seems to assert things as facts without evidence.

The single biggest problem for me was his assertion that the 19th century was some sort of island of financial stability due to gold backing the currency. Really?

how about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1866 or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857

I could go on, but you get the idea. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, but this crap that gets pushed by these extreme libertarians/gold bugs about how wonderful things were in the 19th century is really annoying.

I'd like to see how many people had their hands up when Stefan asked: "How many people here are interested in bitcoin?"

Is there a TLDR version of how gold backing can cause a crisis?

Gold backing never caused any crisis. Greed caused every crisis.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Cryptocurrency did not create capitalism's self-destructive tendencies, and it is not going to solve them.

All of those events can be linked to leaving a metal standard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1857


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1866


When you leave a sound money (hard metal) standard it affects the market. The greater the deviation/inflation the greater the potential boom bust cycle. Those first Panic events didn't last long:



However, the U.S. went off the gold standard and inflated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenback_(money)) for the Civil War in 1862. Which initially led to a boom, partially responsible for full recovery from the Panic of 1857, but ending in a bust causing the Long Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression) spanning 1873 to 1879.

Similarly, the U.S. inflated for World War I which resulted in an initial boom ushering in the "roaring twenties" but ending in a bust causing the Great Depression in 1930 lasting into the 1940's.

Such an epic speech.  Molyneux is one of the greatest thinkers of our time

Wow, stunning talk, fresh perspective, incredible points. His youtube account was taken down after this talk, it's back up now but he certainly hit a nerve with this talk. Keep it up & Thanks Stefan.

yes I have seen this video, very informative.

I thought this was the best talk about bitcoin I've ever seen. And I've gone pretty crazy for some btc talks that I've seen. (Andreas!) Awesome thread too. It's so nice to read from other people who also appreciate & understand the incredibly important stuff he is talking about. Some just get lost in obscure details but it's the essence of what he is saying is that is so inspirational. I'm actually really happy if 50% of the posts in this thread like the video. Just as the printing press transformed society, so can cryptocurrencies.

Finally got around to watching it today. His words sound like some of the brightest speakers in the run up to the American Revolution. I suspect this technology will finally finish what they started. 


"Bill the warmongers!!"

Well spoken. Please share the vid with anyone you care about.

Thanks! Your signature is awesome as well by the way. I was forced to read Voltaire in college and got hooked on his writings. It is nice to see a literature reference in this reality tv driven time.

Reality TV, Facebook, Twitter.. our society is being systemically dumbed down. Personally, I do not believe this is a coincidence (https://www.johntaylorgatto.com/bookstore/dumbdnblum1.htm).

No wonder I was always in trouble at school. Incidentally the author's home town is less than an hour drive from my door step.

The part about intellectual dependence is particularly troubling. It does explain the sporting event nature of our elections and political discourse. The shouting down of opposing viewpoints and scoring political points with clever rhetoric is how we get presidents like our current one.   

Lol really?   I didn't even know you could get banned from youtube??   Obviously I figured you would be banned if you tried to upload porn or something like that, but other than that, or a video of graphic violence, I thought everything else was fair game...

Youtube is a pretty regular offender when it comes to censorship. They are a privately owned service so that is their right but it is also my right to seek out alternatives that more closely reflect my values.

This is a great speach.

Possibly the most important speech in our lifetimes, for Americans at least.

Stefan puts out some thought provoking work. Love it.

Ah, the sweet feeling of having someone's political beliefs shoved down my throat...
I really doubt the rhetoric of Stefan Molyneux is helpful to further bitcoin's cause at this point. He sounds a tad bit like a lunatic, and paranoid at best.

 "Estrogen-Based Parasites" is still his best video to date.

No, it's not.

"The tyranny of illusion" is his best.
"Sunset of the State" is his second best.
"Bitcoin vs. Political Power" is his third best.
"Estrogen based parasites" is 4th or 5th best, I'd say.

By "best", I mean most important for the world. It's about the rarity of the truths held within, and how important they are for our species to understand.

Anyway, all capitalism is parasitism. It's silly to attack one particular form of parasitism in the greater context of a worldwide, systematic, heirarchy, socio-economic-caste based parasitism.

This is hands down one of the best Bitcoin videos I have ever seen. Thank you very much for sharing and introducing me to this person. I plan to watch a few of his other videos now.

Stefan Molyneux is a living sage. Dive right in, you're in for quite a treat.

I've learned so much from him. Or rather, unlearned so many lies, thanks to this human.

The only thing Stefan gets wrong is that he's not an anti-capitalist (yet). Keep that in mind (http://vimeo.com/4041228).

So what exactly do you disagree with? Is giving power back to the people a bad thing in some way? Please elaborate as I am genuinely curious about how less war and sound money is a bad thing.

Is Stefan not a capitalist?

Edit: Just read this in another of your posts:  :)


Perhaps he just hasn't convinced you that you're a capitalist (yet).  :)

Stefan is anarcho-capitalist, typical white male bullshit.

What do you have against whitie? Other than the usual, you know, racist, sexist, warmongering, pedophile, wife beating, plaid wearing, themed party lovin bullshit.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/why-white-people-cant-be-trusted

''the choices of those who came before are not your physics, they remain your choice.

let no cloud of history come between you and who you can connect with, that is how history wins.
don't be what remains when history wins, which is nothing but a shit stain on the ass of the planet''

This video is extremely inspiring.

Even John McCain wouldn't have a raging hard-on for war if he bore any of the cost.

I don't listen to Stefan that much. Yes, some of his beliefs and statements are more radical and controversial than others. Yes, I'm sure he got numerous facts wrong throughout his speech if you really wanted to nitpick.

But, on the whole, his speech was DIRECTLY ON POINT.

I don't need to explain why. If you're on this forum, you should already understand why.

Wake up people.