|
monetary inflation is an increase in the money supply. From that point of view Bitcoin is inflationary for quite some time.
price inflation is an increase in prices and can be caused by monetary inflation.
Deflation is the opposite of this, it can be either a shrinking monetary supply or shrinking prices, bitcoin will be deflationary at a certain point, in monetary terms, because bitcoins do get lost and there will be less created than are being lost. Bitcoin is deflationary in price terms, over any sort of long term scale currently, because the bitcoin economy has grown MUCH faster than the supply of bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
Your argument makes no sense at all. There are lots of places you can buy goods/services with bitcoins.
Well, mine is not an argument at all. It is just a suggestion to have all merchants in one place. Easy for bitcoin's fans to find and spend they btc to give a boost to bts economy. Sorry if I did not made it clear in the first place. they are in one place though, that wiki that you said "anywhere but this" What's wrong with the wiki? |
|
|
|
People with that motivation will lead to stable prices (at least if they are any good at speculating)
lol² ... if they are any good at speculating. I'm sorry to inform you this doesn't appear to be the case. The only thing this is leading to is all the money accumulated with the maybe 1% that actually know how to speculate.  Problem is, unless these people are rich from the start, they will continuously withdraw money in fiat due to A) the Kelly criterion forcing them to not risk too much at once and B) them withdrawing whenever things don't look too good from a fundamental perspective. What does this do for Bitcoin? Just reduces purchasing power. The speculation maniacs serve mainly one purpose: push media attention. If they fail at that, long-term value doesn't change due to these guys buying -- unless they really never ever sell again. And currently, they seem to fail at drawing attention. Forum activity, Google trends, News mentions, Web reach: all down during the past week. If another such drop happens, there will be little reason for day traders to remain active at current price. It is a good thing for the people who are actually good at speculating to cash out, that keeps the price of bitcoins from going higher than it should. They also know they can make money by playing the market, so they aren't going to cash out entirely, they are going to take profits and stay in the game. Unless the market becomes too stable for them to take profits, at which point it will be much more useful for merchants. The percentage of successful speculators is going to grow because the unsuccessful ones will run out of money while the successful ones will not. |
|
|
|
|
why aside from the wiki page? What is wrong with it?
|
|
|
|
My provocation is as follows:
Mining does not bring any sort of benefit for the individual. Therefore you need to buy using fiat money BTCs and at the end of the game someone needs to sell BTcs for fiat money. This is far from being an ecosystem that can survive outside today’s economy which is based on fiat money.
Mining is not the only way to get bitcoins. It's not even the easiest or most profitable way. Direct trading (buying and selling) in bitcoins does not need to involve fiat in any way. If fiat went away tomorrow, I could still pay you for your product and service with bitcoins just as I could in gold. In my mind, bitcoins are linked to fiat only for convenience. As the economy grows, the need to convert between bitcoin and fiat will lessen until, at some point, we will be able to do most business without any reliance on fiat. Rage Agree. So this means we just need to sit down and wait for BTC economy to grow, while posting good deeds on this forum, or we can do anything better ? Only a question not a comment to your post, please note. offer goods and services for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Vandroiy nailed it above.
Let's pull an arbitrary number out of thin air:
99.9% of the people who got into BTC lately, don't give a shit about bitcoins.
They want to earn fiat currency, and will dump their coins even at $0.30 per piece if it means they make 0.01$ profit. They don't want to 'earn' bitcoins or spend them.
They want to exchange them to any old currency as fast as possible even if it means crashing the market & going against their own interests in the long run.
All this idealistic pretending on the forum has clouded the judgement of wiser members.
It'd be better if we talked about things with their real names.
This mystical group of "other people" drive the market. 'They' are the majority of all speculators.
'They' couldn't care less if BTC failed in 2 weeks, as long as they can make a few bucks for 2 days.
That is reality.
People with that motivation will lead to stable prices (at least if they are any good at speculating) |
|
|
|
Right now, I would DEFINITELY spend more Bitcoins if I could purchase more things I actually needed rather than simply use them to benefit the market.
