Bitcoin Forum
July 29, 2021, 05:56:55 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Money as Debt  (Read 13511 times)
Bruce Wagner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 251


View Profile
November 28, 2010, 10:46:33 PM
 #1

Do you guys agree with "the facts" as presented in this film, Money As Debt http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544
1627538215
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627538215

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627538215
Reply with quote  #2

1627538215
Report to moderator
1627538215
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627538215

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627538215
Reply with quote  #2

1627538215
Report to moderator
1627538215
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627538215

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627538215
Reply with quote  #2

1627538215
Report to moderator
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1627538215
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627538215

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627538215
Reply with quote  #2

1627538215
Report to moderator
1627538215
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627538215

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627538215
Reply with quote  #2

1627538215
Report to moderator
1627538215
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627538215

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627538215
Reply with quote  #2

1627538215
Report to moderator
The Madhatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 504


My avatar pic says it all


View Profile
November 28, 2010, 10:51:56 PM
 #2

Yes.

Have you seen the sequel? "Money as Debt II"? It's even better, in my opinion.
farmer_boy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 28, 2010, 11:25:49 PM
 #3

I don't know exactly how it works in the EU, but for the USA it seems to be consistent with other sources and my view of reality. Why do you put it in quotes? It seems to suggest you think it is bullshit.
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1005


View Profile
November 28, 2010, 11:48:10 PM
 #4

Well, yeah it's pretty much exact, although thecurrent banking system isd not as outrzgeous as presented in this movie.

Basically when a banker makes a loan, he does indeed creates money out of nothing but the promess from the borrower to repay this.  But this is not as wrong as suggested in the movie.  By doing so, the banker kind of work as a juridic notifier : he makes the promess official before the public, the law and society.   I think it's quite a clever system.   In my opinion it's ok as long as it is not forced and if other systems are not prohibited.

At the end of the day, the debate between communism and capitalism is not an economic one, because economics is not a reliable science.  It's a moral one.  It's whether or not people should be allowed to not care about other people's problems. I, for one, am not enthused by the idea of a world where everyone would be enslaved in order to avoid that anyone is miserable.
Bruce Wagner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 251


View Profile
November 28, 2010, 11:51:33 PM
 #5

No no.  It seems true to me.   I first saw this film quite a while ago - long before I discovered bitcoin.  That's why I was curious if this is in alignment with the world view of people here, or not.   Does anyone disagree with anything presented there?
Only one issue I have trouble understanding / believing:  Toward the end he describes a theoretical new money system (bitcoin??) with a limited finite number of units.  He says that, within such as system, if lenders were allowed to lend money and charge interest on loans... eventually the lenders would end up with all the money.  I have trouble believing that.  The money holds no real value except when it is spent.  It seems like the rich "lenders" would spend their money,  sooner or later.
And even if they didn't - at least in the case of bitcoin - however small the number of bitcoins in circulation,  they can always be subdivided into smaller and smaller units (i. e. 0.0000000001 BTN )
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1005


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 12:07:11 AM
 #6

Only one issue I have trouble understanding / believing:  Toward the end he describes a theoretical new money system (bitcoin??) with a limited finite number of units.  He says that, within such as system, if lenders were allowed to lend money and charge interest on loans... eventually the lenders would end up with all the money.  I have trouble believing that.  The money holds no real value except when it is spent.  It seems like the rich "lenders" would spend their money,  sooner or later.

Very true.  Fixed aggregate money system have this in common.  There is no point hoarding the money if you never spend it, and when you do spend it, then you share it with other people, which solves the initial problem.

But I think that's something most socialo-anarchist don't seem to understand, and that's why they dislike gold, and probably they will dislike bitcoins too.

At the end of the day, the debate between communism and capitalism is not an economic one, because economics is not a reliable science.  It's a moral one.  It's whether or not people should be allowed to not care about other people's problems. I, for one, am not enthused by the idea of a world where everyone would be enslaved in order to avoid that anyone is miserable.
farmer_boy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 12:48:43 AM
 #7

No no.  It seems true to me.   I first saw this film quite a while ago - long before I discovered bitcoin.  That's why I was curious if this is in alignment with the world view of people here, or not.   Does anyone disagree with anything presented there?
Only one issue I have trouble understanding / believing:  Toward the end he describes a theoretical new money system (bitcoin??) with a limited finite number of units.  He says that, within such as system, if lenders were allowed to lend money and charge interest on loans... eventually the lenders would end up with all the money.  I have trouble believing that.  The money holds no real value except when it is spent.  It seems like the rich "lenders" would spend their money,  sooner or later.
And even if they didn't - at least in the case of bitcoin - however small the number of bitcoins in circulation,  they can always be subdivided into smaller and smaller units (i. e. 0.0000000001 BTN )
Look at our system: the banks get more interest than they can spend. The result is that the banks "own" the planet. I put the own in quotes because it's not 100%, but it's more than is good for the people.

A bank can loan out some money at 6% to 50 people. If they make sure that the people do not default or when they default that they get even more money, the banks can make money in an extremely easy manner, and that's exactly what they do. The result of this concept of borrowing money is that more money is in circulation which devalues other peoples money. For the system to not result in the bank owning the planet, the banks need to spend an awful lot of money (which they don't).

Before 1609 (IIRC, source: some video (I don't know whether it is true)), there was a law which _prohibited_ lending against interest. That is, the very thing which makes banks trillions used to be illegal.   

The USA system is crazy because some of the banks part of the FED know beforehand when they stop handing out loans. This has a huge effect on the stockmarket, so they can use that to make even more money.

In relation to this I have a question regaring history: why was Switzerland neutral during WWII? Why didn't Hitler simply say "You know what? You have a very weak army, I will just seize all your assets. "?
bober182
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 100


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 12:56:23 AM
 #8

I'm a bit more then just a socialist and I know bitcoin is a step towards getting away from government/corporation authority and control. After that it will help move into a classless society and possibly money will be abolished altogether.

kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1010


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 01:00:48 AM
 #9

I'm a bit more then just a socialist and I know bitcoin is a step towards getting away from government/corporation authority and control. After that it will help move into a classless society and possibly money will be abolished altogether.

And there will be still rich bitcoiners and poor bitcoiners.

Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1136


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
November 29, 2010, 01:12:42 AM
 #10

I saw a version of this at a presentation of a local "time dollars" group... and I think their arguments go wrong at a couple of places.

First, wealth creation is limitless (we continue inventing more efficient ways of doing things and new things to spend our time and money on), so it's simply not true that an ever-increasing money supply (created via debt) is unsustainable.  If there was some way of pegging the creation of the 'right' amount of money to the overall amount of wealth being created, then we'd get stable prices and the 'right' level of investment.

And second, the argument is that the system is stacked against the borrower-- that it is designed so that there's never enough money for everybody to pay off their debts.  So if I WANT to pay back my debt, I'll find out there's a money shortage, and I won't be able to.

That ignores the fact that I can walk away from my debts via bankruptcy.  And the fact that many loans are secured with some form of collateral, which lenders accept in lieu of cash.  Borrowing/lending is not an entirely closed system, and, ideally, lenders have to be smart and fund borrowers who are creating real wealth.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
November 29, 2010, 01:42:25 AM
 #11

I'm a bit more then just a socialist and I know bitcoin is a step towards getting away from government/corporation authority and control. After that it will help move into a classless society and possibly money will be abolished altogether.

This confuses me. Do you not consider bitcoin money? What classes do you see now that could be gone in the future?

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
dwdollar
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 202
Merit: 108


GCC - Global cryptocurrency


View Profile WWW
November 29, 2010, 01:46:33 AM
 #12

I saw a version of this at a presentation of a local "time dollars" group... and I think their arguments go wrong at a couple of places.

Sort of off topic, but is the "time dollars" thing you mentioned the same as this?  Interestingly, Richard Rockefeller has a hand in it.  Richard is the great grandson of the big mac daddy JD.

The Madhatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 504


My avatar pic says it all


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 01:48:41 AM
 #13

Before 1609 (IIRC, source: some video (I don't know whether it is true)), there was a law which _prohibited_ lending against interest. That is, the very thing which makes banks trillions used to be illegal.  

It is called usury, and practicing it was punishable by death in some places.
RHorning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 104


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 01:49:49 AM
 #14

This has been an entertaining video.  I will agree that fractional reserve banking is perhaps one of the greatest frauds ever invented by men and is going to end up causing an eventual disaster when the scheme falls apart.  I also agree with the sentiment expressed in the video that it makes no sense at all for the government to be borrowing money from bankers who in turn are borrowing the money from the federal reserve pocketing the difference or better yet "depositing" the interest as reserves and "loaning" more money created out of thin air to the government.

More to the point, I think the time of reckoning is near at hand.  Right now service on debt is such a large portion of federal spending in America that a complete elimination of all "discretionary spending" would still not cover the interest owed each year.

There have been some threads on the Economy section of the forums talking about fractional reserve banking and essentially the conclusion is that Bitcoins would be immune to such activities.  Banking could still happen in the form of deposits and loans, but it would have to take the form of something more like a corporate investment rather than fractional reserves.  Banks also wouldn't have nearly the same monopoly over potential sources of investment in such a situation.

The one flaw in the video I see is that money, while it is created by pressing some buttons in response to creating loans, will exist without debt.  The fiat currencies would perhaps collapse (or not if the government simply runs the presses... causing other problems), but money would still exist in some form or another.  Bitcoins itself is proof of that.
The Madhatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 504


My avatar pic says it all


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 01:53:12 AM
 #15

That ignores the fact that I can walk away from my debts via bankruptcy.

As the credit card (and other general) debts increase the governments of the world make it harder and harder to file bankruptcy.

Also, (I may be wrong) I heard that you can only file bankruptcy in the USA once.

If you file bankruptcy where I live you become a 'financial leper'. No bank will loan you money for 7 years.
The Madhatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 504


My avatar pic says it all


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 01:55:35 AM
 #16

Basically when a banker makes a loan, he does indeed creates money out of nothing but the promess from the borrower to repay this. 

I call it "legalized fraud".
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
November 29, 2010, 02:01:23 AM
 #17

That ignores the fact that I can walk away from my debts via bankruptcy.

As the credit card (and other general) debts increase the governments of the world make it harder and harder to file bankruptcy.

Also, (I may be wrong) I heard that you can only file bankruptcy in the USA once.

If you file bankruptcy where I live you become a 'financial leper'. No bank will loan you money for 7 years.


