And so what? They are leeches. They suck up the lifeblood of the economy (real, resources) by printing money in return for public debt, in return for just getting the right to use currency. Then, they take that interest (or the collateral they get in case of a default) and use it to take our real resources, not printed resources, away from real people, and place them into the hands of the elite.
It's a partnership between bank and state, just as corrupt as the partnership between church and state used to be. The state gets to steal the wealth of the people in the form of inflation, while the banks get to steal the wealth of the people in the form of eternal interest.
You seem to be missing the whole thing. It is in the best state and bank interests that people would get richer, so they get their share of wealth. If your words were true, economies would have long collapsed. I don't say that this system is perfect but you can't deny that it works |
|
|
|
So economies have to grow to match the interest rates of central banks just to maintain their value, if they can grow faster they can increase in value but growth isn't unlimited, it diminishes due to the laws of supply and demand. You are confusing cause and effect. Interest rates reflect growth rate, not the other way round. Otherwise they make no sense, you can't take 5% if economy can only give 4%. Yes, central banks can use them to regulate the economy but this doesn't change the whole thing |
|
|
|
Look, say that instead of halving the block reward, Satoshi kept the block reward the same but doubled the amount of BTC in existence. in other words, everybody who used to have 1 BTC now would have 2, and everybody who used to have 4 now has 8, and so on.
This would be functionally equivalent to the system we have right now. There is literally no difference, because it would still be "fair", if a bit more confusing. Sure, its an increase in money supply, so the price will naturally halve. Except its a predictable increase, and a fair increase. Gox & other exchanges would likely just halve the price of Bitcoins on that day as well, because the system is fair, and open: Everybody knows. I'm not very familiar (mildly speaking) with BTC interiors but I think I got your idea. I just can't agree with your assumption that price would halve. We don't know how many BTCs are actually traded and how many are kept secretly in wallets, so it is a mute point. Surely, it is not total BTC supply that determines the price of coins And I still don't see what are your arguments against my initial post you branded as "a completely noob theory for ridiculously obvious reasons". What are those obvious reasons really? Knowledge is one of the requirements for effective capitalism. What you're arguing for, is a system that is fundamentally unfair because it is unpredictable. You're saying that simply due to the lack of information people have about WHEN the money supply is increasing - not to mention who is getting the new money supply and what they intend to do with it - the system somehow becomes more efficient, when in reality it just adds uncertainty.
These are no more but vague phrases. First of all, I didn't say the words you are attributing to me. Secondly, why something which is unpredictable is so inevitably unfair? Why do you think that the predictable money supply would in the long run make the economy any good, which has an inherent and significant uncertainty in it? In short, you have to say something more substantial to sound convincing |
|
|
|
Central banks aren't state owned, they're private entities that provide a service and charge for it, they own and run monetary systems. Ireland's charged 5% last time I checked, that's the entire economy every 20 years.
And so what? Are they saboteurs, I don't get? |
|
|
|
That's the theory but interest rates eventually force the currency to continually reduce in value. The backing could increase in value faster than the interest making everyone's money worth more but that has diminishing returns, eventually it reaches saturation point where everyone has everything they need leaving no room for expand further. Either way the creator still creates wealth by taking value away from the existing currency and the backing has to increase in value to maintain it, effectively we have to run just to stay in the same place.
Once again you fail to see the whole picture (first of all regarding interest rates and making everyone happy). There is no singular creator being a malevolent entity taking away wealth. The money printed by CB makes only a small fraction of all the money in the economy |
|
|
|
If a currency is backed by economy (widgets), printing more moneyz as the economy grows (more widgets are made) keeps the currency value exactly the same (more moneys = more widgets to buy with it)  That is why fiat currencies have superiority against hard currencies. They are backed by the whole economy, total national wealth, and if the economy grows, so does money supply. There is no need even to print new money by the central bank. Money is created/destroyed automatically inside the system as required. In relative terms everyone's share of national wealth becomes less as the economy and money supply grows but in absolute terms it stays the same. I think this is a fair state of things from public welfare's point of view |
|
|
|
Yes but if a currency has any real backing then creation reduces the unit value regardless of what the currency is backed by. The only one to get the full benefit is the creator who's creating value by reducing the value of the existing currency, it would save a lot of complication to simply use scrip and vary the rate of devaluation to match the countries needs :/
Not quite so. If money supply corresponds with the supply of a backing asset, this unit value stays the same. And this is where, in my opinion, fiat currencies are far superior or even fairer beside hard currencies |
|
|
|
This bit, it depends on what your money should represent. If it represents underlying value then redenomination and creation are the same thing, if it doesn't represent underlying value then you have an unbacked currency.
Thanks for clarification, now I got your idea. Even if we take money with "intrinsic" underlying value (say gold backed dollar) redenomination and creation are surely not the same thing. In the case of redenomination there is no redistribution of wealth - every man will still have the same share of total gold reserve backing up the dollar (despite the number of zeroes added or subtracted from a money token). So redenomination doesn't change anything even in this case (in fact it just doesn't make sense either) Regarding creation (printing) of new gold backed dollars, the answer is obvious too - people become less wealthy (in gold), their gold share is decreased per holder (and this is one of the faults of hard asset backed currencies, which fiats are free from) |
|
|
|
It depends on what's considered value. A billion dollar bills backed by 100 tons of gold is simple enough, print 200k more bills and the amount of gold each bill represents is easily calculated just as its easy to calculate the increase in the amount each bill represents if another 20 tons of gold are added.
