Whats the value of 1s and 0s ?
It depends on how those 1's and 0's are treated. And how is this better than fiat? According to your logic, isnt it more dumb to buy a "digital coin" for $600 |
|
|
|
[...]
If a good costs 3 BTC today and you expect it to cost 2 BTC tomorrow, you'll probably wait until tomorrow with purchasing that good if you can. Today's central banks are doing what they can to avoid such a deflation. And that is why they will certainly want to regulate crypotocurrencies if they become relevant.
The old deflation problem. We have solved that problem, the dominators are wrong. Proof: There are always two parties to a trade. The seller would not wait, he will hurry to sell his warez. Why, because later he will get only 2. Maybe he proposes 2 1/2, and maybe you accept. It's only a half more, and you need not wait. Why would anyone operate a business under these circumstances? Deflation is bad for business |
|
|
|
It DID affect their fungibility, hence the reason people starting saving the silver coins and spending the others.
Spot price of silver in 1964 was $1.29/oz, and there's 0.18oz of silver in a quarter, so the melt value of the coin at the time ($0.23) was slightly less than the face value. I'm sure the government saw that silver was quickly going to be worth more than the coin itself, hence the reason they ditched the silver minting.
But the decrease in value didn't translate to market practices. i.e. it wasn't the case that a loaf of bread might cost $1.00 if paid by cupronickel coins but less (e.g. $0.90) if paid by silver coins which should have been the case if the two values had actually diverged. The face value is more commonly understood to be the real value than the commodity price set by weight and material. Basically, people are dumb. If the US Treasury petrified turds of crap in such a way that they had "$100" printed on them, maybe people might start to catch on. Maybe. Meanwhile, plastic bills have been introduced in some countries. Really. Whats the value of 1s and 0s ? |
|
|
|
Stupid tinfoil hat YouTube video.
Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of wars that have nothing to do w banking
Vietnam
Korea
Liberia
Syria
Cambodia
Laos
Afgan-Soviet
Too many to list. Pick any 20th Century communist revolution, any religious war, any land disputes, etc..
Hy Mr.Joesixpack you know nothing about the real world, stop watching Discovery channel and dig more. Do you really think Hitler coud fund his war with only selling his ''Mein Kamph'' book? Money comes from banks not from a gumballmachine. Millions and millions of ppl has been wasted to make the bankers uber rich, war is for them the best way to make them very wealty, not only to borrow money for troops/weapons/defences but also rebuilding that destroyed country(s), and the loser need to lend money to repay all of that, it's a win-win for banks. Now, for the first time in human history we have a tool named; Bitcoin, that allows uss to be really free and the best part is we wont need to fire a single shot to get rid of those retarted bankers. Problem is with ppl like you; 1. you have been brainwashed by tv and 2. we live for so long in this corrupt system that ppl take it for granted, it's started to get ''normal'' all these wars/hunger/slums. Bankers are to powerfull, i've never seen 1 banker went to jail after all those crimes. We're not free we where never been free,(even after all those raged wars and human sacrifices) Bitcoin coud do that job so feel privileged to live in this time and see the world transform into a better place. LOL. Bankers cause wars? Just this week. Iraq & Ukraine. Nothing to w banks. Try religion & ethnicity. The only one thats brainwashed is you |
|
|
|
Yes, You got really valid points about inequality perceived by economic or moral standpoint. Although, economic view, as i see it, can not deal - or care - about moral point of views, because at that very moment it is not science anymore. I think we agree on this one.
I appreciate that You mentioned the Chinese middle class formation through "cheap labor force exploited by evil western capitalists", because that certainly proves my point that free markets serves more to eliminate poverty than everything else!