It's fairly complicated here (US), but I know you can do it like every 7 or 10 years for sure. I honestly don't get why they call it bankruptcy though. If you don't have money you don't need (and can't afford) to file bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is for people with money or assets who want to protect them from creditors, not for people who are broke. It should be called the "cancel your promises like we always do" deal or something.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
The Madhatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 504


My avatar pic says it all


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 02:08:51 AM
 #18

It should be called the "cancel your promises like we always do" deal or something.

Hahaha! I just spilt my coffee! Hahahahaha  Cheesy
QuantumMechanic
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 110
Merit: 19


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 02:19:21 AM
 #19


That ignores the fact that I can walk away from my debts via bankruptcy.  And the fact that many loans are secured with some form of collateral, which lenders accept in lieu of cash.  Borrowing/lending is not an entirely closed system, and, ideally, lenders have to be smart and fund borrowers who are creating real wealth.


It's also not difficult to think up simple closed loop economy counterexamples with fixed money supplies and lending at interest which are perfectly stable, and require no bankruptcies or dipping into collateral.  The key is that people (obviously) don't pay back their loans all at once and all at the same time.  So their idea that there needs to be a continually increasing money supply to keep lending at interest going is clearly wrong.
Bruce Wagner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 251


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 02:23:10 AM
 #20

Woah!  I just watched the sequel...  Money As Debt II   ( here: http://vimeo.com/6822294 )

Is it my imagination or are they totally describing Bitcoin toward the end...!?!?

This sequel was done in 2009...?   Did they already know about Bitcoin then...?

It's almost like they were forecasting the invention of Bitcoin...

We need to get the producers of THIS FILM to do an animated video describing Bitcoin!!!!
Bruce Wagner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 251


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 02:41:34 AM
 #21

Ok, I just wrote an email to the creators of the film...


Quote
To:  pgrignon@island.net
Subject:  Money as Debt II

Hello!

We are discussing your film in the Bitcoin Forum  ( here http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1992.0 )

Are you already familiar with Bitcoin?!?!?

If not, please see  http://BitcoinMe.com for a quick introduction to what it's all about.

Bitcoin is a FOSS (free open source software) project that is making huge advances very quickly.   The Bitcoin economy is already over US$1.3 Million in total value.

We already have a "bounty"  ( sort of a contest, to see who can come up with the best animated video explaining Bitcoin to everyday people... with the best video winning the prize pot... currently about $2,520 ).   See http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.0;all

I think it would be wonderful if you were to create a film explaining  "What is a Bitcoin?"       

Also, I've gotta ask...     Toward the end of "Money As Debt II", you were describing a digital currency enabled through encryption technology....   Were you already aware, at that time, that Bitcoin existed... or was about to be invented?

Bruce Wagner
New York City
http://BitcoinMe.com
646-580-0022

Why didn't we think of contacting them before?
By the way, when exactly did Bitcoin first launch - what date?   (I need to brush up on some of my basic facts before my national radio interview about Bitcoin on Thursday morning!)
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596
Merit: 1022


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 03:15:40 AM
 #22

By the way, when exactly did Bitcoin first launch - what date?   (I need to brush up on some of my basic facts before my national radio interview about Bitcoin on Thursday morning!)

See http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=bitcoin_history for a basic list.



Jeff Garzik, Bloq CEO, former bitcoin core dev team; opinions are my own.
Visit bloq.com / metronome.io
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
asdf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 03:44:51 AM
 #23

This has been an entertaining video.  I will agree that fractional reserve banking is perhaps one of the greatest frauds ever invented by men and is going to end up causing an eventual disaster when the scheme falls apart.  I also agree with the sentiment expressed in the video that it makes no sense at all for the government to be borrowing money from bankers who in turn are borrowing the money from the federal reserve pocketing the difference or better yet "depositing" the interest as reserves and "loaning" more money created out of thin air to the government.

An interesting article I read recently on fractional reserve banking and libertarianism:
http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=416

I don't think FRB is inherently evil, it's the central banking system and money printing that's the real problem. Without the supply of and value of money (interest rates) being artificially manipulated buy a central authority, FRB is relatively harmless.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
November 29, 2010, 03:53:41 AM
 #24


I don't think FRB is inherently evil, it's the central banking system and money printing that's the real problem.

It' the former that enables the latter.  Before the banking acts of 1913 that legalized fractional reserve banking as well as the Federal Reserve itself, fractional reserve banking was considered fraud.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1010


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 04:10:27 AM
 #25

Fractional reserve banking mean that the bank have a tendency to collapse. I think we're safer with mtgox type banks where they just keep the balance and earn their fees somewhere.

The Madhatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490
Merit: 504


My avatar pic says it all


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 04:24:48 AM
 #26

Why didn't we think of contacting them before?

They have been contacted before. Check out their forum. Smiley

Thanks for your efforts; they only help. Cheesy
caveden
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 29, 2010, 08:09:55 AM
 #27

I don't think FRB is inherently evil, it's the central banking system and money printing that's the real problem. Without the supply of and value of money (interest rates) being artificially manipulated buy a central authority, FRB is relatively harmless.
+1
mpkomara
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 183
Merit: 100



View Profile
November 29, 2010, 08:35:05 AM
 #28

Fractional reserve banking mean that the bank have a tendency to collapse. I think we're safer with mtgox type banks where they just keep the balance and earn their fees somewhere.

Mtgox has promised "margin trading" which fits the description of fractional reserve banking.
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
November 29, 2010, 09:01:20 AM
 #29

Fractional reserve banking mean that the bank have a tendency to collapse. I think we're safer with mtgox type banks where they just keep the balance and earn their fees somewhere.

Mtgox has promised "margin trading" which fits the description of fractional reserve banking.

AFAIU fractional reserve banking and margin trading are two very different things.

mpkomara
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 183
Merit: 100



View Profile
November 29, 2010, 10:37:00 AM
 #30

With respect to Kiba's post that he trusts "mtgox type banks" insofar as he can withdraw his deposits from them at any time, he shouldn't throw caution to the wind.  once mtgox requires less than 100% of a bitcoin deposit from you in order to sell a bitcoin, even if there are margin calls and position liquidations, in an illiquid market not all deposits can be guaranteed.  So with respect to risks of losing one's deposit, mtgox's margin trading resembles a bank run on a bank keeping fractional reserves.



QuantumMechanic
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 110
Merit: 19


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 10:52:51 AM
 #31

With respect to Kiba's post that he trusts "mtgox type banks" insofar as he can withdraw his deposits from them at any time, he shouldn't throw caution to the wind.  once mtgox requires less than 100% of a bitcoin deposit from you in order to sell a bitcoin, even if there are margin calls and position liquidations, in an illiquid market not all deposits can be guaranteed.  So with respect to risks of losing one's deposit, mtgox's margin trading resembles a bank run on a bank keeping fractional reserves.





Hopefully then, the availability of margin accounts will increase liquidity enough that deposits can be practically guaranteed!

As a side note, I wonder how much downward pressure will be put on the exchange rate due to traders finally being able to easily make short sales.
RHorning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 104


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 01:56:27 PM
 #32

This has been an entertaining video.  I will agree that fractional reserve banking is perhaps one of the greatest frauds ever invented by men and is going to end up causing an eventual disaster when the scheme falls apart.

An interesting article I read recently on fractional reserve banking and libertarianism:
http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=416

I don't think FRB is inherently evil, it's the central banking system and money printing that's the real problem. Without the supply of and value of money (interest rates) being artificially manipulated buy a central authority, FRB is relatively harmless.

I read this article and I will say it tempers my attitude somewhat towards the idea of banks doing this.  One of the things sort of not stated is that most current banks assume that you know about fractional reserve currency already and that you have agreed to the system.  Perhaps that is the real scam, although if you asked a branch manager or bank executive I'm sure they would explain the system in detail if you were interested.  There still is something just a little off, however, in terms of the system actually used within both Europe with the EU, the GBP, and how the Fed deals with dollars.

With a "bank" running under bitcoins, such a bank can loan out all of the money which has been put in by depositors, but there is no mechanism where the bank can make more loans than deposits.  That, BTW, is the "fraction" which the banks are doing, where they are indeed loaning more than they have in terms of deposits and investments and the deposits are a "fraction" of loans.  Since a Bitcoin has to be mined with a clear history of the coin from when it was first generated to when it is spent, it can't be inflated except as something leveraged from loans from others which must be paid back.

Thinking a little deeper about the videos, one of the key tests of Bitcoins is going to be when there is a significant enough of a dispute between two parties in the same legal jurisdiction (to keep things simple) where the judicial system is going to need to step into the dispute over a transaction involving Bitcoins.  Fiat dollars are treated as money precisely because courts recognize them as instruments which can settle a debt including the ability to pay taxes with them.  That may not be the case for Bitcoins.  Does anybody know of any legal case between say two Liberty Reserve users or some other "alternative money" in American courts that might be used as precedence on that issue?  I'm not asking for the formal brief, just if anybody has heard of that happening before?:
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1003


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 02:19:51 PM
 #33

Basically when a banker makes a loan, he does indeed creates money out of nothing but the promess from the borrower to repay this.

I call it "legalized fraud".


+1

Also, i concede with 98% of opinions stated in the movie. Although it perhaps simplifies some things too much, this is still how the money making works today.

Banking industry == Legalized fraud

fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 02:56:08 PM
 #34

I'm a bit more then just a socialist and I know bitcoin is a step towards getting away from government/corporation authority and control. After that it will help move into a classless society and possibly money will be abolished altogether.

Is it just me, or is there something not quite right with someone who is "more than a socialist" but yet wants to eliminate or reduce government?  Bitcoin is a pure capitalist system, and, honestly, the past N years of capitalism don't seemed to have worked out so great for society - witness A) the BP oil spill and countless other environmental disasters, B) the continuously widening gap between rich & poor right throughout all western (& other) society.  Are you sure, bober182, that you're not a closet anarchist?


I'm enjoying this thread - much of it has been discussed before (see https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=376.0).  There is an important point which I think many people are missing.  As some of you have pointed out, bitcoins only have value if you spend them.  There is no point in hoarding 99% of all bitcoins.  However, if you become "The Bitcoin Bank" and lend at interest, then as "Money as Debt" says, you will continue accumulating more and more bitcoins.  As people pay you back, you'll naturally have to find a way to spend them, or loan them again.  BUT, when people can't pay you back, you get to repossess their physical property.  This is why interest can't really work.  Interest does nothing other than increase the wealth of the wealthy, at the expense of those in poverty.  And *that's* the clincher - bitcoins have value only insofar as they can help you obtain property.  But if you can get the property another way, well, then bitcoins just become a tool.