absofuckinglutely. i don't want or need geek stuff, computer stuff, intangibles, or 99% of the stuff that's currently being hawked for BTC. i want regular gold-toe socks, levi 501s, soap, generic aspirin and other OTC meds, herbal supplements, bulk-pak food staples reasonably competitive with wal-mart, some guy to clean out my gutters, booze, movie rentals (on-line or redbox), and all the rest of it. This is one of the main reasons people hoard. I doubt that many of these things will be available for bitcoins in a way that makes them preferable to dollars for a very long time. Of the things mentioned the ones that I see being available for bitcoins are the guy to clean your gutters, booze (I'll sell you nanobrewed beer for them currently, but I doubt you'd be willing to pay the price I'd ask) and online movie rentals. |
|
|
|
As I've already said, LOTS of bitching and whining about what you're "forced" into... but you're still here, voluntarily.  Where is here? Also, didn't we already cover this? The government doesn't have claim to our land. Additionally, where else is there to go? Please, point me to a place that has no government and I will head there immediately. Also, your logic is failtastic. By the same logic, the Ukrainians are to blame for being killed by the Soviets, the middle class in Cambodia is to blame for not leaving the country, the Jews in Germany are to blame for not leaving Germany, etc. I ask again. Where is the consistency?Those other situations are not comparable. You can figure out why all by yourself (hint: it's really obvious), I'm not your history teacher. This isn't YOUR land. This is the land of the people (ALL the people) of the United States of America. Where you go is up to you. Buy a house boat and go float on the ocean. The fact that you're too lazy to find somewhere you'd like better doesn't mean you're FORCED to live here under conditions you don't agree with. Here's the problem I have with AnCap, spelled out by a statist, interestingly enough. It's not MY land. under AyeYo's solution or an AnCap one. Chances are it's not yours either, althgouh that depends a lot on how societal change comes. |
|
|
|
|
Advertising bitcoin seems a bit silly to me. People don't advertise gold. Or dollars for that matter.
People advertise certain sellers of gold, or services for handling dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
silk road does not accept dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
this solution doesn't even make any sense.
How would you put your dollars (or other currency) into your bitcoin client to exchange to someone else for bitcoins?
bitcoins already includes p2p exchange, of bitcoins. If you want bitcoins buy them from someone. If you think they cost more then they are worth, then don't buy them and wait for them to go down in price (they'll surely plummet if it is just a speculatory bubble)
Speculators that predict the price poorly lose money, which means they stop speculating, it is a self correcting problem.
|
|
|
|
Parents should have some claim on their children after bringing them up, but what claim is valid before children can make their move out?
I don't know if the parents have any claim at all on the children. The parents made a concious decision when creating the child, but the child was not consulted about which parents he/she would be ruled by. The child was not a contracting party, so he/she should be free to leave. I agree that according to libertarian logic, what you are saying is correct. One question - Do you feel a moral obligation to your parents who took care of you? If you do, then I'm just saying that there is some feeling within that a debt is owed. and One comment - Societies where children are an indulgence and not a resource for their parents, are shrinking in the long term due to lower birth rates in today's world. Simple supply and demand. If there are 2 competitive jurisdictions, one where the pure libertarian logic is applied and another where a certain debt is assumed, then there is a greater probability on the margin, of people leaving from the libertarian society and going to the other one, once they become parents. The children are likely to move to the libertarian society, when they have the ability to do so. |
|
|
|
Apolitical -> Libertarian -> Georgist Classic Liberal -> Spencer Heath -> Competitive jurisdictions advocate
I believe in a strong right to exit jurisdictions that are not favourable.
I still don't have an idea of what level of "debt" to people can be considered valid before exiting.
The US Guv taxes people 10 years after leaving. That is clearly not right.
But OTOH
Parents should have some claim on their children after bringing them up, but what claim is valid before children can make their move out?
- Open questions.
I think children have some claim on their parents, not the other way around. Parents brought children into the world, without their consent, that creates an obligation to provide for the well being of those children until they are capable of providing for their own well being or until they choose to change the nature of the relationship. I am very much in favor of the ability to depart a community, however there are many cases where obligations will need to be discharged while terminating the relationship. Those are when obligations have been assumed, voluntarially, by the person who is now leaving. Unless the community chooses to quit him of those obligations in order to get him out smoothly. |
|
|
|
I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.
It can't. You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies. I think he's talking about socialist anarchism, where private property is not allowed. A monopoly on force is not necessary or beneficial just like a monopoly on food is not necessary or beneficial. here's where you are misunderstanding Socialist Anarchism. It's an Anarchy, nothing is "not allowed" private property just doesn't exist without a monopoly of force to protect it. it's a philosophical difference, not a practical one. Sorry, that was worded poorly. Most of the socialist anarchists I've spoken with advocate the use of force in order to prevent ownership of private property, rather than say, just boycotting the property owner. Such use of force is akin to a state, from my point of view. I can use my own hands in order to defend my property (means of production), or pay someone else to do it for me. It's only a monopoly on force if there is a single entity that may legitimately use force. Do you mean that as a property owner, I have a monopoly on force? If so, that seems like a rather self referential definition of property and monopoly, though I can see how it could seem to be state-like from your perspective. Do you think that an individual has the right to use force in the defense of his possessions from others? What about property? What about both of those, but a group instead of an individual? I don't believe in rights. They're legal fictions created by governments, much like property and corporations. |
|
|
|
We can't leave. The central banks have a monopoly on all of the wealth and every first-world state is a cattle state.
