Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money

[MoonShadow]

it's a established fact that many aboriginal cultures did barter

Really? Lol

Contrary to the popular opinion, there is no evidence of a society or economy that relied primarily on barter.[9]

Note the key modifier there.  Of course there is no such evidence.  There is much evidence that barter occurred, but none that any particular society relied upon it, for as soon as one did, some commodity became the dominant money.  Yet, nor is there any evidence that no society has not relied (primarily or otherwise) on barter.  You can't prove a negative, and neither can Graeber, but that doesn't mean that his assumptions about how money develops is correct.  If I can find a single instance in the historical record, his theory is busted; but the problem is that the historical record is vague, and no one really kept records of early economic development because even in cultures that kept records no one knew there was any value to recording this information.

Did you read the link posted?

Didn't feel the need.  Wrong is wrong.  It's also a appeal to authority fallacy.  If you can't make the argument here, then the validity of the argument is dependent upon the credibility of the presenter, and is thus and invalid argument.

"Now, I’m an anthropologist and we anthropologists have long known this is a myth simply because if there were places where everyday transactions took the form of: “I’ll give you twenty chickens for that cow,” we’d have found one or two (economies that worked that way) by now.

We have.  Several, in fact.  I have already mentioned some.  The above argument assumes that barter must be the dominate means of value exchange in  a given society.  That is far from necessary.  All that is necessary for money to evolve is that the common man in the society has experience enough with barter in order to preform the act when the opprotunity arises, not that the common man need be dependent upon his bartering skills for his livelyhood.  Barter is always an opprotunistic event, the development of money in it's place increases those opprotunites, and that is why the evolution flows that way.

[Roger_Murdock]

Our society is run by a monetary economy and for us to consider providing for our needs in another way is simply gibberish. That being said, for all of recorded history until a few thousand years ago, we did provide for our needs in another way entirely.

Well, I wouldn't say that "our society is run by a monetary economy"; I'd say that money is a tool we use to coordinate economic activity.  And up until a few thousands years ago, "providing for our needs" translated to eking out a living through subsistence farming.  Money evolved because it was useful. Again, small socially-cohesive groups might be able to get by without a system of explicit exchange based on money, but it won't work for a large, complex economy.  The price mechanism is the most powerful and efficient tool we've discovered for coordinating the activities of huge numbers of people who may live thousands of miles apart and never meet.  Something tells me that the laptop I'm using to type this comment on would not have been built if all of the people involved in its design and manufacture had needed to rely on a system of informal obligations created by reciprocal "gifts."

Therefore, the exchange that we saw between tribes was usually for reasons that wouldn't "compute" in todays society. For example, many tribes give offerings to other tribes in order to insult them by showing how powerful they are that they can then afford to give so much to the other tribe.

That computes just fine.  If anyone would like to demonstrate their power (and my inferiority), they can do so at the following address: 1PjN1PegGNq9ERYvLi1Zg2HNTgWqneMMrT
(Remember, the more you send, the more bad-ass you are.)

[ryann]

And after all that, Dmytri is still correct. If you think bitcoin is going to replace govt currencies then you are so far out to left field you dont need to reply. This place is just like Apple forums. Fanboys. You do raise some good points though.

Typically an assertion like that is followed by an argument.  WHY do you think Bitcoin can't replace government currencies?

If you arent taxed how do you think all those highways and roads and thousands of other things are paid for? There is no centralization we see scams all the time and there is nothing you can do about it. Your computer gets hacked you are done. Dotn care how many backs up you have it takes a matter of seconds to empty your wallet once its broken in to and you will not be reimbursed by anyone. I can go on and on. Mostly the arguments why bitcoin is superior are just lousy points aka quick transaction times and low fees, yawn.

And don't get me started on "if there is no centralization we see scams all the time"... It is the centralized State which is the largest scam of all.

That may be so but if someone hacked my comptuer and emptied my bank account I would get reimbursed 100% by the banks and they would even investigate on their own terms.. With bitcoins will get back 100% of nothing. It just gone to some unknown hash address. I understand your passion towares bitcoins since you run a very profitable bitcoin gambling site but realistically there are far to many negatives for bitcoin to become anything more than a novelty item. Its increasingly difficult for me to even buy bitcoins. Its pathetic. I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate. That there is the biggest hindrence. Liquidity.