Now, if you can *inflate* your currency, or tax it, then maybe you can mitigate the accumulation, at least until the wealthy people become so powerful as to dictate tax & inflation policy to the policy-makers.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
November 29, 2010, 03:08:17 PM
 #35

I'm a bit more then just a socialist and I know bitcoin is a step towards getting away from government/corporation authority and control. After that it will help move into a classless society and possibly money will be abolished altogether.

Is it just me, or is there something not quite right with someone who is "more than a socialist" but yet wants to eliminate or reduce government?  Bitcoin is a pure capitalist system, and, honestly, the past N years of capitalism don't seemed to have worked out so great for society - witness A) the BP oil spill and countless other environmental disasters, B) the continuously widening gap between rich & poor right throughout all western (& other) society.

Those are not examples of failures of capitalism, but failures of corproratism.  Not that capitalism can't fail, but it is a self-correcting system.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 03:20:14 PM
 #36

A) the BP oil spill and countless other environmental disasters, B) the continuously widening gap between rich & poor right throughout all western (& other) society.

Those are not examples of failures of capitalism, but failures of corproratism.  Not that capitalism can't fail, but it is a self-correcting system.

Capitalism is the idea that you can put a price on anything, and that the one who manages to sell at the lowest price should be rewarded.  The logical conclusion, therefore, is that capitalists will *always* seek to minimise their costs at the expense of, well, anything.  In these cases, they are selling the future in order to turn a quick buck now.

How is capitalism self-correcting?  Will it correct the Nigerian oil spills?  I really think it would take massive government intervention to fix that.  And how could a capitalist society ever, ever, narrow the gap between rich & poor?
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 03:42:44 PM
 #37

An interesting article I read recently on fractional reserve banking and libertarianism:
http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=416

I've read this article, and with regard to the current economic system, the author is missing one crucial detail.  He states, correctly, that if a bank were to engage in excessive FRB, i.e. to recklessly print extra 'money', then its notes would naturally devalue.  Well, that works when banks can issue only their own notes.  In the current system, the money produced by the bank *is equivalent to* the fiat currency accepted by the government for tax payments.  Thus, no devaluation of the bank's private notes - the devaluation is spread across everybody's currency holdings.  So the banks go for short term profit, at the risk of destabilising the entire economic system's future.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
November 29, 2010, 04:28:12 PM
 #38

A) the BP oil spill and countless other environmental disasters, B) the continuously widening gap between rich & poor right throughout all western (& other) society.

Those are not examples of failures of capitalism, but failures of corproratism.  Not that capitalism can't fail, but it is a self-correcting system.

Capitalism is the idea that you can put a price on anything, and that the one who manages to sell at the lowest price should be rewarded.  The logical conclusion, therefore, is that capitalists will *always* seek to minimise their costs at the expense of, well, anything.  In these cases, they are selling the future in order to turn a quick buck now.


That's not capitalism.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
November 29, 2010, 04:29:27 PM
 #39

An interesting article I read recently on fractional reserve banking and libertarianism:
http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=416

I've read this article, and with regard to the current economic system, the author is missing one crucial detail.  He states, correctly, that if a bank were to engage in excessive FRB, i.e. to recklessly print extra 'money', then its notes would naturally devalue.  Well, that works when banks can issue only their own notes.  In the current system, the money produced by the bank *is equivalent to* the fiat currency accepted by the government for tax payments.  Thus, no devaluation of the bank's private notes - the devaluation is spread across everybody's currency holdings.  So the banks go for short term profit, at the risk of destabilising the entire economic system's future.

Nope, he was right.  You need to do more research.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
RHorning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 104


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 04:51:13 PM
 #40

I'm a bit more then just a socialist and I know bitcoin is a step towards getting away from government/corporation authority and control. After that it will help move into a classless society and possibly money will be abolished altogether.
I'm enjoying this thread - much of it has been discussed before (see https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=376.0).  There is an important point which I think many people are missing.  As some of you have pointed out, bitcoins only have value if you spend them.  There is no point in hoarding 99% of all bitcoins.  However, if you become "The Bitcoin Bank" and lend at interest, then as "Money as Debt" says, you will continue accumulating more and more bitcoins.  As people pay you back, you'll naturally have to find a way to spend them, or loan them again.  BUT, when people can't pay you back, you get to repossess their physical property.  This is why interest can't really work.  Interest does nothing other than increase the wealth of the wealthy, at the expense of those in poverty.  And *that's* the clincher - bitcoins have value only insofar as they can help you obtain property.  But if you can get the property another way, well, then bitcoins just become a tool.

A difference between bitcoins and other currencies, so far as lending money from a "bitcoin bank", is that such a loan would be more of an "investment", and in fact a bank could be thought of perhaps as a "mutual fund" rater than a conventional bank as it is normally known... with the same benefits and risks.

"Depositors" into a "bitbank" would risk some of their coins on various kinds of "investments" which may be paid off eventually or not.  Much of it depends on how everything is structured, but conventional fixed interest rates might actually be the exception rather than the rule.  You might have "banks" which specialize in risky investments or ones that only invest in a sure thing.  It is for this reason that I think it would be better to look at such deposits more as buying shares where you get a pooled return on investment.

One of the things that a fractional reserve currency offers is that there is a much larger disconnect between the depositors and the loans, where usually a depositor doesn't really care if a loan fails or not.  The video sort of explains why.  On top of the things in the video, there is also depositor's insurance which adds still an extra layer on top of everything else.  You could perhaps get such insurance, but it would be rather expensive for Bitcoins.

All told, I would think that the stock market would be a much stronger source of capital for projects than banks, and bank loans as you normally know them would be a relatively rare thing.  Perhaps businesses could get into the game of making loans for houses and automobiles, but credit requirements would be incredibly tight compared to what is currently typical for such purchases under bitcoins.  On the whole I think this is a good thing as it would make investments into businesses more "democratic" so far as the sources of investment capital wouldn't be concentrated with just the banks.  It certainly would take some time to adjust and cope with the concept.  Banks certainly can't "inflate" the currency due to fractional deposit loans which ultimately is how banks usually are cornering the investement security market.

I'm still undecided so far as how "evil" usury really is and I don't think it is as big of a deal as was expressed in this video.  Hoarding of bitcoins has been abundantly discussed on these forums and is generally not seen as a problem by most current Bitcoin participants or commentators.
tyler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0



View Profile
November 29, 2010, 05:39:25 PM
 #41

Before 1609 (IIRC, source: some video (I don't know whether it is true)), there was a law which _prohibited_ lending against interest. That is, the very thing which makes banks trillions used to be illegal.  

It is called usury, and practicing it was punishable by death in some places.


Still is, its called Riba in Islamic law, and is illegal
RHorning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 104


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 06:51:14 PM
 #42

Before 1609 (IIRC, source: some video (I don't know whether it is true)), there was a law which _prohibited_ lending against interest. That is, the very thing which makes banks trillions used to be illegal.  

It is called usury, and practicing it was punishable by death in some places.


Still is, its called Riba in Islamic law, and is illegal

I'm curious about where it might be illegal among Islamic countries as they certainly have plenty of banks very well connected to the banks in Western Europe and most of the Persian Gulf states seem to have plenty of fiat currencies floating around their capitals that it would seem like such a concept is more lip service than any real illegal behavior.  I'm not doubting that it may be declared illegal, but if you are tied to the global economy, I don't know how you are able to get away from usury in some form.
farmer_boy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 08:54:02 PM
 #43

Another money system is described on http://digitalcoin.info (this is what the Money as Debt 2 movie refers to). As with bitcoins, I see no formal specification of how it is supposed to work, but it seems to me to be a better system than bitcoins if you look at the kind of properties one would want to get out of a money system and those that are actually obtained.

Bitcoins are similar to the permanent digital coins type, but have the downside (or upside depending on your role) of having a purely speculative value. The credit coin has no counterpart in the Bitcoin system and as such doesn't perform all functions one would like to get from a money system.

The author of bitcoins has a technical background, but less of an experience in money history (correct me if I am wrong). The designer of the digitalcoin probably has a less technical background, but a firm understanding of money and its history.

The most important feature that the digital coins have is that you never have the "we won't do this project, because there is no money"-problem, which was what happened in 1929. There were workers, people wanting to eat, and factories, but no money.

Initially, it does seem rather complicated to make these kinds of credit coins contract (see the movie), but if one were to label ever product with a number (which already happens for a lot of products (e.g. a soda)), then it wouldn't really be a problem. 

What are your thoughts on digital coin?

P.S.
Is the guy from OpenTransactions also on this forum? It seems he has the broadest technical view as he has implemented a very wide range of systems and documented these on his website.
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1136


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
November 29, 2010, 09:28:56 PM
 #44

What are your thoughts on digital coin?
I grabbed the "Digital Coin Technology" pdf file.

It looks to me like it fails in the second paragraph:
Quote
This
 Digital
Coin
 serial 
number
 can 
be 
up 
to 
512
 numbers 
long. 

The
 Digital
Coin
 software

 alone 
can 
find,
 read
 and
 alter 
this serial
 number.


If the DigitalCoin software can read the serial number, then so can other software.  It is simply not true that "The DigitalCoin software alone can ..."

Either you have a central server running the DigitalCoin software and you have to trust that the people running that server won't double-spend DigitalCoins.

Or... you have Bitcoin, where the "serial numbers" are the public keys of coin generation transactions.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
asdf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 10:05:53 PM
 #45

Fractional reserve banking mean that the bank have a tendency to collapse. I think we're safer with mtgox type banks where they just keep the balance and earn their fees somewhere.

Think of your deposits as an investment with the understanding that the bank will lend out your (and others) deposits to provide capital for business and pay you interest. Now if there is a bank run (the bank becomes insolvent) that's your problem for making a bad investment. You should have picked a better bank or found another way to invest your savings. The tendency to collapse is there, but this doesn't mean it should be banned; you might as well ban the stock market.

This becomes a dangerous scam when you introduce the central bank into the system. Now banks don't have to worry about risk so much, because the central bank can always give them a loan to cover excessive withdrawals (printing money). Now banks can reduce their reserve requirements. Now customers don't need to shop around for a responsible bank; no chance of a run. With a central bank (also, deposit insurance has a similar effect), you've taken the capitalism out of banking; removed the market mechanisms.

The end result is a distorted economy which is prone to gross malinvestment, leading to booms and busts and all sorts of economic chaos. Not to mention the theft of inflation, as banks have essentially passed on their risks to the savers. But fractional reserve banking is basically just an agreement between a group of people to pool their savings, earn interest and have the advantage of being able to pull out at any time.

