Capital, in its most superior form, is something that can be liquidated quickly into anything at anywhere in the world, without relying on any third party or risking of being restricted or confiscated by authorities. So far bitcoin is on the right track to become such kind of premium asset, and it will gain momentum as the currency war and financial turbulence is escalating around the world
Bahahaha. Bitcoin liquid? Are you shitting me? More lies from pumpers You can probably convert 150M JPY to 1.5M USD with no effect to the JPY/USD price. I know cause my company did this 2 years ago. Good luck trying that w bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Like I said money, comes from the authority of the state not the metal used to make coins. There's only been brief periods in History like the Free Banking Period where we had wide spread use of private money. Most of the time money has been a creature of law
Money doesn't come from the authority of the state, but the state wants to limit the use of money on its territory to the legally allowed tender in order to be able to control and profit from it (mainly through seigniorage). The authority of the state was "used" some times to "certify" the metallic contents of the coins (as were some *private* certifications like the Joachimsthaler). It turns out that states often scammed people with fake certifications, while private certifications were usually more trustworthy. The best proof of the error in your proposition is that most state fiat money has been (fakely because the states scam people) backed by metallic amounts for a long time. If it were true that it was the state's authority that was solely sufficient to give value to state-controlled money, then non-backed fiat money would have been the norm. After all, the state's authority wouldn't need any backing-up by any metallic or whatever commodity according to your claims. Pieces of paper with a stamp from the state would do. It took more than a century to get loose from metal-backed fiat money (and from the moment it did, fiat money plummeted in value like a stone). Fiat money has been possible because of a century-long scam, where people were made to believe that they were *actually* handling a state-certified amount of metal with the fiat. When the habit of not handling the physical value carrier which was the metal was so generalized, and people got used to pay with pieces of state-stamped paper (believing it was worth metal), only then the state scam of fiat money could be carried through. So much for "state authority gives value". The historical dollar was the Spanish dollar which was nothing else but a calibrated piece of silver, to be identical to the very trustworthy Joachimsthaler pieces of silver: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_dollarThe first US dollar was supposed to be a state-issued equivalent of the Spanish piece of silver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_dollarThe continental currency, which was an attempt at "fiat" which was not backed but "declared equivalent" to a piece of silver (which is by itself ridiculous) failed miserably. The US money was saved for a while with the Contract Clause, allowing only gold and silver as legal tender. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_ClauseNo State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
I could go on... Nothing you wrote supports the argument opposing the charts list view of money. Furthermore, your arguments are childish and emotional so it's not worth my time to debate you. If you think you've been scammed or whatever conspiracy theory the your mind is already lost. Many commodities or materials have been used as money such as rice, stones, shells, etc. The common link is that the state decreed these things to be money not the market. Money has always been a credit system. But only the state can make something officially the money of the land |
|
|
|
von Mises? Hahaha. Is that a joke? Nobody in economics takes him seriously
It's not about his "authority", but about his arguments. I guess that Nobel Prize Hayek is also not taken seriously then ? So is sterling pound. So what? What does that prove? That Silver was used for coins once? You think you can walk into a shop in London back the old days and pay with a silver dollar? The money aspect doesn't come from the metal it comes from the authority of the issuer
Of course gold and silver was used as money ! The "authority" you talk about was just a certification of the amount and purity of the coins. http://www.jmbullion.com/guide/history/From 1785 until 1861, in the relatively early years of the country, the US based their financial structure on currency that utilized gold and silver. Instead of the paper that is used today, coins made of pure gold and silver were traded in the free market. If it was not for financial crises in 1857, it is more than likely that this system would have endured for much longer than it did.
Executive Order 6102 is a case that many mistake as being the Gold Standard itself. In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt enacted Executive Order 6102, which stated that citizens were not to own their own stock piles of monetary gold. All gold was to be turned into the government, with the owners receiving $20.67 per ounce in compensation. The primary outcome of this event was a sharp increase in the price of gold, as it would rise to $35 per ounce shortly thereafter.
Like I said money, comes from the authority of the state not the metal used to make coins. There's only been brief periods in History like the Free Banking Period where we had wide spread use of private money. Most of the time money has been a creature of law |
|
|
|
I don't know if it's a currency or not, but I get paid in Bitcoin and I buy things with Bitcoin.
What should I call it instead of a currency?