[MoonShadow]

That may be so but if someone hacked my comptuer and emptied my bank account I would get reimbursed 100% by the banks and they would even investigate on their own terms..

While that is true, bear in mind that there is no such thing as a free lunch.  You are paying for that kind of support already, and with Bitcoin you can choose not to do so.  There are plenty of people responsible enough to look after their own affairs to build a very large bitcoin economy, $10 trillion at a minumum; which is why it appears to you that the costs of such support is very inexpensive, it is currently bourne by the responsible and irresponsible alike.  You should not assume that it will always remain this way, now that the responsible have a cheaper alternative.

[TheButterZone]

I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate.

Because the going rate is based on irreversible payment methods. Credit card, PayPal? "Great, I received 20000 BTC, now it's time to call my credit card company/PayPal and tell them to reverse the charge because 'the goods weren't received' or 'I was hacked'! Then I can sell the BTC for gold and I'll be fucking rich!"

[Rudd-O]

I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate.

Because the going rate is based on irreversible payment methods. Credit card, PayPal? "Great, I received 20000 BTC, now it's time to call my credit card company/PayPal and tell them to reverse the charge because 'the goods weren't received' or 'I was hacked'! Then I can sell the BTC for gold and I'll be fucking rich!"

Exactly.   BTC x greenbacks is one thing, BTC x PayPal is another.  You should not expect the price relationships between these parts to be the same.

[ryann]

I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate.

Because the going rate is based on irreversible payment methods. Credit card, PayPal? "Great, I received 20000 BTC, now it's time to call my credit card company/PayPal and tell them to reverse the charge because 'the goods weren't received' or 'I was hacked'! Then I can sell the BTC for gold and I'll be fucking rich!"

That's exactly my point. Liquidity is the main bitcoin problem. Make sure you read the entire post before commenting.

[TheButterZone]

I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate. That there is the biggest hindrence. != Liquidity.

[ryann]

I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate. That there is the biggest hindrence. != Liquidity.

This forum is more worried about trying to correct people and show how intelligent they are than any other forum ive seen. If you read my post you'll fully understand.  It is pretty straight forward regardless of me saying liquidity or illiquidity. Its a liquidity issue.

[TheButterZone]

I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate. That there is the biggest hindrence. != Liquidity.

This forum is more worried about trying to correct people and show how intelligent they are than any other forum ive seen. If you read my post you'll fully understand.  It is pretty straight forward regardless of me saying liquidity or illiquidity. Its a liquidity issue.

No, it's showing how stupid I am, because I can't see why liquidity/illiquidity, Bitcoin, credit cards & PayPal should even appear in the same paragraph.

[Roger_Murdock]

That may be so but if someone hacked my comptuer and emptied my bank account I would get reimbursed 100% by the banks and they would even investigate on their own terms.. With bitcoins will get back 100% of nothing. It just gone to some unknown hash address. I understand your passion towares bitcoins since you run a very profitable bitcoin gambling site but realistically there are far to many negatives for bitcoin to become anything more than a novelty item.

Someone really needs to invent cold wallets, paper wallets, brain wallets, the idea of making multiple copies of a file, strong encryption, online security best practices, diversification (spreading large balances across multiple addresses stored in different locations / formats), multi-sig addresses, and the concept of insurance agreements.  Until at least a few of those advances are made, I think the hacking / accidental loss problem is probably insurmountable.  

[MoonShadow]

That may be so but if someone hacked my comptuer and emptied my bank account I would get reimbursed 100% by the banks and they would even investigate on their own terms.. With bitcoins will get back 100% of nothing. It just gone to some unknown hash address. I understand your passion towares bitcoins since you run a very profitable bitcoin gambling site but realistically there are far to many negatives for bitcoin to become anything more than a novelty item.

Someone really needs to invent cold wallets, paper wallets, brain wallets, the idea of making multiple copies of a file, strong encryption, online security best practices, diversification (spreading large balances across multiple addresses stored in different locations / formats), multi-sig addresses, and the concept of insurance agreements.  Until at least a few of those advances are made, I think the hacking / accidental loss problem is probably insurmountable.  

And two-factor authentication.

[ryann]

I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate. That there is the biggest hindrence. != Liquidity.

