Bitcoin in my mind is definitely democratic, in the sense of what democracy is supposed to be.
I'm baffled by this logic. Suppose to be... why call it democratic then? Do you call stuff blue that isn't blue but you think is what blue is suppose to be? If "democratic" isn't what it's suppose to be, then something else is. In this case that something else is a society with a few mandatory but consistent rules, i.e. a voluntary society, i.e. anarchy, i.e. freedom, i.e. honesty, ect. |
|
|
|
hazek, I’m not even going to argue with you since you are completely detached from the public and display no empathy. All you want to do is nitpick because you perceive democracy as BAD BAD BAD.  Is this some new kind of libertarian political correctness? Well, too bad most people approve of democracy. They will feel alienated if you describe Bitcoin as NOT democratic. If you want to just stagnate with this current circlejerk, I guess that’s okay though. What I and many other people think democratic describes is fairness, openness/transparency, equal rights, equal vote etc. I can guarantee you that advertising Bitcoin as non-democratic is one of the worst marketing strategies ever. First, yes I'm am extremely detached from herd mentality, read my signature. I want to nitpick because it is in my nature to combat propaganda BS anywhere I can because I know the damage and suffering it can and does cause. Second most people are idiots. I don't care about what most people approve off, if I did, I wouldn't be supporting Bitcoin. Third I think I'm doing quite well marketing Bitcoin because I focus on it's real properties instead of some delusions, if you don't believe me watch my video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClLbv1yisG4 I don't need any pretense of "fairness, equal rights, equal vote etc." to promote and display Bitcoin as extremely attractive, thank you very much. And if someone did approach me with asking whether or not Bitcoin is democratic I would answer: It's something much much better, it's honest, strict, free of coercion, voluntary, regulated by market consumers (a free market), sovereign, without an enforced entitlement of equality between users ect. |
|
|
|
That is just one specific form "a" democracy can take. Just one form that does not define all possible forms. You know they put those numbers in front of those definitions in dictionaries to show that a word can have multiple definitions. Not all of them apply in all uses of the word.  Listen to yourself. You're telling me that Bitcoin is democratic, it just isn't democratic as we know what being democratic means in the real world. It's like saying my bike is blue, it just isn't blue as we all see the color blue. Can you see how little sense you make? |
|
|
|
I believe regulations by market consumers would handle that as well |
|
|
|
What bitcoin is: Honest, strict, free of coercion, voluntary, regulated by market consumers (a free market), sovereign, without entitlement of equality between users ect.
@Portnoy: Can you please point to an existing democracy that can by described by even one of these terms? Precisely my point. Oh so that's your big point? Because a good real world example doesn't exist that nullifies the concept? lol We usually use words that describe what is to describe what is and not what isn't. |
|
|
|
hazek, this applies to Bitcoin: 2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment. 2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms. As always, the libertards and aspergers in here are working hard to alienate the public from Bitcoin by making it a fringe movement. This IS what people think democratic is (and also what I think it is), and if you are too stubborn to deal with it, then leave it be. Show me evidence of socio economic or political equality promoted by Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
It's certainly not democratic. People don't vote. People do consenus or start their own network.
Could not the very fact of [voluntary] participation be seen as something like a vote in favor of that particular system over another system in which the person could also choose to support, through their participation, if they chose? That's anarchism or voluntarism or a society with some voluntary but mandatory and consistent rules, not a democracy. A democracy is 51% telling 49% what can or can't they do. |
|
|
|
What bitcoin is: Honest, strict, free of coercion, voluntary, regulated by market consumers (a free market), sovereign, without entitlement of equality between users ect.
@Portnoy: Can you please point to an existing democracy that can by described by even one of these terms? Precisely my point. |
|
|
|
What bitcoin is: honest, strict, free of coercion, voluntary, regulated by market consumers (a free market), sovereign, without entitlement of equality between users ect. What bitcoin isn't: democratic, a government, being governed by people, promoting equality of any kind democratic [dem-uh-krat-ik] Origin http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democraticdem·o·crat·ic [dem-uh-krat-ik] adjective 1. pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy. 2. pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all: democratic treatment. 3. advocating or upholding democracy. 4. (initial capital letter) Politics. a. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the Democratic party. b. of, pertaining to, or belonging to the Democratic-Republican party. dem·o·crat·ic (dm-krtk) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/democraticadj. 1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union. 2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms. 3. Believing in or practicing social equality: "a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords" (George du Maurier). 4. Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party. |
|
|
|
Many of the words and concepts hazek uses to describe bitcoin are synonyms for "democratic". That is exactly what I'm trying to dispute and disagree with, do I need to paste dictionary definitions again? |
|
|
|
Some regulations should be 'lightly' applied to protect people (usually from themselves).
