2012-10-21 Warren Mosler about Bitcoin

[nobbynobbynoob]

States can't be trusted to mint money either, unless it's gold or silver.

The American founding fathers knew their Stuff.

[1713300913]

1713300913

[DublinBrian]

A state without the possibility to create (not lend!) money for spend and taxes the people whit your fiat money, isn't a sovereign state. Italy is not more a sovereign state, since it entered in the European Money System.

When the state prints money, they spend it on state employees.

The private sector doesnt receive any of this new money. In fact, the private citizen gets poorer because the price of goods and services increases.

Your state money-printing is a sophisticated trick for state parasites to steal from the productive private sector.

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

So...if Mosler have not study bitcoin and hi's answer is no good, please , remember first that hi is and remain one great economist .

Mosler forgot that markets choose money based on transaction costs. Practically all economic schools agree on this, yet they don't recognise it when it hits them in face.

He also spoke about price collapsing as being relevant for demand for bitcoin, but ignored the evolution of liquidity (normally, liquidity influences transaction costs more than the price changes, in particular if the good is not used as a unit of account, Paul Krugman even wrote two papers about this). On the other hand, there is no readily available information on liquidity analysis of Bitcoin that I know of, other than the one I'm working on and that's going to be in my upcoming book, Economics of Bitcoin.

These are elementary mistakes. Now, let me quote Rothbard:

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

If Mosler said he does not know enough about Bitcoin to have a meaningful opinion, he would have made a much better impression on me. Rather, he made a bunch of implicit assumptions and thus appeared to affirm his ignorance.

[conspirosphere.tk]

I expect that when the current debt-based fiat money system collapses (soon), MMTers and other neokeynesian lunatics will have their heyday and will go mainstream. I am sending them my best wishes until they do not try to touch BTC, gold and silver, and free mobility of capital.

quote of the day: "intelligent people fear inflation, especially the kind where people cannot afford to buy food, which is the big killer of economies and countries, and then there is usually a war with somebody, and the whole thing is a Big Freaking Bankrupted Mess (BFBM)."
The Mogambo Guru
http://mogamboguru.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-valuable-valuable-clue-as-to-what-to.html

[nobbynobbynoob]

You cannot trust any of these neokeynesian clowns, as you rightly say. In fact, some of the goons in government aren't even Keynesian, they're worse than that: they just believe in tax, borrow, spend, full stop, regardless of the prevailing conditions.

As far as these types are concerned, it is clear that Gideon Gono is their hero, and here it is from the proverbial horse's mouth: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-16/head-zimbabwe-central-bank-explains-qe3

[oseido]

Is very difficult for me try to explane my economic idea in english, but the only italian person that have try to understanding and explain the moder monetary fiat system is a journalist called "Paolo Barnard" that have write a paper in english called " The Gravest Crime"

http://democraziammt.info/docs/the-gravest-crime-paolo-barnard.pdf

In this paper hi explain how make a state whit full employment, full Welfare, full education, better infrastructure, growing productivity for its citizens.

Please take a lock.

I believe that bitcoin is a revolutionary money system for citizens, but i dont believe that can to be used for legal tender...but my opinion could be wrong

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

If Mosler said he does not know enough about Bitcoin to have a meaningful opinion, he would have made a much better impression on me. Rather, he made a bunch of implicit assumptions and thus appeared to affirm his ignorance.

A good test of whether someone is really exceptional or a faker, is whether they ever use two simple phrases: "I don't know" and "I screwed up".

Real geniuses (not just in academia but any field, sports, music, whatever) know they are geniuses and 3rd party approval is irrelevant to their intrinsic value, so they can admit fallibility and incompleteness without consequences.

Fakers know their entire existence and prestige is based on manufactured public opinion and grandiose titles.  And so they are permanently afraid of admitting any personal flaws or lack of domain knowledge, lest it lead to deeper questioning of the mirage they have so carefully built.

