Thanks for the links. Every link would trigger a different debate. I am more a Popperian than a Hayekian in method. However, the links, I think, does not focus in the approach that I have in mind. Even Austrians I think fall short on their analysis of free banking. I know where I want to come but I prefer to back it in references to Austrians view of free banking as I think I agree more to Mises and Rothbard than Hayek, but Hayek studied it more in detail. I will be back to the thread. Is a very interesting issue.

Update: I quit explaining any arguments. Not worth. Alea jacta est. Thanks for the thread

I decided analysing a bit more in detail this issue because, I like the cryptos proposal, but I think some requirements must be guaranteed to prevent cryptos becoming the currency of poor people. For the moment, I have just extracted some paragraphs from Hayek's book Denationalisation of Money. I will go further with another Austrian authors in the next few days and, at the final, I will wrap all up in a thread. Then I will update this one. Just, clarify that I am not against cryptos, at all, but looking for how to guarantee that they can be successfully adopted.

Regards

Well, is interesting what you say, but I think you make some mistakes. Sorry, your nick confused me with a girl. First thing clarify I commented about emotional and rational, not about better or worse.

Second, I do not think you understand what a rationalist is. Actually is a very distorted word. A rationalist does not want neither data nor science, wants arguments and concepts. This is why I do not feel myself obliged to provide data. However, is true, I made an assumption. And it would require a whole thread to demonstrate when I think (maybe I am wrong) is quite obvious that there are more collectivists in society that individualists.

Last, I did not say female = collectivists, I did say average of female is probably collectivists. Happily, there are exceptions everywhere. But I am not sure that you are aware of the actual meaning of these words.

Update:

Ok, thanks, I have gathered enough information from the industry

Regards

well, there are several velocities of money depending on the monetary aggregate that you use (mine was from MZM), link in previous page, but:
* still I do not see any problem in the chart
* no central bank makes any monetary policy decision on the basis on velocity of money

But, I think this debate of velocity is heading us nowhere anyway.

what is exactly the problem with velocity of money in 1971?


Sorry, no government/central bank makes any monetary decision on the basis of velocity of money.


a rise in military spending caused by the Vietnam War gradually worsened the overvaluation of the dollar.

End of Bretton Woods system
The system dissolved between 1968 and 1973. In August 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon announced the "temporary" suspension of the dollar's convertibility into gold.

https://www.imf.org/external/about/histend.htm

??

7 transactions per second makes a currency eligible for reserve currency? USA just needed to win the WWII to impose dollar....

This would be solved by a functional analysis of the 'domain' demonstrating validity, is not it? Is there such a paper on the community? Furthermore, does current body of knowledge of economics provides such a foundational framework to build this analysis on top of it? To clarify, my "analysis" is carried out from the opposite school of economics

(By 'domain' I am referring to monetary architectures, not to enterprise service buses).

Off topic: if it does not, where is heading us Brisbane and the like?  

This is getting interesting. Well, I have actually just scratched the surface.


you do not need hidden agendas when you have a (hidden) whole body of knowledge as arguments. I came to cryptos as a last opportunity to find a truth market, as I have verified myself that the other 99% is scam. I got disappointed about the no rational strategical arguments behind cryptos (in the functional domain). I have elaborated a rationale exposing why I think is a fake market and I wanted to know how you defend it. Who am I and what I am doing now I told from the first message. No point to repeat, I think. But, if you want hidden agendas, maybe you will find quite a few this weekend in Brisbane.

And, by the way, lets suppose now that I would have any hidden agenda (which I have not). Are you afraid of using rational arguments to defend any position? I think yours is a wrong concern, no matter what is my agenda. Happy to answer any other question.


Gold standard was lost because Nixon wanted to fund Vietnam war. Same reason that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, funding a war.

Regarding velocity was not in the core argument. Sorry if I mislead you, it just was a clarification. I agree that one of the beauties of cryptos is that they allow a flexible money supply. But this is again no my claim. I think is better if you re-read and come with another counterargument. I think you misunderstood.


puf, I suppose you are a female. Well, the direct answer to your question is no. Regarding the fake data, I do not know if we need to discuss that, in current society, there are more emotional people than rational, and that emotional people is (generally) collectivist. No sure if it is issue for this thread. This is enough for my last point. If you want to discuss about sex battle maybe we should open another thread. For me is unclear to what point I should answer you.

sorry if I am not really extending my arguments because your replies does not address mines rationally, IMHO. If someone thinks I have not responded I will be happy in extending. I am afraid we have an emotions/reason debate here and it could take the whole space of the board (and probably would be beyond the board's topics). But again happy to extend.

the amount of gold does not matter. However, obviously there is a peak oil and peak everything at some point and we are still an oil driven society..... so what will happen at this peak point? No idea. What I am sure is that, at the long term, majority collectivist will always expropriate all inventions to minority individualist and make them public UNLESS we block them with gold standard. Also IMHO.

There are many chances that the future governments, after dollar, do not use a fiat currency. Actually, there are many chances of having a gold backed reserve currency. You cannot buy oil to another nation with a fiat currency. What we do not know yet is "its color" (owner) and the transition process.

