Next generation money

[BobK71]

Gold had been abandoned when it started to hamper the growth of quickly expanding economies. If you want me to put this way, well, gold had been dropped because the elites saw that it now started to be a hindrance in their pursuit of becoming even more rich and gathering even more wealth. But, as I said, ultimately, you can only be so much rich as the society you belong to...

The wealthiness today is no longer measured by the amount of gold you hide in your backyard or by the amount of cash you stash under the mattress

If that was the case, why did they abandon (or loosen the gold peg) only when they were about to run out of gold, at the last minute, every time?

I can only say, please don't read too much into the justifications from the economics profession WRT the merit (or lack thereof) of this or that monetary system.  During the classical gold standard period the profession was overwhelmingly in favor of that system on economic grounds, and now it's overwhelmingly against.  Both times, it just happens to provide the narrative the elites want to broadcast.

[deisik]

There is no coercion in the importation of the potato and corn crops from South America into Europe.  If the government gets involved in dictating we should all eat 50% potatoes (or drives a financial system that inflicts a bias towards new and risky productions -- which amounts to the same thing) that is a different issue altogether.

I'm curious if you don't really see the distinction between my and your examples. Governmental diktat in case of potatoes vs corn would mean that we should actually eat 100% potatoes (or 100% pop-corn). The same outcome would be if there is no governmental coercion as to what to eat but the majority (i.e. those who, according to you, "bet correctly" but in fact just make up this majority) still decide that everyone should eat only potatoes (or pop-corn). There is a difference in the ways but not in the result ("ein reich ein volk ein führer"). That's the point I'm trying to make...

As you can see, there is no room for voluntarism in both of these cases

I may have used a bad example (I was in a hurry,) but my whole point is that money should be treated as just another commodity whose value fluctuates according to supply and demand.  It may be a 'special' commodity in that its value depends on how much you perceive other people want it.  This does increase the uncertainty as to its value, but this is no different from any other financial assets, like stocks, bonds, and real estate.  It doesn't justify state control

Nope. As I have explained earlier, money should only have transactional utility as its inherent value. If it does have value beyond that, for example, due to its being a valuable commodity by itself, that would only interfere in its successful operation as money. In fact, what you now say has little to do with what you have been saying before...

That is, about a knockout competition between wanna-be monies until only one money remains

[deisik]

You may have hit upon what some say is money's 'natural monopoly' by your 'voluntarism' argument.  I beg to differ, since both gold and silver having good monetary properties have enabled them to serve peacefully side by side as money (until state intervention created a lot of instability and misery when Britain pushed all major countries to gold in the mid-to-late 19th century -- for the benefit of its own elites, really -- this was the root cause of WJ Bryan's cry of 'crucifying mankind on a cross of gold' during the 1896 election

Gold and silver never served peacefully side by side as money (and couldn't in principle). If you doubt this, learn about Gresham's law. And it is not only about the government diktat about two monies having similar face value since Gresham's law reveals just the tip of a giant iceberg hidden underwater. So whenever there are two or more monies in circulation (and still more so if they are commodities at that), there would always be a withering competition between them (whether you like it or not). Until (conditionally) bad money drives out good money from circulation, leading to a separation of functions between them, i.e. bad money (silver, in this case) is used for circulation while good money (gold) for storing value...

And this perfectly follows your argument about money as "just another commodity"

[deisik]

Well IMO it revolutionized the concept of money. It revolutionized the concept of money because  it is an entirely new form of money that is only digital not like paper money that we knew that have physical form. Thats why I think it's the next generation money and have a probability to be the mainly used currency by 20 years from now.

And what is your take on the concept of money? That is, what did Bitcoin actually revolutionize? Digital money is nothing new since at least the introduction of electronic payments in the 1960s...

For example, the international SWIFT network started in 1973

[BobK71]

Nope. As I have explained earlier, money should only have transactional utility as its inherent value. If it does have value beyond that, for example, due to its being a valuable commodity by itself, that would only interfere in its successful operation as money.

What if people want gold to be both jewelry and money?  IMO as soon as you empower someone to be in charge of what money 'should' be, that power will breed bad incentives, as historically it has.

If there is such a thing as the ideal money, since appointing humans to oversee the institution would be a disaster, the 'ideal' is now meaningless.

In fact, what you now say has little to do with what you have been saying before...

That is, about knockout competition between wanna-be monies until only one money remains

Did I say only one money should or will remain?

