|
You & Dank need to get together.
|
|
|
|
Here is the crux of the situation you guys are talking about (i think):
To make it easy to see what is going on let us create a situation that, while outwardly ridiculous, nonetheless accurately illustrates what really happens. It's ridiculousness just makes it more obvious.
Let us pretend that there is $0 (zero) dollars in the economy (that's the ridiculous part). Person A goes to a bank and borrows $1,000. Now there is $1,000 in the economy.
See, no. That's fractional reserve banking in an elastic currency. We're talking about an inelastic currency, like BTC. |
|
|
|
The value of a hypothetical scenario is not its realism, but it's ability to highlight the flaws in a particular line of reasoning.
In which case, we've successfully highlighted the flaw in your reasoning: that no one person will ever hold all the money in an economy. In other words, why would a lender, who is in the business of lending money, allow me to repay a loan I borrowed for 10 years in just 1 month? If you're paying him back with the agreed upon rate of interest, why shouldn't he? He's getting his money back, plus profit. And there is always demand for more capital. This is a bit frustrating. You're a moneylender. Your business consists of lending a sum of money, N, at 10% yearly interest. You can: A. Lend all the money, in one lump sum, to a single borrower for the duration of 10 years. B. Lend all the money, in one lump sum, in the morning of every day of the year, including weekends and holidays, and have that money returned to you the following evening. Since you're an excellent businessman, you successfully re-lend the money each consecutive morning, and succeed in generating the same 10% yearly interest. Minus your time and expenses. Would you chose A or B, everything else being equal? (In your business model, 10% ROI is the pinnacle of success -- you're not looking for greater profits @ higher risks) Definitely B. I like to buy groceries more than once every 10 years. |
|
|
|
|
<Sticky: One word per post!>
Once upon a time, there was a Jesus. She walked out unadorned. Then, as bagpipes blared and didgeridoos fell, the star exploded.
Enter the vassals, creating comically obscene gestures with cryptocurrencies. Jesus cried!
Andy B. Casagrande immortalized the scene with photography. Space robots had been shoving corn vicariously into other crevices, hoping that Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis... perhaps silicosis, or QueerOsis, or trees could accomplish impossible synchronizations.
Fifteen wishes weren't exceptionally productive. She touched herself vigorously with tremendous pillows; creaming out butter flavored LiteCoins. Ironically, Bitcoins never lowered the dust limit so that Luke-Jr would be anally probed by martians invading us to steal our fish for little did we know, Fish is the solution to all our global problems! Seamen relentlessly fapped out the next generation of ASICS which actually works without any electricity at all. Powered by shipwrecks, signals meant that mermaids knew cryptographic encryption algorithms' weaknesses in theory but, in reality, Rpietila gave all.
Thursday passed without BFL taking the biggest shit, which when combined with their largest fanboy, Atlas, every miner stabbed Satoshi irregardless. Meanwhile, trolls eating crow poop, crow testicles, and God's vagina laughed.
Artichokes roasted sweetly over flaming gays, joyfully prepared numerously spiced blockchains sacrificing virgins disregarding matter. Therefore Jesus announced peasantry raping holidays. Upon reflection, Jesus quixotically decided retroactively somewhere in Reptilia's bosom to fuck an ant hill and myrkul touched himself feverishly ravishing all pillows! Lophie touched electrically his "contacts", pondering why her earlobes looked so tasty dipped in mustard sauce from Meze's toilet. Meanwhile, under scrutiny from DHS, MTGox got DDOS'ed by CIA bots, Chinese pygmies licked thousands, drooling custard from cracks forgone.
Alas, we combusted gloriously into eternity with malevolent douchenozzles. Faunlets screamed condescendingly into their rapists' buttholes. Nymphet's carefully propositioned orgies began fondling Eminem's mobile phone until climax commenced. Jailbaits serendipitously surrounded Clinton's ASICS with their pussy cats. "STOP!" The sign clearly said across a dark alley. Cheese fell curiously from long faces, inedible, moldy, green, and
|
|
|
|
|
<Sticky: One word per post!>
Once upon a time, there was a Jesus. She walked out unadorned. Then, as bagpipes blared and didgeridoos fell, the star exploded.
Enter the vassals, creating comically obscene gestures with cryptocurrencies. Jesus cried!
