Don't count on that.  Those powers are the same that continue to deny the problem exists.

There is the key piece of data right there.  The Fed's own statistics confirm that the Fed was doing the right thing!  Ever consider the possibility that those stats are intentionally manipulated to make the government/federal reserve look like they know what they are doing?  If the CPI were calculated in the same manner that it was in 1970's, the CPI would be over 6% right now and would never have shown a negative number.  But it's not calculated the same way.  M1 isn't even reported anymore, and has to be guessed.  Shadowstats.com, which does have it's own biases and issues I admit up front, does a much better job producing metrics that compare to those that we used to use.  For example, if we were still using the unemployment metrics that we still use in history books for the Great Depression, U6 would be the closest number to that metric.  Last I checked, U6 was over 16%; and that is even with the lowest participation rate in the recorded history of the US labor force.

Yeah, real funny.  Right up until the point that, at best, all the factories in China that make our consumer products are nationalized and retooled for products never intended to come to the US.  What then, once your Iphone breaks?  And that is assuming that they don't decide to invade to take whatever they can find in payment.  Wars have started for much less.  And there is no case in history wherein the national monetary system collapsing did not result in civil unrest or a civil war, or fascism.  Be very careful what you wish for, young man.  You might just get it.

Nothing that is beyond the variation of averages, as far as storms go.  Earthquakes worldwide, however, is another issue.  Remember that tsunamis are caused by undersea earthquakes and try to remember the very first tsunami that you can remember occurring that you learned about the same day, and not in a history class.  I'd be willing to bet that it was in the past decade.  We've had half a dozen tsunamis that I can think of in the past decade, and I can't remember one occurring before that in all of the 80's and maybe one in the 90's?  When the east coast was hit by the 5.9 a week before the hurricane, there was another earthquake in the western half of the US the very same day.  Not saying that this is out of bounds for the law of averages either, but it does make one wonder....

They are not the same prize.  The Nobel Prize for Economics is an award granted by a bank in honor of Nobel, not by his own foundation.  The Nobel Prize for Economics is a reflection of the kind of economics that central banks respect and wish to promote.  It's not an award commonly given to real economists.  Think of it this way, if you are a scientist whose job is to study economics, and present predictions; yet a significant portion of your income is directly or indirectly the result of government and/or central bank funding, are you still impartial?

Roughly half of all Economists in America fit the above description.  It is very difficult for even the most intelligent professionals to see the truth when their paycheck depends upon their not seeing it.  Krugman is an example of cognative dissonance in academia and media.  Real economists don't teach economics, nor advise governments as a profession.  Real economists make investments and fund startups.  Peter Thiel is a real economist.  Paul Krugman is a political talking head, who happens to focus on economic issues.  Even mentioning his Nobel Prize in Economics as support for his economic theories, rather than their fundamental logic, is an 'appeal to authority' fallacy.  Krugman is a master at bullsh*tting his readership, most of whom are not thoughtful enough nor well read enough to see through the bs without outside help.  This includes many very otherwise intelligent and educated people.  I would like to see what his own investment portfolio looks like, because I'd wager that his own choices would stand to benefit grandly whenever governments follow his advice.

Has RMS made any public comments about Bitcoin?  In light of his past commentaries, he should have something notable to say about Bitcoin.  If his public mentions of such cryptocurrency ideas cease after Bitcoin's metoric rise around October 2010, about the same time that Satoshi disappeared, this might be a significant link.

It's also easily checked.  Have any of the first 10 blocks moved?  The first ten are almost certainly Satoshi's, the genesis block definitely is.

So you are hedging then?

Yes, but I don't think that Japan is a good example to hold up.  Their government is in debt to 180% of their annual GDP.  They are actively trying to devalue the Yen, in order to encourage exports.  So is basicly everybody else, but only the Chinese do it well.  The stability of Japan is, I think, largely a byproduct of their culture; and one I don't think will survive their demographic peak in the near future.  I can't predict how it will end, but I give high odds that their social cohesion is going to be tested as their aging population is increasingly dependent upon a (relatively) shrinking working age population.  The same can be said for the United States and Europe, but Japan will certainly get there first, even if the US is more likely than Japan to end up in a class war as a result.

True, but price deflation (and price inflation) are largely a reflection of the currency's perceptions at the time, not it's fundamentals.  Said another way, the aggregate value of a currency (within a working economy, not speculation as in the present case of Bitcoin) is, in large part, a result of the confidence of the user base of the currency's "usefulness" to themselves in the future.  Since the present and future supply of Bitcoin is a known variable, only an increase in the demand can result in price deflation of goods as priced in Bitcoin.  This also means that a greater number of people have confidence that they can spend Bitcoin in the future; which in turn means that it's impossible for the 'deflationary spiral' theory to apply to Bitcoin.  For if a 'deflationary spiral' were to occur in the Bitcoin economy (whenever that were to materialize) this would result in a drag in it's own perception of usefulness, and thus limit it's value.  It's a self limiting factor, so long as the economy at large has an alternative to the currency in question, which in this case is the local currencies that Bitcoin stands to replace.  Thus the deflationary spiral is impossible as applied to any alternative currency.


I'm not sure that I agree with you here.  Not entirely.  Trading in Bitcoin is quite easy, but aquiring bitcoin in order to trade is not easy.  Using credit cards for online shopping is still easier, the privacy concerns notwithstanding.  I agree that there is a great potential for Bitcoin to dominate as a superior exchange currency, but that remains to be seen.  It is no more difficult for me to trade my metal for dollars and then go buy a new washing machine than it is for me to trade my dollars for BTC to buy books online.


