Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2021, 06:34:35 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
41  Economy / Economics / Re: Wealth is unlimited. on: July 04, 2011, 11:10:25 PM
You're bound to see some idiot come in here and use words like "excess wealth" "increasing rich-poor gap" "fairness"
42  Economy / Economics / Re: What we need is FAIR markets, not free markets. on: July 04, 2011, 11:06:44 PM
I tried make it sound as stupid as possible, so it would be obvious.




The sad thing is, as hard as I tried to be too stupid, it wasn't enough because this is what the average person actual thought process looks like.
43  Economy / Economics / Re: Five economic lessons from Sweden, the rock star of the recovery on: July 04, 2011, 11:01:43 PM
Government spending (if done correctly) can and has been the best medicine for economic depression.  Look at the Russian recovery program and how they've built their middle class over the previous decade.  You can find many examples of other countries that have done the same.  

Government spending is stupid and never works. For the government to spend, it has to tax. When it taxes, it is suctioning up capital from one sector of the economy, to decide what sector it will inject it in. Government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

Ignorance overload.



Governments are run by corporations through lobbies that lobby congress to appropriate funds to their corporations. The people from the corporations also lobby other departments of the federal government to regulate industries so that only the few big corporations that can afford to lobby can compete, while regulating the smaller corporations out of business.

If you think government is benevolent and will appropriate funds 'fairly', then you would have loved to live in one of the command economies of the 20th century (you would have probably starved to death under those conditions)

It's because people like you are ignorant of how the price system works to allocate resources, and how governments mess that up and cause shortages and economic depressions.
44  Economy / Economics / Re: What we need is FAIR markets, not free markets. on: July 04, 2011, 07:37:17 PM
1. you presume the cost of regulation compares to the entry costs.  establishing a rental properly is non-cheap, even if you toss out all regulations down to building codes.

No, I dont.


yes you do.  the effect of regulation on the people entering the market is proportional to their cost WRT existing costs of entry.  if they're not on the same order, the regulation's effect on the number of people entering the market is negligible.

@ OP

What exactly isn't fair about a true free market ? I can list a tonne of things that isn't fair about a regulated rigged market, show me your list.

that depends on what you mean by a "true free market".

my definition would be a market free from monopoly power, business fraud, insider dealing and special privileges for established interests.

this has the result of everyone entering the market competes on even ("fair") terms.

i do not think this situation will produce itself in a free-from-regulation market.

The assertion that free markets lead to monopoly is wildly incorrect. If the market is allowed to work freely over time, an apparent monopolist soon discovers that it indeed has competition. A company operating in a market economy looks like a monopoly only under myopically static analysis. A broader definition of any industry will show that there is plenty of competition, just as a narrow enough definition will show that any brand name product has some monopoly characteristics, such as a popular brand of ice cream.

The airline industry is an example. There are now two manufacturers of large passenger jets: Boeing and Airbus. Punditry has expressed inevitable fears over monopoly profits and passenger safety. However, Boeing's actions in the last three years--most notably, attempts to cut costs by modernizing the entire production process --suggest that Boeing believes it has competition.

Boeing is right, and the competition is not just from Airbus. Suppose Airbus closes its doors, and only Boeing remains. Suppose also that Boeing faces no government regulation. Can Boeing raise prices at will? If it does, in the short term, people who have to travel will find alternatives to air flight in increasing numbers. Airlines would use smaller planes as much as possible. In the long term, companies such as Beechcraft and Cessna, seeing higher than normal profits available to an interloper, might build larger jets.

Consider too the electricity business: As reported by The Economist (August 2000), deregulation in many places around the world is bringing about huge changes in the industry, including movement toward smaller local producers. Most countries and communities value a pristine environment, and smaller power plants can be "greener" than large ones. And sending power over smaller distances means that local plants, with higher at-source costs, are competitive with giant, distant plants because they save the costs imposed by distance. Thus, smaller local plants may be competitive with large producers very soon.

Automobile manufacturing provides another good example. In the early, less-regulated years of the 20th century, there were dozens of small automakers, from Deusenberg to Rambler. Now, with the purchase of Chrysler by Daimler Benz, it would appear the United States is down to two. Worldwide, Ford, General Motors, Daimler Benz, BMW, and others (even Fiat!) are buying out such storied makers as Rolls Royce, Land Rover, Jaguar, and Lamborghini.

These acquisitions seem superficially to suggest that monopolies are forming. Looking more closely, we see that the four acquired companies mentioned above were all suffering financial difficulties when purchased by others, and notably, the acquired represent marques many automobile enthusiasts consider worth saving. They were purchased because they weren't making money, yet offered appealing products that should be profitable. That someone was losing money building popular cars suggests not that the industry tends toward monopoly, but that there were management shortcomings.

