The fiat-money bubble!

[BobK71]

My personal theory is that cryptocurrency is not the bubble, but rather the needle that will burst the fiat money bubble. Trough history we have always had an easy way to attribute value to things without it. Those who believe that fiat money is the only true way often attribute their opinion to the fact that fiat money is substainsable because of its centralized nature and its history of being used as a represantation of value

Right now it is (for the most part, at least)

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies fit well into the definition of a financial bubble. I could even claim that Bitcoin is a sort of tulipomania. Just like tulips, bitcoins are useful for some purpose, namely, for transferring value around the world while completely bypassing centralized (real controlled) entities like banks, but Bitcoin current price is by no means determined by this utility. Most of Bitcoin value today comes from sheer speculation. Whether Bitcoin bubble is going to pop eventually or its real use as a currency will finally match its use as a speculative vehicle is not clear as of yet

There's a major difference between tulips and Bitcoin.  Tulips were not a very good money.  Bitcoin is designed to be a money, with anonymity and security built into an electronic architecture, in addition to the usual monetary properties like durability, divisibility, etc.

Anyone can claim anything is a bubble, really.  (Except for items that you can use directly and are priced only for that value -- these will never fulfill the vital role of money.)  Any claim to wealth (that is transferable) must rely on the confidence of the crowd -- a network effect that says, since other people think it has value, I think it has value.  When that network effect collapses, the claim's value is gone.

The main problem with state-issued money is that, while it enjoys powerful support by the state-bank alliance, all individual members of the elites have the incentives to destabilize their own money, by issuing too much money, by borrowing too much, by using deception to prop up their system temporarily, etc. -- all the history we know.  So, fiat money, almost by definition, must collapse.  The very strongest ones in history retain a small fraction of their purchasing power.

So, after 2000, with all the problems suffered by the state-bank system, it's not surprising to see investors looking to non-state monies, gold and Bitcoin, to store part of their wealth.

You can call it speculation, but under the modern system, everything is a gamble (because that is the way the elites like it.)  It's just that most speculations are gambles in favor of the state-bank system, at least implicitly.  (If you buy bonds, you're implicitly betting that the dollars your bond will pay at maturity will be good.)  These speculations have a bad reputation, since there are so many of them, they are often promoted deceptively, and their collapses are all over history.  Gold and Bitcoin are two of the few ways you can gamble against the state-bank system -- they are a different beast altogether.  They do have problems, but not the ones usually associated with most speculative bubbles.

[1714057051]

1714057051

[1714057051]

1714057051

[1714057051]

1714057051

[1714057051]

1714057051

[1714057051]

1714057051

[lazyturtle]

My personal theory is that cryptocurrency is not the bubble, but rather the needle that will burst the fiat money bubble. Trough history we have always had an easy way to attribute value to things without it. Those who believe that fiat money is the only true way often attribute their opinion to the fact that fiat money is substainsable because of its centralized nature and its history of being used as a represantation of value

Right now it is (for the most part, at least)

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies fit well into the definition of a financial bubble. I could even claim that Bitcoin is a sort of tulipomania. Just like tulips, bitcoins are useful for some purpose, namely, for transferring value around the world while completely bypassing centralized (real controlled) entities like banks, but Bitcoin current price is by no means determined by this utility. Most of Bitcoin value today comes from sheer speculation. Whether Bitcoin bubble is going to pop eventually or its real use as a currency will finally match its use as a speculative vehicle is not clear as of yet

There's a major difference between tulips and Bitcoin.  Tulips were not a very good money.  Bitcoin is designed to be a money, with anonymity and security built into an electronic architecture, in addition to the usual monetary properties like durability, divisibility, etc.

Anyone can claim anything is a bubble, really.  (Except for items that you can use directly and are priced only for that value -- these will never fulfill the vital role of money.)  Any claim to wealth (that is transferable) must rely on the confidence of the crowd -- a network effect that says, since other people think it has value, I think it has value.  When that network effect collapses, the claim's value is gone.

