The economic model behind Bitcoin is flawed

[1aguar]

Here is a definitive conclusion:
Ask anyone who was earning a wage prior to Nixon's default on the currency (the end of sound money)
about how much they earned and how much their purchasing power was.

No, I don't actually need to ask anyone living prior to Nixon, lol. Why? Because I already know the answer.

Right, I told you the answer   ; the fiat system is based on slavery; we live in a dulocracy.
In all slavery systems: over time the slaves are made to work harder for less, this fact is a result of the ignorance of the masses within the political structure (i.e. dulocracy) and it has nothing to do with technology.
I detect some sarcasm in your reply; what is the purpose? You need proof that you are a slave?
Since you are promoting slavery as the best system "economically", I am entitled to ask who benefits and what exactly is meant by "economically".

[deisik]

Here is a definitive conclusion:
Ask anyone who was earning a wage prior to Nixon's default on the currency (the end of sound money)
about how much they earned and how much their purchasing power was.

No, I don't actually need to ask anyone living prior to Nixon, lol. Why? Because I already know the answer.

Right, I told you the answer  ; the fiat system is based on slavery; we live in a dulocracy.
In all slavery systems: over time the slaves are made to work harder for less, this fact is a result of the ignorance of the masses within the political structure (i.e. dulocracy) and it has nothing to do with technology.
I detect some sarcasm in your reply; what is the purpose? You need proof that you are a slave?
Since you are promoting slavery as the best system "economically", I am entitled to ask who benefits and what exactly is meant by "economically".

As I can see you decided to ignore the fact that "slaves to fiat" turn out to live longer and, on average, better than "slaves" (well, adherents) to "sound" money. Your question is meaningless since under slavery slave owners and slavers (i.e. sellers of slaves) are the primary beneficiaries...

But I think you are grossly misusing the term

[1aguar]

As I can see you decided to ignore the fact that "slaves to fiat" turn out to live longer and, on average, better than slaves (well, adherents) to "sound" money. Your question is meaningless since under slavery slave owners and slavers (i.e. sellers of slaves) are the primary beneficiaries...

So in your opinion it is OK to enslave--so long as the ends justify the means?
In my opinion, ethics and philosophy should influence the political structure which will dictate the nature of the economy. I believe in natural rights, so my opinion is that slavery is immoral and the present slavery system cannot be justified. What do you have to say about that?

But I think you are grossly misusing the term

You have not educated yourself about how the banking system really works in this country. I suggest a careful examination of the reading material that I posted earlier, in particular the flow chart labeled "loan accounting reveals the true creditor" which is linked from the HJR 192 site. The Treasury was supposed to belong to the people, not private elitist bankers. Until you can access the Treasury for yourself, you are a slave who cannot access your own value. Everywhere in the USA the peoples' rights are being ignored; literally every one of the 10 Amendments have been and still are being grossly violated on a national scale and particularly the ubiquitous crimes involving illegal "bills of attainder" and debtors' prisons are a direct result of the monetary system which by all appearances has taken over the original justice system that was designed for this country; that is because slaves have no rights and the people have not educated themselves; it is obvious that a slavery system has been imposed upon the populace. Your defense of the slavers is an apparent case of Stockholm Syndrome.

[deisik]

As I can see you decided to ignore the fact that "slaves to fiat" turn out to live longer and, on average, better than slaves (well, adherents) to "sound" money. Your question is meaningless since under slavery slave owners and slavers (i.e. sellers of slaves) are the primary beneficiaries...

So in your opinion it is OK to enslave--so long as the ends justify the means?
In my opinion, ethics and philosophy should influence the political structure which will dictate the nature of the economy. I believe in natural rights, so my opinion is that slavery is immoral and the present slavery system cannot be justified. What do you have to say about that?

Lol, you are talking as if you were the Collector and I were going to sell my soul to Satan. When in fact you are pretty much talking bullshit. In Ancient times there had been real bloody slavery (I don't think the Medieval times were a lot different in this aspect), and, ironically, quite under the "sound" money system...