I read this article and I will say it tempers my attitude somewhat towards the idea of banks doing this.  One of the things sort of not stated is that most current banks assume that you know about fractional reserve currency already and that you have agreed to the system.  Perhaps that is the real scam, although if you asked a branch manager or bank executive I'm sure they would explain the system in detail if you were interested.  There still is something just a little off, however, in terms of the system actually used within both Europe with the EU, the GBP, and how the Fed deals with dollars.

I had the same reaction, that's why I posted the link. Because the risk of banking has been essentially removed, people have forgotten how the system (FRB) even works and are ignorantly participating in the system.

Of course, bitcoin fixes all these problems, which is why I like it so much :-)
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
November 29, 2010, 10:33:27 PM
 #46

The most important feature that the digital coins have is that you never have the "we won't do this project, because there is no money"-problem, which was what happened in 1929. There were workers, people wanting to eat, and factories, but no money.


That's not really what happened in 1929, or 1932.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
farmer_boy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 11:01:33 PM
 #47

The most important feature that the digital coins have is that you never have the "we won't do this project, because there is no money"-problem, which was what happened in 1929. There were workers, people wanting to eat, and factories, but no money.


That's not really what happened in 1929, or 1932.
The banks stopped increasing the money supply, did a few tricks (called back margin loans) on the stock market to make it fall faster and probably shorted the entire economy. What's wrong with that? The end result was that normal people were not able to pay with labour for their living expenses.
farmer_boy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 29, 2010, 11:23:21 PM
 #48

What are your thoughts on digital coin?
I grabbed the "Digital Coin Technology" pdf file.

It looks to me like it fails in the second paragraph:
Quote
This
 Digital
Coin
 serial 
number
 can 
be 
up 
to 
512
 numbers 
long. 

The
 Digital
Coin
 software

 alone 
can 
find,
 read
 and
 alter 
this serial
 number.


If the DigitalCoin software can read the serial number, then so can other software.  It is simply not true that "The DigitalCoin software alone can ..."

Either you have a central server running the DigitalCoin software and you have to trust that the people running that server won't double-spend DigitalCoins.

Or... you have Bitcoin, where the "serial numbers" are the public keys of coin generation transactions.

Let me put it differently: I think the _ideas_ with respect to associating to every product its own self-issued currency have some value. The double spending problem has to be addressed, yes, and that's why I would prefer that people that bring these systems into the world would first take the time to show why they would be secure in the first place. Today it is even possible to show these properties in a way that it is verifiable by software that this holds.

Claims and proofs of the form: P=/NP -> description_of_payment_system -> NoDoubleSpendingPossible description_of_payment_system /\ NoForgeryPossible description_of_payment_system are possible to express in systems like this.

MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
November 30, 2010, 01:22:39 AM
 #49

The most important feature that the digital coins have is that you never have the "we won't do this project, because there is no money"-problem, which was what happened in 1929. There were workers, people wanting to eat, and factories, but no money.


That's not really what happened in 1929, or 1932.
The banks stopped increasing the money supply, did a few tricks (called back margin loans) on the stock market to make it fall faster and probably shorted the entire economy. What's wrong with that? The end result was that normal people were not able to pay with labour for their living expenses.

The only reason that I don't go to greater lengths to correct your misunderstandings of economic history is that I grow weary of doing so on online forums without due compensation.  Not just for yourself, as economics is a widely misunderstood subject even among those who consider themselves well educated.  This is something that I've often viewed as strange, considering it's not really a complicated subject to understand from a scientific perspective; but too many try to view it from the macro side and then overcomplicate it.

The contraction of the money supply in that general time period is not what caused the Great Depression.  The contraction of the money supply was the concurrent remedy to the malinvestment that was rampant in the decade that preceded the Great Depression, which was itself caused by excessive expansion of the monetary base by the Federal Reserve banking system from it's conception in 1913 to 1929, but mostly after 1924.  Most of the human suffering during the Great Depression was the direct result of attempts by the US Government to intervene in the natural corrective process of deflation, rather than simply stay out of the way and let the nation take it's hard medicine and move on.  The Great Depression was, largely, a political event as opposed to an economic or fiscal event; and the parallels to the current state of things is striking.  For a wonderful counter example, look at the Panic of 1920, and the similarities and differences in how that was handled by the two administrations.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
farmer_boy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 30, 2010, 02:07:16 AM
Last edit: November 30, 2010, 02:21:34 AM by farmer_boy
 #50

The most important feature that the digital coins have is that you never have the "we won't do this project, because there is no money"-problem, which was what happened in 1929. There were workers, people wanting to eat, and factories, but no money.


That's not really what happened in 1929, or 1932.
The banks stopped increasing the money supply, did a few tricks (called back margin loans) on the stock market to make it fall faster and probably shorted the entire economy. What's wrong with that? The end result was that normal people were not able to pay with labour for their living expenses.

The only reason that I don't go to greater lengths to correct your misunderstandings of economic history is that I grow weary of doing so on online forums without due compensation.

I actually don't see much difference between the way you describe it and I do. You label the government as intervening, but AFAIK it was the Federal Reserve which decided to act essentially against the interests of the population. By shorting against the national economy they could get even more money. They do this trick every few decades and are speeding up the process.

You are free to reference books that claim the government intervened.
TylerJordan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58
Merit: 0



View Profile
November 30, 2010, 02:24:09 AM
 #51

Greetings,

I manage the http://earthsociety.org domain and main blog - it is a libertarian anarchist/anarcho-capitalist website on the whole. I'm also, and this is more the relevant part, the forum-master for the digital coin forum - linked from the above portal page. It was set-up with Paul Grignon's consent - Paul being the man behind "Money As Debt" ! & 2.

I've spent a lot of time studying the monetary system and the history and I'm a bit of a coder too, but more of a hack than anything.

I've a strong interest in the development of Bitcoin and I see it as potentially a very good alternative to Paul's Digital Coin concept.

I believe Paul Grignon's system would use a centralized structure, however this does not by any means imply a monopoly. I believe the concept is that there would be many bourses (central trading markets) that would function independently.

Perhaps Bitcoin, has leapfrogged Grignon's idea, however Bitcoin is very dependent on the internet is it not?  While I'm not overly concerned that governments will be able to successfully shutter the internet, it is a valid concern as government's these days are mostly institutions that function as the middle-man between the corporations and the people, or put another way, they are the slavemaster's that serve the ruling class and keep the peasants in chains. Way oversimplified, but, governments are able to do this so successfully as they control a nations money (In actuality the money supply is usually controlled by an unelected ruling class) and through the ability and willingness to coerce people to use the government money.

So, I'm concerned and I think it is reasonable that others are concerned, about the potential for the use of coercion to limit or destroy any monetary system that competes with the monopolist's money system.

If a new system can be both distributed yet can also function in isolation, settling differences when they are able, then it would be much more resistant to attack.

Can Bitcoin function in this manner? How many nodes are needed for it to work, and can it work on a local network?


So, assuming that the above concerns are unwarranted, then I think Bitcoin may function in a manner most similar to Digital Coin's 'PC'.  Digital Coin's 'CC' could then be created at a local level and function with Bitcoin as it would with 'PC'.  


Just my two bits  Grin



RHorning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 104


View Profile
November 30, 2010, 02:50:54 AM
 #52

The only reason that I don't go to greater lengths to correct your misunderstandings of economic history is that I grow weary of doing so on online forums without due compensation.  Not just for yourself, as economics is a widely misunderstood subject even among those who consider themselves well educated.  This is something that I've often viewed as strange, considering it's not really a complicated subject to understand from a scientific perspective; but too many try to view it from the macro side and then overcomplicate it.

The contraction of the money supply in that general time period is not what caused the Great Depression.  The contraction of the money supply was the concurrent remedy to the malinvestment that was rampant in the decade that preceded the Great Depression, which was itself caused by excessive expansion of the monetary base by the Federal Reserve banking system from it's conception in 1913 to 1929, but mostly after 1924.  Most of the human suffering during the Great Depression was the direct result of attempts by the US Government to intervene in the natural corrective process of deflation, rather than simply stay out of the way and let the nation take it's hard medicine and move on.  The Great Depression was, largely, a political event as opposed to an economic or fiscal event; and the parallels to the current state of things is striking.  For a wonderful counter example, look at the Panic of 1920, and the similarities and differences in how that was handled by the two administrations.

The more that I read about Calvin Coolidge and how he dealt with the Panic of 1920, the more impressed I am with him.  He shared a whole lot of attributes with Dwight Eisenhower so far as how they governed in the White House... attributes that I personally wish the current resident of that palace on Pennsylvania Avenue would pay attention to.  Heck, attributes I wish the last three residents had.

I agree with you too that I think Roosevelt's intervention policies likely prolonged that recession and turned it into a full fledged depression.  I've wondered myself a sort of "what if" had Congress and the White House simply left well enough alone over the past two years, would America be in the middle of a major recovery right now or not?  My own gut feeling is that the monkeying around with tax rates, increasing regulations, and pouring insane levels of money into the economy (from both congressional actions and actions by the Fed like QE2) are only going to be shooting themselves in the foot.  Talk of hyperinflation certainly has a sound basis of fact.
farmer_boy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 30, 2010, 03:03:45 AM
 #53

Greetings,

I manage the http://earthsociety.org domain and main blog - it is a libertarian anarchist/anarcho-capitalist website on the whole. I'm also, and this is more the relevant part, the forum-master for the digital coin forum - linked from the above portal page. It was set-up with Paul Grignon's consent - Paul being the man behind "Money As Debt" ! & 2.

I've spent a lot of time studying the monetary system and the history and I'm a bit of a coder too, but more of a hack than anything.

I've a strong interest in the development of Bitcoin and I see it as potentially a very good alternative to Paul's Digital Coin concept.

I believe Paul Grignon's system would use a centralized structure, however this does not by any means imply a monopoly. I believe the concept is that there would be many bourses (central trading markets) that would function independently.

Perhaps Bitcoin, has leapfrogged Grignon's idea, however Bitcoin is very dependent on the internet is it not?  While I'm not overly concerned that governments will be able to successfully shutter the internet, it is a valid concern as government's these days are mostly institutions that function as the middle-man between the corporations and the people, or put another way, they are the slavemaster's that serve the ruling class and keep the peasants in chains. Way oversimplified, but, governments are able to do this so successfully as they control a nations money (In actuality the money supply is usually controlled by an unelected ruling class) and through the ability and willingness to coerce people to use the government money.

So, I'm concerned and I think it is reasonable that others are concerned, about the potential for the use of coercion to limit or destroy any monetary system that competes with the monopolist's money system.

If a new system can be both distributed yet can also function in isolation, settling differences when they are able, then it would be much more resistant to attack.

Can Bitcoin function in this manner? How many nodes are needed for it to work, and can it work on a local network?