The main problem with state-issued money is that, while it enjoys powerful support by the state-bank alliance, all individual members of the elites have the incentives to destabilize their own money, by issuing too much money, by borrowing too much, by using deception to prop up their system temporarily, etc. -- all the history we know.  So, fiat money, almost by definition, must collapse.  The very strongest ones in history retain a small fraction of their purchasing power.

Yea i agree, everything without any "practical value" as food, shelter etc has a risk of becoming a bubble. People do love to speculate.

Really any value into anything without "real" value, is as you say, based upon the crowds perception of what SHOULD be the price of a particular object (paper,rocks whatever). Kind of like a mutual agreement to get the society up and running, trading resources constantly wouldn't be very practical as we know.

I dont think the fiat money is evil in itself, but people are just to prone for corruption for a fully centralized currency to really work. I personally see the confidence level for bank and government here in Sweden drop more and more and how anybody could have confidence in the USA banks/government i would never be able to understand. Kind of been declining here in Sweden (the confidence) since the USA and Island economic crises (witch really shows how stupid and corrupt government can be).

I totally agree with you in everything you say like that fiat money, in itself, will eventually fail. If bitcoin would be implemented as a easy-to-use currency everywhere, why would you even use a bank? IMO cryptocurrencies basically have most of the pros that fiat has, but not the biggest cons (like corruption).

Using state-issued money or bitcoins, in my world this choice boils down to "do i trust myself to manage my funds, or do i trust a corporation with a history littered of corruption?"

Personally i rather manage my personal wealth without a overhanging shadow seeing every financial move i make, my confidence lies in myself, not banks!

[deisik]

But as you mention, the famous George Soros did manipulate the exchange with speculation, having a practical effect on the value of the currency. Thus showing that fiat money's value is heavily influenced by speculation, i am confused to where you stand on the issue now? I see contradictions in your original posts with what you write now, so please clarify if there's something i missed.
As you said earlier you had trouble even imagine how i could believe speculation being a factor, but now saying its obvious that it is?

George Soros shorted the pound, just in case

But that's irrelevant since when I talked about the fiat value I referred to value, not price. Basically, price is what you pay, value is what you get. In this way, by value I mean the amount of goods which the unit of a certain currency can buy. If you consider the value of money (what you can buy with it), it will be hard to imagine how you can inflate it without expanding the real economy while keeping the amount of money in circulation the same. That would mean price deflation, and it is even more dangerous than inflation, but this is another question. To better understand what I mean think of the money value in terms of goods that you can buy with it. How are you going inflate this value by pure speculation?

You also wrote " I suspect there cannot be bubbles of that kind with fiat currencies. The examples you give refer to severe currency devaluations. Obviously, the latter have nothing to do with speculative bubbles, though the end result is essentially the same (i.e. dramatic loss of value)"


Well first of all, as i said earlier this was a case of hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is very connected to bubbles witch would dissprove that statement(IMO)

Hyperinflation basically means that the value of money itself collapses, but since bubbles in currencies rarely change the purchasing power of money, they are inconsequential to hyperinflation. Essentially, they are just short-term speculations when the price of money (in terms of other currencies) gets divorced from its value (in terms of goods it can buy). When the currency bubble bursts the price of money goes back to its real value (so called "fair price"), which is determined in the way I explained in one of my previous posts (namely, by the amount of money over the quantity of goods)

[Neo_matrix]

Fiat can not be a bubble. After all, thanks to the fiat, the economy of all countries functions. The national currency will always be supported by the government.

[lazyturtle]

But as you mention, the famous George Soros did manipulate the exchange with speculation, having a practical effect on the value of the currency. Thus showing that fiat money's value is heavily influenced by speculation, i am confused to where you stand on the issue now? I see contradictions in your original posts with what you write now, so please clarify if there's something i missed.
As you said earlier you had trouble even imagine how i could believe speculation being a factor, but now saying its obvious that it is?

