The economic model behind Bitcoin is flawed

[deisik]

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

There is no linear dependence between productivity growth and the wealth of society. And I'm doubtful about the productivity growth in terms of hundreds of times (during the last 100 years, at least), though I understand what made you think so. Obviously, you don't know what actually moves the society to the next level of wealth. Hint, this is not productivity per se, but since you think it is, you should necessarily gauge its growth so much (given the growth in total wealth). But this is irrelevant because you obviously prefer that we were all equal in poverty (under the gold standard) rather than different in wealth (after we moved to fiat)...

Are you a communist, johny, Swedish style?

[deisik]

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?

If you have been reading not only my posts (wow) but also the posts I replied to, you would have seen that "this system" referred to something else, surely not to a monetary system of society. Actually, it was more about the structure and organization of it that we have, or just the society that we live in...

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.

Then yes, the masses have brought "that system" upon themselves all by themselves. Otherwise, who did this really, some "bad guys" that we should find and punish? There are no genuine "bad guys" out there (Putin or no Putin)...

And why are you constantly trying to misinterpret my words, wtf?

[johnyj]

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 that all wars combined (literally billions of people throughout history)...

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

You did not count those dead people's children and grand children?

[johnyj]

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

There is no linear dependence between productivity growth and the wealth of society. And I'm doubtful about the productivity growth in terms of hundreds of times (during the last 100 years, at least), though I understand what made you think so. Obviously, you don't know what actually moves the society to the next level of wealth. Hint, this is not productivity per se, but since you think it is, you should necessarily gauge its growth so much (given the growth in total wealth). But this is irrelevant because you obviously prefer that we were all equal in poverty (under the gold standard) rather than different in wealth (after we moved to fiat)...

Are you a communist, johny, Swedish style?

Are you a central banker or something?

So I agree to whatever your economy belief, I will print money and you work, I'm fine with that

[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 that all wars combined (literally billions of people throughout history)...

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

You did not count those dead people's children and grand children?

Just in case, it is estimated that smallpox alone killed about 500 million (sic) people in the 20th century only, until the decease was finally extinguished in the late 70s (that is, within 80 years). Are you going to count those dead people's unborn children and their grandchildren or what? It should have spared humanity a lot more resources than the two world wars combined, right? What about the Black Death then, when half of the European population died within just a few years in the mid-14th century? Did it make those who managed to survive richer and their lives better?

You are treading on a very slippery path going this way, the Malthusian way

[funkenstein]

Special kudos to deisik for taking the impossible devils advocate position in this thread
However, lets not get too carried away.    

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.

I lolled!!  It is tough to match that statement but I will try:  
 
Shooting yourself in the head is also the best way to extend your lifespan from a medical standpoint.    

Or how about:  letting somebody steal your coat is the best way to keep warm.  

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

It is certainly off topic but I'm still interested in what you might possibly mean by "people have become much richer".  Perhaps a reference to improvement of infrastructure on global average, e.g. more running water, or technological progress?  Clearly the population has hugely increased, meaning that individual's fraction of ownership of the whole shebang has gone down.  Of course none of this has anything to do with being robbed blind due to stupidity of accepting counterfeitable dimensionless tokens in exchange for labor but I am still curious what metric you refer to which has increased in 100 years.  

Irregardless of your metric, this is hardly an argument in favor of rule-by-counterfeitters.   

Consider a similar argument: 

"I've been slamming every finger hard in the door every morning since I was 6 years old.  Now I'm 12 and look how much taller I am!  Everyone should slam their fingers in the door.  So successful!" 

  

[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

It is certainly off topic but I'm still interested in what you might possibly mean by "people have become much richer".  Perhaps a reference to improvement of infrastructure on global average, e.g. more running water, or technological progress?  Clearly the population has hugely increased

You still have to explain this. Given all your courage you should necessarily be granted the chance to be the first (to fall, wow):



Note the exponential growth after 1950

[Yakamoto]

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

It is certainly off topic but I'm still interested in what you might possibly mean by "people have become much richer".  Perhaps a reference to improvement of infrastructure on global average, e.g. more running water, or technological progress?  Clearly the population has hugely increased, meaning that individual's fraction of ownership of the whole shebang has gone down.  Of course none of this has anything to do with being robbed blind due to stupidity of accepting counterfeitable dimensionless units in exchange for labor but I am still curious what metric you refer to which has increased in 100 years

You still have to explain this. Given all your courage you should necessarily be granted the chance to be the first (to fall, lol):



Note the exponential growth after 1950

I hate to interject, but didn't the population increase exponentially due to the end of World War 2 and the lack of wars between developed countries thereafter? There is also more globalization and so that ended up occurring during that period, so I would assume that a lot of the growth was related to that. I could be wrong.

[deisik]

I hate to interject, but didn't the population increase exponentially due to the end of World War 2 and the lack of wars between developed countries thereafter? There is also more globalization and so that ended up occurring during that period, so I would assume that a lot of the growth was related to that. I could be wrong.

You obviously forget about the threat of an all-out full-scale nuclear war between the major superpowers back then (well, and now too), something that doesn't quite warrant the idea of runaway reproduction. Besides, the growth started circa 1800, i.e. well before the last world war. There had been Napoleonic wars and Franco-Prussian War in Europe as well as the Civil War in the US, and the First World War in between these dates...

So what about globalization and its effects on the population growth rates? How are they interconnected, if at all?