So, assuming that the above concerns are unwarranted, then I think Bitcoin may function in a manner most similar to Digital Coin's 'PC'.  Digital Coin's 'CC' could then be created at a local level and function with Bitcoin as it would with 'PC'.  


Just my two bits  Grin
Hi,

Good that you dropped by. You cannot have a disconnected network topology with Bitcoin; they would simply be different "virtual commodities". So, you could have the Foocoins, the Barcoins, the Abrahamcoins etc. and you would have exchanges which allow you to exchange between the various "virtual commodities", but it seems rather hard to keep track of so many "virtual commodities", so because of network effects it would be easier if there was just one.

By the time such a system has more than a million users, there are bound to be some mesh radio networking guys in the case we lose the Internet. I think this risk is smaller than the crackdown of a market as you described it. The larger the network is, the harder it is for an attacker to take it over.

I personally don't like that there is an arbitrary limited fixed precision in the Bitcoin sytem, but the author claimed that was not a problem. I think an ideal solution would have this credit coin idea too incorporated in it, but how exactly it is supposed to work? No idea.
RHorning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 104


View Profile
November 30, 2010, 03:25:15 AM
 #54

Perhaps Bitcoin, has leapfrogged Grignon's idea, however Bitcoin is very dependent on the internet is it not?  While I'm not overly concerned that governments will be able to successfully shutter the internet, it is a valid concern as government's these days are mostly institutions that function as the middle-man between the corporations and the people, or put another way, they are the slavemaster's that serve the ruling class and keep the peasants in chains. Way oversimplified, but, governments are able to do this so successfully as they control a nations money (In actuality the money supply is usually controlled by an unelected ruling class) and through the ability and willingness to coerce people to use the government money.

So, I'm concerned and I think it is reasonable that others are concerned, about the potential for the use of coercion to limit or destroy any monetary system that competes with the monopolist's money system.

"The internet" is by design very decentralized and based upon public specifications and frankly a whole bunch of very libertarian concepts that are woven deeply into its structure.  Attempts to legislate behavior on the net is something that has almost always been fraught with extreme difficulty, as evidenced by Wikileaks and other similar projects.  Pirate Bay seems to be a website that just can't die and there has been an organized effort to try.  China has the "Great Firewall" and even that still has so many "leaks" that the Chinese government really can't keep data out of their country in terms of subversive websites like Wikipedia that insist on telling the world what happened in Tiananmen Square... in Chinese of all things too.

The saying goes, "the internet routes around censorship as damage".  I used to think that was a silly notion, but every time I've seen problems and ideas being censored, it only spreads the concepts even further.  Peer to peer networks make that doubly so.

If Hilary Clinton can't keep embarrassing details about the State Department from getting published widely, a few people playing with alternative currencies is going to be ignored.  Besides, to most outside observers what we are doing is using play money acting as if it is real.  Using bitcoins is really no different than using Linden Dollars or gold coins from World of Warcraft or Runescape.  If governments aren't really all that concerned about thousands of dollars being used to buy a "Vorpal Dragon Cleaver with invisibility", Bitcoins and other digital currencies are way, way under the radar even from that at the moment.

BTW, digital currency concepts are almost as old as the internet too, and you can find explicit literature on the topic going back at least 30 years or more.  I need to get copies of some of that simply for ammunition against some idiot who decides to patent some of these concepts, but don't think this is something new and original.  The thing that Satoshi did which is unique is putting it into a peer-to-peer network, which is novel.

The internet is in this sense one of the strengths of Bitcoins, as if it goes away there will be rioting in the streets and perhaps armed insurrection.  It could have been stopped years ago but became too big too fast.  Thank goodness for a bunch of hippies from the Western USA who came up with the concept, and more amazing that anybody else paid attention to what they were doing.  I believe stuff like Bitcoins to be subversive, but in a good way.  It will force dishonest people to become honest, which may get them to stammer and scream and try all kinds of stupid things, but they won't be able to fight it.  The honesty comes because they can't double spend coins or make stuff out of their hind end any more.  Ordinary people will be very ticked off if they can't get their Netflix or Hulu, and Bitcoins is sort of hanging on for the ride at the moment.

Quote from: TylerJordan


If a new system can be both distributed yet can also function in isolation, settling differences when they are able, then it would be much more resistant to attack.

Can Bitcoin function in this manner? How many nodes are needed for it to work, and can it work on a local network?


See this thread for details:  http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1989.0

Yes, Bitcoins can be used in a setting somewhat removed from regular network access.  You may also want to look at this article:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay_tolerant_network

Then again if you want you can also take the current bitcons client and set up your own network of just a few friends and "trusted" associates with a fresh genesis block. I wouldn't recommend it for a number of reasons I won't get into at the moment, but an isolated network from the main grid certainly could use the tools of bitcoins on a separate network for your own purposes.

There are many different options available to both use the concept of Bitcoins for other purposes and to distribute Bitcoins themselves in ways that don't necessarily need to be connected to a network or even a computer for that matter.  Printed Bitcoins have been suggested... again I won't go into details but computers aren't completely necessary here or at least fancy computers.  A $10 MP3 player has sufficient computing power to be able to conduct transactions with Bitcoins and a USB port is all you really need for a connection.

Quote from: TylerJordan

So, assuming that the above concerns are unwarranted, then I think Bitcoin may function in a manner most similar to Digital Coin's 'PC'.  Digital Coin's 'CC' could then be created at a local level and function with Bitcoin as it would with 'PC'.  


It would be treated as a separate currency, subject to an exchange rate where you would need people willing to trade between the currencies.
TylerJordan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58
Merit: 0



View Profile
November 30, 2010, 03:36:21 AM
 #55

Quote
The only reason that I don't go to greater lengths to correct your misunderstandings of economic history is that I grow weary of doing so on online forums without due compensation.  Not just for yourself, as economics is a widely misunderstood subject even among those who consider themselves well educated.  This is something that I've often viewed as strange, considering it's not really a complicated subject to understand from a scientific perspective; but too many try to view it from the macro side and then overcomplicate it.

The contraction of the money supply in that general time period is not what caused the Great Depression.  The contraction of the money supply was the concurrent remedy to the malinvestment that was rampant in the decade that preceded the Great Depression, which was itself caused by excessive expansion of the monetary base by the Federal Reserve banking system from it's conception in 1913 to 1929, but mostly after 1924.  Most of the human suffering during the Great Depression was the direct result of attempts by the US Government to intervene in the natural corrective process of deflation, rather than simply stay out of the way and let the nation take it's hard medicine and move on.  The Great Depression was, largely, a political event as opposed to an economic or fiscal event; and the parallels to the current state of things is striking.  For a wonderful counter example, look at the Panic of 1920, and the similarities and differences in how that was handled by the two administrations.

I think many are blinded by the vast amount of historical material. A close look at the underlying structure however, tells us all we need to know. The details of each boom-bust cycle cannot be fathomed without inside information, to which, we are not privy; however, the larger picture is as crisp and clear as the air of the antarctic.

The FED, like many central banks around the globe, was instituted in order to lend legitimacy to what would otherwise be seen as a completely fraudulent ability to create boom and bust cycles in an economy. Those who control the central bank know in advance what the interest rates are going to do and when such will be applied.  Such information ultimately gives this institution absolute economic power and as absolute power corrupts absolutely, tyranny is the result, and what we have.

Nearly all booms and busts around the world are deliberate acts of theft perpetrated by a small number of ultra-wealthy individuals who see themselves as being above all law. Ongoing (repeated continuous) theft of an individual is enslavement.

Slave owners 'manage' their slaves as they do cattle. Giving them only what they need to live a productive life as a slave and taking everything else. Humans, being more complex than cattle, require a complex arrangement to keep them from panicking and stampeding those they fear.  Hence we have 'socialism'. Socialists governments are the kinder gentler face/proxy of the ruling elite - those who control the money and hence, our lives.

Many other good points on the reality of government here in this short vid, by Stefan Molyneux - "The Story of Your Enslavement": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

Taking control of money is a giant leap of a step for humanity, and one that will not go unnoticed by those who farm us. Therefore we must seek ways and means to get around future obstacles.

 Roll Eyes



TylerJordan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 58
Merit: 0



View Profile
November 30, 2010, 03:45:25 AM
 #56

Thanks for the great follow-ups, I'll check out the links and dig deeper  Cheesy
farmer_boy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 30, 2010, 03:52:16 AM
 #57

Quote
The only reason that I don't go to greater lengths to correct your misunderstandings of economic history is that I grow weary of doing so on online forums without due compensation.  Not just for yourself, as economics is a widely misunderstood subject even among those who consider themselves well educated.  This is something that I've often viewed as strange, considering it's not really a complicated subject to understand from a scientific perspective; but too many try to view it from the macro side and then overcomplicate it.

The contraction of the money supply in that general time period is not what caused the Great Depression.  The contraction of the money supply was the concurrent remedy to the malinvestment that was rampant in the decade that preceded the Great Depression, which was itself caused by excessive expansion of the monetary base by the Federal Reserve banking system from it's conception in 1913 to 1929, but mostly after 1924.  Most of the human suffering during the Great Depression was the direct result of attempts by the US Government to intervene in the natural corrective process of deflation, rather than simply stay out of the way and let the nation take it's hard medicine and move on.  The Great Depression was, largely, a political event as opposed to an economic or fiscal event; and the parallels to the current state of things is striking.  For a wonderful counter example, look at the Panic of 1920, and the similarities and differences in how that was handled by the two administrations.

I think many are blinded by the vast amount of historical material. A close look at the underlying structure however, tells us all we need to know. The details of each boom-bust cycle cannot be fathomed without inside information, to which, we are not privy; however, the larger picture is as crisp and clear as the air of the antarctic.

The FED, like many central banks around the globe, was instituted in order to lend legitimacy to what would otherwise be seen as a
[snip]
So, it was not the US government. There was just a stupid president who was fooled by some international bankers.
tyler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0



View Profile
November 30, 2010, 04:14:38 AM
 #58

So, it was not the US government. There was just a stupid president who was fooled by some international bankers.

If only he was "fooled", i think "controlled" is a better word
farmer_boy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 30, 2010, 04:23:00 AM
 #59

So, it was not the US government. There was just a stupid president who was fooled by some international bankers.

If only he was "fooled", i think "controlled" is a better word
That's the age old malicious vs incompetent question. I am also fine with your choice of words. I don't have information to decide and I think neither do you.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
November 30, 2010, 06:06:37 AM
 #60

The most important feature that the digital coins have is that you never have the "we won't do this project, because there is no money"-problem, which was what happened in 1929. There were workers, people wanting to eat, and factories, but no money.