George Soros shorted the pound, just in case

But that's irrelevant since when I talked about the fiat value I referred to value, not price. Basically, price is what you pay, value is what you get. In this way, by value I mean the amount of goods which the unit of a certain currency can buy. If you consider the value of money (what you can buy with it), it will be hard to imagine how you can inflate it without expanding the real economy while keeping the amount of money in circulation the same. That would mean price deflation, and it is even more dangerous than inflation, but this is another question. To better understand what I mean think of the money value in terms of goods that you can buy with it. How are you going inflate this value by pure speculation?

You also wrote " I suspect there cannot be bubbles of that kind with fiat currencies. The examples you give refer to severe currency devaluations. Obviously, the latter have nothing to do with speculative bubbles, though the end result is essentially the same (i.e. dramatic loss of value)"


Well first of all, as i said earlier this was a case of hyperinflation. Hyperinflation is very connected to bubbles witch would dissprove that statement(IMO)

Hyperinflation basically means that the value of money itself collapses, but since bubbles in currencies rarely change the purchasing power of money, they are inconsequential to hyperinflation. Essentially, they are just short-term speculations when the price of money (in terms of other currencies) gets divorced from its value (in terms of goods it can buy). When the currency bubble bursts the price of money goes back to its real value (so called "fair price"), which is determined in the way I explained in one of my previous posts (namely, by the amount of money over the quantity of goods)

I mixed together the terms value and price, thats why i was confused. Thanks for clearing that up, it was interesting to discuss with you! 

[onemanatatime]

It's hard to say when the "fiat-money" bubble will burst, though we are probably not far away from a major economic collapse soon, and my guess is it happens some time this year.

Markets like $SPX, $DJIA starting to show signs of weakness after an over-extended bull rally. We're already in our 9th year, over-extended considering the typical 8-year market cycles, not surprising considering each new cycle expands and happens over a longer timeframe compared to the one before.

Let's see. The drumroll has already begun.

[BitcoinPanther]

No one can predict what exactly will happen in the future. In the event of a nuclear war, they can turn off electricity and the Internet, no currency will have value.

Who know by that time internet developer had discovered some means of connecting people other than internet, and or Internet is transmitted thru signal directly from the satelites(and mobiles and computers are capable of receiving this signal) that is far from being destroyed when world war started .  And electricity won't be a problem because probably by that time, solar powered cell are well developed and widely used by every person on earth. I am just riding on what you are saying about the unpredictable future . 

My personal theory is that cryptocurrency is not the bubble, but rather the needle that will burst the fiat money bubble. Trough history we have always had an easy way to attribute value to things without it. Those who believe that fiat money is the only true way often attribute their opinion to the fact that fiat money is substainsable because of its centralized nature and its history of being used as a represantation of value

Right now it is (for the most part, at least)

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies fit well into the definition of a financial bubble. I could even claim that Bitcoin is a sort of tulipomania. Just like tulips, bitcoins are useful for some purpose, namely, for transferring value around the world while completely bypassing centralized (real controlled) entities like banks, but Bitcoin current price is by no means determined by this utility. Most of Bitcoin value today comes from sheer speculation. Whether Bitcoin bubble is going to pop eventually or its real use as a currency will finally match its use as a speculative vehicle is not clear as of yet

I do agree that cryptocurrency are still in a stage of a financial bubble until the market is saturated where the true value of cryptocurrency is visible.

[thend1949]

There is not such bad thing when it comes to believing and dreaming of a thing specially bitcoins price rocketing to a million dollars.It may really happen though it will take a seriously long time to achieved or it may not happen.No one can see future

[hermanhs09]

Fiat money is definitely a bubble.

Its value is heavily manipulated by the financial regulators, the federal reserve bank and many other central banks around the world. It's a disaster if you look at how much countries sell their currency to drive their currency value down, so that they can export more.

The result is of course, an inflated dollar.

But the US can't go into debt forever, nor can China manipulate their Yuan forever. The bubble is bursting anytime.