About environmental damage: if we would have real unregulated private property use - which means total control of usage AND at the same time total responsibility in the caused harm done by using it -, than using our basic rule of "exclude of force" (filling your city border with toxic waste is actually physically harming You!) the company and it's leaders polluting the environment (external costs) could be put on trial/jail, now that is an incentive to take care about the surroundings is it? :-)
But if anyone needs evidence, just look at the pollution caused by eastern block-soviet industry vs. western private industry. And yes, oil companies that "blow up" nature, and killed our habitat should have been on trial, and the key thrown away. It is a sad thing it did not happened. Because they have friends in the government, so they do not have to pay the price misusing their private property is against the most basic rules of capitalism as i know it.
Regarding Marx, i think he has made a terrible job identifying the real causes of corruption. The problem is arbitrary - and so necessarily - use of force, which can only reside with government, NOT voluntary exchange between employee and employer!
So regarding the problems of society, he was right, regarding the causes, he was terribly wrong. So wrong, that his ideas basically destroyed all the possibilities of the promising 20th century - and to be honest, he WAS AWARE of this! (just read the letters sent to the early dissident to Russian revolutionists about how to implement proletarian dictatorship in Russia!).
I'm not a socialist my any measure. But I have my criticism of Capitalism. Sure Capitalism have served use well in the 19th & 20th Century but we are almost hitting the limits of how it can serve society. What is known is that there is increasing inequality. And if you project that trend into the next 50-100 years we could be facing some disastrous event like the World Wars in the 20th Cent. My main point concerning this thread is that inequality will be one of the big economic problems that need to be solved in the 21st century. One of the problems of the OPs question is that it supposes there are only 2 types of economic systems. I think we are moving towards a post-Capitalist system, but the problem is people still have rigid ideas because they pigeon hole themselves into outmoded ways of classifying economies into "labels". I really hate Communists for personal reason. The problem I have w bitcoin is the affiliation W Anarcho Capitlaism. It reminds me of Communists. Its just another type of class warfare but instead of proletariat vs aristocrats, its the avg guy vs bankers. There's just too much hypocrisy and contradiction. I don't like Capitalism because rich people are advantaged but I want if I'm the advantaged rich guy w my bitcoin wealth. I don't want to pay taxes or Social programs with my money, but I don't mind redistributing wealth if take from the bankers and put the money in my wallet. Marx was a pretty good economist for his time. I didn't care for his Communist Manifesto, but I respect him as an intellectual & academic. Marx studied under Hegel's pupil Bruno Bauer. His "Manuscripts of 1844" was a pretty great. But Mao, Uncle Ho, Song Il Kim & Pol Pot, these guys took Marx's ideas to the extreme to justify their peasant revolutions. Then they either imprisoned or killed all the intellectuals. And this is why I  at Stefan Molyneux cult. They are anti-academic for the same reason that Mao Zedong, Sung Il Kim, Uncle Ho, Pol Pot were anti-academic. These guys are politicians, they used Marx's ideas to convince farmers to take arms in a peasant revolt. Of course they don't want any critics or opposing ideas. If you are morally against taxation then where is the money to build schools & infrastructure come from? It known that private University give more quality education but not everyone can be accepted and not everyone can afford. We still need public schools to take care of the rest of the people. If you have a proposal of how to take care of services without taxes I'd like to know. You have bids for contracts? so like law enforcement & fire fighter would be private companies that have contract? We already subcontract soldiers..something like that? so who pays for these projects? |
|
|
|
I understand. It is a long video, he is not academic (thx god), but 99% of the graph shown were from US government institutes. The whole video is just number crunching basically. Math is just math:) Btw, why is that most people only listen to academics? That is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem. You do not argue the argument, you argue the person. If i were a peasant boy in the age of Galielo saing You, that the Earth is round, You would have ignored me, but still i was right! :-) What I meant by not academic is that he's more like politician. He has some politics he's pushing and he finds data to to support his argument. In academics you don't do that. You hypothesize something then you try to find empirical evidence to support your hypothesis. Then you write a paper that gets peer reviewed. Your conclusions might be opposite of your hypothesis after to look at the empirical data. Also you invite critics to falsify your claims I don't think academics have a more valid opinion. But they are experts in their field. Anyways, the attitude is just different because the goals are different. I'm more interested in learning how things work than pushing some political agenda. I don't think the Nordic model is perfect but you have to compare the economic stats between tax rates of different countries and try to determine is there is a causal link between tax rates and economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_ratesI'm not saying every country should just raise the tax rate to solve their economic problems. What I'm saying is that the national budget comes from taxation and where there is higher taxation there is better social programs, infrastructure, etc.. that create the stability for growth to occur. The other way without taxation is to receive capital from the outside in terms of investment. But that could lead to problems like debt. A common criticism of IMF is that they structure loans to third world countries that can't be paid off so there is some amount of exploitation going on. I think you are not thinking in terms of economics. You are using example of one situation Look at the logic this way and decide if it scales to the entire economy. If you raise the tax rate SOME people might be de-incentivize to work harder. But I think it won't de-incentivize all people. Lets say if I earn $100K/ year I get taxed 35%. But $100K-$300K I get taxed 40%. If I'm offered a job of $102K of course I'd only take $100K. But if I get a promotion to $120K. Of course I take the promotion. Even if I'm only making $7K more and maybe I have to be more responsible & work more hours. I take it because after that promotion I go higher up the ladder. People are forward looking. They don't set a goal and then stop once they hit that goal. Look at the wiki chart I linked. You can see that the richest countries in the world have the highest taxes. What is the correlation and what conclusions can you draw fro this data? If high taxes create contraction in economies then why are the largest economies have highest taxes and smallest economies have lowest taxes? If you tax high earners and throw the money in the garbage then its pointless. But if you use the taxes to reinvest in education, infrastructure, social programs, defense, research etc.. Wouldn't that have a positive net effect over the long term? |
|
|
|
As a side note, i am just wondering, how can so many people here, in the very heart of capitalism, free trade and laissez-fair itself which is bitcoin - even if driven by good intentions -, still insist on "inequality", government, and social "justice" (who is "the society"? if not even 2 person, like in a marriage can not get on the same ground - as shown in divorce rate -, why they assume 300.000.000 would on anything beyond the "don't shoot me" rule??).
I know why, because many have been thought about that (socially necessary (by Marx..) labor time=value. So their basic assumption is: someone got exploited! Which means the economy is a zero sum game in mathematical terms. (because if the "capitalist" extracts value from the "laborer", the so called surplus, than no value really added.).
In reality, just think about the most basic situation in every day life of exchange. You change your dollars to buy a good/service, because you think that has higher value than that dollar bill in your hands. The seller also thinks, that the dollar bill in your hand has higher value than the good/service hes selling.
But wait. That means, both parties in the exchange increased their sum value!! That is why the exploitation theory does not stands, that is why voluntary trade is the only way to increase wealth in society (yes, it is only perceived, subjective increase, but did you get happier? Yes. Than it is real for You!), and that is why inequality does not really care anyone. If they would, they would invite homeless/poor people for dinner, but strangely, people do not do that in real life - so much for worrying about "inequality".
You are not looking at inequality from an economics point of view. You are looking at it from a social or philosophical point of view. There's always inequality because people have different abilities. But when I say "inequality in economics" you have to look at the trend of increasing wealth gap. The reason it is dangerous is because we need middle class people to act as consumers or else economies will contract. Rich people are few so they can't do all the consumption to support production. Its just inefficient. The problem of laissez-faire is that its an incomplete picture and it assumes that people are good or rational. You have to look at the problem globally alongside scarcity of resource. Environmental issues. Issues of technological unemployment. I'm not against free trade or anything. But I think there is a concern about the trend of increasing inequality coming out from the academic economics. Right now the way development moves around globally is that money chases the cheapest labor. So places like Taiwan & Korea was poor 50 years ago but they had cheap labor so the capital (investments) went there. Then it was China, India, etc.. Now Vietnam, Bangladesh, etc. What's left behind in China is now a burgeoning Middle Class and now they can be consumers. In this way I'm pro Capitalism because the capital allows investment into infrastructure, technology and legal progress that allows these countries to develop. However I also understand Marx's critique of Capitalism. About the tendency of capital to consolidate into monopolies, oligarchies So there's 2 views the short-medium & the long term |
|
|
|
I understand your point and the good intentions behind it. Although, there is no such thing as "checking inequality", because, by what standard? Who decides how much is OK, and how is not? Do we vote on your ability to make money through VOLUNTARY trade is too much - because, do not forget that those historical examples you mentioned were not based on voluntary trade, those were based on feudal reigns, or despots, or other force and privilege based societies -, so now we can stop you to became "too unequal"?