The automobile business continues to be stiffly competitive. Startups such as Hyundai and quasi-independent marques such as Saturn and Geo show that the high cost of entry into this capital-intensive industry is not enough to dissuade newcomers. Further, new trends such as the SUV and specialty vehicles such as the popular retro-kitsch Chrysler PT Cruiser show that even established automakers still must innovate to survive.

These three industries--planes, automobiles, and electricity--are three of the most capital intensive, and all show that when the market is free, there is no monopoly. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that your electric company decides to triple its rates. What would happen? In the short term, people would use candles for light, turn down their thermostats, and find other ways to use less power. In the longer term, we would find alternatives to our current provider, and the freer the market, the less time this would take. Economic profits attract entrepreneurs from under rocks, and some of these new competitors will offer truly good deals.

If your electric company, or Boeing, decided to raise prices arbitrarily, and customers were forced to find long-term alternatives, would there be inconvenience? Certainly. But any inconvenience would signal entrepreneurs that profits were available, and they would act. Over time, this natural market process would have us enjoying more choices, and more affordable ones. Contra Marx and Galbraith, free competition does not generate monopolies, but rather stymies them.

(Mises.org author: Brad Edmonds) http://mises.org/daily/621
45  Economy / Economics / Re: What we need is FAIR markets, not free markets. on: July 04, 2011, 07:02:13 PM
Sovereign chance your name to socialist please

Social-democrat is a better definition. I am social-democrat and enjoy one of the best socialized/universal healthcares of the world (inexpensive and high quality). Yes, I'm from Spain.

Take a guess as to why Spain (and much of Europe) is currently suffering economic woes.
46  Economy / Economics / What we need is FAIR markets, not free markets. on: July 04, 2011, 04:03:54 PM
Our current unregulated free markets are not fair. Prices fluctuate all the time. Free markets will create too much wealth for people. And when everybody is free, it becomes unregulated, and bad things can happen. This can't be. It's not fair for poor people. What we need is fair markets. In fair markets, a government body is established to determine a fair price for every good. Any reseller wanting to jack up prices is revoked from his license to sell things. In fair markets, the government is able to care for everyone, and able to squeeze productivity from everybody who can, without anyone becoming too rich. Life should be fair.
47  Economy / Economics / Re: Tobin Tax. Anyone want to help me build the Tobin Tax website? on: July 04, 2011, 03:59:14 PM
I'm assuming you have no idea what you're talking about quoting an article that brief and lacking in any detail.  Do you know what a Stock Market is supposed to represent?  What does it mean for a company to invest in your stock and then sell it and then buy it again once per nano-second?  What does that even mean?  Building algorithms that exploit market gyrations to get 0.01% profits over and over again provides no net benefit to the economy.  Nothing new gets built, no research is done, no productivity is increased, no new products are made, no jobs are created etc.  Please do some research on the automated trading networks and look up more than 1 page articles on 'how horrible' a Tobin Tax is.    If you think Goldman Sachs is providing a service to civilization by hyper-trading I'd love to hear the argument.

I hate to tell you, but your personal definition of a 'service to civilization' doesn't benefit from a monopoly on the determination of value. If people didn't value shares, there wouldn't be a stock market in the first place. Shares obviously provide value, and some of that value comes from the ability to resell them. If you'd rather have a world without speculative investment, then you're talking about a world where it's very hard for a small business to get any capital whatsoever.

Once that speculative investment has happened, it is anybody's right to resell shares which they own. The rest is just down to human ingenuity. The fact that the resale of those shares doesn't 'do a service to civilization' is largely irrelevant, as it is just a part of a process which provides investment capital for building things, research and productivity.

You have no idea what you're talking about.  HFT isn't speculative investment, it's exploitation.

HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA
48  Economy / Economics / Re: Five economic lessons from Sweden, the rock star of the recovery on: July 04, 2011, 03:57:28 PM
Government spending (if done correctly) can and has been the best medicine for economic depression.  Look at the Russian recovery program and how they've built their middle class over the previous decade.  You can find many examples of other countries that have done the same.  


Middle class?  Pshh... no care.  What's a middle class?  I'm only interested in helping the wealthy and crushing the poor.

Well the best thing you can do to promote that is keep building the myth of the "Free Market".  It's worked great so far.


Indeed.  I love promoting stuff that hurts myself.  I hope to someday be lucky enough to be in a serf position, serving my rich masters in a totally unregulated marketplace.

Do you even know what a free market is?
49  Economy / Economics / Re: Five economic lessons from Sweden, the rock star of the recovery on: July 04, 2011, 03:56:40 PM
Government spending (if done correctly) can and has been the best medicine for economic depression.  Look at the Russian recovery program and how they've built their middle class over the previous decade.  You can find many examples of other countries that have done the same.  

