Gobry's Forbes article and Bitcoin as Fiat

[marcus_of_augustus]

gobry appears to be an extreme lightweight who has just demonstrated that he is well out of his depth commenting on anything to do with monetary economics with that article ... i wouldn't have wasted any more breath on it that, but there, I did.

I do not know what Forbes do to vet their writers but someone dropped the ball with this guy.

[1713515354]

1713515354

[benjamindees]

can monkeY 14 shine pull trUck" overalls to un,der rest pig Tingle        fix buy. night potato - 7

+1

[thoughtfan]

can monkeY 14 shine pull trUck" overalls to un,der rest pig Tingle        fix buy. night potato - 7

+1

OK, I just did a quick Google search on this in case it was represented a meme or something and first result was this thread!  I'm impressed at the speed with which this turned up in a Google search - but none the wiser for now about what it may mean or what was intended by it

[MPOE-PR]

If after reading it all again I'm still stuck I may ask you folks for some clues. 

Surely. Under the reservation that all clues may ultimately just be useless, but surely.

[joecooin]

Of course the Forbes guy is wrong on his headline. But:

People didn’t collectively agree to use gold, they used gold (or whatever currency their specific culture adopted) because over time they individually realized it worked well in barter.

.. and therefore agreed upon accepting it as money.

Those of us using Bitcoin as money aren’t doing so because any of us agreed, we are doing so because we’ve discovered, each individually, that it works beautifully for the purpose of exchange.

I agree. And so does everyone using Bitcoin. And nobody not agreeing would accept Bitcoin.

Nothing can be used as money without this agreement.

[quote from Forbes article]
Actually, properly understood, no currencies are “fiat” currencies, since the word “fiat” refers to a government decree that makes money money, but in reality, while the government fiat matters, it is useless without the consent of the currency users.
[/quote]

He's even technically correct on this.

But what he completely fails to see is the fact that the 'agreement' or 'consent' has totally different reasons for different kinds of money.

In some cases it comes from reason, experience, knowledge, understanding (as for PM or BTC). In other cases it comes from decree and force and, most importantly, from belief (government fiat).

Maybe it is time to stop distinguishing between 'fiat' and 'non-fiat' money, commodity backed or not. In regards to Bitcpin I can argue both, that it is a commodity and that it is not, that it has intrinsic value and that it has not. But in no case I would call it fiat money even though even with Bitcoin someone, somewhen, was the first one who said 'It shall have value' (the pizza-guy maybe?).

Joe

[MPOE-PR]

Of course the Forbes guy is wrong on his headline. But:

People didn’t collectively agree to use gold, they used gold (or whatever currency their specific culture adopted) because over time they individually realized it worked well in barter.

.. and therefore agreed upon accepting it as money.

Those of us using Bitcoin as money aren’t doing so because any of us agreed, we are doing so because we’ve discovered, each individually, that it works beautifully for the purpose of exchange.

I agree. And so does everyone using Bitcoin. And nobody not agreeing would accept Bitcoin.

Nothing can be used as money without this agreement.

Actually, properly understood, no currencies are “fiat” currencies, since the word “fiat” refers to a government decree that makes money money, but in reality, while the government fiat matters, it is useless without the consent of the currency users.

He's even technically correct on this.

But what he completely fails to see is the fact that the 'agreement' or 'consent' has totally different reasons for different kinds of money.

In some cases it comes from reason, experience, knowledge, understanding (as for PM or BTC). In other cases it comes from decree and force and, most importantly, from belief (government fiat).

Maybe it is time to stop distinguishing between 'fiat' and 'non-fiat' money, commodity backed or not. In regards to Bitcpin I can argue both, that it is a commodity and that it is not, that it has intrinsic value and that it has not. But in no case I would call it fiat money even though even with Bitcoin someone, somewhen, was the first one who said 'It shall have value' (the pizza-guy maybe?).

