The economic model behind Bitcoin is flawed

[deisik]

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

Wtf, you should have known that it has been so (if so) since Bretton Woods (1944), or even since 1933 when Roosevelt banned gold (thereby making it impossible for ordinary people to convert their dollars into bullion gold). Some go as far as to claim that it all has started in 1913 when the Fed was established (injecting fake dollars into the system). Make your choice, buddy...

When the fiat actually took over

[johnyj]

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

Wtf, you should have known that it has been so (if so) since Bretton Woods (1944), or even since 1933 when Roosevelt banned gold (thereby making it impossible for ordinary people to convert their dollars into bullion gold). Some go as far as to claim that it all has started in 1913 when the Fed was established (injecting fake dollars into the system). Make your choice, buddy...

When the fiat actually took over

At least before 1971 FED still can not print at will, it is limited by the number of gold reserve, which require equal amount of value to acquire. Then it became a "I print money, you work" model, this is equal to "all your properties belongs to me"

Of course with a limited money supply model, the money hoarder gains, but anyone can choose to save money thus benefiting from saving (In fact saving money is difficult thus the reward worth it). But in fiat money system, all the benefits goes to the money creator, rest of the people do not have a choice

[deisik]

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

Wtf, you should have known that it has been so (if so) since Bretton Woods (1944), or even since 1933 when Roosevelt banned gold (thereby making it impossible for ordinary people to convert their dollars into bullion gold). Some go as far as to claim that it all has started in 1913 when the Fed was established (injecting fake dollars into the system). Make your choice, buddy...

When the fiat actually took over

At least before 1971 FED still can not print at will, it is limited by the number of gold reserve, which require equal amount of value to acquire. Then it became a "I print money, you work" model, this is equal to "all your properties belongs to me"

You are uninformed and seem to be obsessed with that, lol. I asked you to choose the year right to check how familiar you are with the question. You failed the test, wow. One of the reasons to establish the Fed (as you may remember, in 1913, i.e. almost 60 years before 1971) was a recurrent shortage of liquidity, that is, the true dollars that were fully backed up by gold. The Fed was allowed to print its Federal Reserve notes that were required to be covered in gold only partially. In 1933 the former were abandoned altogether, and the latter became what is today known as the US dollar. Nixon had to cancel the gold content of the dollar since France (and a few other countries) demanded to exchange their dollar reserves for gold in the second half of the 60s. The US dollar had fully divorced gold long before that, otherwise why would they care?

Many consider year 1933 as the end of the gold standard epoch

[iv4n]

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

I think we are not slaves in our nature, it`s more like this system make us like that. It was like that before thousands of years and its like that now. Politic and faith is what deceive us all the time for sure. And as long we trust in this things and make idols from this kind of people (Obama, Putin, Bush... many, many more...) we will be in this economic slavery period. In that system for some people will be good, for many more will be not so good. I dont think we can rise our conscience in some near future.

[johnyj]

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

Wtf, you should have known that it has been so (if so) since Bretton Woods (1944), or even since 1933 when Roosevelt banned gold (thereby making it impossible for ordinary people to convert their dollars into bullion gold). Some go as far as to claim that it all has started in 1913 when the Fed was established (injecting fake dollars into the system). Make your choice, buddy...

When the fiat actually took over

At least before 1971 FED still can not print at will, it is limited by the number of gold reserve, which require equal amount of value to acquire. Then it became a "I print money, you work" model, this is equal to "all your properties belongs to me"

You are uninformed and seem to be obsessed with that, lol. I asked you to choose the year right to check how familiar you are with the question. You failed the test, wow. One of the reasons to establish the Fed (as you may remember, in 1913, i.e. almost 60 years before 1971) was a recurrent shortage of liquidity, that is, the true dollars that were fully backed up by gold. The Fed was allowed to print its Federal Reserve notes that were required to be covered in gold only partially. In 1933 the former were abandoned altogether, and the latter became what is today known as the US dollar. Nixon had to cancel the gold content of the dollar since France (and a few other countries) demanded to exchange their dollar reserves for gold in the second half of the 60s. The US dollar had fully divorced gold long before that...