You understand my point i think. I only say, that inequality is not morally bad or good, it just is. The same thing as lions eat gazelle is not bad or good either, it is just as it is. You, or me, or none can make a decision about someone else's life, or they wealth, because on what ground? On the ground of need? So i can morally justified to take away half your salary because i can not get enough staff to satisfy my need?
No bad intentions, just asking :-)
Society decides. In the Scandinavian countries the people voluntary accept high taxes because they choose that over extreme rich & poor. You don't take away my salary. Progressive tax is designed to tax people more at higher income brackets. You are welcomed to make as much money as you want just the more you make the higher your taxes. So if I make $250K/ year and you make $50K my effective tax rate is higher The US has such a system but it's actually easier for rich people to avoid taxes through business ownership & capital gains. I really don't know much about Sweden's tax system. Only that income tax is higher than US. But their corporate tax is lower than US. Many US companies use foreign tax havens because of this. I support the lowering of US corporate tax rates so some of that tax money can be repatriated |
|
|
|
You should check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYkl3XlEneA, the numbers says crystal clear, that all state programs directed to reduce poverty through welfare programs founded on high taxes actually increase poverty, and reduces, even destroys economic growth for all excepts those with "friends of the state", the crony capitalist high class. I thought the history of the USSR is a clear lesson about "reducing inequality through redistribution". Sigh. I am from a post socialist country, i have lived it through. Uh No. I don't care for Stefan Molyneux. He's not an academic. I don't want to waste my time listening to him. You should read Thomas Piketty's "Capital, In the 21st Century if you want to see empirical studies. He will probably win a Nobel in Economics. Please cite these studies about social programs reducing economic growth. I'm specifically referring the Scandinavian nordic system. Scandinavians are not 'socialist'. They are Capitalist but they have high taxes to fund social programs. Its not about redistribution its about restraining runaway inequality. My family escaped from a Communist country so I can empathize w you. I'm a supporter of Capitalism but I also support progressive tax rates |
|
|
|
Why does it matter if some people are filthy rich, if the "masses" are still doing better than before the filthy rich emerged? I just wonder why does it matter if someone doing a 1000 times better, if i can live a comfortable and peaceful life. Does it hurt? Like it is a physical pain? Most people do not compare themselves with billionares. They compare themselves and their wealth status with others in the similar job/neighbor. The mantra of "but they are richhhh!" is i think is just a theoretical pure envy.
It doesn't matter at all. But what matters is that if inequality goes unchecked the system will eat itself since the filthy rich need consumers to make money from. What you want is a bell curve w/ most people in the middle. History has shown us that when there is too much inequality bad shit happen. French Revolution, Russian Revolution, China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.. |
|
|
|
If you want to know then survey different economic data empirically and hypothesize a correlation. Currently, probably the highest standard of living are the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland. In US, UK, Canada & Australia the time after WW2 from about 1950s to 1980s had the least inequality and highest middle class. All of these countries are capitalist. But the reasons for the variability of inequality can be correlated to the tax rate and also the relation of asset price to economic growth. The relationship as described by Thomas Piketty is (r)return on investment & (g) growth. When r>g you have investments outperforming growth. http://radioopensource.org/capital-in-10-graphs/So the solution to poverty is not an either/or proposition it lies somewhere in between. Most likely a capitalist system with a high tax rate paying for social programs |
|
|
|
What gives me hope for bitcoin is that it opens up financial services to individuals from around the world that previously had no access. This, no doubt, will increase innovation and raise the standard of living for all.