[BobK71]

Gold and silver never served peacefully side by side as money (and couldn't in principle). If you doubt this, learn about Gresham's law. And it is not only about the government diktat about two monies having similar face value since Gresham's law reveals just the tip of a giant iceberg hidden underwater. So whenever there are two or more monies in circulation (and still more so if they are commodities at that), there would always be a withering competition between them (whether you like it or not). Until (conditionally) bad money drives out good money from circulation, leading to a separation of functions between them, i.e. bad money (silver, in this case) is used for circulation while good money (gold) for storing value...

And this perfectly follows your argument about money as "just another commodity"

Gresham's Law exists only when the government dictates the exchange rate between two monies (e.g. under bimetallic standards, as existed in England in Newton's time -- 1 pound sterling was defined as x ounces of gold, or y ounces of silver, thus fixing the exchange rate between gold and silver as y/x.)  If the dictated exchange rate is a little off the market rate, say as determined by a larger circulation outside the country, one money becomes overvalued and the other becomes undervalued, and it makes sense for everyone to hoard the undervalued money and pay with the other.

Without government dictated exchange rates, say, when the supply of silver suddenly increases, the exchange rate between gold and silver (or any other two state-free monies) will simply fluctuate in the market.

[deisik]

In fact, what you now say has little to do with what you have been saying before...

That is, about knockout competition between wanna-be monies until only one money remains

Did I say only one money should or will remain?

Yes, you did (emphasis added)

I see the temporary uncertainty (of whether a new money is accepted) as a benefit, not a problem.  If there is no state intervention, each money will have to compete on its merits in the open market.  That those who bet correctly on one money or another will reap the benefits is an incentive for all participants to make careful judgments before they buy into anything

But it pretty much doesn't matter if you openly admitted that there should remain only one money. If you have two competing agents aiming at fulfilling the same function, only one will succeed in the end. It happens everywhere in any aspect of life. For example, two words that mean the same (full synonyms, i.e. words characterized by semantic equivalence) will either part in meaning over time or one of them becomes obsolete and gets dropped from everyday use ("if ifs and ans were pots and pans")...

That's why such synonyms are extremely few and far in between

[deisik]

Gold and silver never served peacefully side by side as money (and couldn't in principle). If you doubt this, learn about Gresham's law. And it is not only about the government diktat about two monies having similar face value since Gresham's law reveals just the tip of a giant iceberg hidden underwater. So whenever there are two or more monies in circulation (and still more so if they are commodities at that), there would always be a withering competition between them (whether you like it or not). Until (conditionally) bad money drives out good money from circulation, leading to a separation of functions between them, i.e. bad money (silver, in this case) is used for circulation while good money (gold) for storing value...

And this perfectly follows your argument about money as "just another commodity"

Gresham's Law exists only when the government dictates the exchange rate between two monies (e.g. under bimetallic standards, as existed in England in Newton's time -- 1 pound sterling was defined as x ounces of gold, or y ounces of silver, thus fixing the exchange rate between gold and silver as y/x.)  If the dictated exchange rate is a little off the market rate, say as determined by a larger circulation outside the country, one money becomes overvalued and the other becomes undervalued, and it makes sense for everyone to hoard the undervalued money and pay with the other

Read my post again. I specifically addressed this issue even before you raised it (since it was evident that you would). This matter had been discussed in great detail a few years ago, when I had shown that Gresham's law (or rather its extension) still holds today in an all-fiat world...

If you are curious, you can start reading from here

[BobK71]

In fact, what you now say has little to do with what you have been saying before...

That is, about knockout competition between wanna-be monies until only one money remains

Did I say only one money should or will remain?

Yes, you did (emphasis added)

I see the temporary uncertainty (of whether a new money is accepted) as a benefit, not a problem.  If there is no state intervention, each money will have to compete on its merits in the open market.  That those who bet correctly on one money or another will reap the benefits is an incentive for all participants to make careful judgments before they buy into anything

But it pretty much doesn't matter if you openly admitted that there should remain only one money. If you have two competing agents aiming at fulfilling the same function, only one will succeed in the end. It happens everywhere in any aspect of life. For example, two words that mean the same (full synonyms, i.e. words characterized by semantic equivalence) will either part in meaning over time or one of them becomes obsolete and gets dropped from everyday use ("if ifs and ans were pots and pans")...

That's why such synonyms are extremely few and far in between

That was not a statement in favor of a single money, and nor was it intended to be.  As I said before, the world has lived with both gold and silver for eons.  It was only intervention by a powerful empire that "demonetized" silver.  (And BTW since a huge amount of money was taken from the economy by this event, there was a huge amount of economic pain, all to serve a hidden agenda of the global financial elite.  There is  no reason why stable money, e.g. physical gold and silver, should narrow down to one, absent state intervention.)