[deisik]

Hyperinflation basically means that the value of money itself collapses, but since bubbles in currencies rarely change the purchasing power of money, they are inconsequential to hyperinflation. Essentially, they are just short-term speculations when the price of money (in terms of other currencies) gets divorced from its value (in terms of goods it can buy). When the currency bubble bursts the price of money goes back to its real value (so called "fair price"), which is determined in the way I explained in one of my previous posts (namely, by the amount of money over the quantity of goods)

I mixed together the terms value and price, thats why i was confused. Thanks for clearing that up, it was interesting to discuss with you! 

You are welcome

This may in fact sound like an obscure and convoluted theory, but this regretfully is as real as shit. Many local fiats get "hyped up" (I'm using the terminology from the cryptoworld but it fits well even with real fiat currencies), i.e. their price against reference currencies (say, the US dollar) rises in nominal terms, but it counterintuitively doesn't lower inflation rates in these countries (which would mean real value of that currency rising). For example, the Russian ruble has been rising against the dollar for over a year till now already, so you might intuitively expect that the inflation in Russia should be at least on par with the inflation in the US, while in reality it is nowhere near the case since it has been times greater during this year (as it was years before). The chart below shows the exchange rate of the US dollar to the Russian ruble



I guess this is the best approximation to a currency "bubble" which we could come up with

[eminem90]

The bubble will burst, but after a few years. Now it will still bring profit, because bitcoin has just started to develop. For the next 10 years I think it will definitely exist.

[lazyturtle]

Hyperinflation basically means that the value of money itself collapses, but since bubbles in currencies rarely change the purchasing power of money, they are inconsequential to hyperinflation. Essentially, they are just short-term speculations when the price of money (in terms of other currencies) gets divorced from its value (in terms of goods it can buy). When the currency bubble bursts the price of money goes back to its real value (so called "fair price"), which is determined in the way I explained in one of my previous posts (namely, by the amount of money over the quantity of goods)

I mixed together the terms value and price, thats why i was confused. Thanks for clearing that up, it was interesting to discuss with you! 

You are welcome

This may in fact sound like an obscure and convoluted theory, but this regretfully is as real as shit. Many local fiats get "hyped up" (I'm using the terminology from the cryptoworld but it fits well even with real fiat currencies), i.e. their price against reference currencies (say, the US dollar) rises in nominal terms, but it counterintuitively doesn't lower inflation rates in these countries (which would mean real value of that currency rising). For example, the Russian ruble has been rising against the dollar for over a year till now already, so you might intuitively expect that the inflation in Russia should be at least on par with the inflation in the US, while in reality it is nowhere near the case since it has been times greater during this year (as it was years before). The chart below shows the exchange rate of the US dollar to the Russian ruble

http://s019.radikal.ru/i625/1704/8b/7a693b2b0e8c.png

I guess this is the best approximation to a currency "bubble" which we could come up with

I learned alot from this post when you gave a example of a possible currency bubble in Russia. Really interesting and i see your point and agree.

Do you have any litterature you would recommend that explore these topics, or just any book that you would recommend for someone interested in economics (mostly currencies)? Or perhaps just a author you find wisdomful.

I have gone to a pretty basic course in economics and econometrics, so the book's doesnt need to be super "noob", i do have a fundamental understanding of the more basics concepts.

I would really appreciate if you would take the time to give a few tips, i like the way you think and would like to adopt a part of that in my economic thinking.

Thanks   

[deisik]

I learned alot from this post when you gave a example of a possible currency bubble in Russia. Really interesting and i see your point and agree.

Do you have any litterature you would recommend that explore these topics, or just any book that you would recommend for someone interested in economics (mostly currencies)? Or perhaps just a author you find wisdomful.