Andy B. Casagrande immortalized the scene with photography. Space robots had been shoving corn vicariously into other crevices, hoping that Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis... perhaps silicosis, or QueerOsis, or trees could accomplish impossible synchronizations.
Fifteen wishes weren't exceptionally productive. She touched herself vigorously with tremendous pillows; creaming out butter flavored LiteCoins. Ironically, Bitcoins never lowered the dust limit so that Luke-Jr would be anally probed by martians invading us to steal our fish for little did we know, Fish is the solution to all our global problems! Seamen relentlessly fapped out the next generation of ASICS which actually works without any electricity at all. Powered by shipwrecks, signals meant that mermaids knew cryptographic encryption algorithms' weaknesses in theory but, in reality, Rpietila gave all.
Thursday passed without BFL taking the biggest shit, which when combined with their largest fanboy, Atlas, every miner stabbed Satoshi irregardless. Meanwhile, trolls eating crow poop, crow testicles, and God's vagina laughed.
Artichokes roasted sweetly over flaming gays, joyfully prepared numerously spiced blockchains sacrificing virgins disregarding matter. Therefore Jesus announced peasantry raping holidays. Upon reflection, Jesus quixotically decided retroactively somewhere in Reptilia's bosom to fuck an ant hill and myrkul touched himself feverishly ravishing all pillows! Lophie touched electrically his "contacts", pondering why her earlobes looked so tasty dipped in mustard sauce from Meze's toilet. Meanwhile, under scrutiny from DHS, MTGox got DDOS'ed by CIA bots, Chinese pygmies licked thousands, drooling custard from cracks forgone.
Alas, we combusted gloriously into eternity with malevolent douchenozzles. Faunlets screamed condescendingly into their rapists' buttholes. Nymphet's carefully propositioned orgies began fondling Eminem's mobile phone until climax commenced. Jailbaits serendipitously surrounded Clinton's ASICS with their pussy cats. "STOP!" The sign clearly said across a dark alley. Cheese fell curiously from long faces inedible, moldy
|
|
|
|
|
Now THAT is what you should have posted earlier.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
You thought i was stoopit enough to circulate the money you've returned to me, and only profit one motherraping percent by loaning you all the money in the world?! No, you brain-dead prole! I've kept the money, and now you have to borrow it from me at an ungodly rate, so that you can borrow it from me at a redoubled rate another year later. Derp. Moneylenders gotta eat, too. Don't I know it! My point exactly. How is he gonna eat if he keeps all the money? I swear, we must be talking in different languages  How did he eat when he had all the money? And how was it that the borrower wanted to borrow all the money (To what end? The Lender has *all* the money, so the money is *worthless*  ) Don't ask me, it's your hypothetical. You're the one that postulated the absurd situation of one man having all the money in an economy, and another borrowing it all. In other words, why would a lender, who is in the business of lending money, allow me to repay a loan I borrowed for 10 years in just 1 month? If you're paying him back with the agreed upon rate of interest, why shouldn't he? He's getting his money back, plus profit. And there is always demand for more capital. |
|
|
|
Capitalism does not provide equal voting rights since it favours the rich. I hear this a lot. Nobody's been able to prove it to me. Give it a shot, you might be the one. If, as you say, people 'vote with their money', then it is surely obvious that unequal ownership of money equates to unequal rights in voting. If not, then please explain how the equality of voting rights would be maintained when 'voting with money'. Product A costs $1. Product B, which is a luxury version of A, costs $2. The poor people buy A. The rich people, who can afford the extra $1, buy B. Which product will there be more produced of, A or B? What is the ratio of poor to rich? What is the cost of production of products? What is the worth of $1 in GDP in this notional realm? What is the point you are trying to make? Oh, come now... You're evading. All other things being equal to the world today, which would be produced more, A, or B? The point that I am trying to make is that capitalism is a proportionally representative system. |
|
|
|
Capitalism does not provide equal voting rights since it favours the rich. I hear this a lot. Nobody's been able to prove it to me. Give it a shot, you might be the one. If, as you say, people 'vote with their money', then it is surely obvious that unequal ownership of money equates to unequal rights in voting. If not, then please explain how the equality of voting rights would be maintained when 'voting with money'. Product A costs $1. Product B, which is a luxury version of A, costs $2. The poor people buy A. The rich people, who can afford the extra $1, buy B. Which product will there be more produced of, A or B? |
|
|
|
It's not Socialism, it's Corporatism and Imperialism >_>
You say monopoly, I say mono poly.  |
|
|
|
Capitalism does not provide equal voting rights since it favours the rich. I hear this a lot. Nobody's been able to prove it to me. Give it a shot, you might be the one. |
|
|
|
Sounds extremely and unnecessarily complicated, I do think there's nothing wrong with the main voting systems, the biggest thing wrong with them is that once a politician is elected citizens have no rights and can't take any steps to get rid of the leaders or block their laws until the next election.
