Bitcoin is backed by no legal authority.
I won't really considered it safe as fiat at least is backed by the government.
And the government does a good job of backing it, right?  Never mind. How man people live to 100? Wheres the chart of salary inflation?
Wheres the chart of housing prices?Those variables are already reflected in the purchasing power of the dollar No its not. In the 80s my parents bought there first house for 45K. They sold the same house in 2005 for 250K In the 80s avg starter income was 16-20K. Now its like 50-70K |
|
|
|
Hahahahahahaha!!!! LOLOLOLOL He is NOT a "respected public intellectual". He's a YouTuber fear monger and "truther". He's a rebel rouser and tunnel visioned politically narrow minded libertarian know-it-all. He just tries to instigate controversy. No research no empiricism
No different than Ted Nugent, Alex Jones, Zietgeist dude.
Maybe. Can you point to anything he said that you think is wrong? I don't like truthers or conspiracy theorists, but his thoughts on Bitcoin (specifically fixed supply currencies) as being useful for limiting political power are interesting. 1. He claims "Historically, politicians have always fought for the power to create money out of thin air, so they can increase their spending without having to directly increase taxes." Wrong -- Most wars are over land disputes, ideology, religion, economics or a combination. Please name one war fought over the issue of printing fiat. He certainly didn't 2. Trotsky, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pinochet, Castro, etc.. These guys had nothing to do w banking. They are astute politicians and fierce military guys. Their power didn't come from raising money but politics and convincing people to follow them. 3. Limiting money limits govt from printing to pay for war. Wrong again. Govt borrow money for war by selling (war) bonds. Or maybe raise taxes. Or they might borrow it from foreign banks. No govts can just print money for no reason. They can increase money supply in form of gov debt though. All he says on stage is that govt do bad shit and it costs a lot of money. Blah blah blah. Well how does he know what's overpriced? what is he comparing to? Like "war on drugs" costing 100s of billions. How much is a war on drugs supposed to cost? Is there an empirical comparison? No because he just want to make people irate. What about good shit that govt do that costs 100s of billions? He picks his projects be he wants to rile up people. Anyways it was a goofy speech. Nothing to do w BTC and more to do with scare mongering |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is backed by no legal authority.
I won't really considered it safe as fiat at least is backed by the government.
And the government does a good job of backing it, right? Never mind. How man people live to 100? Wheres the chart of salary inflation? Wheres the chart of housing prices? |
|
|
|
"Molyneux believes the world needs his show for its survival" ... delusional people will be delusional IThe man is a very respected public intellectual. Hahahahahahaha!!!! LOLOLOLOL He is NOT a "respected public intellectual". He's a YouTuber fear monger and "truther". He's a rebel rouser and tunnel visioned politically narrow minded libertarian know-it-all. He just tries to instigate controversy. No research no empiricism No different than Ted Nugent, Alex Jones, Zietgeist dude. |
|
|
|
How do you know they didn't create BTC?
Because btc was created by genius level intellect for the good of the people...that's why. And who is this anonymous person you speak of? And why are you sure he is for the good of the people? Whoever Satoshi represents and because of the nature of bitcoin. No corrupt government or bank or agents thereof would present this for the best interests of the people and the best interests of their financial freedom from the corrupt financial industry. Riiiiight. Basically, because some anonymous guy on the internet told me so. Okey dokey No, actually...the white paper that was written told me so. It's pretty clear you're just a smartass and a troll and not worth further energy. OOhh white paper. Then that makes it legit. Do you know who or what is Satoshi? Nope. Then why do you treat Satoshi like Messiah? |
|
|
|
|
This wacko again? Someone should lock this dude OzzieCoin in a box and throw away the key
|
|
|
|
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..
Who do you think financed those wars? Wars are backed by fiat currency borrowed in the form of treasury bills that we all pay back with interest and through inflation. Of course the money has to come from somewhere to buy the guns. Doesn't mean it is caused by or fought on the behalf of banking or bankers. in 1980s there was a war between Vietnam & Cambodia. Please explain how your banker theory fits into this specific situation |
|
|
|
How do you know they didn't create BTC?
Because btc was created by genius level intellect for the good of the people...that's why. And who is this anonymous person you speak of? And why are you sure he is for the good of the people? Whoever Satoshi represents and because of the nature of bitcoin. No corrupt government or bank or agents thereof would present this for the best interests of the people and the best interests of their financial freedom from the corrupt financial industry. Riiiiight. Basically, because some anonymous guy on the internet told me so. Okey dokey |
|
|
|
Who Branson?  Charles Branson. He was in Death Wish  |
|
|
|
How do you know they didn't create BTC?
Because btc was created by genius level intellect for the good of the people...that's why. And who is this anonymous person you speak of? And why are you sure he is for the good of the people? |
|
|
|
|
How do you know they didn't create BTC?
|
|
|
|
|
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..
|
|
|
|
|
Deathandtaxes did such a great job of explaining banking.
Just wanna add something to the topic. Even if BTC replace fiat USD, there will always be need for FRB banking services. The simple reason is most credit is for business rather than individuals.
Suppose you invented a widget. You save up a bunch of money by working and create a prototype. Then you get orders in the form of invoices. How are you gonna buy the supplies & and pay the labor to produce that order?