Government spending is stupid and never works. For the government to spend, it has to tax. When it taxes, it is suctioning up capital from one sector of the economy, to decide what sector it will inject it in. Government cannot create wealth out of thin air.

50  Economy / Economics / Re: Had a conversation with my Democrat friend today. on: July 04, 2011, 02:18:21 PM
I explained Bitcoin to my 72 year old father several weeks ago.

His response?

He bought 1000 of them.

Dude, if you could make a youtube vid explaining bitcoin to people, that'd be great.
51  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Do libertarians support the idea of information as property? on: July 04, 2011, 12:07:32 PM
Information is non-scarce. When one gives it to another person, the originator still has it.

Information is non-rival. When you take it from someone, you do not deprive him of the ability to use that information.
If you honestly believe this, please give me all the private keys corresponding to your Bitcoin accounts.

I would only give it out if a huge government bureaucracy is created to insure that if I give it out, they would prevent people like you from abusing it. Only a megalithic government institution can prevent the bad stuff you will do after I give you my bitcoin private key.

Oh wait, it won't. It's my responsibility what information I give to what people.
You said, "Information is non-rival. When you take it from someone, you do not deprive him of the ability to use that information." But that's not true. If you give me your keys, I can deprive you of the ability to use them.

You said, "Information is non-scarce. When one gives it to another person, the originator still has it." But that misunderstands the nature of scarcity. Bitcoins are information, yet Bitcoins are scarce. No matter how many copies of a bitcoin are made, it is still only one bitcoin.

Perhaps you can make some argument that your statements are correct in some absurd technical sense, but they obviously are nonsense from a practical standpoint. You might as well argue that speed limit signs are ambiguous because they don't state what the speed is relative to.


That is because what I failed to mention is that once information is published, it becomes non-excludible. It remains excludible only as long as it remains secret, ie, you are the only one that knows it.

52  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Why Bitcoin Fails as Currency of the Future on: July 03, 2011, 06:10:23 PM
Also Peter Schiff recently did an interview on BTCs so Schiff is chewing on intrinsic value too.
I can't believe a devout Austrian such as Schiff would use the 'intrinsic value' fallacy. There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is subjective. This is a tenet of Austrian economics.
53  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Do libertarians support the idea of information as property? on: July 03, 2011, 06:08:55 PM
Information is non-scarce. When one gives it to another person, the originator still has it.

Information is non-rival. When you take it from someone, you do not deprive him of the ability to use that information.
If you honestly believe this, please give me all the private keys corresponding to your Bitcoin accounts.

I would only give it out if a huge government bureaucracy is created to insure that if I give it out, they would prevent people like you from abusing it. Only a megalithic government institution can prevent the bad stuff you will do after I give you my bitcoin private key.



Oh wait, it won't. It's my responsibility what information I give to what people.
54  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: I'm an undeserving early adopter, and here is my side. on: July 03, 2011, 05:03:36 PM
Respect.



How much money did you make?
55  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Mybitcoin.com - Not working? Hacked ? on: July 03, 2011, 04:51:57 PM
Don't use mybitcoin

Just use the bitcoin software to generate keys and receive BTC
56  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Why Bitcoin Fails as Currency of the Future on: July 03, 2011, 04:48:41 PM
First of all, there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is merely how much people want something. It is subjective. If bitcoin has no 'intrinsic' value, than neither does gold.
we can use gold for our technology.  bitcoin can have no intrinsic value because it is not natural.
Gold is not backed by anything. But why is gold valuable? Because people want it. Why do they want it? Because it is safe from sudden increases in supply that lower it's price. It is a store of value.

In the same way: bitcoin is not backed by anything. But why is it valuable? Because people want it. Why do they want it? Because it is safe from sudden and rapid increases in supply, and it works well as a medium of exchange in online transactions and general trade.
this is extrinsic 'value' or w/e you wanna call it.

If people value something, it has value; if people do not value something, it does not have value; and there is no intrinsic about it.
57  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: I feel it is my duty to warn you all. on: July 03, 2011, 04:30:27 PM
Man what I love about this is that, when statists argue for more regulation here, we don't even need to explain why it's wrong to regulate. Any regulation is simply un-enforceable 
58  Economy / Economics / Re: Had a conversation with my Democrat friend today. on: July 03, 2011, 04:25:26 PM
Bitcoin is relatively rare aswell. No person can suddenly and rapidly produce a large amount of bitcoins as to drastically alter total supply.
59  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Island Economics: Forced Education on: July 03, 2011, 04:22:47 PM
It's a classic statist's appeal to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is used to justify fascism and general totalitarianism.
60  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming? on: July 03, 2011, 03:11:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!