I have gone to a pretty basic course in economics and econometrics, so the book's doesnt need to be super "noob", i do have a fundamental understanding of the more basics concepts

Nowadays, I've stopped reading anything except manuals and tech articles

I'm mostly writing myself these days. Nevertheless, the bulk of my knowledge comes from the real life observations and communicating with people who know more than me in a certain field of human activity. For example, right now I'm interested in the specifics of carry-trade (I mentioned it before) since it is of practical interest to me. When I have time I will certainly look into what real currency traders have to say on the matter (I'm not so much interested in theory as in its application in practice). If you are still interested which books had most influence on my understanding of economics in general (or just left a trace in my memory), I could name a couple. This is the Principles of Economics by Carl Menger, the farther of Austrian school of economics (though this doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything they teach) and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. The latter just makes an interesting read on its own and thus should be read by anyone (it is an easy reading but still rather informative)

[Duzter]

There is not such bad thing when it comes to believing and dreaming of a thing specially bitcoins price rocketing to a million dollars.It may really happen though it will take a seriously long time to achieved or it may not happen.No one can see future

Several news has come regarding the price rocketing. Recently too one among the large scale bitcoin firm operator and an enthusiast put forth the statement that bitcoin goes half a million in value in a short or too without any time scale.

[lazyturtle]

I learned alot from this post when you gave a example of a possible currency bubble in Russia. Really interesting and i see your point and agree.

Do you have any litterature you would recommend that explore these topics, or just any book that you would recommend for someone interested in economics (mostly currencies)? Or perhaps just a author you find wisdomful.

I have gone to a pretty basic course in economics and econometrics, so the book's doesnt need to be super "noob", i do have a fundamental understanding of the more basics concepts

Nowadays, I've stopped reading anything except manuals and tech articles

I'm mostly writing myself these days. Nevertheless, the bulk of my knowledge comes mostly from the real life observations and communicating with people who know more than me in a certain field of human activity. For example, right now I'm interested in the specifics of carry-trade (I mentioned it before) since it is of practical interest to me. When I have time I will certainly look into what real currency traders have to say on the matter (I'm not so much interested in theory as its application in practice). if you are still interested which books had most influence on my understanding of economics in general (or just left a trace in my memory), I could name a couple still. This is the Principles of Economics by Carl Menger, the farther of Austrian school of economics (though this doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything they teach) and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. The latter just makes an interesting read on its own and thus should be read by anyone (it is an easy reading but still rather informative)

Thank you for taking time to make a few mentions and for explaining your view on learning! <3

[BobK71]

Yea i agree, everything without any "practical value" as food, shelter etc has a risk of becoming a bubble. People do love to speculate.

Really any value into anything without "real" value, is as you say, based upon the crowds perception of what SHOULD be the price of a particular object (paper,rocks whatever). Kind of like a mutual agreement to get the society up and running, trading resources constantly wouldn't be very practical as we know.

I dont think the fiat money is evil in itself, but people are just to prone for corruption for a fully centralized currency to really work. I personally see the confidence level for bank and government here in Sweden drop more and more and how anybody could have confidence in the USA banks/government i would never be able to understand. Kind of been declining here in Sweden (the confidence) since the USA and Island economic crises (witch really shows how stupid and corrupt government can be).

I totally agree with you in everything you say like that fiat money, in itself, will eventually fail. If bitcoin would be implemented as a easy-to-use currency everywhere, why would you even use a bank? IMO cryptocurrencies basically have most of the pros that fiat has, but not the biggest cons (like corruption).

Using state-issued money or bitcoins, in my world this choice boils down to "do i trust myself to manage my funds, or do i trust a corporation with a history littered of corruption?"

Personally i rather manage my personal wealth without a overhanging shadow seeing every financial move i make, my confidence lies in myself, not banks!

Thank you for you detailed response.

The more I study the world system, the more I realize that it's *never* about what system is best.  It is *always* about what system gives the most power to the elites, while still being (passively) accepted by the public.

Take just a small recent example.  In the US someone just published evidence that the government knew since at least the 90s that marijuana is harmless.  It has always been a superior pain killer than pharmaceutical products, i.e. without the problems of side effects, addictions etc.  Yet, only recently did the US start to legalize marijuana in general.  Why?  Because there's  no money or power to be made from a natural product in a free market.  With chemical medications, there is money and power to be gained from research,  manufacture, safety tests, regulation, etc. etc.  The more dangerous the product, the more power to be gained by politicians from regulations and dealing with 'friends' in the industry!

They can't afford to have a superior, natural product take away customers from these artificial products.