Not really, that's just a slippery slope inevitably leading exactly to where we are now. Regulations strictly by market consumers is all that's needed. |
|
|
|
|
I just had a long walk outside thinking through all the arguments and scenarios and I believe I was mistaken, FRB in a market regulated by market consumers is not fraud.
Yes it's true FRB operators compete with savers about who is going to offer lower interest rates but this is not theft since savers aren't exposed to counterparty risk while FRB operators and their depositors are. As long as this risk isn't somehow removed by some monopoly on violence i.e. a state or FRB lending isn't being done based on debt but on capital reserves then there's nothing wrong with it. Savers lose out but they avoid risk, depositors and operators gain but they do so at a risk of loss.
Ownership of money carries no special entitlement of goods and services but is a good like any other subject to competition. If my interest rate is being undercut by a FRB operator that's ok because it's being balanced out with him carrying risk that I do not. Yes that costs me a bit of my purchasing power but the trade off is no risk and so the balance is there.
I now believe I was wrong. Everyone defending FRB in a market regulated strictly by market consumers(i.e. free market) was right.
|
|
|
|
Incidentally, 30 year loans do benefit the individual -- they have somewhere to live for the 30 years. Bastiat's "Essays on Politicial Economy" explains why lending is good for the receiver of the loan. Anyway, if it isn't good for the individual, why are people taking them out? Having somewhere to live and owning somewhere to live are two different things. And yes, if you have the cash to purchase the home out right, then yes. A 30 Year loan at 3% is good for you if it is a fixed rate. Anyway, if it isn't good for the individual, why are people taking them out? Same reason they max out their credit cards. I am all for homeownership but I more for them keeping their homes during financial hard times. It is a very rare occurrence when someone keeps their job for 30 years. In the past, it wasn't rare. Today, however, it is rare. What would your advice be to, say your daughter, who wants to buy a house, in this universe, right now? "30 year loans are absurd", "good point Dad, but the house I want costs £120,000 and I can't afford £2,000 a month on the mortgage". I would say: Honey, you can't currently afford that house. So, lets do this. You stay with me and mums, save 30% of your 30K salary each year for 7K savings a year, pay me and mums 300 or so each month for expenses, Then in a 7 years, you go buy that house dear. Here is a novel concept: Families that help each other grow, rather than destroy each other over stupid crap. HOW OUTRAGEOUSLY BARBARIAN OF YOU TO SUGGEST SUCH MISERY AND WORK! Got to do some FRB fraud and skip that savings part!  |
|
|
|
What would your advice be to, say your daughter, who wants to buy a house, in this universe, right now? "30 year loans are absurd", "good point Dad, but the house I want costs £120,000 and I can't afford £2,000 a month on the mortgage".
GO TO WORK AND SAVE MONEY. It's not rocket science you know. And where should she live while she is going to work and saving money? Somewhere rent free I suppose? Loans are a method by which we move our future wealth creation into the present. Renting/mortgaging is the same process except in one case it is the landlord who's done the lending and acts as a middle man funnelling exactly the same wealth creation into the purchase of a house. One method ties up the loaned money and the other creates it out of thin air, gotcha. BTW are you really this ignorant of history to not know how people used to come to own a house? Are you really going to defend fraud in order to get a shortcut? |
|
|
|
Maybe one day; bitcoin will indeed make it standard that we crowd fund our mortgages/company loans from the general public. That day is not today though.
So now the loans are big enough. What? You make no sense. Yes, the imaginary loans that are not possible to get today are big enough to buy a house. Look, the concept is a proven one, it will work with large loans just as it does now with smaller ones. Of course today it's impossible to compete with FRB therefor large are largely their domain. I mean FFS you yourself admit that we will get there one day, all you need to do is admit why we aren't getting there today. Remove the fraud out-competing the honest lending and BOOM, we're there.