Many consider year 1933 as the end of the gold standard epoch

I suggest you google "gold standard". Anyway, no meaning in arguing over details, let's say that creating money out of nothing has been existing since 1913, then we have more reason to flee it since the scam has been going on for more than 100 years

The establish of FED is the result of centuries effort of bankers since John Law tried to create money out of nothing. This financial alchemy can work because majority of people want money, it is actually a psychological game. If no one want money, only want physical goods/services direct delivery,  then this trick will not work. Unfortunately, people all want money, and they became enslaved by their own desire

In fact I regard any kind of fiat money (even it is backed by gold or assets) to be a scam, the reason has been discussed long ago (With one ounce of gold, I can issue money to buy another ounce of gold and repeat the process until I have bought everything on the planet). Financial is all about fraud, if you think you are doing just fine, then it is very likely you are the one that is being scammed

[deisik]

You are uninformed and seem to be obsessed with that, lol. I asked you to choose the year right to check how familiar you are with the question. You failed the test, wow. One of the reasons to establish the Fed (as you may remember, in 1913, i.e. almost 60 years before 1971) was a recurrent shortage of liquidity, that is, the true dollars that were fully backed up by gold. The Fed was allowed to print its Federal Reserve notes that were required to be covered in gold only partially. In 1933 the former were abandoned altogether, and the latter became what is today known as the US dollar. Nixon had to cancel the gold content of the dollar since France (and a few other countries) demanded to exchange their dollar reserves for gold in the second half of the 60s. The US dollar had fully divorced gold long before that...

Many consider year 1933 as the end of the gold standard epoch

Anyway, no meaning in arguing over details, let's say that creating money out of nothing has been existing since 1913, then we have more reason to flee it since the scam has been going on for more than 100 years

Then you have to deal with the fact that people during the last 100 years have become much richer overall, despite all the fiat floating around since then. Otherwise, you will have a hard time proving that "for more than 100 years fiat has been a parasite living off people across the world"...

Since becoming richer and better off is surely not something you would expect from the victim of a parasite

[deisik]

Regarding Google and all that kind of thing, I think you have to be already deeply engaged in filling up the vast gaps in your knowledge. You were posting a lot of verbiage and prolixities (read garbage) recently about economics in general and money in particular, and just proved that you lack pretty basic knowledge and info about the subject you try to get in argument about...

Welcome to the cohort of self-proclaimed experts, semi-experts, pseudo-experts, and just outright charlatans

[deisik]

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

I think we are not slaves in our nature, it`s more like this system make us like that. It was like that before thousands of years and its like that now. Politic and faith is what deceive us all the time for sure. And as long we trust in this things and make idols from this kind of people (Obama, Putin, Bush... many, many more...) we will be in this economic slavery period. In that system for some people will be good, for many more will be not so good. I dont think we can rise our conscience in some near future.

I think you are confusing cause and effect, or putting the cart before the horse, figuratively speaking. Those who make up this system are us, so we are doing this to ourselves and by ourselves due to our human nature. Those who come to question the system, get to the point of inventing the idea of an oppressor (Obama, Putin, Bush, etc), which we should reach out to and get down with...

When, in fact, they should be more concerned with their own lives, amen

[1aguar]

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

Even the animals want to be free. Man's nature is freedom and with freedom comes responsibility. The tendency of man to run away from his problems is by no means an inherent feature of man's psyche; actually, man is a creature of reason and to blank-out the mind in an attempt to escape is anti-reason.

It seems that I am in great company: Jefferson, Webster, Washington, Kennedy...
all were conspiracy theorists if you actually read what they wrote!
I suspect that they did not speak idly. They were men who took responsibility for their lives and the lives of others as well. These men directed blame towards the American people AND the foreign bankers.

[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

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?

I did not see you address my point that political economy is the true nature of economics and that the state cannot be separated from the economy. In the West, we have the rule of law which exists so that we can ethically judge what happens in the political economy. In Communist China for instance, there is no rule of law so the mathematics of the economy is not constrained by ethics, but the system is against man's nature because property rights are in the nature of man and the ancient concept of justice (which is really "just exchangement") is the proper goal of any political economy.
There is a famous satirical essay concerning the absurdities that result when one tries to isolate ethics from political economy, it is Swift's A Modest Proposal. The point of the essay is that Any proposal that attempts to negate the role of ethics in the political economy is invalid because it is AGAINST LIFE; life is more important than mathematics. The essay concludes that only that which is just should be given credit (belief) in the economy. An unjust system, no matter how economical, must be stopped.

[1aguar]

Then you have to deal with the fact that people during the last 100 years have become much richer overall, despite all the fiat floating around since then. Otherwise, you will have a hard time proving that "for more than 100 years fiat has been a parasite living off people across the world"...

Since becoming richer and better off is surely not something you would expect from the victim of a parasite

So basically you are claiming that:
"Since the economy has grown then there is nothing wrong with the system, in terms of utility."

An increase of wealth "overall" does not in fact attest to the utility of the system. For example, if a banker holds 50% of the money in the economy and earns an interest upon that, this "overall" wealth increase does not suffice to justify the system by any means (even Aristotle recognized that such an economy would be inherently unstable and unsustainable). I am entitled to ask: Cui bono?