Private money does exist but its not useful if the majority don't use it. Not useful to who? The people who use it? I use Bitcoin all the time. Are you telling me it is not useful to me? Not useful to the majority 99.9% of people. Therefore you are in the minority |
|
|
|
He can state its not designed to be stable because its inelastic. Elasticity requires the currency to be created AND destroyed. Because theres no central bank the increase of supply is on a fixed schedule and not responding to business cycles. That is a fact
That is not a bad argument, however it is easily countered. Adding another variable (in this case, a central bank) does not automatically make a system stable. Although the purpose of a central bank is to make the currency more stable, it is also a fact that central banks have not succeeded (for a variety of reasons) in maintaining stable currencies. Its not possible to argue definitively whether Central Bank policies have or have not made currencies stable. I welcome you to argue they have not succeeded. But the mechanism is there for them to try. Economies go from stability to instability as a natural cycle. Without a counter cyclical mechanism in place you are at the mercy of economic forces. Stability means no change in the value of the currency in both the long and short term. As you wrote, it is not possible to know if they have succeeded or failed in short-term stability, but the Fed for example, has definitively failed in the long term, which is arguably the easier of the two. The central bank is intended to be a counter-cyclical mechanism, but in reality it can just be another source of instability. See "The Pretence of Knowledge", F. A. Hayek. Why do you say they failed in the long term if they keep rates along with inflation? There target is 3-4% inflation so you can only say they are failing when they lag or exceed inflation targets Stability doesn't mean flat or equilibrium. Stability means not volatile |
|
|
|
This is wrong. You Need to read Graebers History of Money
Maybe you need to read von Mises "the theory of money and credit" ? In modern times gold was reserve money and mainly used for international trade but inside the nation, money was largely credit money. Credit money and metal money have always coexisted. Gold itself wasn't the money it's the coins with stamp of the king on it. In essence money has always been a creature of law whenever there is a state
Do you know where "dollar" comes from ? It's a mass unit of gold. Edit: I'm wrong, it was an amount of silver: 24 grams. von Mises? Hahaha. Is that a joke? Nobody in economics takes him seriously So is sterling pound. So what? What does that prove? That Silver was used for coins once? You think you can walk into a shop in London back the old days and pay with a silver dollar? The money aspect doesn't come from the metal it comes from the authority of the issuer |
|
|
|
I don't know if it's a currency or not, but I get paid in Bitcoin and I buy things with Bitcoin.
What should I call it instead of a currency?
Private money does exist but its not useful if the majority don't use it. |
|
|
|
He can state its not designed to be stable because its inelastic. Elasticity requires the currency to be created AND destroyed. Because theres no central bank the increase of supply is on a fixed schedule and not responding to business cycles. That is a fact
That is not a bad argument, however it is easily countered. Adding another variable (in this case, a central bank) does not automatically make a system stable. Although the purpose of a central bank is to make the currency more stable, it is also a fact that central banks have not succeeded (for a variety of reasons) in maintaining stable currencies. Its not possible to argue definitively whether Central Bank policies have or have not made currencies stable. I welcome you to argue they have not succeeded. But the mechanism is there for them to try. Economies go from stability to instability as a natural cycle. Without a counter cyclical mechanism in place you are at the mercy of economic forces. |
|
|
|
As the price was rising, all of the Keynesians kept harping about how nobody would spend bitcoins because they would want to wait to spend later when the price is higher, never spending their money.
And yet, for the past year the price has been going down, high inflation, a Keynesian dream. And yet, the spending did not skyrocket.
Why are Keynesians always wrong about economics?
Keynesianism has nothing to mean to BTC price Tell that to the Keynes mouthpiece, Paul Krugman. Krugman never said anything about Keynes and Bitcoin. He said he's not convinced it can be a stable store of value and that's not what you want as a working currency. You want stability not volatility. Nothing to do with Keynes just common sense |
|
|
|
Yeah, making a hypothetical statement doesn't mean it's correct, we've heard this argument a thousand times, you're also forgetting the fact that inflation is simply going to force people to work for longer and for less pay because everything becomes so expensive. Also, if deflationary currencies are so horrible and bad, why were they used for so long? Why is it that inflationary currencies have only recently come into existence and been used widely?
Hmmm doesn't seem to me like you're really going to bother answering the question but what the hell I'll ask anyway.