Mr. Mosler is great example of the latter category.  And so are most politicians.

[conspirosphere.tk]

I believe that bitcoin is a revolutionary money system for citizens, but i dont believe that can to be used for legal tender

God save us from legal tender, state control, and taxes.
BTW: I would not call "modern" the theory that the state can print money. There are lots of historical examples. None of them ended well as far I know, even if in the short them someone made miracles printing state money. Hitler for example.

[rupy]

This guy has never been to a single lecture in physics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_DO0SpiYyY

Not a single politician/economist with a tie has ever learned about the natural environment of the planet earth, this is why we are heading straight to hell.

Buckle up, bitcoin is NOT going to save you if this guy is in charge. He and Bernanke will print until there's noting left to consume, it will delay the implosion of our energy economy, but it will make it worse!

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

I believe that bitcoin is a revolutionary money system for citizens, but i dont believe that can to be used for legal tender...but my opinion could be wrong

The only purpose of legal tender is to perpetrate a transfer of wealth against the wishes of the public. Some call it theft. Whatever you call it, it's not a macroeconomic phenomenon.

Bitcoin is the opposite of legal tender, it is a money chosen by the market. It transfers the control over money from the state to the public. It makes no sense to make it legal tender, similarly as it makes no sense to put John Lennon in charge of the military.

[Roger_Murdock]

Woah woah don't freak out everyone...jeeze anyone who raises concerns about our project is insta-shunned, its madness I say.

He is actually just restating the Mises Regression Theorem (we all love Mises, right?)....the 'seed value' Mosler is looking for (ie the "final demand" or "the thing that you can only buy with BTC and nothing else"), exists in several places, namely low-cost/instant international payments, unfreezable accounts, inflation-proof, etc.

Yeah, but those are monetary properties. It sounds like he's saying that the "seed value" has to be either (a) the state forcing you to pay taxes in the currency or (b) a non-monetary use for the commodity.  But it seems to me that the supposed requirement for a "seed value" is just an acknowledgement of the bootstrapping problem that confronts any new would-be currency.  Money relies on network effects.  If a commodity has not yet come to be accepted as money and it also doesn't have any non-monetary usefulness, why would anyone ever be the first person to trade their goods or services for it?  The answer is simple: speculation.  People first assigned value to bitcoins because of its incredible monetary properties.  They reasoned that other people would also come to appreciate those properties and value bitcoins for the same reason.  And they were right. You can now trade other currencies for bitcoins on an open market. And you can also use them to buy many goods and services directly. So... does a currency need a "seed value" of the type described above to become valued? No. It's an empirical question, and it's now been answered.  So I just don't get how anyone could still be hung up on this issue. 

[marcus_of_augustus]

No. It's an empirical question, and it's now been answered.  So I just don't get how anyone could still be hung up on this issue. 

As I said he's a theoretician of money not a practitioner.

Ask some self-made from nothing, super rich guy, not an economist, if you want to hear what a practitioner of money thinks.

[TraderTimm]

Economists have the best job in the world. Make predictions and theories, then conveniently forget when they fail - and keep your job in the process! If only the rest of us could have the same sheltered existence.

Seeing an economist try to understand Bitcoin is like watching your grandparents try to manipulate a smartphone. Painfully embarrassing.

[Dusty]

his paycheck depends on him not understanding..

+1

+2

That's why I wrote "He's just doing his job" ;-)

[AsymmetricInformation]

Woah woah don't freak out everyone...jeeze anyone who raises concerns about our project is insta-shunned, its madness I say.

He is actually just restating the Mises Regression Theorem (we all love Mises, right?)....the 'seed value' Mosler is looking for (ie the "final demand" or "the thing that you can only buy with BTC and nothing else"), exists in several places, namely low-cost/instant international payments, unfreezable accounts, inflation-proof, etc.

