|
Title: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: MyBitcoinMint on April 04, 2012, 01:08:37 PM Former Fed economist David Barker: "One thing we've learned over the last several decades is that central planning does not work as well as markets."
He cites Bitcoin as an experiment into private currency and says "private money might be better." +1 for Bitcoin http://patriotpost.us/opinion/john-stossel/2012/04/04/lets-give-the-fed-some-competition/ (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/john-stossel/2012/04/04/lets-give-the-fed-some-competition/) Time to ask John Stossel to publish a Bitcoin address so we can properly thank him :) Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: herzmeister on April 04, 2012, 04:24:16 PM yup, ironically, even what so many non-tech libertarians demand, a "gold standard", is socialism. :D
Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: acoindr on April 04, 2012, 05:58:30 PM yup, ironically, even what so many non-tech libertarians demand, a "gold standard", is socialism. :D How do you get that? Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: herzmeister on April 04, 2012, 06:08:48 PM well, who decides on the gold standard? how much should the backing be? that's central planning.
Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: hazek on April 04, 2012, 06:21:02 PM well, who decides on the gold standard? how much should the backing be? that's central planning. Exactly. That's why I want a market standard, let the market pick what is the best money. Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: acoindr on April 04, 2012, 06:59:57 PM well, who decides on the gold standard? how much should the backing be? that's central planning. If it's a true gold standard then the backed amount shouldn't vary. And either way, it's still not socialism. Bad economics, yes, but that doesn't equal socialism. If that were true you'd be asserting the U.S. has been a socialist country since 1913. I don't think so. Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: herzmeister on April 04, 2012, 07:13:42 PM i was overstating it a bit (the state again :P), but some seem to understand ;)
If it's a true gold standard then the backed amount shouldn't vary. fine, then you essentially want a true 1:1 gold backed currency. how do you know if a bank issuing notes actually has all the gold as a reserve? how will you ensure that people will actually care? we've had all that before. history repeating. another problem is that today's gold supply is largely controlled by the elites already. Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: acoindr on April 04, 2012, 07:31:49 PM fine, then you essentially want a true 1:1 gold backed currency. how do you know if a bank issuing notes actually has all the gold as a reserve? how will you ensure that people will actually care? we've had all that before. history repeating. another problem is that today's gold supply is largely controlled by the elites already. Good points. I agree totally. But that doesn't equal socialism. ;) Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: hazek on April 04, 2012, 07:38:56 PM fine, then you essentially want a true 1:1 gold backed currency. how do you know if a bank issuing notes actually has all the gold as a reserve? how will you ensure that people will actually care? we've had all that before. history repeating. another problem is that today's gold supply is largely controlled by the elites already. Good points. I agree totally. But that doesn't equal socialism. ;) It does because the government enforces the gold standard and gives itself a monopoly over what is money which allows them to grow more easily and faster which eventually leads to socialism. Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: evoorhees on April 04, 2012, 07:41:26 PM If that were true you'd be asserting the U.S. has been a socialist country since 1913. I don't think so. Funny you mention that year, when the income tax was levied. If I were to pick one year when the US shifted decisively from primarily capitalistic to primarily socialistic, it would be 1913. Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: acoindr on April 04, 2012, 07:50:31 PM fine, then you essentially want a true 1:1 gold backed currency. how do you know if a bank issuing notes actually has all the gold as a reserve? how will you ensure that people will actually care? we've had all that before. history repeating. another problem is that today's gold supply is largely controlled by the elites already. Good points. I agree totally. But that doesn't equal socialism. ;) It does because the government enforces the gold standard and gives itself a monopoly over what is money which allows them to grow more easily and faster which eventually leads to socialism. You have a misunderstanding of what exactly a gold standard is. A gold standard is the opposite of the government saying what money is, because people already view gold as money. If a gold standard is enforced then the government is restrained from growing by inflating the money supply. Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: notme on April 04, 2012, 07:54:05 PM fine, then you essentially want a true 1:1 gold backed currency. how do you know if a bank issuing notes actually has all the gold as a reserve? how will you ensure that people will actually care? we've had all that before. history repeating. another problem is that today's gold supply is largely controlled by the elites already. Good points. I agree totally. But that doesn't equal socialism. ;) It does because the government enforces the gold standard and gives itself a monopoly over what is money which allows them to grow more easily and faster which eventually leads to socialism. You have a misunderstanding of what exactly a gold standard is. A gold standard is the opposite of the government saying what money is, because people already view gold as money. If a gold standard is enforced then the government is restrained from growing by inflating the money supply. If a gold standard is enforced, it is exactly the government saying what money is. If no standard is enforced, it is the opposite, and other options like silver and bitcoin can be used by subgroups within the population. Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: acoindr on April 04, 2012, 07:57:39 PM If that were true you'd be asserting the U.S. has been a socialist country since 1913. I don't think so. Funny you mention that year, when the income tax was levied. If I were to pick one year when the US shifted decisively from primarily capitalistic to primarily socialistic, it would be 1913. LOL I had a feeling someone would call me on that ;) Yes, I'd agree, but we are still a long way from Cuba. ;D Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: acoindr on April 04, 2012, 08:04:29 PM fine, then you essentially want a true 1:1 gold backed currency. how do you know if a bank issuing notes actually has all the gold as a reserve? how will you ensure that people will actually care? we've had all that before. history repeating. another problem is that today's gold supply is largely controlled by the elites already. Good points. I agree totally. But that doesn't equal socialism. ;) It does because the government enforces the gold standard and gives itself a monopoly over what is money which allows them to grow more easily and faster which eventually leads to socialism. You have a misunderstanding of what exactly a gold standard is. A gold standard is the opposite of the government saying what money is, because people already view gold as money. If a gold standard is enforced then the government is restrained from growing by inflating the money supply. If a gold standard is enforced, it is exactly the government saying what money is. If no standard is enforced, it is the opposite, and other options like silver and bitcoin can be used by subgroups within the population. We have a missed communication on the word "enforced". I meant the government would honor and not change any convertibility into gold, not force people to use the currency. Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: notme on April 04, 2012, 08:11:55 PM We have a missed communication on the word "enforced". I meant the government would honor and not change any convertibility into gold, not force people to use the currency. That wouldn't need any force at all... thus no need for it to be "enforced". I think we agree if you replace "enforced" with "honored". Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: acoindr on April 04, 2012, 08:24:16 PM We have a missed communication on the word "enforced". I meant the government would honor and not change any convertibility into gold, not force people to use the currency. That wouldn't need any force at all... thus no need for it to be "enforced". I think we agree if you replace "enforced" with "honored". People readily converting paper back into the right amount of gold, at anytime, wouldn't require anything enforced? Surely at least a few guards would need be present ;) We're talking semantics, but I agree "honored" is a better word to use there. Title: Re: Former Fed Economist Endorses Bitcoin Experiment Post by: hazek on April 04, 2012, 08:45:37 PM fine, then you essentially want a true 1:1 gold backed currency. how do you know if a bank issuing notes actually has all the gold as a reserve? how will you ensure that people will actually care? we've had all that before. history repeating. another problem is that today's gold supply is largely controlled by the elites already. Good points. I agree totally. But that doesn't equal socialism. ;) It does because the government enforces the gold standard and gives itself a monopoly over what is money which allows them to grow more easily and faster which eventually leads to socialism. You have a misunderstanding of what exactly a gold standard is. A gold standard is the opposite of the government saying what money is, because people already view gold as money. If a gold standard is enforced then the government is restrained from growing by inflating the money supply. A gold standard is precisely a government telling the people what money is. What we want is a market standard where the market decides what money is. Then and only then the government is powerless to abuse it's assumed privilege of controlling money and it's worth. |