Your claim that widespread and increasing wealth over time (which inconveniently does not exist if you start the clock during the Nixon era) is the main result of the monetary system is another case of post-hoc reasoning. Why should alleged widespread fiat wealth be the main result and not just a side-effect? A parasite may compel the host to eat more food and gain weight because the parasite does not consume everything that the host eats; mere weight gain does not prove that the parasite is not enriching itself at the expense of the host, and at an alarming rate! IN FACT, the rate and scale of the THEFT is so alarming that there has been a reduction in the wealth of most people since the Nixon era when measuring the value of labor; I have confirmed the stark reality myself through interviews; a laborer was paid much more relative to typical expenses like cars, food, rent, gas, and electricity; it used to be that a man could labor for 40 hours a week and support the household without government assistance in virtually any job but this is no longer so. All evidence points towards the value of labor diminishing in favor of capital, so wealth overall is down if you measure the value of a man's labor. Ever since the banks stole the household wealth of America by crashing the housing market, surveys show that about 50% of America's people live "paycheck to paycheck" which means that the ONLY value they can trade for money is their labor, so half of the people are provably less wealthy overall. Do you have facts to the contrary?

Anyway, I find it ironic that your argument rests on the dubious idea that there has been an increase in wealth "overall"; were you not recently arguing that this debate is purely a matter of mathematics? If so, then I would think that money velocity would be a better measure of economic efficacy; money velocity is an excellent metric of the effectiveness of the economy in facilitating trade, it is especially useful when paired with trade volume, and you have neglected money velocity completely (bitcoin has a very high money velocity, despite the limited trade volume). When you focus on the weight gain of one who is infected, you should not neglect the overall health of the patient.

[1aguar]

Those who make up this system are us, so we are doing this to ourselves and by ourselves due to our human nature. Those who come to question the system, get to the point of inventing the idea of an oppressor (Obama, Putin, Bush, etc), which we should reach out to and get down with...

When, in fact, they should be more concerned with their own lives, amen

So this monetary system is a result of peoples' human nature and the masses have brought this system upon themselves?

I have some disagreement. History demonstrates that the monetary system is a result of foreign bankers who were originally and still are concerned with the suppression of liberty, which is identified (e.g. by the Austrian school) as a human's natural right. The system was brought about as a result of directed economic attack by these foreign bankers; they hated America's freedoms and wanted to control the wealth of a free nation so they would not stop until they brought slavery into this country. You are using post-hoc reasoning to justify the existing system without any appreciation of the history or the actors involved, you do not even recognize the agenda behind the money-changers so you do not recognize the true cause. Here is a history lesson for you; the cover story is an excellent essay and if you are such an expert then you will surely not hesitate to read it.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/950307.pdf

I recognize that each one is a Creator and has the power to access one's own value if one can bear the responsibility; the problem is that this possibility has been hidden by the bankers via the monetary system which was fraudulently imposed upon President Wilson and the people, as you can see from quotes I linked to earlier. An agent (government) must disclose certain facts to the principal (people), but we are not told how to access our own value. So I am here to expand on the possibility of accessing your own value within the system so that one can behave ethically and create a soul-ution for oneself and others. With knowledge comes intelligent action, so the first step is to realize one's own situation by remembering history.

[jaysabi]

Virtually all nations have a central bank based upon the fiat model, and all are controlled by the same cartel.

I've only been bouncing around this thread, but what are you implying here? Exactly what cartel controls all the central banks in the world?

[1aguar]

Virtually all nations have a central bank based upon the fiat model, and virtually all are controlled by the same cartel.

I've only been bouncing around this thread, but what are you implying here? Exactly what cartel controls all the central banks in the world?

I am making a correction to my statement above in bold.

A search engine can answer that question. I did a search and found that this page has some good answers; you do have to read the whole page from top to bottom (including comments) to get a real understanding, so I will not be quoting any short answers:
http://henrymakow.com/2013/07/do-the-rothschilds-own-all.html

[deisik]

Then you have to deal with the fact that people during the last 100 years have become much richer overall, despite all the fiat floating around since then. Otherwise, you will have a hard time proving that "for more than 100 years fiat has been a parasite living off people across the world"...

Since becoming richer and better off is surely not something you would expect from the victim of a parasite

So basically you are claiming that:
"Since the economy has grown then there is nothing wrong with the system, in terms of utility."

Actually, I have already posted what I claim (just in case, as a reply to your post), though you seem to have missed it (or just decided to ignore). But never mind, I can post it again, wtf...