Yeah, but those are monetary properties. It sounds like he's saying that the "seed value" has to be either (a) the state forcing you to pay taxes in the currency or (b) a non-monetary use for the commodity.  But it seems to me that the supposed requirement for a "seed value" is just an acknowledgement of the bootstrapping problem that confronts any new would-be currency.  Money relies on network effects.  If a commodity has not yet come to be accepted as money and it also doesn't have any non-monetary usefulness, why would anyone ever be the first person to trade their goods or services for it?  The answer is simple: speculation.  People first assigned value to bitcoins because of its incredible monetary properties.  They reasoned that other people would also come to appreciate those properties and value bitcoins for the same reason.  And they were right. You can now trade other currencies for bitcoins on an open market. And you can also use them to buy many goods and services directly. So... does a currency need a "seed value" of the type described above to become valued? No. It's an empirical question, and it's now been answered.  So I just don't get how anyone could still be hung up on this issue. 

I would actually argue that:
1) There must be seed-value pre-speculation (ie, WHY will this thing retain or increase its value).
2) A "non-monetary use" would INCLUDE (a) taxes [and a solution to the network-effects-coordination problem (of which, again, one solution would be taxes)], making that somewhat redundant.
3) Therefore, money does require seed-value to become valued.

And, even though I agree with your insight, that the seed-value might need to be non-monetary, its pretty irrelevant because I completely forgot to mention silkroad.

In fact, in (subconscious?) conformity to the regression theorem, I personally thought bitcoins were a strange scam until I read the SR wired article, at which point my opinion changed completely.

I'd REALLY like to see someone bounce silkroad off of Mosler as a source of final demand. That would likely change his mind (and we would have a new ally). I'll do it if no one else will, but I've never been in contact with him.

Or you can all continue to make fun of someone via pseudo-anonymous internet post that no one will see. I has hear that help teh bitcoin.

[Dusty]

I'd REALLY like to see someone bounce silkroad off of Mosler as a source of final demand. That would likely change his mind (and we would have a new ally).

No, it will not: Mosler wants to be able to print infinite amount of money on demand.

[Jutarul]

In 10 years this will be gold

+1. Dinosaurs in action. 

[marcus_of_augustus]

Or you can all continue to make fun of someone via pseudo-anonymous internet post that no one will see.

It is actually pretty effective, take a look around .... "no one will see" is misguided. Asymmetric information is all about getting it to the "right" people ... who cares if Mosler knows about Silk Road? If he can't find out for himself he's not doing the right kind of research and is probably a dinosaur from the old days where knowledge was found in libraries ... he talks like that.

His arrogant dismissal of the question deserves all the opprobrium that should come to him ... he's just not a good economist because his mind is closed shut, and he made that patently obvious in the space of less than 5 minutes. He is the worst kind of economist typical of the dismal science branch (i.e. not scientific in the slightest but politic to the full).

[AsymmetricInformation]

I'd REALLY like to see someone bounce silkroad off of Mosler as a source of final demand. That would likely change his mind (and we would have a new ally).

No, it will not: Mosler wants to be able to print infinite amount of money on demand.

Ah, you are right. Even if he were convinced that SR was final demand, (and therefore that BTC had "Mosler-value"), this would likely not be enough to make him a BTC ally.

Or you can all continue to make fun of someone via pseudo-anonymous internet post that no one will see.

It is actually pretty effective, take a look around .... "no one will see" is misguided. Asymmetric information is all about getting it to the "right" people ... who cares if Mosler knows about Silk Road? If he can't find out for himself he's not doing the right kind of research and is probably a dinosaur from the old days where knowledge was found in libraries ... he talks like that.

I would say that I am 'somewhat' about getting it to 'more' people...are the people of bitcointalk satisfied with reaching only the community of their own forum?

Still you raise a good point, that anyone with Google making an honest attempt to research Bitcoin would have found SR by themselves (there is even an old-school academic paper from Carnegie Mellon about both SR and BTC).

[HostFat]

If you want to talk with him, he has this website:
http://moslereconomics.com/