Of course it is possible, and I haven't said the contrary. Deposits are already more than loans. Numerically it is absolutely possible. I have said repeatedly that I hope bitcoin is the enabler that lets it happen. "Why we aren't there today" is because until the advent of the internet banks were necessary. They are less so today; and bitcoin is making it less and less daily; but banks are still necessary. To think otherwise is to have covered your ears, shut your eyes and be shouting "la, la, la, la". You also seem to think that FRB won't/cannot happen with bitcoin. Of course it will; it just won't be FRB, it'll be FR... Bob has 1000 BTC. Alice lends 1000 BTC from Bob to buy Charlie's house. Charlie instantly lends that 1000 BTC to Dave to buy Emily's house. Alice owes 1000 BTC to Bob. Dave owes 1000 BTC to Charlie. Emily has 1000 BTC "on deposit" in her bitcoin wallet. OH MY GOD! 1000 BTC has created 2000 BTC worth of loans. 2 mistakes: Banks in todays form aren't needed, they are simply tolerated but mainly protected and legitimized by the monopoly on violence. 2nd BTC debt cannot be possibly confused with BTC it's a whole new instrument unlike bank loans today where debt = money. |
|
|
|
Yea, you see that is the problem. The banks interest rates shouldn't be that low. They are, but they shouldn't be.
They won't be for long. So get it whilst you can.
Crowd funding has really entered the Individual Market to any extent. Lloyd's comes close, Kickstarter, Venture Capitalists, etc.. are others.
We do have a Lending Forum here, with the appropriate collateral something might be arranged but you would need to lock up that collateral for 30 years also. So it's not perfect for long term loans.
Personally, I think 30 Year loans are absurd anyways. They don't benefit the individual. You pay the bank way more than the value of the asset, especially now. 10 Year should be max and a nice compromise. If you have money, 5-7 years would be perfect for the individual.
I agree with what you say; but "should" is different from "is". What would your advice be to, say your daughter, who wants to buy a house, in this universe, right now? "30 year loans are absurd", "good point Dad, but the house I want costs £120,000 and I can't afford £2,000 a month on the mortgage". GO TO WORK AND SAVE MONEY. It's not rocket science you know. Of course in our current monetary system of central banks creating money out of thin air and FRB doing practically the same saving is impossible. |
|
|
|
Why am I getting sucked back in? Of course the loans and investments made just on these two sites I happen to know about naturally do not reach the billion dollar large loans banks make nowadays but I'm sure it's only because they can't compete with them due laws and regulations and other costs imposed by them.
Oh yes; I'm sure too. I'm sure it's nothing to do with people not being quite as generous lending money to people they don't know as you imply. Also you miss a crucial piece of fact: $125,000 is just a number. Who knows how much lower the number representing the same value would be in a non FRB system.
Erm.. the people lending are doing so in exactly the same devalued currency. What does it matter what the units are? Measure it in oz gold if you want. Measure subscription as a percentage of total value if you like. It doesn't change the fact that it's "one island's" worth of money that's being crowd-sourced. You claim it's trivial to do so... great, I shall be happy to have my scepticism proved wrong, but you've not convinced me that my scepticism is unwarranted. Maybe one day; bitcoin will indeed make it standard that we crowd fund our mortgages/company loans from the general public. That day is not today though. So now the loans are big enough. Look, the concept is a proven one, it will work with large loans just as it does now with smaller ones. Of course today it's impossible to compete with FRB therefor large are largely their domain. I mean FFS you yourself admit that we will get there one day, all you need to do is admit why we aren't getting there today. Remove the fraud out-competing the honest lending and BOOM, we're there. |
|
|
|
Yea, you see that is the problem. The banks interest rates shouldn't be that low. They are, but they shouldn't be.
I wonder why that is huh? Could it be because of an artificially higher supply of loans then there is actual savings provided by FRB? Hmm... |
|
|
|
As if there is no way to crowd loan ..
Please point me at this magical place that will crowd-source a 30 year mortgage for £250,000 (a fairly typical house price in the UK) at lower rates than I can get at a bank. Please then point me at the people who have held other crowd-loans for 30 years and had no defaulters. Edit: there is a thread going on right now about crowd-sourcing $125,000 to buy an island. Care to predict whether they'll get it or not? For comparison, UK mortgage lending is in the order of £130 billion; and you throw about facetious little "as if there were no crowd-loans"? Ha. Of course the loans and investments made just on these two sites I happen to know about naturally do not reach the billion dollar large loans banks make nowadays but I'm sure it's only because they can't compete with them due laws and regulations and other costs imposed by them and due to the fact that they are not allowed to do FRB. Also you miss a crucial piece of fact: $125,000 is just a number. Who knows how much lower the number representing the same value would be in a non FRB system. |
|
|
|
Argentina, the mouse that sinks the boat? I don't believe they could have much effect on the rest of the world. Spain is where it's going to hit the fan. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
