[quote author=cloud9 link=topic=57.msg171509#msg171509 date=1307294917it was a comment addressing this issue, and your comment on it being impossible to measure the demand for medium of exchange:

[/quote]

But you are not mesuring the demand for money (bitcoins), you are just keeping bitcoin nominally in line with dollars.

Again, how do you measure the demand for money?

PS: In the example you have eliminated the currency. The problem with that equation is that it does not take into account the changes in the valuation of the currency. But I dont want to discuss about the equation. I want you to answer how do you measure the demand for money.

Where are you getting this calculation from?

If I suspect correctly you are trying to keep the price of bitcoins nominally stable in dollars (I can not be sure until you tell me where you get that number). Why would you want to keep bitcoins nominally in line with the dollar? And more important, how does that answer my question?

PS: The M*V = P *Q equation is wrong, but I am accepting for the sake of argument.

+1

Yo lo único que añadiría sería una sección para comerciar. Ya que tenemos una sección en castellano y seguramente habrá gente geograficamente cercana, deberíamos aprovechar para comerciar entre nosotros.

You are 100% right.

Democracy is just political darwinism. Its a unfair and authoritarian system designed to benefit the political and banking class at the expense of the rest. There is a really good book called "The myth of the rational voter" that I always recomend.

Yes, but that was not the question. The question was: how do you mesure the demand for money?

alexk, how are you going to measure the demand for money?

Hint: its impossible.


Offtopic:

This is how central banks promised they would opperate, its not how they actually operated.

  LOL

I agree. The price of bitcoin will suffer a drop at some point and Im curious to see the reaction fo the community.

You can have the public/private pool idea implemented with a fallback to mining on your own if both go down. That way even if the private pools are compromised, the miners will keep mining for themselve until the pools are back up again and the network wont be compromised.

The thing is that you have several historic examples (Scotland, Canada, USA, ...) were there was free banking, taht means no central bank and no centalised credit regulations, and fractional reserve banks behaved. They were really afraid of bankruptcy, and actually there were very few bankruptcies. Check this out: http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=774

Actually, The Secret of Oz is even worse than The Money Masters.

As I told you this would require a discussion on basic economic theory that could take pages to write. All I can do is give you a brief peak at parts that are wrong on the movie, as I already did, and point you aout to books with satisfactory economic theory and history.

Btw, Peter Schiff follows the austrian school of economics of which Murray Rothbard is one of the big figures and that contradicts a lot of the things that The Money Masters says.


Its ok. You dont have to believe me. Its good policy to not believe anything anyone says on the internet. But if you keep reading and researching about monetary theory and history you will realize how many lies there are in the movie and how it manipulates to sell their talking points, as it happened to me.

So you feel its ok that The Money Masters lies about Lincoln?

Btw, I usually agree with the videos of NIA, but behind NIA there is a scammer. Watch out for that.

Murray Rothbard is considered the father of the modern libertarian movement. Just check him out before talking about sheep and obbey authorities and more stuff.

I agree with what you are saying in general about the system creating excessive debt and it being a form of slavery. But the excessive debt is not created by fractional reserve banking alone. Only when you put a central bank behind the fractional reserve system it becomes inflationary, as the central bank is taking the risk away and allowing the banks to inflate. But fractional banking alone is not inflationary, since the risk of going bankrupt keeps the temptaion of credit expansion in check. There are several historic examples of how fractional banking alone is not inflationary.

I did more than pointing that quotes are not real. I pointed out big "problems" on the way Lincoln is described. As I said to point out everything I would need to write pages and pages, and that is a work I can do if someone is willing to pay for it because it would take me weeks to do properly.

But the fact that the movie quotes some false cites shows how careless they were in the historic part (which is the whole point of the movie).

EDIT: I can recommend you some books about monetary history if you are interested. For example, Rothbard's "History of Money and Banking in the USA: ..." is a good start: http://mises.org/resources/1022

EDIT2: I understand your disconfort about discovering that the movie has a lot of bullshit. I felt the same way. I actually got interested in monetary history because of that movie (and "From Frdedom to Fascism"). But when I started reading more academic books I realized how flawed (and outright lying) that movie was. I was extremely deceived, as I imagine you might feel now.

EDIT3: I just realize you are asking for proves about the quotes not being real. Thats not how it works. You (or the one claiming the quotes) have to prove that they are real. The Jefferson one is easy to disprove because the word deflation was not used back then. The Woodrow Wilson one is false becuse there is basically no evidence that he said it.

I would need to do a whole tesis pointing out the faults of The Money Masters. But I will give you a couple of examples:

1. Several quotes in the movie are false. For example, the Jefferson one about banking institution. Another false one is the Woodrow Wilson cite about regreting the creation of the Fed, there is no record that he said it.

2. The Money Masters paints Lincoln as a anti-banker president that fought against the centrallized control of money. It even insinuates in a very obvious way that Lincoln was killed by the bankers as revenge. But in reality Lincoln passed the National Bank Act when the war was finishing that centralized the credit in the big banks of New York and gave them the power to inflate the money supply and charge interest on it. How can you ignore something as big as this? Because it does not fit in the lie they want to sell about Lincoln being anti-banker.

Central banking is a problem, and I want to close the central banks, but that movie is just wrong.

Actually, Austrian theory explains perfectly the Tulip bubble. During the time the Tulip bubble happened there was a big influx of gold and silver coming from America to Europe. Therefore there was a big expansion of the money supply, which austrians predict will cause bubbles, and it is what happened.

There were bubbles in all Europe, but there was a large influx of gold towards Holland (thus creating the most famous Tulip bubble) becaus of the fame of the Bank of Amsterdam. More info here: http://mises.org/daily/2564 (its long, you can download as pdf, and you will find the data about the monetary expansion)

The Efficent Market Theory is not a theory that describes reality. It can be used for some specific cases where the conditions are very close to the conditions required by the EMT. But in general the EMT does not hold.

According to the proponents of the EMT bubbles should not even happen. Eugene Fama, one of the most famous proponetnts of the theory, has denied that bubbles exists. Go figure.