This forum is more worried about trying to correct people and show how intelligent they are than any other forum ive seen. If you read my post you'll fully understand.  It is pretty straight forward regardless of me saying liquidity or illiquidity. Its a liquidity issue.

People aren't trying to show how smart they are, they're just trying to be specific about the language because it makes communication easier. There are already enough tough concepts to master without the definitions being mixed up.

That said, liquidity is a special term that's reserved for some other meaning. It's something along the lines of "the number of transactions per second under various conditions".

A more likely cause of your complaint (high prices) is lack of competition. There are not enough vendors willing to make Bitcoin-Paypal transactions, so the ones that do exist charge excessive fees. Maybe they've even formed a cartel?

It's the same when I try to do forex transactions. I go on oanda.com or some other such site, and see all these fantastic exchange rates. However, when I want to actually make such a transaction using a bank, they skim a huge percentage and then have the gall to charge a 'transaction fee' on top of the massive fee they already charged!

No, high prices is not a bitcoin problem. Illiquidity is. Its to hard to get coins. You need to go through to many middlemen just to make a simple purchase.

[TheButterZone]

I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate. That there is the biggest hindrence. != Liquidity.

This forum is more worried about trying to correct people and show how intelligent they are than any other forum ive seen. If you read my post you'll fully understand.  It is pretty straight forward regardless of me saying liquidity or illiquidity. Its a liquidity issue.

People aren't trying to show how smart they are, they're just trying to be specific about the language because it makes communication easier. There are already enough tough concepts to master without the definitions being mixed up.

That said, liquidity is a special term that's reserved for some other meaning. It's something along the lines of "the number of transactions per second under various conditions".

A more likely cause of your complaint (high prices) is lack of competition. There are not enough vendors willing to make Bitcoin-Paypal transactions, so the ones that do exist charge excessive fees. Maybe they've even formed a cartel?

It's the same when I try to do forex transactions. I go on oanda.com or some other such site, and see all these fantastic exchange rates. However, when I want to actually make such a transaction using a bank, they skim a huge percentage and then have the gall to charge a 'transaction fee' on top of the massive fee they already charged!

No, high prices is not a bitcoin problem. Illiquidity is. Its to hard to get coins. You need to go through to many middlemen just to make a simple purchase.

Please elaborate on "too many middlemen". Sounds like a case of "you're doing it wrong".

[evoorhees]

This is why I always say that I have no problem with socialism ... so long as it's voluntary. It seems to work reasonably well at the level of a family or small tribal community.  It just doesn't scale (and it should never be forcibly imposed by the threat of violence).  

Socialism cannot be voluntary. It requires coercion. If you have people "giving" and "sharing" with each other voluntarily, that is not socialism... it's liberty.

Libertarians are never opposed to individuals choosing to live in whatever way they wish, so long as they don't aggress against each other. I assume most people would end up living in "profit seeking" ways, but surely some people would form communes or any other structure they wanted. All of this is liberty, and is the opposite of socialism, which is a forced structure.

[evoorhees]

And after all that, Dmytri is still correct. If you think bitcoin is going to replace govt currencies then you are so far out to left field you dont need to reply. This place is just like Apple forums. Fanboys. You do raise some good points though.

Typically an assertion like that is followed by an argument.  WHY do you think Bitcoin can't replace government currencies?

If you arent taxed how do you think all those highways and roads and thousands of other things are paid for? There is no centralization we see scams all the time and there is nothing you can do about it. Your computer gets hacked you are done. Dotn care how many backs up you have it takes a matter of seconds to empty your wallet once its broken in to and you will not be reimbursed by anyone. I can go on and on. Mostly the arguments why bitcoin is superior are just lousy points aka quick transaction times and low fees, yawn.

And don't get me started on "if there is no centralization we see scams all the time"... It is the centralized State which is the largest scam of all.

That may be so but if someone hacked my comptuer and emptied my bank account I would get reimbursed 100% by the banks and they would even investigate on their own terms.. With bitcoins will get back 100% of nothing. It just gone to some unknown hash address. I understand your passion towares bitcoins since you run a very profitable bitcoin gambling site but realistically there are far to many negatives for bitcoin to become anything more than a novelty item. Its increasingly difficult for me to even buy bitcoins. Its pathetic. I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate. That there is the biggest hindrence. Liquidity.