[deisik]

individual's fraction of ownership of the whole shebang has gone down.  Of course none of this has anything to do with being robbed blind due to stupidity of accepting counterfeitable dimensionless units in exchange for labor but

You are downright wrong on this, bro. The fact that you say this pretty much proves than you know nothing (despite all your brass and gas) about economics, why and how exactly the society's real wealth gets increased over time. Even per capita with an ever growing population, notwithstanding whatever Malthusians would say...

In fact, the growing population is a requirement for the increase in wealth

I am still curious what metric you refer to which has increased in 100 years

The metric is pretty simple (I have already mentioned it), and it is directly related to the exponential growth of population during the last 60 years...

There's a cookie for you

[deisik]

Irregardless of your metric, this is hardly an argument in favor of rule-by-counterfeitters.   

Consider a similar argument: 

"I've been slamming every finger hard in the door every morning since I was 6 years old.  Now I'm 12 and look how much taller I am!  Everyone should slam their fingers in the door.  So successful!" 

In fact, I never said that a monetary system based on fiat is the only factor contributing to the increase in the well-being of the majority of population (which you yourself tacitly seem to agree with), or that it is such a factor at all. But I can think in reverse, wow. That is, even if it can't be said that fiat does somehow contribute to the wealth of society (personally, I think that it helps greatly), it can be said with surety that a monetary system based on gold (or any asset, for that matter), i.e. so-called "sound" money, absolutely does not, in no case...

Can you think in reverse too, lol?

[virtualx]

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

It is certainly off topic but I'm still interested in what you might possibly mean by "people have become much richer".  Perhaps a reference to improvement of infrastructure on global average, e.g. more running water, or technological progress?  Clearly the population has hugely increased

You still have to explain this. Given all your courage you should necessarily be granted the chance to be the first (to fall, wow):



Note the exponential growth after 1950

World population grew a lot, but large part of the growth was in Africa and Asia.
A complete picture here:

[deisik]

World population grew a lot, but large part of the growth was in Africa and Asia.

And it can be very easily and accessibly explained... Your take?

[criptix]

@deisik

you are not only a moron, you cherry pick and use strawmans like a boss.

population explosion because everyone got richer? lmao

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016

you probaly believe in the millenia targets, no poverty till 2030 and santa clause

[jaysabi]

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

Ok, yeah, so as I thought. Jewish illuminati tinfoil hat fodder. This nonsense invalidates all your other comments in this thread.

[jaysabi]

you are not only a moron, you cherry pick and use strawmans like a boss.

population explosion because everyone got richer? lmao

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016

you probaly believe in the millenia targets, no poverty till 2030 and santa clause

This doesn't prove he's wrong (whoever you're referring to, no quote). It only shows that the rich are getting richer faster. It says nothing about the richness of everyone else.

[criptix]

you are not only a moron, you cherry pick and use strawmans like a boss.

population explosion because everyone got richer? lmao

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016

you probaly believe in the millenia targets, no poverty till 2030 and santa clause

This doesn't prove he's wrong (whoever you're referring to, no quote). It only shows that the rich are getting richer faster. It says nothing about the richness of everyone else.

atleast read the first sentence of my link.

[...]next year unless the current trend of rising inequality is checked, Oxfam warned today ahead of the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos.

the reports that you can dl for free gives detailed information about dimension nd kind of inequality and that it is rising.

edit: even without reading the whole report you only need to look at numbers.
from year to year less people own more and more of the worlds economy.
now just compare increase in world gdp and net value of top 1-10%

[funkenstein]

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

It is certainly off topic but I'm still interested in what you might possibly mean by "people have become much richer".  Perhaps a reference to improvement of infrastructure on global average, e.g. more running water, or technological progress?  Clearly the population has hugely increased

You still have to explain this. Given all your courage you should necessarily be granted the chance to be the first (to fall, wow):
[image snipped\]

Note the exponential growth after 1950

Aha.  So by "richer" you meant "more numerous".  That's fine, a bit unusual of a definition but I was just curious.  Not like it relates to the topic anyway.   

[funkenstein]

Irregardless of your metric, this is hardly an argument in favor of rule-by-counterfeitters.  

Consider a similar argument:  

"I've been slamming every finger hard in the door every morning since I was 6 years old.  Now I'm 12 and look how much taller I am!  Everyone should slam their fingers in the door.  So successful!"  

In fact, I never said that a monetary system based on fiat is the only factor contributing to the increase in the well-being of the majority of population (which you yourself tacitly seem to agree with), or that it is such a factor at all. But I can think in reverse, wow. That is, even if it can't be said that fiat does somehow contribute to the wealth of society (personally, I think that it helps greatly), it can be said with surety that a monetary system based on gold (or any asset, for that matter), i.e. so-called "sound" money, absolutely does not, in no case...

Can you think in reverse too, lol?

Wait, my tacit agreement of what now?  Now we have "well-being".. is that another thing that means population?
 
Using a monetary system in which you are not constantly being robbed always will help, and always has helped, your economic well being.  Do you somehow disagree with this statement?  It's impossible to argue it.  However there is another step to "wealth of society", that is, defining a metric which we agree on of what that phrase means.. then we can see if individual's economic well being does or doesn't so contribute.      


 

[deisik]

Wait, my tacit agreement of what now?

I feel that you don't deny in general that people are actually better off today than they were centuries ago, or just before the First World War as a point of reference (say, 1913, when the Fed was established), but were rather doubtful about the ways to prove it. But it is up to you, of course...

You may think what you please