Please give example of when deflationary money has been used for a long time. And gold is not an example. Gold was used for coinage but the money is not denominated in gold but instead whatever the Kings money was Gold is an example and the example, you're just choosing to ignore it or don't know what deflation and inflation actually is, the state always chose gold in the end, one perfect example was the byzantine empire having a gold coin minted and they lasted for almost 1000 years, even in the U.S and the UK silver was used as a currency for quite some time but was replaced by paper because it wasn't as easy to for the state to control the currency supply. Amazes me how blatantly people choose to ignore historical fact when it doesn't fit into their political agendas, go and fucking learn what deflation and inflation actually is instead of just dismissing people who know more than you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_coinageOh and here's a definition of deflation for people willing to read since I know you won't bother looking it up. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deflation.asp A general decline in prices, often caused by a reduction in the supply of money or credit. I highlighted the important bit for you. This one line is exactly what deflation is but the rest is pretty much the kind of neo-keynesian crap you're trying to peddle, precious metals are precious, very rare. So that is why everything becomes far cheaper in that currency as opposed to paper which is printed in ridiculous amounts, it is also why cryptocurrencies are worth much more than the dollar. Inflation and deflation are almost always a result of changes in the money supply, there are of course normal trading patterns that happen because of regular trading but these always get exaggerated if it's someone messing with how much currency is in circuation. A perfect recent example would be the situation with mt.gox and butterfly labs, you also have silkroad online, those are all cases where a large amount of currency has exited circulation or been dumped onto the markets at once and that is what causes such dramatic changes in prices and also peoples spending habits, the inflation is scaring the crap out of everyone and causing everyone to dump their paper for something of value. Whatever dude, before you start trying to learn me a lesson start by educating yourself first. Read David Graeber "History of Money". And Joseph Knapp, "State Theory of Money" Gold the material for coins is not same as gold used as money. To be money the king has to issue it. We don't use paper for money either even its printed on paper. There was not a time where you paid for bread by snipping a few links off your necklace. Even during these times the monetary system was hybrid. There was a credit system built on top of the metal system. Just because money is backed by gold doesn't mean there was deflation unless you are claiming we've been in deflation for thousands of years And following your dumb logic cryptocurrencies shouldn't be worth anything because they are made from computer code. You can make an infinite amount of altcoins from the same code. |
|
|
|
Your premises are flawed. Very little of what you wrote can be substantiated by facts. You need to show some supporting evidence before you can claim that others are lying. But the fact is that MASS ADOPTION WILL NOT COME with actual volatility.
Like it or not, that is not a fact. Since your entire argument is based on this supposed fact, you will need to prove it before anyone can accept your conclusion. any currency needs a stable value to work. And bitcoin will never be able to do it, because IT'S NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT.
Your claim that "it's not designed for that" is simply not sufficient to support either statement. The problem is that, as a speculative asset, it's controlled mainly by speculators, whose are interested in high volatilities. This high volatility scares the mass, and without their support, bitcoin will not be a currency. I won't be able to buy oranges, computers or houses with them, because people will not accept this what they call "scam".
More unsubstantiated claims and speculation. The only solution would be to drive out the speculators of the market, but that's simply IMPOSSIBLE.
Is that the "only" solution to the supposed problem, or is it the only one that you can think of? Maybe a smarter person could come up with a good solution to your non-existent problem. the problem is BITCOIN distribution and value process, it's not designed to be a currency.
Oh, now it's a problem of distribution! The complaining about early adopters has been going on for years now and it is totally bogus. He can state its not designed to be stable because its inelastic. Elasticity requires the currency to be created AND destroyed. Because theres no central bank the increase of supply is on a fixed schedule and not responding to business cycles. That is a fact |
|
|
|
Keynes is the troll of economic theorists used by universities and interested parties to add theoretical justification for their parasitism.
Keynes was probably terrible at saving money. Marx was for a fact. I think Keynes appeals to people who are suseptible for lazy quick fixes in general. We live in a different world now as well and so I think something as simple as "save money for future consumption and investment" is a principle we all need to adhere to a lot more now. Society might grind along at a slower pace, but it will probably have to since things are growing in complexity globally.
Managing a global economy is a much larger pipe dream than managing farmers in Siberia was during the Soviet regime. So much more impossible. Governments and citizens alike will have to become more coherent going forward if anything is going to get done.
Wrong. Keynes is not the prevalent "school" in academia. Its probably neo classical Keynes did public service and was an astute investor. His theories comes from market experience and public service experience. IOW "real life experience" not academic theories. He only started to get popular again recently after the 2008 crash. His main thing is using fiscal policy and focus on unemployment numbers The govt has no reason to "save money" when they can just "print money". You are totally confusing household economics and macro and blaming everything on Keynes. Since 80's there have been no Keynesian influence on policy. It was more Friedman |
|
|
|
I do. Decided to go all the way to the bottom if bitcoin decides to turn its back on me and die.
I refuse to sell it for $150, I know it's worth much more and don't care that nobody wants to pay more at the moment.
The price is already shooting back up. Anyone selling at 150 will probably end up buying back in a lot higher. Why do you assume the only choice is to be bullish? If you are longterm bearish it is based on unforeseeable factors. If you are bullish it is based on a realistic assessment of Bitcoin's potential. Bearish in the short term is reasonable, but pointless, since it only really leads to speculation, which is ultimately harmful to the community. You may win in the short term, but eventually someone with more money will come along and eat you alive. Unless you're the Rothschild's financing both sides of WW 3. And if you keep your money in a bank, you are helping them do it. Anyway, those are some reasons being a bull is the best option. Considering the wildlife, bulls can survive in the wild or domesticated, while bears don't do well cohabiting with humans. So bulls are likely to do alright regardless of how human civilization fares. If you want to make money trade with the trend. Right now that's shorting the pops |
|
|
|
USD is the most stable currency in the world. Don't think that will change soon.