That's not really what happened in 1929, or 1932.
The banks stopped increasing the money supply, did a few tricks (called back margin loans) on the stock market to make it fall faster and probably shorted the entire economy. What's wrong with that? The end result was that normal people were not able to pay with labour for their living expenses.

The only reason that I don't go to greater lengths to correct your misunderstandings of economic history is that I grow weary of doing so on online forums without due compensation.

I actually don't see much difference between the way you describe it and I do. You label the government as intervening, but AFAIK it was the Federal Reserve which decided to act essentially against the interests of the population. By shorting against the national economy they could get even more money. They do this trick every few decades and are speeding up the process.


The Federal Reserve did what central banks always do, which is manipulate the monetary base to favor a very small minority insider class.  That's not at all special to the Great Depression.  What was different was that Congress & the Executive Branch operated under the (particularly damaging) idea that the markets were something that were 'broken' and could be fixed by the right kind of adjustments.  Some even operated under the (false) assumption that those who managed the Federal Reserve were there to actually help.  There were tariffs imposed upon imports from China (sound familiar?) to protect domestic producers, and programs to destroy livestock in order to support prices.  In the end, however, the will of the market can only be delayed, not avoided outright; so the deflation (the direct result of the destruction of credit outstanding due to defaults, not the deliberate reduction of the monetary base by the Federal Reserve) continued; but the suffering of the public was exacerbated by the misguided attempts by members of the political class to fix a socio-economic problem with political solutions.  In the end, most historians credit WWII with pulling the US out of the depression, but that was just because the political class was largely too busy with the war effort to continue to screw with the economic system.  It is the uncertainty of political intervention that delays a recovery more than anything else, because if investors don't know what claptrap Congress might try to pull next, they tend not to risk their capital.  Political uncertainty adds much risk to the markets, which is part of the reason that most 3rd world nations have real difficulty attracting investments, even when their dictator is known to be particularly friendly to business interests.

Quote
You are free to reference books that claim the government intervened.

I am free to do anything that I wish, including nothing.  It's not a concern of mine if you believe me or learn anything.  In fact, it's better if you don't believe me.  feel free to prove me wrong, if you can, and you will learn vastly more on your own than I could teach you on an online forum; whether you succeed or fail.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 30, 2010, 12:29:53 PM
 #61

That's not capitalism.

Please correct me.  I'm not an economist, but the first line of wikipedia's page on capitalism is: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit."  The keyword being "private profit", not "social profit" or "health profit" or "environmental profit".  Just private profit.

Nope, he was right.  You need to do more research.

Please correct me - because he clearly says that in a FRB system, a bank that issues too much credit (creates too much money) would find it's notes devalued.  However, the current system means that I can take a loan from BigBankA, and deposit it in BigBankB, at a 1:1 ratio, dollar for dollar.  There is no devaluation of BigBankA's dollars even if BigBankA is an irresponsible or reckless lender.  The dollar as a whole *does* devalue a little bit if BigBankA is reckless, but that's *all* dollars, not just those issued by BigBankA.

If you're tired of repeatedly explaining yourself, then by all means link to some (not overly complex, please) websites or pages where my erroneous understanding can be rectified.  Otherwise leave me to wallow in my blissful ignorance!
RHorning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 104


View Profile
November 30, 2010, 02:44:34 PM
 #62

Please correct me - because he clearly says that in a FRB system, a bank that issues too much credit (creates too much money) would find it's notes devalued.  However, the current system means that I can take a loan from BigBankA, and deposit it in BigBankB, at a 1:1 ratio, dollar for dollar.  There is no devaluation of BigBankA's dollars even if BigBankA is an irresponsible or reckless lender.  The dollar as a whole *does* devalue a little bit if BigBankA is reckless, but that's *all* dollars, not just those issued by BigBankA.

If you're tired of repeatedly explaining yourself, then by all means link to some (not overly complex, please) websites or pages where my erroneous understanding can be rectified.  Otherwise leave me to wallow in my blissful ignorance!

The problem with fractional reserve banking is that the ratio isn't 1:1.  Generally it is more 9:1, where the bank has $9 out in loans for every $1 in deposits and investments.  That gets even more bizarre when you think that "BigBankA" makes a loan, it gets deposited into "BigBankB" which in turn gets that 9:1 ratio applied to it for substantially more "growth" where another loan happens with similar fractional requirements and gets multiplied where another loan from "BigBankB" gets depositied back into "BigBankA" for perhaps even more than the original loan.

If this seems confusing, it is.  If the current system maintained a 1:1 ratio between loans and deposits, there would be little need to worry about a bank run or a bank collapsing.  The real issue comes up because of the fractional reserve being loaned out multiple times so it is also in theory possible to completely wipe a bank out by just a few very bad loans.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
November 30, 2010, 04:49:04 PM
 #63


If you're tired of repeatedly explaining yourself, then by all means link to some (not overly complex, please) websites or pages where my erroneous understanding can be rectified.  Otherwise leave me to wallow in my blissful ignorance!

Read books, not websites.  Start with Whatever Happened to Penny Candy by Rich Mayberry and followed by Economics in One Lesson.  Both should be available at the public library.

In the modern world, Capitalism is a political ideology that is separate from it's economic definition, but the US hasn't really honored the political ideology for at least 40 years.  It's just taken this long for the public to begin to realize that something is amiss.  Capitalism, as an economic principle, is a description of economic reality.  It is this definition that Marx understood, and desired to overcome.  When people are free to exchange without interference, there is capitalism, which existed even in the Soviet Union on it's darkest day.  When the society is intentionally set up to encourage this, it is Capitalism.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
tyler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0



View Profile
November 30, 2010, 06:47:57 PM
 #64

Read books, not websites. 

Seriously? Like the information in "books" is any more "real" than "websites" </rant>
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
November 30, 2010, 07:04:38 PM
 #65

Read books, not websites. 

Seriously? Like the information in "books" is any more "real" than "websites" </rant>

+1

google "economics in one lesson" and begin reading in seconds. The whole thing is out there in multiple places. It's much more economical than waiting for the book to arrive.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1005


View Profile
November 30, 2010, 07:47:05 PM
 #66

As I understand it, whether I got this from books or web or whatever, capitalism is a vision of economy based on the possibility of ownership of means of production.

And beyond that, it's also the idea that this property can be divided into shares.  Those shares can be exchanged as any property, and they are used to divide the power of decision concerning the capital, amongst which is the distribution of profits via dividends.

At the end of the day, the debate between communism and capitalism is not an economic one, because economics is not a reliable science.  It's a moral one.  It's whether or not people should be allowed to not care about other people's problems. I, for one, am not enthused by the idea of a world where everyone would be enslaved in order to avoid that anyone is miserable.
Bruce Wagner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 251


View Profile
December 01, 2010, 08:20:46 AM
 #67

Just to follow-up...   That original email that I sent to the "Money as Debt" producers came back to me today, returned to sender.  Apparently, that email address was no good?
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1005


View Profile
December 01, 2010, 11:03:07 AM
 #68

Basically when a banker makes a loan, he does indeed creates money out of nothing but the promess from the borrower to repay this.

I call it "legalized fraud".


Why ?  The creation of money comes both from the borrower AND from the lender.  It's an association.  The borrower gets the money he asked for, and the lender gets the interest, which is the reward for the paperwork and the risk.

At the end of the day, the debate between communism and capitalism is not an economic one, because economics is not a reliable science.  It's a moral one.  It's whether or not people should be allowed to not care about other people's problems. I, for one, am not enthused by the idea of a world where everyone would be enslaved in order to avoid that anyone is miserable.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 01, 2010, 02:17:14 PM
 #69

As I understand it, whether I got this from books or web or whatever, capitalism is a vision of economy based on the possibility of ownership of means of production.

And beyond that, it's also the idea that this property can be divided into shares.  Those shares can be exchanged as any property, and they are used to divide the power of decision concerning the capital, amongst which is the distribution of profits via dividends.


You understand incorrectly.  Capitalism (the economic principle) says nothing at all about the actual ownership of the means of production (i.e. capital) as we understand it in the modern world, but the possession of that capital is central.  In the former Soviet Union, the truck drivers didn't own the trucks, but they did hold possession and were often known to make sidetrips to transport things off the books in exchange for cash (or mafia favors, black market items, etc).  That's capitalism because the important distinction is that who keeps the 'fruits of labor', not who owns the capital.  Capitalism, the political ideology, does say much about ownership, property rights and contract laws.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 01, 2010, 02:20:09 PM
 #70

Basically when a banker makes a loan, he does indeed creates money out of nothing but the promess from the borrower to repay this.

I call it "legalized fraud".


Why ?  The creation of money comes both from the borrower AND from the lender.  It's an association.  The borrower gets the money he asked for, and the lender gets the interest, which is the reward for the paperwork and the risk.


It doesn't matter who is participating in the fraud, or who is taking risks, which banks don't as the past two years should have highlighted.

It's legalized fraud because it was fraud before 1913 when it was legalized.  A pretty straight forward logic, really.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 01, 2010, 02:21:34 PM
 #71

Read books, not websites. 

Seriously? Like the information in "books" is any more "real" than "websites" </rant>

Maybe I'm too old, but I don't know many economic websites.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1010


View Profile
December 01, 2010, 02:24:15 PM
 #72

Read books, not websites. 

Seriously? Like the information in "books" is any more "real" than "websites" </rant>

Maybe I'm too old, but I don't know many economic websites.

http://www.mises.org

fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
December 01, 2010, 02:25:05 PM
 #73

Why ?  The creation of money comes both from the borrower AND from the lender.  It's an association.  The borrower gets the money he asked for, and the lender gets the interest, which is the reward for the paperwork and the risk.

Umm, what risk?  No bank, in principle, will give a loan without full collateral.  Admittedly, things went haywire with the credit and housing crises, but even then, the banks didn't bear the losses.

Seriously? Like the information in "books" is any more "real" than "websites" </rant>

On average, yes.  I'm assuming by "real" you mean "correct".
caveden
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1002



View Profile
December 01, 2010, 02:32:16 PM
 #74

There is nothing fraudulent in fractionate reserves. As long as both parts agree in a contract, there is nothing fraudulent in it.

I've seen some economists, like Walter Block, trying the weirdest arguments in order to frame fractionate reserves as fraud. It looks like those conservatives distorting concepts in order to frame drug commerce as a violation or property rights, or when leftists try to frame prejudice and discrimination as an aggression in order to condemn them. This is just people twisting concepts in order to frame something they don't like.

Is the fractionate reserve system bad? Maybe. It's surely dangerous, at least.
Is it fraudulent or criminal? Not at all.