We are all slaves to our own nature, before all

[deisik]

But I think you are grossly misusing the term

You have not educated yourself about how the banking system really works in this country. I suggest a careful examination of the reading material that I posted earlier, in particular the flow chart labeled "loan accounting reveals the true creditor" which is linked from the HJR 192 site. The Treasury was supposed to belong to the people, not private elitist bankers. Until you can access the Treasury for yourself, you are a slave who cannot access your own value. Everywhere in the USA the peoples' rights are being ignored; literally every one of the 10 Amendments have been and still are being grossly violated on a national scale and particularly the ubiquitous crimes involving illegal "bills of attainder" and debtors' prisons are a direct result of the monetary system which by all appearances has taken over the original justice system that was designed for this country; that is because slaves have no rights and the people have not educated themselves; it is obvious that a slavery system has been imposed upon the populace. Your defense of the slavers is an apparent case of Stockholm Syndrome.

Which country? I don't live in the US, so I can't possibly access the Treasury even if I wanted to. Does this alone make me into a slave too, wtf?

[1aguar]

Virtually all nations have a central bank based upon the fiat model, and all are controlled by the same cartel.
So what about the ethical model behind today's USD? Is it not grossly flawed?
Here are some of the results of the slavery system that has been imposed upon America:

[deisik]

Virtually all nations have a central bank based upon the fiat model, and all are controlled by the same cartel.
So what about the ethical model behind today's USD? Is it not grossly flawed?

So do you have any questions to the fiat model itself? I don't quite get your point. The fact that it can be and is heavily abused doesn't in the least take from the fact that it is the best monetary system in existence today from an economic stand-point. And ethics cannot be applied to it since it is simply an economic model. It lies beyond your dilemma of the ends (not) justifying the means. I don't know if this category can be applied to a model at all...

Can we say that one model is more evil (or less benign) than another?

[1aguar]

So do you have any questions to the fiat model itself? I don't quite get your point. The fact that it can be and is heavily abused doesn't in the least take from the fact that it is the best monetary system in existence today from an economic stand-point. And ethics cannot be applied to it since it is simply an economic model (don't know if this category can be applied to a model at all)...

It lies beyond your dilemma of the ends (not) justifying the means

Ethics has to be applied to politics to be of any value, so therefore philosophy and politics apply to political economy.
Economic systems cannot be isolated from their political milieu and the political system must be ethical to be justified.
So if the (political) economy is not ethically sound, then the economic model is flawed ab initio.

[johnyj]

"it is the best monetary system in existence today from an economic stand-point."

This is human's adaptive nature, they usually accept what exists as best. Have you seen those north korean women meeting their leader? They would gratitude to even cry



Similarly, first you have a group of banker invented fiat money system, then you have a group of economists crying that this is the best system in the world

[deisik]

"it is the best monetary system in existence today from an economic stand-point."

This is human's adaptive nature, they usually accept what exists as best. Have you seen those north korean women meeting their leader? They would gratitude to even cry

Did you miss that I said today? Its drawbacks are fairly well known (which I also mentioned, by the way). Do you see only what your eyes want to see, huh? And no, Bitcoin doesn't cut it (as a better system)...

In fact, as of now it is a parasite living off fiat systems across the world

[deisik]

So do you have any questions to the fiat model itself? I don't quite get your point. The fact that it can be and is heavily abused doesn't in the least take from the fact that it is the best monetary system in existence today from an economic stand-point. And ethics cannot be applied to it since it is simply an economic model (don't know if this category can be applied to a model at all)...

It lies beyond your dilemma of the ends (not) justifying the means

Ethics has to be applied to politics to be of any value, so therefore philosophy and politics apply to political economy.
Economic systems cannot be isolated from their political milieu and the political system must be ethical to be justified.
So if the (political) economy is not ethically sound, then the economic model is flawed ab initio.

I don't care about politics in this topic. Taking your words to their logical conclusion, we could say, for example, that the Bitcoin economic model is less evil (or just more benign, wtf) than that of fiat (or the other way round), right? I understand that you kinkily perverted and twisted the notion of slavery as it fitted your propaganda, but with this you seem to have gone too far...

Failure is success and war is definitely peace, wow

[1aguar]

It is going too far to say that the economy should have ethical actors?
It is called political economy because the state is a big player and you cannot separate the politics of the state from its influence on the economy.
And in the U.S. we have illegal debtors prisons, mass surveillance, indefinite detention, and the largest population of prisoners on the planet all thanks to the bankers who brought about this system (of legalized slavery). I would post details about how exactly it got this way, but I doubt you will read any of my sources.