I provide you a rationale about why I think we need more that succeeding with technology to make a technologically driven society.

I think you are in wrong paradigm. You are assuming that the dispute is between the, say, "elites" and the citizens. This is in my opinion a misunderstanding. Society is composed by 2 kind of people: rational people and emotional people. There are issues in the brain evolution that makes so. Rational people use to be individualist and emotional people use to be collectivist. Collectivist people always will advocate for government protection.

So the actual paradigm is not elites vs citizens but individualism vs collectivism. The fact is, if you look around in any society the number of collectivists is always higher than the number of individualists. Women are collectivists and counts half of population, gays, as emotional people, use to be also collectivists and are 10% of population. Lots of men are also collectivists. So, at the final, individualist people is a minority.

What this means? This means that, (in democracy) you always will have government.

The point is, how can individualist people protect themselves from the threat of collectivist people through the government? With the monetary architecture: by having a national currency being equal to the governments currency or having a national currency coupled to gold. In the USA, you enjoyed gold standard from 1944 to 1971 and was the period of higher progress on (recent?) history.

This chart represents the velocity of money in the USA:



Look how the velocity grown from 1944 to about 1980, a few years after quitting gold standard (1971) by inertia. After 1980, just a couple of more bubbles (2000 and 2008) and finally the 2008 collapse at level of Great Recession. I think velocity of money is a good representation of real economy (no financial economy).

So, in my opinion, individualist people needs a national currency backed on gold, to get protected against governments, representing the collectivist people, and under this umbrella, THEN you will have the crypto-driven society. Otherwise governments will be able to use their power to devaluate purchasing power of any other currency (you can read Hayek for it, I think chapter 9. 'Security and Freedom' of 'Road to Serfdom' would give you an idea).

Open to debate.

yes, yes, I agree, they cannot stop the tech, but we cannot stop the politics by waiting it just happens

actually i am afraid they are very happy that we do tech

oh, yes, there is way http://project.ukrinform.ua/news/virtual_currency_bitcoin_banned_in_ukraine__73534/

but even in the case that there would not be way, is very possible for them to make it the option of the poor people and take the big resources and purchasing power for them with other coexisting currencies backed by governments, laws, oil, gas, gold...

i think cryptos do not just need to grow themselves but also get rid of the central planned enemy, maybe by force. However, I see an intermediate way: fight for gold backed national currencies. This is the only way to keep purchasing power of cryptos, IMHO

In 1944, in the Bretton Woods Accords, Americans (USA) did a very good thing for liberty. They backed their national currency in gold, the same that the reserve currency. Unfortunately this setup was broken by Nixon 27 years after. You cannot allow governments decoupling their currency from people's currency since you would be back to a neo-feudalism.

But maybe it would not be bad, releasing such an offer from the bitcoin community to the world, just to see if any city could be interested?

Maybe you do not need a city without country, but a city where his citizens, or major, has enough rights to make this decision...

Think in a city in Laos, Buthan, Armenia, Namibia..... who knows?

Hi, a question that comes to my mind, maybe you have already discussed about it. Is there any city in the world where you can make a fairly normal life just in bitcoin?

I figure out that cities in Argentina or Venezuela, which are closer both to have hyperinflation on their respective currencies, would be good candidates. Despite their politicians are not the best representation of liberty.

Also, for example any third world country which decides to go fully for bitcoin, it can probably build a good economy full of entrepreneurs from every place in the world in maybe 5 years. Starting from nothing, just opening its barriers.

Other possible case would be a city having a libertarian major which decides to declare his city as bitcoin city, maybe after a ballot.

Another alternative would be a consortia of bitcoin companies joining to offer this alternative to some of the previous options.

Do you see any option for it? Or does all the countries control their political representatives to forbid this option?

I am very interested in the results of the Switzerland Gold Initiative as it can force SNB to put its hands out of the Monetary Policy, but I am afraid they would have to pass for a period of settlement and maybe collapse of some of their companies.

exactly. This is why I tried setting this trying to share understanding about what is going on from the big picture

No really. I have got an ethical conflict in my career which, being Austrian, forced me to quit. I worked in a similar technology to bitcoin, which was XBRL, in Europe. When I understood the overall totalitarian plans, I moved out of the market. In Ayn Rand's words: "I can not work for something which is trying to destroy me". So, I was expecting to find on the cryptos the "open world point of view" but, what I see is the same Keynesianism with a different tool.  

This was addressed by Austrian School. You can NOT do calculation from a planned centralized party (government). This is socialism. Is just the Hayek's fatal conceit. You can only do economic calculation (as an opinion) from market and get paid for you accuracy (modeling the domain and running stats). Then you have a different kind of companies and the whole market roles change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

This kind of debates should be up. Otherwise is trying to fit an Austrian tool in a Keynesian world. Thanks for the perfect example.

yes, you can say on that way, or you can also watch what others do as well.

For example, in 5 days, G-20 will be releasing to the world their plans for a new society (financial) architecture in Brisbane, Australia. Pay attention and try to think how cryptos fit on it, if they do. They have their own plans and they have much more power. (You will be able to download the documents. They are specs, to make up a framework, as the technical ones).

Thanks for the thread as well.