The reason you get reimbursed by your bank is because there is deposit insurance. Deposit insurance can be provided by the private market as well. The fact that no bitcoin entrepreneur yet offers deposit insurance doesn't mean it can't be done. Simply, the bitcoin economy's not quite large enough to warrant that service yet (though you can bet your ass that some ewallets will emerge in the next 1-3 years that offer deposit insurance by default).

Furthermore, the deposit insurance your bank gives you is actually Federal deposit insurance. The government pays for that, meaning that all of society is forced to pay for the protection of your bank account. If you're morally okay forcing other people to bear the costs of protecting your assets, then fine, but I'm morally opposed to it (it's also terribly destructive as it leads to perverse economic incentives on behalf of the banks - the risk they take is socialized across the country while their profits from that risk belong to them).

However, you're correct that buying bitcoins is currently the biggest hindrance. Many of us are working on this, and indeed it is already far better than last year. Next year will be far better still. As with the deposit insurance, don't make the mistake of assuming that just because a nice service doesn't yet exist, that it won't tomorrow.

[evoorhees]

I have a credit card and paypal but I cant buy coins at the going rate. That there is the biggest hindrence. != Liquidity.

This forum is more worried about trying to correct people and show how intelligent they are than any other forum ive seen. If you read my post you'll fully understand.  It is pretty straight forward regardless of me saying liquidity or illiquidity. Its a liquidity issue.

No, it's showing how stupid I am, because I can't see why liquidity/illiquidity, Bitcoin, credit cards & PayPal should even appear in the same paragraph.

Ryann's point is a good one, though "liquidity" may not be the right term. The fact that you can't buy BTC with credit cards sucks, and is a major hindrance. Now, there is good reason why this occurs, but it still sucks, and we should all be finding ways to fix it or find alternatives (and indeed many people are doing this).

As it becomes easier to get in and out of bitcoin, the entire system will skyrocket in popularity.

[Roger_Murdock]

This is why I always say that I have no problem with socialism ... so long as it's voluntary. It seems to work reasonably well at the level of a family or small tribal community.  It just doesn't scale (and it should never be forcibly imposed by the threat of violence). 

Socialism cannot be voluntary. It requires coercion. If you have people "giving" and "sharing" with each other voluntarily, that is not socialism... it's liberty.

Libertarians are never opposed to individuals choosing to live in whatever way they wish, so long as they don't aggression against each other. I assume most people would end up living in "profit seeking" ways, but surely some people would form communes or any other structure they wanted. All of this is liberty, and is the opposite of socialism, which is a forced structure.

I don't disagree with that from the perspective of "what is the technical definition of socialism?" My point is more rhetorical. For obvious reasons, socialists aren't eager to acknowledge the coercion inherent in their political system. They want to make a socialist society sound like it's one big happy family. I'm trying to point out the gun in the room.

[evoorhees]

This is why I always say that I have no problem with socialism ... so long as it's voluntary. It seems to work reasonably well at the level of a family or small tribal community.  It just doesn't scale (and it should never be forcibly imposed by the threat of violence). 

Socialism cannot be voluntary. It requires coercion. If you have people "giving" and "sharing" with each other voluntarily, that is not socialism... it's liberty.

Libertarians are never opposed to individuals choosing to live in whatever way they wish, so long as they don't aggression against each other. I assume most people would end up living in "profit seeking" ways, but surely some people would form communes or any other structure they wanted. All of this is liberty, and is the opposite of socialism, which is a forced structure.

I don't disagree with that from the perspective of "what is the technical definition of socialism?" My point is more rhetorical. For obvious reasons, socialists aren't eager to acknowledge the coercion inherent in their political system. They want to make a socialist society sound like it's one big happy family. I'm trying to point out the gun in the room.

Hehehe yeah it's important to point out the gun in the room. The irony is that most socialists/leftists are very much opposed to guns, yet their ideology requires institutionalized violent threat via gun.

[Roger_Murdock]

Hehehe yeah it's important to point out the gun in the room. The irony is that most socialists/leftists are very much opposed to guns, yet their ideology requires institutionalized violent threat via gun.

Yep, but I'm not sure it's ironic. In fact, I think it explains socialist opposition to our owning guns pretty well.