People will always need credit. Money has always existed as credit whenever there was an economy. Gold came after credit money. Then later gold proved to to inelastic when economies expanded quickly and demand for money outpaced supply
|
|
|
|
if you doubt the power of the dollar, then why is Europe in crisis?
What caused the crisis here if not for the crisis in the American economy?
Eurozone had their own credit bubble/ housinng bubble. Not tied to USD. You talking about Ireland, Greece and Spain? |
|
|
|
|
Willing to destroy the economy? Haha easy to say if you have nothing to lose.
|
|
|
|
One on One lending is not possible to meet the capital demands of the market. You can still have FRB under BTC. A bank makes loans and then finds the BTC reserves. But the big difference is when they can't find reserves there is no Central Bank to act as lender of last resort and the system would collapse pretty fast. That's just nonsense. One on one lending may be unable to meet the needs of warped and distorted capital markets. In a free market system, the cost of money(interest rates), would be set by the market...not a bunch of un-elected banksters in a privately owned cartel pretending to be government officials. It'd take capital formation to start and sustain business expansion. The masses would be appropriately compensated for producing more than they consume and the costs associated with poor investment decisions would be borne by the investor, not an ignorant public. IOW capitalism, which we most certainly do not have currently. "lender of last resort" ROFL Don't forget the rest of the fed's charter. Full employment of the sheep is necessary if you intend to continue sheering them indefinitely. Just think logically about what you are saying. If a bank has $1B in reserves and they can only lend out one to one. What happens when that $1B runs out and there are about $10B of demand still unmet. The only thing they could do is wait for some repayment. If they knew the repayment is gonna take a while then the interest is gonna shoot thru the roof. If interest shoots through the roof then who can buy a house or go to college or start a business? You gotta stop only thinking about the supply side gotta consider the demand side as well I have thought about it logically. Have you? What you're suggesting is a system in which people only take on debt they can repay. People that choose to not take on debt and save are compensated as interest rates rise appropriately. As a result lenders are compensated appropriately for lending. How much of that theoretical $10b in loan demand disappears instantly when interest rates rise to appropriate levels? Buying a home is SUPPOSED to be difficult, not a simple matter of filling out a few HUD forms to pop "money" into existence so anyone with a minimum wage job can experience the satisfaction of home ownership...and later the crushing disappointment of home foreclosure because they lacked the means to buy the home in the first place. Naturally in between the signing for the home they could not afford and the day the bank takes the home back they're encouraged to borrow against their equity with a HELOC. This is "good" debt after all right? How much lower do you suppose home prices would be if not for government meddling in the housing and interest rate markets? Secondary education? Health care? The moral hazard of endless mountains of debt and a government hell bent on sustaining an unsustainable system of debt greater than previous debt, simply does not have a positive end game scenario. You look at one tiny aspect of a thoroughly rigged system and say "look this needs to be thus", but ignore the broader implications. I agree with your sentiments about credit worthiness. Just don't see what that has to do w fractional vs full reserve lending. I'm arguing that FRB is necessary when demand exceeds supply. |
|
|
|
One on One lending is not possible to meet the capital demands of the market. You can still have FRB under BTC. A bank makes loans and then finds the BTC reserves. But the big difference is when they can't find reserves there is no Central Bank to act as lender of last resort and the system would collapse pretty fast. That's just nonsense. One on one lending may be unable to meet the needs of warped and distorted capital markets. In a free market system, the cost of money(interest rates), would be set by the market...not a bunch of un-elected banksters in a privately owned cartel pretending to be government officials. It'd take capital formation to start and sustain business expansion. The masses would be appropriately compensated for producing more than they consume and the costs associated with poor investment decisions would be borne by the investor, not an ignorant public. IOW capitalism, which we most certainly do not have currently. "lender of last resort" ROFL Don't forget the rest of the fed's charter. Full employment of the sheep is necessary if you intend to continue sheering them indefinitely. Just think logically about what you are saying. If a bank has $1B in reserves and they can only lend out one to one. What happens when that $1B runs out and there are about $10B of demand still unmet. The only thing they could do is wait for some repayment. If they knew the repayment is gonna take a while then the interest is gonna shoot thru the roof. If interest shoots through the roof then who can buy a house or go to college or start a business? You gotta stop only thinking about the supply side gotta consider the demand side as well |
|
|
|
WTF am I reading? Weirdass extrapolation from statements made by the guy who wrote The Population Bomb in the '60s (mostly shown wrong since), and an ex-chairwoman of some Canadian agency disbanded in the early '90s (had to look both of them up). What are you trying to say? Say it in your own words. LOL this ozziecoin guy has been constantly dropping names of economists and famous traders who don't support his position about FRB. I don't know WTF he is saying either. I think he's just trolling but I have some sick compulsion to keep replying him |
|
|
|
I'm also critic of the FR, but from a formal point of view it doesn't destroy the link between credit and debit. One man debit is another man/entity credit. Between FRB and communism is this thing called the Blockchain and one on one lending. Gee, do I have to spell everything out for you? One on One lending is not possible to meet the capital demands of the market. You can still have FRB under BTC. A bank makes loans and then finds the BTC reserves. But the big difference is when they can't find reserves there is no Central Bank to act as lender of last resort and the system would collapse pretty fast. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