There is no such thing as stable currency, value is all relative, a scientific unit of value only exists in people's imagination. People tends to believe that their domestic currency is the unit of value, but not any foreign currency. So for a Japanese people, USD is not stable at all since it rose a lot against Japanese Yen recent years. Similarly, it rise against Rubble and petroleum by 50% in one year, while it fell against bitcoin by 1000% in two years I don't follow. I say USD is stable because it is the closest thing to a universal currency. We don't have a gold standard anymore. Everything is calculated in terms of dollar amounts because it is the most stable. Gold is the closest thing to a universal currency for thousands of years. Dollar has fallen against gold and lost 96% of its value since 1971, its value is an illusion, since it is created out of nothing. you can have an illusion for as long as you believe it, and there are many people who believe in its value because they simply don't understand how money works. Banks have created so many illusions to hide the truth and average Joe has no way to get it Things evolve. Deal with it |
|
|
|
is anyone paying attention to the macroeconomic picture? The Swiss National Bank shocked world markets by removing it's peg to the Euro, causing it's value to skyrocket. Two systemic Greek banks are using an emergency liquidity tool at the ECB to try and prevent a bank run. Oil Tanked and Gold spiked. This is 2008 all over again only worse this time.
How this will affect Bitcoin is anyone's guess, but I'm starting to think even my 2.5% margin long was way too premature.
Bank runs mean extreme DEFLATION of national currencies until the central banks ramp up the printing presses, start accepting used toilet paper as collateral and various other forms of counterfeiting.
Wealth is going to evaporate, credit is going to dry up and markets are going to crash with the exception of the safest government bonds (U.S., Swiss and maybe a few others).
I've warned many times for everyone to get their coins (and even fiat) off the exchanges if you aren't going to trade, but now I am saying it may soon be time to get your fiat out of the banks.
I warned the same thing several days ago, telling them how a debt crisis could occur in Russian, Greece and spill over to the Euro zone. But I only received bashing. Someone even registered a new account to bash me in red ink. Another financial crisis is due in 1-2 months. See the decline of oil price, see the decline of stock index, see the depleting of foreign reserves, see the turmoil in the foreign exchange market, etc... Why aren't you out there shorting the market? |
|
|
|
Yeah, making a hypothetical statement doesn't mean it's correct, we've heard this argument a thousand times, you're also forgetting the fact that inflation is simply going to force people to work for longer and for less pay because everything becomes so expensive. Also, if deflationary currencies are so horrible and bad, why were they used for so long? Why is it that inflationary currencies have only recently come into existence and been used widely?
Hmmm doesn't seem to me like you're really going to bother answering the question but what the hell I'll ask anyway.
Please give example of when deflationary money has been used for a long time. And gold is not an example. Gold was used for coinage but the money is not denominated in gold but instead whatever the Kings money was |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin supply has only been inflating at consistently lower rates (e.g., ⅟ₙ₊₁ after 𝑛 blocks when the Bitcoin block reward was fifty bitcoins), so a progressive reduction in spending would seem to be expected under the economic theory.
But it is currently inflating more than the dollar and yet spending has not increased. Can Keynesians ever be right or has there been any instance throughout history where they have been right? Other than 600 years ago when tulips happened. Once. It's you who don't understand the concept. It applies to macro level not some little private speculators plaything. Spending hasn't increased because it's used to speculate. The holder are treating it as a commodity not a currency. Also it's a private outside money. I see, so it is a concept that is useful for talking among college professors and politicians but not useful in the real world. Understood. No you are just applying the concept to the wrong context. |
|
|
|
The Bitcoin supply has only been inflating at consistently lower rates (e.g., ⅟ₙ₊₁ after 𝑛 blocks when the Bitcoin block reward was fifty bitcoins), so a progressive reduction in spending would seem to be expected under the economic theory.
But it is currently inflating more than the dollar and yet spending has not increased. Can Keynesians ever be right or has there been any instance throughout history where they have been right? Other than 600 years ago when tulips happened. Once. It's you who don't understand the concept. It applies to macro level not some little private speculators plaything. Spending hasn't increased because it's used to speculate. The holder are treating it as a commodity not a currency. Also it's a private outside money. |
|
|
|
i think it's better to say "living dog jump"  you really believe in it, do you? Rule no.1: never fall in love with your investement. Rule no.2: cut losses early That's what I always say. Cut your losses and ride your winners |
|
|
|
I do. Decided to go all the way to the bottom if bitcoin decides to turn its back on me and die.
I refuse to sell it for $150, I know it's worth much more and don't care that nobody wants to pay more at the moment.
The price is already shooting back up. Anyone selling at 150 will probably end up buying back in a lot higher. Why do you assume the only choice is to be bullish? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