What financial services? Micro-finance has done more in this regard than bitcoin |
|
|
|
In other news the ECB (European bank) just changed to negative interest rates. This will be interesting. Are banks actually going to charge you money for them holding your money? Or will they go no lower than 0% interest? In any case it's all messed up - and we're going to have another recession soon too, this is just crazy, what will central banks do then?
They're trying to stimulate inflation. The Central Banks only have monetary policies as tools. If nothing works then the politicians need to step in. The negative interest rates are bank rates its supposed to incentivize banks to lend money and people to borrow. However, if nobody is willing to borrow (because of negative outlook). The money will probably end up in the equities markets or somewhere banks seek return |
|
|
|
Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich
What does Paris Hilton produce? She's made herself into a brand & she's an entrepreneur. Just because she acts dumb doesn't mean she doesn't know about business She's an entrepreneur that produces nothing and brands it as exclusive nothingness. This is why we can't have nice things. The reason you don't have nice thing is because of yourself. Don't blame Paris Hilton for your problems I feel sorry for you. You can't imagine a world where profit is more important than wealth. I mean real wealth. You cannot imagine true wealth that is hindered by profiteering. We could have been colonizing the solar system and be building worlds by now if it weren't for such small mindedness of so many. Fortunately we know how to filter folks like you with brain scan technology. Don't worry, you can be re-educated. earth to cbeast. earth to cbeast. Come back to reality. I'm guessing you are in your early 20's. Maybe someday you'll learn to form arguments into sentences that can persuade people instead of flinging puerile epithets like your own poo. Like how you form arguments?  |
|
|
|
Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich
What does Paris Hilton produce? She's made herself into a brand & she's an entrepreneur. Just because she acts dumb doesn't mean she doesn't know about business She's an entrepreneur that produces nothing and brands it as exclusive nothingness. This is why we can't have nice things. The reason you don't have nice thing is because of yourself. Don't blame Paris Hilton for your problems I feel sorry for you. You can't imagine a world where profit is more important than wealth. I mean real wealth. You cannot imagine true wealth that is hindered by profiteering. We could have been colonizing the solar system and be building worlds by now if it weren't for such small mindedness of so many. Fortunately we know how to filter folks like you with brain scan technology. Don't worry, you can be re-educated. earth to cbeast. earth to cbeast. Come back to reality. |
|
|
|
Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich
What does Paris Hilton produce? She's made herself into a brand & she's an entrepreneur. Just because she acts dumb doesn't mean she doesn't know about business She's an entrepreneur that produces nothing and brands it as exclusive nothingness. This is why we can't have nice things. The reason you don't have nice thing is because of yourself. Don't blame Paris Hilton for your problems |
|
|
|
Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich
What does Paris Hilton produce? She's made herself into a brand & she's an entrepreneur. Just because she acts dumb doesn't mean she doesn't know about business |
|
|
|
Housing bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by cheap credit, from the idiot savante middle upper class who can't figure out a better way to acquire money. Bitcoin bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by an-cap paranoia, from the ibtards who can't figure out a better way to acquire money. Funny how they are but two sides of the same coin. Except Bitcoin doesn't interfere with access to affordable shelter. Imagine if water was commercialized and made a huge bubble and was priced out of the stratosphere that the only way to afford it would be debt? Lol Imagine if water was contained in a lake 21 million Liters in size and half of it has already been claimed the only way to share it is to split the rest amongst every unborn child from here til eternity. LOL |
|
|
|
Housing bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by cheap credit, from the idiot savante middle upper class who can't figure out a better way to acquire money. Bitcoin bubble = get quick rich scheme, fueled by an-cap paranoia, from the libtards who can't figure out a better way to acquire money. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