Of course, do not confuse a fractionate reserve bank in a free market, where it has to pay for the risks it takes, with the current central banking system, where the risks of such dangerous activity are payed by tax victims and currency holders.
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1005


View Profile
December 01, 2010, 02:35:38 PM
 #75

There is nothing fraudulent in fractionate reserves. As long as both parts agree in a contract, there is nothing fraudulent in it.

I've seen some economists, like Walter Block, trying the weirdest arguments in order to frame fractionate reserves as fraud. It looks like those conservatives distorting concepts in order to frame drug commerce as a violation or property rights, or when leftists try to frame prejudice and discrimination as an aggression in order to condemn them. This is just people twisting concepts in order to frame something they don't like.

Is the fractionate reserve system bad? Maybe. It's surely dangerous, at least.
Is it fraudulent or criminal? Not at all.

Of course, do not confuse a fractionate reserve bank in a free market, where it has to pay for the risks it takes, with the current central banking system, where the risks of such dangerous activity are payed by tax victims and currency holders.

+1

At the end of the day, the debate between communism and capitalism is not an economic one, because economics is not a reliable science.  It's a moral one.  It's whether or not people should be allowed to not care about other people's problems. I, for one, am not enthused by the idea of a world where everyone would be enslaved in order to avoid that anyone is miserable.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 01, 2010, 02:36:19 PM
 #76

There is nothing fraudulent in fractionate reserves. As long as both parts agree in a contract, there is nothing fraudulent in it.

Of course, do not confuse a fractionate reserve bank in a free market, where it has to pay for the risks it takes, with the current central banking system, where the risks of such dangerous activity are payed by tax victims and currency holders.

And that is why fractional reserve banking is fraudulent, because it's never just the two parties involved, it's the public that is forced to use the fiat currency that each of these little events affects without the public consent.  And just because there is a law making it legal, does not equate to consent.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
caveden
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1002



View Profile
December 01, 2010, 03:09:12 PM
 #77

But there you're complaining about a different problem, the currency monopoly. Every libertarian agree with you on this point, there shouldn't be such monopoly.
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1005


View Profile
December 01, 2010, 03:14:23 PM
 #78

But there you're complaining about a different problem, the currency monopoly. Every libertarian agree with you on this point, there shouldn't be such monopoly.

I wrote this already on this thread.  FRB is ok as long as it is not enforced and if other systems are not prohibited.

At the end of the day, the debate between communism and capitalism is not an economic one, because economics is not a reliable science.  It's a moral one.  It's whether or not people should be allowed to not care about other people's problems. I, for one, am not enthused by the idea of a world where everyone would be enslaved in order to avoid that anyone is miserable.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 01, 2010, 06:37:57 PM
 #79

But there you're complaining about a different problem, the currency monopoly. Every libertarian agree with you on this point, there shouldn't be such monopoly.

That's true, but they are intertwined.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Bruce Wagner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 251


View Profile
December 01, 2010, 08:22:55 PM
Last edit: December 01, 2010, 08:47:36 PM by brucewagner
 #80

Ok...  I got a reply today.   Smiley

To refresh your memory, I sent the following email to the creator of the film, "Money As Debt II"...

Quote
To: Paul Grignon <pgrignon@island.net>

Hello!

We are discussing your film in the Bitcoin Forum  ( here
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1992.0 )

Are you already familiar with Bitcoin?!?!?

If not, please see  http://BitcoinMe.com for a quick introduction to
what it's all about.

Bitcoin is a FOSS (free open source software) project that is making
huge advances very quickly.   The Bitcoin economy is already over
US$1.3 Million in total value.

We already have a "bounty"  ( sort of a contest, to see who can come
up with the best animated video explaining Bitcoin to everyday
people... with the best video winning the prize pot... currently about
$2,520 ).   See http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.0;all

I think it would be wonderful if you were to create a film explaining
"What is a Bitcoin?"

Also, I've gotta ask...     Toward the end of "Money As Debt II", you
were describing a digital currency enabled through encryption
technology....   Were you already aware, at that time, that Bitcoin
existed... or was about to be invented?

Bruce Wagner
New York City
http://BitcoinMe.com
646-580-0022

Today, I received his reply...

Quote
Hi Bruce

No I did not know about bitcoin when I made Money as Debt II

It sounds like you didn't watch to the end of the credits where I send you to digitalcoin.info

The idea came from the technology being developed at maidsafe.net.

The  inventors, having seen Money as Debt asked me for help explaining their technology. This is the animated movie I made for them (the 12 min. link)

 http://www.paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoonfireStudio/PAGES/PD/Perpetual_Data_homepageFlash.html

They also asked me for ideas how to use it as a completely liberated money system.

Money as Debt II ends by sending the viewer to digitalcoin.info   which is my answer to their question.

I didn't get paid for any of this by the way.  I am not working FOR them.


I was previously invited to enter this contest and declined.

Making it a contest is, from my viewpoint, highly disrespectful of the work it would take to do a good job.

But if someone does have the time to spare you may get what you want.

I am currently busy completing Money as Debt III, Evolution Beyond Money explaining my alternative economy concepts.

It will hopefully be as educationally useful and well-accepted as the first two movies.

By the way there are no "producers'.  Other than the narration I do everything.


Paul

First, I wanted to let Paul Grignon know that we meant no disrespect by calling it a "bounty" or a "contest".

We all just want to honor those who create great works.  We have a desire to scrape together whatever coins we can, to say "Thank You" to those who create such fantastic works.  In fact, I propose that we stop calling these things "a bounty" or "a contest".   We should call it  "an award".   We have created "a new award"... "an award with a prize attached".   Because that's what it really is.  We can also express that "we are seeking nominations" for the award.   That sounds so much more respectful of all the hard work - blood, sweat, and tears - that software developers, film animators, and any other types of content-creators produce... and contribute for the benefit of us all.  The small "prize" we offer is not a purchase price.  It's simply one token of our appreciation for their hard work.  It's a Thank You.

Next, I want everyone here to look at Paul's ideas.   They're very interesting.   Don't just skim over them.  Study them.  His concept of - what he calls "Digital Coin" - encompasses TWO TYPES of digital currency.  One Type, which he calls the "Perpetual Coin", represents "permanent value" (that one sounds like an exact match to Bitcoin - correct me if I'm wrong?).  The Other Type, which he calls a "Credit Coin", represents a form of a "value voucher" that anyone can issue themselves... and spend into circulation... in effect, giving themselves instant credit.  (For example, if I install Linux for people.  I can issue a "Bruce Wagner Consulting 20 BTC Credit Coin".  That coin would be worth 20 BTC worth of my services/products, as they are priced whenever it is redeemed.)  However, he proposes that the actual value of the Credit Coins I issue would vary... based on real-time trading of these Credit Coins on automated markets (think http://MtGox.com).  If demand for my services/products was low, the value (the relative value, as measured in how many "real" BTC people are willing to buy/sell them for) of the "Bruce Wagner Consulting 20 BTC Credit Coins" I issued would be lower.  If demand for my services/products was high, the value (again, the relative value, as measured in how many "real" BTC people are willing to buy/sell them for) of the "Bruce Wagner Consulting 20 BTC Credit Coins" I issued, would be higher.  However, in any case, that Credit Coin would ultimately always be redeemable by ME (the issuer) at 20 BTC WORTH of my services/products (at MY current "real" BTC prices).   He also proposes that these Credit Coins would have a premium value if used (spent at Bruce Wagner Consulting) within a certain timeline (not immediately), and also that they would have a decreasing value over time... ultimately expiring completely.  Thus, "forcing them" to ultimately be "spent" at Bruce Wagner Consulting, not hoarded.

Anyway...

You MUST WATCH this first.  Don't be deceived by the title.  You need to watch this 7 minute video first:   http://www.digitalcoin.info/The_Essence_of_Money.html

Second,  this video translates the concepts of the first video, into the dual coin "Digital Coin" concept.  You must watch this 8 minute video:  http://www.digitalcoin.info/Digital_Coin_Introduction.html

Finally, read this 4 page article... where Paul describes the concept in detail:   http://www.digitalcoin.info/Digital_Coin_in_Brief_07-17-09.pdf

You must see these videos, and read that article, before any of this will really make sense.

For example, NOW I understand what farmer_boy was saying earlier, when he said...

Another money system is described on http://digitalcoin.info (this is what the Money as Debt 2 movie refers to). As with bitcoins, I see no formal specification of how it is supposed to work, but it seems to me to be a better system than bitcoins if you look at the kind of properties one would want to get out of a money system and those that are actually obtained.

Bitcoins are similar to the permanent digital coins type, but have the downside (or upside depending on your role) of having a purely speculative value. The credit coin has no counterpart in the Bitcoin system and as such doesn't perform all functions one would like to get from a money system.

The author of bitcoins has a technical background, but less of an experience in money history (correct me if I am wrong). The designer of the digitalcoin probably has a less technical background, but a firm understanding of money and its history.

The most important feature that the digital coins have is that you never have the "we won't do this project, because there is no money"-problem, which was what happened in 1929. There were workers, people wanting to eat, and factories, but no money.

Initially, it does seem rather complicated to make these kinds of credit coins contract (see the movie), but if one were to label ever product with a number (which already happens for a lot of products (e.g. a soda)), then it wouldn't really be a problem.  

What are your thoughts on digital coin?

P.S.
Is the guy from OpenTransactions also on this forum? It seems he has the broadest technical view as he has implemented a very wide range of systems and documented these on his website.

The overall idea proposed by Paul is a VERY intriguing concept...   And, from my viewpoint, they seem very much in concert with Bitcoin concepts... just an EXPANSION of the Bitcoin idea... from being only about VALUE... into the world of CREDIT...  Self-created credit.  Automatically-adjusted-value credit.  And Interest-Free credit.   Very interesting.  Smiley
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1005


View Profile
December 01, 2010, 08:58:47 PM
Last edit: December 01, 2010, 09:34:58 PM by grondilu
 #81

You MUST WATCH this first.  Don't be deceived by the title.  You need to watch this 7 minute video first:   http://www.digitalcoin.info/The_Essence_of_Money.html

I've just watched this first video.  Nothing new under the sun.

This is privately issued money.  It is a good thing, and it should be more used.  It's based on the trust from the public towards an issuer.  It should be easy to do on internet.  By the way, to some extend, one can consider stock shares to be such a kind of money.

Also, I don't believe hoarding to be a problem.  Especially if the money is divisable enough, as bitcoin is.  But we've discussed about that already in this forum.  Search deflation in topic.

Finally, I find it hard to believe that at the end, he proposes his perpetual coin to be related to the US dollar.  WTF !?