Joe

This patently retarded argument works something like this: all sex is rape and rape is just ordinary sex and therefore we should stop referring to it as rape and distinguish it from ordinary sex because the woman eventually agrees as proven by the eventual consummation of the act. Or how would it be possible for intercourse to occur without agreement, especially if we posit aforehand that all intercourse only occurs through agreement? Therefore we have clearly proven through this sleight of contorted mind that...we're stupid.

Something like this?

The key is whether the act flows from agreement or agreement flows from the act, not whether some patently ridiculous Panglossization of reality could be constructed in which agreement "is present". I hope you make more sense during the sessions of w/e that thing in your signature is, tho it has a definite flavour of Taakism and Global Strategic Issues.

[joecooin]

Something like this?

No, nothing like this.

Since I seem to be capable of distinguishing between consent and force when it comes to money, what makes you think I would not be capable to do so when it comes to sex?

The key is whether the act flows from agreement or agreement flows from the act, not whether some patently ridiculous Panglossization of reality could be constructed in which agreement "is present".

Why are you so focused on sexual metaphors? I really don't think they work when discussing the nature of money. Nevermind.

Neither brute force nor Pangloss' lies qualify as the basis of consent for me. While the first is easier to identify, I can argue that the second is based on agreement though. Paquette did not resist physically but got tricked into the act. In this case, which is your example, the act flows from agreement which was based on lies though, which is as unfair just less violent.

And of course there are conditions in which agreement "is present".

You will understand that once you fall over and someone like me comes along who feels that an unoutspoken agreement "is present" between you and me and the rest of all humans that makes me help you back up again without needing a law that forces me to do so. And even without being sure that you would feel the same agreement if it was the other way around and it was me who is down on the ground.

Joe

[MPOE-PR]

You will understand that once you fall over and someone like me comes along who feels that an unoutspoken agreement "is present" between you and me and the rest of all humans that makes me help you back up again without needing a law that forces me to do so. And even without being sure that you would feel the same agreement if it was the other way around and it was me who is down on the ground.

Yes, well, once you manage to untangle your head from your own ass you might be able to use it to think rather than to stroke. How did you get so fixated upon yourself anyway?

[joecooin]

Yes, well, once you manage to untangle your head from your own ass you might be able to use it to think rather than to stroke. How did you get so fixated upon yourself anyway?

Because the existence of idiots like you is proof of my own brilliance to me.

Sorry could not resist .

Other than that I will not discuss this with you any further. You seem to merely want to exchange insults so please troll someone else into that.

Joe

 

[Phinnaeus Gage]

http://www.gardenofexchange.com/FAQs.html#money

What is "money"? What makes its value?

Money is a mean of exchange that uses pieces of metal (gold, silver, copper, bronze, nickel, etc.), paper notes (bills, checks...). Since money gets passed around quickly, it flows like a current. Thus, circulating money is called currency. Today, paper and silver currencies have almost become extinct since the majority of business transactions on the planet happen via computers.          

In fact, monies and currencies only represent the shadows of the wealth on our planet. They are simply based on a common agreement. Our trust in its value is what gives power to money. It is through using dollars, euros, and other currencies in exchange for products and services that I make them valuable.

The financial system manages our money because we allow it to do so. In order to take back our power over money, we must now learn to manage it ourselves. The Garden for All Manner of Exchange is the ideal tool to regain our sovereignty over our own wealth.

If I were to pen a similar article, I would seek out, then source, the above, because it has to be true, for it's on the internet and Google indexed it.

[ralree]

After all, if we use certain money merely because long ago we agreed upon it, doesn’t that beg the question, “when, why, and how did we agree on it in the first place?” I argue that no such agreement, nor even a discussion, ever occurred.

Improper usage - begging the question is a logical fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

It invokes the question above.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

After all, if we use certain money merely because long ago we agreed upon it, doesn’t that beg the question, “when, why, and how did we agree on it in the first place?” I argue that no such agreement, nor even a discussion, ever occurred.

Improper usage - begging the question is a logical fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

It invokes the question above.