Then go move to a third-world state. Greece was selling island not long ago. Get a bunch of your nutty libertarian friends together, buy one, and establish liberland. As long as you choose to sit here and bitch, you choose to follow the rules. You're free to leave at any time. You do have a choice. Once we establish it, you parasites will come and take it. You will consider us a threat because of our prosperity. Everybody would be coming to us eventually. So anarcho capitalism can't actually co-exist with other systems? That was alwys given as one of it's strengths. If you can't compete, quit whining and support a system that can. |
|
|
|
Voting changes politicians all the time. The lack of systemic change rests solely on the shoulders of the lazy, ignorant, uninformed, apathetic populace. They'll all bitch and moan that life sucks, the country is going down the drain, all the politicians are horrible, etc., but when the ballot boxes open, they're no where to be seen. When campaign season starts, they're too busy on the internet bitching and whining. When there's a local government meeting going on, they're at home playing on their iPad. The problem is, there's no 'None of the above' option. Lesser of two evils is still evil. So vote third party |
|
|
|
Yeah, and I am Zorax, Emperor of Delaxia and ruler of half of the known universe. The reality of the matter is that the sweatshops are necessary - 100% necessary. The only reason we don't have them here anymore is because we outsourced them due to things like evironmental and safety regulations and unions driving up the price of labor (not some magical capitalism fairy). The third-world doesn't have anywhere else to outsource them to, so they're stuck with it forever.
How did environmental/safety regulations and unions have the power to do anything, though? What reason would ANY factory have to open with a population of people unwilling to work at correct market prices? Also, why did those countries gain their middle class before such things existed?Why do I even bother? APPEAL TO TIME PERIOD
APPEAL TO ABSURDITY
CITATION NEEDED
You fancy sexy time at the Time Cube Cabaret. Correct market prices REQUIRE TWO TO TANGO. If one or both parties refuse a price, then IT'S NOT THE CORRECT MARKET PRICE. Assuming price is the only bargaining chip is corporatist fail. Too bad that a sweatshop worker working at a sweatshop, by default, accepts the price of his own labour. If sweatshops are evil because one/both parties refuse a price, then they cannot work because the workers would refuse to work there or the sweatshops wouldn't employ them, meaning that the problem of sweatshops would solve itself, but if the workers accept it then they are accepting the given price/wage therefore it is a correct market price making it is clearly disadvantageous for the workers to have their workplace removed. QED The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments. If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached. Exactly, it's part of the power difference, but no one wants to take that into consideration. The issue is not government. The issue is the BUSINESSES that influence the government do things like remove unionization, regulation, safety standards, minimum wage, working standards, etc. It's this completely deregulated environment that allows things like sweatshops to exist, and big business NEEDS sweatshops. Ironically, this environment is GREAT for business, as it possesses all the things capitalists desire. Trying to separate business and government is a false dichotomy, and is the failure of both Libertarian (in the US sense) and Liberal (also in the US sense) |
|
|
|
The workers are being kept from bargaining collectively by the local governments. If they could bargain collectively (as the company does) then a fair market price could be reached. ...Which is a problem with governments, not sweatshops themselves. Going by the same vein of logic, farming in the mid-early 19th century in the US is evil because the slaves worked on farms, ignoring the fact that government supported slavery is the problem, not farming. Sweatshops are a symptom, and not the root of the problem, that doesn't mean they are ok. Just because diorhea is a symptom of Cholera, and not the root problem doesn't change the fact that it is the Diorhea that will kill you. Sweatshops are infinitely preferable to many of the other things a government could do instead. Removing sweatshops before removing the government's ability to oppress the workers is like aggressively working to deal with the stuffy nose over the cancer. That. Or being more clear: It is like forcing a person to stop using a crap vehicle that cause health damage, before taking that person out of the desert. This looks like an apt metaphor to me. However we cannot presume guiltlessness from the companies that operate the sweatshops either. Yes, they are doing what they can to maximize profits, they could also treat the workers fairly and sell to the fair trade market. |
|
|
|
I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.
It can't. You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies. I think he's talking about socialist anarchism, where private property is not allowed. A monopoly on force is not necessary or beneficial just like a monopoly on food is not necessary or beneficial. here's where you are misunderstanding Socialist Anarchism. It's an Anarchy, nothing is "not allowed" private property just doesn't exist without a monopoly of force to protect it. it's a philosophical difference, not a practical one. |
|
|
|
|
I have 19 years experience reading professionally. I can read for you over the phone, via e-mail, via a chat program such as yahoo or MSN, via a voicechat program like skype, or face to face if you are in my area (SE Ohio)
For long distance readings I charge .05 BTC per card for text or per minute for voice. This is subject to change as bitcoin values fluctuate but that's the price for the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