The same can be said of money.  Gold, silver, and now Bitcoin, are perfectly good money -- but they give no power to the elites.

[MingLee]

The bubble will burst, but after a few years. Now it will still bring profit, because bitcoin has just started to develop. For the next 10 years I think it will definitely exist.

Eh... You'd be pushing economic reality if you think there's a bubble made up of hard currency that's going to pop at some-point soon. There may be boom/bust cycles and there may be other bubbles that occur, but for a lot of currencies they're not looking to go anywhere soon, and I doubt they will.
A lot of markets in the world are in a bubble, that doesn't mean currency is in a bubble. If you were in China, you'd probably say that your currency is going down the shitter since they have a hard-on for winning the currency war.

[deisik]

My personal theory is that cryptocurrency is not the bubble, but rather the needle that will burst the fiat money bubble. Trough history we have always had an easy way to attribute value to things without it. Those who believe that fiat money is the only true way often attribute their opinion to the fact that fiat money is substainsable because of its centralized nature and its history of being used as a represantation of value

Right now it is (for the most part, at least)

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies fit well into the definition of a financial bubble. I could even claim that Bitcoin is a sort of tulipomania. Just like tulips, bitcoins are useful for some purpose, namely, for transferring value around the world while completely bypassing centralized (real controlled) entities like banks, but Bitcoin current price is by no means determined by this utility. Most of Bitcoin value today comes from sheer speculation. Whether Bitcoin bubble is going to pop eventually or its real use as a currency will finally match its use as a speculative vehicle is not clear as of yet

There's a major difference between tulips and Bitcoin.  Tulips were not a very good money.  Bitcoin is designed to be a money, with anonymity and security built into an electronic architecture, in addition to the usual monetary properties like durability, divisibility, etc

It should be pretty obvious by now that all these features don't suffice

For something to become money it should be used as money, i.e. to be accepted as a universal means of payment or account. Therefore, until Bitcoin starts being used as money (in any meaningful degree), it cannot be considered as money even if it has all the required qualities and prerequisites money should possess. So there is not a big difference between tulips and Bitcoin primarily because its monetary qualities have been mostly neglected so far

[Chikito]

Yes, the demands of the times. But, bitcoin and altcoin include sub currency, not as a single currency, I think cryptocurrency is an alternative to transactions for now, because people use fiat money to buy something in real life.

[freedomno1]

Hello everyone.

There is much discussion around the price of bitcoins. Some seem to believe it could fly to a million, while some believe its just a big speculation bubble ready to burst.

My personal theory is that cryptocurrency is not the bubble, but rather the needle that will burst the fiat money bubble. Trough history we have always had an easy way to attribute value to things without it. Those who believe that fiat money is the only true way often attribute their opinion to the fact that fiat money is substainsable because of its centralized nature and its history of being used as a represantation of value.

The fact that bitcoin was created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crises clearly shows it's intent. I believe Satoshi saw how a centralized regulated market can't be substainable thanks to the egotistical and evil sides we humans all posses.

Decentralized currencies will IMO be the future. I can't peg bitcoin to a certain price it will reach in the future as i usually don't speculate that way, but rather i just develop a bias on a subject and try to indentify the crowds bias as this is what acctualy IS the trend.
The trend for decentralized currencies is bullish overall, with some currencies being more exciting then others. Invest in the cryptocurrency you believe in and do your homework, lets bring the fiat-money world down once and for all!! 

Please share your opinion on the subject, this is my first post and just wanted to share my thoughts, thank you =)

LazyTurtle

I agree "cryptocurrency is not the bubble, but rather the needle that will burst the fiat money bubble."
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/20125309437931677.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/20124395428374962.html
It's basically how I started learning about Bitcoin as well and a frame of view I have used.

The egotistical side is an interpretation but I lean towards the idea of debt and loans being the real fundamental issue that this resolves but greed is greed and it is a human attribute.

Where crypto is going and has gone since then to now I can really feel we are near mainstream usage and at the threshold I look forward to that trend continuing. Behead the fiat ^^. And Cheers