Gold has been on a record tear for the past decade, but I wonder (without checking) if a purchase of Apple stock in 2000 would have outperformed gold oever teh same time frame.

Why does it go up in the evening?


Why are you doing this, if you can earn more just hashing?

UPS?

What is magical about a government subsidized parcel post? You either pay for it directly or via taxation.

An the idea that inflation encourages prudent investment is also a myth.  If sitting on cash is the wisest investment choice that can be made, then there is either something wrong with the investors' information or the economy in question.  Either way, where is it written that (any) investment is better (from any perspective) than no investment?  It's certainly true that wise investors will not perfer to stay in a cash position when inflation is rotting away the purchasing power of that cash, even at a mild 2% APR; but it is not true that the investments that said investors will choose are better for the economy.  Even under the best conditions, those investments are better for the investor.  There is no evidence that an economy in 2% deflation is worse off than an economy with 2% inflation, but much that says the beneficiaries of those conditions are much more likely to be closely tied to the central bank in the latter situation.

All of this is inmaterial to Bitcoin, which isn't deflationary, and cannot be deflationary until well beyond any of our predictable life expectancies have long since passed.  Bitcoin is presently inflating at about 40% APR, and is a many year before it's ready for a true economy.  Bitcoin's present value is reflective of the present speculators' collective view of it's future value.  There is no significant bitcoin economy to speak of.  There won't be until Bitcoin's inflation rate is below the inflation rates of nations that might wish to take it up.  Many third world nation's currencies still inflate at rates well beyond the 'ideal' target of 2% per year, even the stable and functioning ones.  If you live in a nation that is inflating it's currency at 9% (I suspect that China is close to this number, but the official rate is about 5%) then when Bitcoin breaks that number, the local online economy is going to begin to prefer Bitcoin (or it's successor) once it crosses that rate.  If only 1% of the online trades that occur in China are in Bitcoin, it's trade demand will be high enough that it's record value of $30+ dollars per would easily be justified.  The price presently implies that the collective wisdom of the speculators believes that the odds of this level of success in the future is less than 25%.  I would tend to agree with this sentiment.  Whoever is here that doesn't believe that Bitcoin is an extremely risky venture, shouldn't really be here.

On a side note, the effective APR for Greek bonds shot to just over 80% for a time today.  That says that the good money thinks that the odds of Greece paying back it's bills in the future are much lower than the odds that Bitcoin succeeds to grow an economy large enough to justify a trade value of $30 per share.

My choice would be that they already are.

I'll buy everything you have for twice that right now.

Considering that he took the source code straight from bitcoin, and has admitted such, he literally is in direct violation of the license that he agreed to by taking bitcoin's source code.  If anyone is getting sued, it's him.

Thanks for your input.  And note, if you will, that "callous, vicious, and mean spirited" is entirely subjective.  Subjectively, "in my opinion, is irresponsible and harms bitcoin" in reference to the style of moderation that the establishment has chosen to promote, could be interpreted exactly the same way.  Just because your not cursing, doesn't change this perspective.  And yet, you will not find a single mod here that would censor yourself over this opinion about us.  Manners would be a grand thing to have, but some members don't, and we simply couldn't force manners even if we had the time.  If you feel strongly about this, I recommend that you start another forum, with rules of your own liking, and invite a few of the early adopters to participate.

I didn't say superior.  Try to check your assumptions.
I can't speak to your beliefs, but there is no evidence that a predictable deflationary environment is worse or better than a predictable inflationary environment.  Yet, savings of capital must precede economic growth.  Liquidity, alone, does not substitute for real capital.  If it did, stimulus would work.

It's irrelevant, in this context, that value is subjective.  The predictablilty of the monetary base removes one, significant, future variable.  Namely the ability of a third party to affect the monetary base, such as a central bank.  The declining nature of the inflation also provides a growing variable of stability into the forseeable future.  These features do, indeed, something to assure the future value of the currency.  They help to assure that it's not zero, for a number of reasons.

First, how?  And second, demurrage based upon value of the transactions isn't really demurrage.  It doesn't have the same incentives as a fee relative to the age of the transaction.  But both have negative effects.

The idea that the Fed would consider freezing the accounts of China for any reason short of an overt act of war is laughable.  Such a thing would literally destroy the US economy and the currency.

I've discussed this topic in the past, and since Bitcoin is intended to model gold's resource extraction curve (and the secure storage of gold is demurrage) I don't have issues with the concept.  However, in the past I couldn't imagine (and neither could anyone else IMHO) a ruleset that could be added to Bitcoin (or to an alt currency) that would introduce a mild, market based demurrage without significant risks of unintended consequences.  I had argued that demurrage would not really encourage spending so much as 'churn', but that would also be a good thing for bitcoin because a demurrage based upon the age of a transaction (not it's value) would encourage users who didn't need anominity to consolodate holdings into fewer & newer transactions; thus not only maintaing the profitability of miners (and thus helping to pay for security on savings as well as transactions, increasing the security level in general) and 'rotting' lost coins back into the pool, but also serving to incentive the consolidation of the blockchain itself.  Allowing pruning to be more effective, but efforts towards anonimity less effective or more costly.  The problem was how do you do it?  The system is a set of simple rules that interact.  How do we impliment demurrage such as this?  Solidcoin actually forces this issue, by permitting the old blocks to actually die, however the time period is much too short, and can't be relative to the age of the transaction, as it's either good and free or just gone.  The demurrage model for bitcoin, to be effective without becoming a damaging factor, would have to occur over decades.  No gold storage vault would ever charge the user so much for storage that the balance was gone after a year or two.