[deisik]

It is going too far to say that the economy should have ethical actors?
It is called political economy because the state is a big player and you cannot separate the politics of the state from its influence on the economy

This is beyond the scope of the question raised in this topic. As an aside, you could have the most "sound" monetary system that you can only dream of married to the most atrocious form of slavery that history has ever seen. It is not the makeup of an economic model that can and should be judged ethically. Honestly, I think you are just trying to find any pretext to push your ideas...

Is it going too far to say that mathematics should have ethical actors?

[deisik]

And in the U.S. we have illegal debtors prisons, mass surveillance, indefinite detention, and the largest population of prisoners on the planet all thanks to the bankers who brought about this system (of legalized slavery). I would post details about how exactly it got this way, but I doubt you will read any of my sources.

Conspiracy theorist detected, wow. It is our nature that we don't want to take the responsibility for our lives. We want that someone else would take it for us and instead of us. As humans we don't want to be free in general. The bad guys (bankers, illiminati, aliens, whatever) are there to blame them, to keep us from going insane with insecurity of our life and our inborn fears, a foothold to stand on. You can't force or bestow freedom upon anyone...

Big Brother is watching you

[Betwrong]

Bitcoin apologists and supporters often recklessly claim that a controlled supply with the 21 million coins cap is good and beats the shit out of fiat monies as well as cryptocurrencies that don't have a limit on the number of coins mined...

Why is there any question at all? It's in the code. You can't change that; it's a systematic part of the entirety of Bitcoin. Otherwise, inflation occurs and everything goes to crap, just like FIAT currencies. Well... it's just that people haven't noticed that things will get out of control with FIAT yet. That, or they're reliant on them.

They forget a few things, though

After reading all your replies I can see your point. Partially I agree with you. I don't think that it is so easy to answer the question Which currency is better? I never thought that the 21 million coins cap is good, on the contrary, I talked to an economist once and he said that a bit of inflation is always good for economy.

But on the other hand we all know that fiat money are not flawless either. So we'll see who wins.

[deisik]

After reading all your replies I can see your point. Partially I agree with you. I don't think that it is so easy to answer the question Which currency is better? I never thought that the 21 million coins cap is good, on the contrary, I talked to an economist once and he said that a bit of inflation is always good for economy

Bitcoin is not a currency, at least as of now. The best way to think of it is consider it as a financial asset, for example, as stock of a startup that aims its product at becoming a currency. Its main problem, though, is that Bitcoin's success at financial markets (the stock part of Bitcoin) heavily impedes the success of this startup in attaining its primary objective (the monetary part of Bitcoin)...

The separation of functions (i.e. separate Bitcoins for stock and money) could probably solve this dilemma

[Decoded]

Then bitcoiners can work to a new change in bitcoin's code, to make a denomination, say... The hundredth of a satoshi? That'll make it more usable if bitcoin if widespread.

[Razick]

What things do you think they forget?

In my mind deflationary currency is not inherently better or worse than inflationary currency, it just depends how able people are to adapt to the new way of doing things in the economy.

If people can shift focus away from wage increases, and realise that they are matching their purchasing power taking wage cuts then I dont think it is a problem...

I think what they used to forget is temptation to temptation to avoid spending a deflationary currency and keep accumulating instead as that money is getting more and more valuable. This will move most of the money supply into a speculative circle of bubbles and bursts, so it will eventually lose its currency characteristics, as no one will use it for actually buying stuff.

It could be bad for the economy if Bitcoin was the only major currency, BUT, Bitcoin does serve it's owner's very well by preserving value. That's a legitimate purpose.

[johnyj]

"it is the best monetary system in existence today from an economic stand-point."

This is human's adaptive nature, they usually accept what exists as best. Have you seen those north korean women meeting their leader? They would gratitude to even cry

Did you miss that I said today? Its drawbacks are fairly well known (which I also mentioned, by the way). Do you see only what your eyes want to see, huh? And no, Bitcoin doesn't cut it (as a better system)...

In fact, as of now it is a parasite living off fiat systems across the world

Did you miss that I said before? Fiat money's drawbacks are fairly well known (which I also mentioned, by the way). Do you see only what your eyes want to see, huh? And no, fiat money doesn't cut it (as a better system)...

In fact, for more than 40 years it is a parasite living off people across the world

[tyz]

Bitcoin itself has some flaws regarding deflation for example. But i do not see the real potential on Bitcoin itself but rather on the Bitcoin blockchain. Colored coins stored on the BTC blockchain will be the future and they could eliminated most flaws of Bitcoin.