It seems that a lot of people who come here think, "Wow, this Bitcoin is awesome! We could use it to vote!" (I remember at least two other threads similar to this.) And that's fine, but I'd just like to point out that there is already a system which allows people to vote with their money. It's called capitalism. The concept of expanding voting with one's money into government services is called " Anarcho-capitalism". |
|
|
|
If I refuse to redeem that RippleBTC for actual BTC, I'm not a scammer, and you're just an idiot for accepting a debt-based currency that anyone can inflate.
Relevant. I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements.
|
|
|
|
You thought i was stoopit enough to circulate the money you've returned to me, and only profit one motherraping percent by loaning you all the money in the world?! No, you brain-dead prole! I've kept the money, and now you have to borrow it from me at an ungodly rate, so that you can borrow it from me at a redoubled rate another year later. Derp. Moneylenders gotta eat, too. Don't I know it! My point exactly. How is he gonna eat if he keeps all the money? BTW, is it really true that most loans are repayable before they mature (if that's the right word)? Seems to fly in the face of reason You really haven't heard of repaying loans in installments, have you? Here's the way loans work. Let's say I give you 21 coins for a year at 1% yearly. At the end of the year, you'll owe me 21.21 coins. We have two options here: I could wait that whole year, and you pay me back in a lump sum, OR, each month you could come in and pay me 1.7675 coins. Either way, at the end of the year, you've paid me 21.21 coins. There are several benefits to using an installment plan: 1. It's easier for the borrower to pay back smaller installments, so it's less likely that they will default (especially if there are only 21 coins in circulation in the first place) 2. It provides a constant stream of income from interest, instead of a lump sum at the end of the year. 3. I can loan out the principle again, even before your loan is fully paid off. For instance, if someone comes in, six months after you, and wants a 10 coin loan, I can do that, because you've paid me 10.605 coins. |
|
|
|
Is the success of bitcoin based on greed?
Yes, just like the success of any economy. |
|
|
|
we're asking Theymos for clarification of his response in one of those threads as it carries with it some complicated implications.
Seems pretty simple to me. If I agree to send you a RippleBTC and don't send you a RippleBTC, I'm a scammer. If I refuse to redeem that RippleBTC for actual BTC, I'm not a scammer, and you're just an idiot for accepting a debt-based currency that anyone can inflate. |
|
|
|
You thought i was stoopit enough to circulate the money you've returned to me, and only profit one motherraping percent by loaning you all the money in the world?! No, you brain-dead prole! I've kept the money, and now you have to borrow it from me at an ungodly rate, so that you can borrow it from me at a redoubled rate another year later. Derp. Moneylenders gotta eat, too. |
|
|
|
It's pretty hard to misinterpret "I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements."
Yet somehow you managed to do so. I read that as "Don't try to give me Ripple. I won't accept." Or more accurately, "I have zero trust in the redeemability of Ripple IOUs." He's an admin, what he says here publicly is reflective of his policies in moderating. This is why I am asking for clarification. It simply struck me an odd thing for an admin to say in relation to whether something was considered a fraud or not. It deserves further clarification, and I am awaiting his response. Without getting too involved here, has anyone come forward and said they have not gotten their ripple bitcoin? Not an actual bitcoin, the ripple bitcoin promised in the thread. 'Cause all he said was that he'd give people ripple bitcoins. |
|
|
|
It's pretty hard to misinterpret "I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements."
Yet somehow you managed to do so. I read that as "Don't try to give me Ripple. I won't accept." Or more accurately, "I have zero trust in the redeemability of Ripple IOUs." |
|
|
|
Have you heard of the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, etc?
All those words are familiar. In that order, they are not. Can you recommend a good book on it? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