[BobK71]

Gold and silver never served peacefully side by side as money (and couldn't in principle). If you doubt this, learn about Gresham's law. And it is not only about the government diktat about two monies having similar face value since Gresham's law reveals just the tip of a giant iceberg hidden underwater. So whenever there are two or more monies in circulation (and still more so if they are commodities at that), there would always be a withering competition between them (whether you like it or not). Until (conditionally) bad money drives out good money from circulation, leading to a separation of functions between them, i.e. bad money (silver, in this case) is used for circulation while good money (gold) for storing value...

And this perfectly follows your argument about money as "just another commodity"

Gresham's Law exists only when the government dictates the exchange rate between two monies (e.g. under bimetallic standards, as existed in England in Newton's time -- 1 pound sterling was defined as x ounces of gold, or y ounces of silver, thus fixing the exchange rate between gold and silver as y/x.)  If the dictated exchange rate is a little off the market rate, say as determined by a larger circulation outside the country, one money becomes overvalued and the other becomes undervalued, and it makes sense for everyone to hoard the undervalued money and pay with the other

Read my post again. I specifically addressed this issue even before you raised it (since it was evident that you would). This matter had been discussed in great detail a few years ago, when I had shown that Gresham's law (or rather its extension) still holds today in an all-fiat world...

If you are curious, you can start reading from here

This was your 'extension' to Gresham's Law, as you said so yourself.

[Taki]

The total majority of Bitcoin holders think of their favorite toy as the next step in the evolution of money (less so for active users). I don't deny the technological innovation in respect to the blockchain and the decentralized nature of how new money is created through mining. With that said, I still don't think that Bitcoin did actually revolutionize the concept of money itself. Gold as money existed long before fiat, and it was "created" in a decentralized way too, so nothing particularly new here as well...

I have an idea what could be an entirely new form of money (actually, it is not my idea), but first I would like to hear from you, guys (and gals), what you think about the truly new money that is yet to be invented or implemented

Bitcoin easily can be next generation money. Progress cannot be stopped and I believe that  very soon, buy Earths sizes, paper money will go in history. Maybe it will not be exacted lay bitcoin, but it's gonna be one of crypto currencies.

[Zooplus]

The total majority of Bitcoin holders think of their favorite toy as the next step in the evolution of money (less so for active users). I don't deny the technological innovation in respect to the blockchain and the decentralized nature of how new money is created through mining. With that said, I still don't think that Bitcoin did actually revolutionize the concept of money itself. Gold as money existed long before fiat, and it was "created" in a decentralized way too, so nothing particularly new here as well...

I have an idea what could be an entirely new form of money (actually, it is not my idea), but first I would like to hear from you, guys (and gals), what you think about the truly new money that is yet to be invented or implemented

Bitcoin easily can be next generation money. Progress cannot be stopped and I believe that  very soon, buy Earths sizes, paper money will go in history. Maybe it will not be exacted lay bitcoin, but it's gonna be one of crypto currencies.

Definitely, with the rate that bitcoin is going there is no doubt that bitcoin will be the next generation of money but we cannot determine when will that happen yet, we need the full support of the people to adopt and the government to regulate.

[deisik]

Nope. As I have explained earlier, money should only have transactional utility as its inherent value. If it does have value beyond that, for example, due to its being a valuable commodity by itself, that would only interfere in its successful operation as money.

What if people want gold to be both jewelry and money?  IMO as soon as you empower someone to be in charge of what money 'should' be, that power will breed bad incentives, as historically it has.

If there is such a thing as the ideal money, since appointing humans to oversee the institution would be a disaster, the 'ideal' is now meaningless

Somehow missed that part, lol

You seem to have forgotten that it cuts both ways. That is, on the one hand, you argue that appointing humans to oversee the institution of money is a disaster. On the other hand, you unambiguously imply gold and silver to be good monies. But didn't the same (hypothetically) people empowered themselves to make gold and silver into monies? In other words, you essentially claim that humans choosing what to use as money are always wrong unless they opt to use gold or silver...

[BobK71]

You seem to have forgotten that it cuts both ways. That is, on the one hand, you argue that appointing humans to oversee the institution of money is a disaster. On the other hand, you unambiguously imply gold and silver to be good monies. But didn't the same (hypothetically) people empowered themselves to make gold and silver into monies? In other words, you essentially claim that humans choosing what to use as money are always wrong unless they opt to use gold or silver...