People overall are living much better today than they lived some 100 years ago (just when fiat began to take over the so-called "sound" money). I'm not even mentioning the miserable conditions the total majority of population lived 500 years ago. That would simply be beyond comparison. You may indeed question the validity of this assertion (that people live better today), but you can't possibly deny the explosive growth of population as well as human lifespan...

As you can see, I don't even mention the economic growth as such

[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

Even the animals want to be free. Man's nature is freedom and with freedom comes responsibility. The tendency of man to run away from his problems is by no means an inherent feature of man's psyche; actually, man is a creature of reason and to blank-out the mind in an attempt to escape is anti-reason

You are again distorting the meaning of words as you see fit. Humans like animals want their familiar surroundings and habitat (their way of life, in short). Man is a social being (a handy substitute when you just wanted to say herd animal, lol), and as such he is willing and naturally predisposed to delegate the responsibility for his actions and life to some bellwether, meaning that obedience and submission are built-in features in him...

Still wanna talk about what is Man's nature?

[deisik]

It seems that I am in great company: Jefferson, Webster, Washington, Kennedy...
all were conspiracy theorists if you actually read what they wrote!

I pretty much don't care. I'm not interested in expanding this issue any further here since it is of no interest to me. You can hardly say anything that I haven't heard before. I hope you understand also it is quite off-topic in this thread and surely deserves its own one, though, most likely, not in the Economics section

[johnyj]

You are uninformed and seem to be obsessed with that, lol. I asked you to choose the year right to check how familiar you are with the question. You failed the test, wow. One of the reasons to establish the Fed (as you may remember, in 1913, i.e. almost 60 years before 1971) was a recurrent shortage of liquidity, that is, the true dollars that were fully backed up by gold. The Fed was allowed to print its Federal Reserve notes that were required to be covered in gold only partially. In 1933 the former were abandoned altogether, and the latter became what is today known as the US dollar. Nixon had to cancel the gold content of the dollar since France (and a few other countries) demanded to exchange their dollar reserves for gold in the second half of the 60s. The US dollar had fully divorced gold long before that...

Many consider year 1933 as the end of the gold standard epoch

Anyway, no meaning in arguing over details, let's say that creating money out of nothing has been existing since 1913, then we have more reason to flee it since the scam has been going on for more than 100 years

Then you have to deal with the fact that people during the last 100 years have become much richer overall, despite all the fiat floating around since then. Otherwise, you will have a hard time proving that "for more than 100 years fiat has been a parasite living off people across the world"...

Since becoming richer and better off is surely not something you would expect from the victim of a parasite

First, two world wars killed billions of people, so the rest of the people get to share a little bit more resources on the planet

Second, people's productivity raised by hundreds of times due to technology advancement, but their income just increased by 10 times, they indeed became richer, but their slave master became millions of times richer, that is the huge wealth gap we observe since removing of the gold standard

[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?

I did not see you address my point that political economy is the true nature of economics and that the state cannot be separated from the economy. In the West, we have the rule of law which exists so that we can ethically judge what happens in the political economy. In Communist China for instance, there is no rule of law so the mathematics of the economy is not constrained by ethics, but the system is against man's nature because property rights are in the nature of man and the ancient concept of justice (which is really "just exchangement") is the proper goal of any political economy

And so what? Economics (as a set of economic, monetary, fiscal methods) is a tool with which the state sets up its economy, but this doesn't in the least prevent us from 1) considering these methods (and models that they implement) separately from the state on a purely technical (i.e. economic) basis, and 2) assessing their efficiency in attaining the aims that the state tries to achieve. I don't know whether you understand it yourself, but if your claims that economic models (e.g. monetary models) should be ethically judged were to be taken seriously, then your "sound" money system should have been written off long ago as the most atrocious, hideous, and revolting system in the known history since it was the primary economic (monetary) model behind the most inhuman and brutal political systems that ever existed...

In fact, your own view taken to its logical conclusion actually reveals that fiat is by far more "humane" than any other monetary system out there (that were tested on a society level)

[deisik]

Then you have to deal with the fact that people during the last 100 years have become much richer overall, despite all the fiat floating around since then. Otherwise, you will have a hard time proving that "for more than 100 years fiat has been a parasite living off people across the world"...

Since becoming richer and better off is surely not something you would expect from the victim of a parasite

First, two world wars killed billions of people, so the rest of the people get to share a little bit more resources on the planet

Billions of people, wow?! What did I miss? The world population on the eve of WWII was only slightly above 2 billions of people, and around 1.7 billion in 1914, before the First World War started. By the way, the Spanish flu of 1920 killed in one year more people than had been killed during the four years of the First World War. And just smallpox killed by far more people than all wars combined (literally billions of people throughout history)...

So your argument of "a little bit more resources" is inconsequential at best