Freudian slip? Perhaps he meant "beg an answer".

Thus: If we use certain money merely because long ago we agreed upon it, doesn't that beg answers as to, “when, why, and how did we agree on it in the first place?” I argue that no such agreement, nor even a discussion, ever occurred.

[joecooin]

Freudian slip? Perhaps he meant "beg an answer".

I can't think of a question that does not beg an answer?

Joe

[acoindr]

[quote from Forbes article]
Actually, properly understood, no currencies are “fiat” currencies, since the word “fiat” refers to a government decree that makes money money, but in reality, while the government fiat matters, it is useless without the consent of the currency users.
/quote]

He's even technically correct on this.

Bullshit. The hell he is.

If the fiat or decree doesn't matter then why make it at all?

Could it be that left on its own the free market would pick something else as money? Yes, that is it.

Fiat overrules the market, plain and simple.

If government threatens you with fine or imprisonment for some infraction, and the payment must be made in fiat you don't consent to going to jail because you opt out of using that money. That is force.

[joecooin]

[quote from Forbes article]
Actually, properly understood, no currencies are “fiat” currencies, since the word “fiat” refers to a government decree that makes money money, but in reality, while the government fiat matters, it is useless without the consent of the currency users.
/quote]

He's even technically correct on this.

Bullshit.

Great. Bullshit makes the flowers grow and that's beautyful.

If the fiat or decree doesn't matter then why make it at all?

Could it be that left on its own the free market would pick something else as money? Yes, that is it.

Fiat overrules the market, plain and simple.

If government threatens you with fine or imprisonment for some infraction, and the payment must be made in fiat you don't consent to going to jail because you opt out of using that money. That is force.

I agree, even though I start hesitating to use that word . But I really don't think your and my views are far apart, if at all.

Maybe my English is not good enough. Let me try to detail.

Yes, the Forbes author is technically correct when saying 'while the government fiat matters, it is useless without the consent of the currency users.'

Maybe I can clarify that by distinguishing between 'consent' and 'consensus'.

I have never discussed with anyone if I want to drive on the right or on the left side of the road. Nobody has ever asked me or anyone around me for our consent, yet there is a clear consensus amongst us in which side to drive. It makes sense to anyone and I am happy that almost all people stick to it most of the time. It is also enforced, if not by the state then by the laws of physics.

Just like there is a consensus amongst the populations of modern countries to accept fiat currencies. Some of the people believe that this has even been 'discussed' by their representatives and therefore the best thing to have , others know that there are much better alternatives and that brute force is what is behind fiat. Most don't even realise the force due to ignorance / belief / wrong information and are being tricked into the consensus just like Paquette.

Doesn't change the fact that if the people would not a-fucking-gree to the use of fiat then we as societies would would not use it.

But this is really going totally off topic into a discussion on democracy and state alltogether, because once the belief in democracy and the state is gone, the enforcer and the unagreed upon consensus on using fiat will be gone too while the one on which side of the road to drive will stay.

Take my word for that.

Joe

[acoindr]

I agree, even though I start hesitating to use that word . But I really don't think your and my views are far apart, if at all.

Maybe my English is not good enough. Let me try to detail.

Yes, the Forbes author is technically correct when saying 'while the government fiat matters, it is useless without the consent of the currency users.'

Maybe I can clarify that by distinguishing between 'consent' and 'consensus'.

I have never discussed with anyone if I want to drive on the right or on the left side of the road. Nobody has ever asked me or anyone around me for our consent, yet there is a clear consensus amongst us in which side to drive. ...

Okay. So it comes down to semantics. Let's get to it then. Here are Google's definitions:

consent

Noun
Permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.

Verb
Give permission for something to happen: "he consented to a search by a detective".
----------------

consensus

Noun
General agreement.

Synonyms
accord - agreement - unanimity
----------------

agree

Verb
1. Have the same opinion about something; concur: "I completely agree with your recent editorial".