All I'm saying is that money should be decided by market supply and demand and not a centralized authority.  Physical gold and silver happen to have served the purpose well, fine.  Who knows what the future should or will bring.

[Zooplus]

You seem to have forgotten that it cuts both ways. That is, on the one hand, you argue that appointing humans to oversee the institution of money is a disaster. On the other hand, you unambiguously imply gold and silver to be good monies. But didn't the same (hypothetically) people empowered themselves to make gold and silver into monies? In other words, you essentially claim that humans choosing what to use as money are always wrong unless they opt to use gold or silver...

All I'm saying is that money should be decided by market supply and demand and not a centralized authority.  Physical gold and silver happen to have served the purpose well, fine.  Who knows what the future should or will bring.

You are exactly referring to bitcoin, the law of supply and demand shall apply with bitcoin and since it is decentralized we can trust this system much to save our money and transact using bitcoin. This is surely the next generation of money but as to the volume of adoption I cannot estimate yet.

[sanas]

You seem to have forgotten that it cuts both ways. That is, on the one hand, you argue that appointing humans to oversee the institution of money is a disaster. On the other hand, you unambiguously imply gold and silver to be good monies. But didn't the same (hypothetically) people empowered themselves to make gold and silver into monies? In other words, you essentially claim that humans choosing what to use as money are always wrong unless they opt to use gold or silver...

All I'm saying is that money should be decided by market supply and demand and not a centralized authority.  Physical gold and silver happen to have served the purpose well, fine.  Who knows what the future should or will bring.

You are exactly referring to bitcoin, the law of supply and demand shall apply with bitcoin and since it is decentralized we can trust this system much to save our money and transact using bitcoin. This is surely the next generation of money but as to the volume of adoption I cannot estimate yet.

If the transaction capacity is increased in the future, more people will use the bitcoin, the price will be higher.

[deisik]

You seem to have forgotten that it cuts both ways. That is, on the one hand, you argue that appointing humans to oversee the institution of money is a disaster. On the other hand, you unambiguously imply gold and silver to be good monies. But didn't the same (hypothetically) people empowered themselves to make gold and silver into monies? In other words, you essentially claim that humans choosing what to use as money are always wrong unless they opt to use gold or silver...

All I'm saying is that money should be decided by market supply and demand and not a centralized authority.  Physical gold and silver happen to have served the purpose well, fine.  Who knows what the future should or will bring.

In fact, gold and silver served different purposes when they had been used as money at the same time (strictly speaking, as monies). I mean gold and silver specie...

You know that too, do you?

[mrhelpful]

I see it was similar how travelex provide its service, where someone can visit any country and exchange in that denomination.

It was always here, but now its more of a improved version since travelex isnt a 24hr thing, plus less hassle.

Since it acts more of a international mobile exchange.

[groll]

The total majority of Bitcoin holders think of their favorite toy as the next step in the evolution of money (less so for active users). I don't deny the technological innovation in respect to the blockchain and the decentralized nature of how new money is created through mining. With that said, I still don't think that Bitcoin did actually revolutionize the concept of money itself. Gold as money existed long before fiat, and it was "created" in a decentralized way too, so nothing particularly new here as well...

I have an idea what could be an entirely new form of money (actually, it is not my idea), but first I would like to hear from you, guys (and gals), what you think about the truly new money that is yet to be invented or implemented

Bitcoin may replace the paper money someday in the future. Many experts have been into study as to how it will be implemented. With the current trend it will not be possible since it will need the cooperation from the government. Bitcoin today is independent from government regulations. But if we want bitcoins to be a legal tender it must surrender itself to the laws, monitoring and policies of the government.

[universe_]

The total majority of Bitcoin holders think of their favorite toy as the next step in the evolution of money (less so for active users). I don't deny the technological innovation in respect to the blockchain and the decentralized nature of how new money is created through mining. With that said, I still don't think that Bitcoin did actually revolutionize the concept of money itself. Gold as money existed long before fiat, and it was "created" in a decentralized way too, so nothing particularly new here as well...

I have an idea what could be an entirely new form of money (actually, it is not my idea), but first I would like to hear from you, guys (and gals), what you think about the truly new money that is yet to be invented or implemented

Bitcoin may replace the paper money someday in the future. Many experts have been into study as to how it will be implemented. With the current trend it will not be possible since it will need the cooperation from the government. Bitcoin today is independent from government regulations. But if we want bitcoins to be a legal tender it must surrender itself to the laws, monitoring and policies of the government.

bitcoin will surely replace the paper money in the future,i think we will see some big increases in its price because of that,i hope that it will give us all some decent profit easily, though thats just my guess