What depends? Please be more specific |
|
|
|
I think he means there's no difference between raising the value of each unit or creating more units of equal or lower value, the sum is still the same. The difference is in how its created, with a centralised system the increase in units spreads out from a central point with the value of all units falling as it spreads whereas with a fixed amount of units the value rises for all simultaneously. And no, I don't hold any PM's. I should just for diversification but would choose platinum and silver over gold due to their intrinsic value. It seems I got his point if your guess is correct indeed. If we raise the face value of EACH unit we actually don't change anything and the effects are negligible. It is called redenomination, i.e. changing the face value of a money token, it's done for conveniance primarily. We just write off (or add up) some zeroes, that's all Creating new units (money supply) has nothing to do with redenomination, you just cannot directly compare these notions. Asking such questions is like asking about the difference/similarity between meters and grams |
|
|
|
He means that, in that case, the distinction between inflation or stable money supply doesn't matter. You aren't, in fact, arguing for inflation. You are arguing for centralized inflation. You've attempted to justify inflation. But how do you justify centralization?
What is centralized inflation and centralization here? |
|
|
|
Also, google streetview seems to have managed to photograph a Subway near Moscow. http://bit.ly/HBRzWOThere is some suggestion this may be the Subway branch in question, but whether or not it is, surely you're not going to claim that Google is somehow in on this fake? Ok, I stay corrected. Do you suggest I visit that place and try to pay with Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
My statements are compatible with deflation.
No In a month I sell something at, say, A'=A-15/100*A. I had to buy material which costed, FIFTEEN days before I selle, x'=x-20/100*x , y'=y-20/100*y, z'=z-20/100*z, and I added value Q'=Q+somePercentage/100*Q, so that A'= x'+y'+z' + Q'.
Fifteen days before (starting point) you would have bought your materials at their initital price x, y and z. If you sold your final product at that very moment you would get your initial profit Q, i.e. A=x+y+z+Q, but you can only sell fifteen days after you bought materials at the lower price which is now A'=A-15/100*A due to ongoing deflation. So your profits have shrunk by A-A' (if you are on a narrow margin you may even suffer losses). When you make second turn (if ever) you buy materials at the new lower price x'=x-15/100*x, y'=y-15/100*y, z'=z-15/100*z (I changed the deflation factor to that of A to keep things correct), but you will again sell A only fifteen days later at the price which will still be lower, i.e. A''=A'-15/100*A' since deflation continues. You won't return to your initial profitability unless and until deflation comes to an end. Like inflation, it is not a one-off drop in prices, it is a lasting process Deflation will always be ahead of you. The longer your production cycle, the more profit will be stripped. Probably you meant that your profits/losses won't be shrinking/expanding any further (i.e. A-A'=A'-A''=A''-A'''=..., provided the deflation rate doesn't change) but this was not my point |
|
|
|
I talked about what he/she adds for his/her work ("transformation of raw material/components"). The final price can be less because he/she bougth such material/components at a lower price. Deflation means that today's prices (your material/components) are higher than tomorrow's (ready product which producer sells). The producer gets into situation when he buys dear but sells cheap, so his profit margin narrows. When it reaches the break-even point he stops production and fires his staff thus contributing to ever falling demand (the cause of prices fall) |
|
|
|
|
Такие вещи по-тихому мутят... Пусть кто-нибудь из вашей троицы квартиру заложит, как раз должно хватить
|
|
|
|
Простите, не понял. Каких червячков?
Да это знаменитая фраза из фильма - типа, держи карман шире... Государство - это аппарат насилия и принуждения, и говорить о том, что где-то там рассматривают государство как-то иначе - увольте (сразу вспомнился "Враг государства"). Общество в целом (как сущность) везде противопоставляется государству как совокупность институтов без участия государства (определение гражданского общества) |
|
|
|
This is the quote as to what happened.
"Two hacks totalling about 4100 BTC have left Inputs.io unable to pay all user balances. The attacker compromised the hosting account through compromising email accounts (some very old, and without phone numbers attached, so it was easy to reset). The attacker was able to bypass 2FA due to a flaw on the server host side."
Sorry to go off topic but I guess a lot of people here may have been using inputs.io and others are using other online wallets. Be safe look after your own coin.
Thanks for the info. In fact I didn't like Inputs.io from the first glance (so many faucets requiring an account there instead of a plain good old BTC address). Paranoid in me says the hack is bogus and they just ran away with the money |
|
|
|
I used an inputs.io BTC address and now that's gone I won't be able to get my payment. Is it possible you could add the ability to change payout address? I don't know what's happened there (I use Coinbase), but I think it's time to transfer funds to my own wallet |
|
|
|
Moderate long-term deflation or a very slow turn from inflation into deflation would be a different and much less dangerous animal. That may be the future of bitcoin, if it has any. Yes, deflation could be less dangerous when it is compensated by other factors and producers are able to keep their profit margins wide enough to continue production (that's what ultimately matters), but could this situation be called deflation? Any real world examples when deflation was good for the economy? Japan had been for almost 2 decades in a deflationary spiral (it started in late 80's - early 90's when asset price bubbles popped) but honestly I can't say it was any good for their economy. Probably it would collapse but for the exports (Japan being an open economy) |
|
|
|
Consider a scenario in which everybody receives a proportionally equal amount of an inflating money supply. What should be fairly obvious is that this doesn't matter, since you could achieve the same thing by just representing money first in Bitcoins, then in mBTC, then in satoshis, etc...
I didn't understand what you had meant to say by this snippet (haven't yet read further). What do you mean by "What should be fairly obvious is that this doesn't matter" - what doesn't matter and why should we consider this scenario if you say it (?) doesn't matter? What same thing could we achieve? I don't get your point Please explain, then we proceed |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