2. Approve of (something) with regard to its moral correctness: "I'm not sure I agree with abortion".

Synonyms
consent - accord - assent - concur - tally - accede
----------------

If you study 'consent' and 'agree' you find that approval must happen. When you consent you give permission. When you agree you approve.

Consensus is trickier, because it is "general" agreement. Well, the word 'general' is injected in there which gives wiggle room to the meaning. However, the word 'agreement' is still present, which as I indicate means to approve or give permission.

So I disagree there is consensus about which side of the road to drive on. Did you ever give permission or approve of things being set up that way? Or did you simply not object. Because that's NOT the same as giving permission.

Earlier in this thread I suggested to Erik the need to replace the word 'agreement' with 'acceptance' when referring to how people give value to money. Erik suggests his comments may be nitpicking, but I think he's right. Look at my example about going to jail for not having fiat money to pay the fine. Do you give permission to go to jail? Or do you accept going to jail?

You don't give permission or approve of going to jail. However, you accept it (you don't object or resist) because the alternative is being beaten likely to death.

[MPOE-PR]

So if I'm beginning to understand this right

I don't think you'll have much trouble understanding if I put it in class struggle terms.

Step 1. You are part of the socialist academia. You've lived your entire life supported by taxes, which makes you consider taxation benign if not outright necessary, and it also clouds the principle at work in favor of the practicality of it all: no matter how much of a prison the gold bars make, the fact is that they tend to keep the loud smelly barbarians out more than they tend to keep your damselly flesh in.

Step 2. Bitcoin is a new technology, and the socialist academia tends to imagine it has some privileged connection to technology (or science, if you want to think in 1800s terms, or philosophy if you'd go before that). This is only true in the practical sense that most everyone else is too busy doing something useful to have time to consider things in principle.

Step 3. Bitcoin happens to be the "socialism killer". It's not even killing anything, it's making the fundamental bankruptcy of that ideology finally unavoidable in practice. Be it Soviet socialism, French socialism, Maoist socialism, Castro socialism or whatever the hell else, it strictly depends on money being owned by the state and used by the people under license rather than money being owned by people and used by the state under license.

So there's the conflict: we don't give two farthings (brass) for your entire collected troop of whatever you think you all are, and neither is this "we'd halp you too!" bullshit here or there. You never before met people who actually don't, and also have the tools with which to bludgeon you into a pulp.

This divide isn't bridgeable in any way, even if you understand what the problem is, there's never going to be anything you can do about it. The term is Stockholm Syndrome.

[Elwar]

The latin translation for fiat is: "Let it be done."
 
It is the present subjunctive of "facere" -- to do.
 
That it why it was used to mean an order or decree in former times.

But it does not necessarily have to require government to decree that "it be done".

When a new block is solved and 25 BTC are distributed, you could say that the Bitcoin protocol itself is saying "let it be done". Thus issuing currency via fiat.

The question is, are people willing to accept the decree of a protocol of equations and numbers as opposed to by government decree.

Then there is the idea that all 21 million BTC have already been created, they just have not yet been distributed.

[joecooin]

If you study 'consent' and 'agree' you find that approval must happen. When you consent you give permission. When you agree you approve.

Can I say:

"I consent to you paying the bill for my goods or services in fiat-currency but I do not agree upon fiat being a good idea, I do not approve it at all."

or:

"I agree upon you paying my bill in fiat-currency and I approve that but that does not state my consent to the fiat system nor my approval to it."

or ...

?

Joe

[MPOE-PR]

My first question is why are we even talking about socialism?

For the exact same reason you were talking about racism. Those are the two cries de guerre in this political struggle, I took your use of it to mean you intend to limit yourself to discourse in that paradigm.

This is the magic of words: they control the context in which they are to be interpreted. This is why words are important, and this is also why the article you dislike is warranted on the basis of the paragraph it cites, and also why the misuse of "fiat" is a point of import, not something to be brushed aside.

Some think this marks the end of the state's means of raising income but I think not.

Neither does the "racist" foul-mouthed outpouring guy. Funny how that works.