His perpetual coinn obviously has to be bitcoin, or at least a cryptocurrency.

At the end of the day, the debate between communism and capitalism is not an economic one, because economics is not a reliable science.  It's a moral one.  It's whether or not people should be allowed to not care about other people's problems. I, for one, am not enthused by the idea of a world where everyone would be enslaved in order to avoid that anyone is miserable.
farmer_boy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 01, 2010, 09:30:43 PM
 #82

For example, NOW I understand what farmer_boy was saying earlier, when he said...
Good that you took the time to give it another chance.

I am just amazed that one guy build all these movies (and without asking money for it). Very inspiring. I wonder which tools he uses to get all of that done (which I am sure has taken him a decade to learn (as all experts need)). For me that's just magic.
Bruce Wagner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 251


View Profile
December 01, 2010, 11:13:10 PM
 #83

I am just amazed that one guy build all these movies (and without asking money for it). Very inspiring. I wonder which tools he uses to get all of that done (which I am sure has taken him a decade to learn (as all experts need)). For me that's just magic.

I think he lists alot of that information in the credits at the very end of each film.
Bruce Wagner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 251


View Profile
December 02, 2010, 02:08:18 AM
 #84

Continuing my correspondence with Paul Grignon of "Money As Debt II"...  I hope you find it interesting.

Hey says,

Quote
> If I understand BitCoin correctly, it is a secure "digital object" that can
> be transferred directly peer-to-peer.  No accounting by a third party like
> PayPal.  Sounds the same as Digital Coin that far.

Yes, exactly.

Quote
> There the similarity ends.  Perpetual Coin's value for purchase with
> national currencies is to be determined by a convergence formula that will
> make it's trajectory a smooth curve, a new " global money unit" that removes
> the noise of currency volatility to leave a pure signal.  It is not
> free-floating like BitCoin initially.

Yes.  Bitcoin was designed to have a free-flowing value right from the start.  However, this might be considered a "bad" thing or a "good" thing.  One thing's for sure, it easily demonstrates that the overall trendline of the value is always rising.   I think that helps people accept it.   Some people will even think of buying Bitcoin as "an investment"... like buying gold and silver.   If it were to remain at par for the USD, fewer people would be easily enticed into using it.   For example, the Liberty Dollar.   People would have to be sold only on its other merits.   My philosophy is:   It doesn't matter which door they come in through.  What matters is that they are inside now.    It's very important that masses of people accept Bitcoin.... even if the only reason they got into it in the first place was, as a speculative investment.

Quote
> It is also not a single uniform commodity like gold or silver in which the
> value depends on scarcity.

I thought I understood the video to say that the Perpetual Coin would be permanent and created in limited supply.

Quote
>  Credit Coin is a delivery contract for specific
> goods and/or services from a specific promisor, just like a note payable in
> gold or silver was. But in this case it could be a note for anything in
> demand.  Demand for the actual product or service is what gives the Credit
> Coin its value.   It is always honoured in product or service by its Issuer
> at face value.

Yes.  So it appears to me like the Bitcoin *is* the Perpetual Coin.

Another issue that I don't really see addressed anywhere, is this:

It seems like, with the second coin, the Credit Coin....   There would end up being millions and millions of different Coins -- each issued by a different issuer.

This seems horribly complex.   How could any merchant possibly be expected to accept anything more than one or two forms of payment.   I think it would be highly unlikely that they would accept any coins other than coins that have solid value (the Perpetual Coin).... and coins that they issued themselves.   I cannot imagine a merchant being willing to accept even a dozen different "currencies" (in effect) --- Credit Coins issued by any of millions of possible issuers.

It seems to me like the Credit Coin is something that would be traded mostly online... by speculators... and discount seekers.   Like day-traders do today.   And like many people who buy discount coupons online now.   

I can also image a real problem with lack of interest in certain Credit Coins issued by obscure or new or unknown entities....  That lack of interest in trading them (buying and selling them on an exchange), could lead to severely under-priced Credit Coins....   And that could soon result in discouraging people from issuing them in the first place...  when they figure out that they are discounting their products/services far more than they feel is fair.

Quote
Quote
>> (2)   How can we help / participate in your "Money as Debt III" project...? 
> You might not like it as I present a case against the concept of money as a
> single uniform commodity, which gold, silver, fiat cash, bank credit, and
> BitCoin all are.
>
> Nonetheless I like the presentation you have.  This is the time for a
> melting pot of new ideas.   I would say MAD III will probably be more
> radical than anything you have seen proposed before, other than Zeitgeist
> and the Venus Project's  "No money at all" idea.

Wow.  I'm very anxious to see it now.... 

Many concepts sound fantastic.... in theory.... on paper....  But selling normal people, common merchants, etc., on the idea.... I can see that being one of the biggest hurdles.

Bruce
tyler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0



View Profile
December 02, 2010, 02:38:33 AM
 #85

Awesome of you to reach out on behalf of the community Bruce!
RHorning
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 104


View Profile
December 02, 2010, 09:25:31 PM
 #86

This seems horribly complex.   How could any merchant possibly be expected to accept anything more than one or two forms of payment.   I think it would be highly unlikely that they would accept any coins other than coins that have solid value (the Perpetual Coin).... and coins that they issued themselves.   I cannot imagine a merchant being willing to accept even a dozen different "currencies" (in effect) --- Credit Coins issued by any of millions of possible issuers.

It seems to me like the Credit Coin is something that would be traded mostly online... by speculators... and discount seekers.   Like day-traders do today.   And like many people who buy discount coupons online now.   

I can also image a real problem with lack of interest in certain Credit Coins issued by obscure or new or unknown entities....  That lack of interest in trading them (buying and selling them on an exchange), could lead to severely under-priced Credit Coins....   And that could soon result in discouraging people from issuing them in the first place...  when they figure out that they are discounting their products/services far more than they feel is fair.

I think you basically hit upon what the Bitcoin equivalent to these "credit coins" really would be:  Coupons redeemable by a merchant or service provider.  There are some businesses who do recognize coupons of competitors and will even do some funny things like "double coupons" where they double the value of the coupon sent out by a manufacturer.  I could imagine some kind of cryptographic coupon that could be issued by a manufacturer, sent around to different places and perhaps even traded as if it was sort of a form of money only to eventually be "redeemed" by an end consumer who buys a product or service from that business who issued that coupon.

I know that there have been some laws put into place to try and stop "coupon exchanges" and prohibiting merchants from doing the "double coupons" or even having coupons at all.... usually local laws that are trying to "protect the consumer" when in fact they tend to do the opposite and the net effect of such laws tends to make for higher prices that the citizens in those towns have to pay for day to day things they use.

The one thing a smart merchant would do is to put limits or terms upon the coupons... mainly to keep the merchant from going out of business.  A 10% off coupon is pretty reasonable in terms of "advertising" to get somebody to come into a store that has never been there before.  In this sense, a 10 BTC "coupon" that could be certified to be unique might be something worth doing, or even without cryptology or other certification too.  I've seen plenty of merchant coupons that you can print on your home printer and take to a store, simply giving proof that you've seen their website.  It certainly is something that is completely compatible with Bitcoins and IMHO the cryptographic process of Bitcoins actually make coupons of this nature much more attractive for on-line shops where you could produce coupons that couldn't be duplicated.  Traded perhaps, but once they are used it would be pulled out of circulation.  It would also by their nature limit their use, but it could be a form of "money" in some circumstance.

If we can get the Bitcoin banner ad business going, throwing in a promise to get a Bit-coupon provided that the visitor to that website click on the banner ad might be an interesting marketing experiment in its own right.  It sounds like something to at least try out.
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1005


View Profile
December 02, 2010, 09:36:12 PM
 #87

A producer issueing papers redeemable for his future production, isn't that just the definition of a future contract ?

Basically it seems to me that modern finance has already created Grignon's ideas and much beyond...

He just wants to make them available for everyone, which is a good intent.  But I don't get exactly what is his proposal from a technical point of view.


Anyway, I have the feeling that Grignon just can't accept the idea that money can have no intrisic value.  He seems not to like gold for this reason.  And I guess he will not like bitcoin for the same reason.

Some people think that money should be backed by something real, whatever it is.  I totally disagree.  I beleive money is a pure abstract medium of exchange.  If money had intrisic value, we would not use it as money.


At the end of the day, the debate between communism and capitalism is not an economic one, because economics is not a reliable science.  It's a moral one.  It's whether or not people should be allowed to not care about other people's problems. I, for one, am not enthused by the idea of a world where everyone would be enslaved in order to avoid that anyone is miserable.
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
December 03, 2010, 01:07:24 AM
 #88

A producer issueing papers redeemable for his future production, isn't that just the definition of a future contract ?

Basically it seems to me that modern finance has already created Grignon's ideas and much beyond...

He just wants to make them available for everyone, which is a good intent.  But I don't get exactly what is his proposal from a technical point of view.


Anyway, I have the feeling that Grignon just can't accept the idea that money can have no intrisic value.  He seems not to like gold for this reason.  And I guess he will not like bitcoin for the same reason.

Some people think that money should be backed by something real, whatever it is.  I totally disagree.  I beleive money is a pure abstract medium of exchange.  If money had intrisic value, we would not use it as money.



I never thought a "no use value" money could be a good money until bitcoin. If you think about how long people will trade pieces of paper even while governments actively debase them it's amazing. If people get into the habit of bitcoin I think it'll hold for a very long time.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
nanaimogold
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 662
Merit: 251



View Profile
December 09, 2010, 01:26:49 PM
 #89

Paul and narrator Bob Bossin both live in Nanaimo. I have not met Paul but do know Bob personally and can go knock on his door any time.

I suspect these men are put off by promoters of Sodom. We don't ingest phytoestrogens or BPA here.

You know, most people don't care if you are gay, straight or even zoo as long as you close your bedroom door before you fuck.

Wearing your gonads out on your shirtsleeve is bound to put off normal people regardless of your "orientation".

Promotion of perversion is just that, and normal people are repulsed by those who do it.

As far as I can tell, the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of bitcoin is the dirty reputation of our self appointed cheerleader.

Timo Y
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1001


bitcoin - the aerogel of money


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 02:19:57 PM
 #90

As far as I can tell, the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of bitcoin is the dirty reputation of our self appointed cheerleader.

Reputation is subjective.

My guess is that extremist, irrational views based on the naturalistic fallacy, wisdom of repugnance, and argumentum ad populum, are not going to resonate well with the highly educated and rational Bitcoin crowd.

Probably a good idea not escalate this discussion, otherwise you will be the one with the dirty reputation.

GPG ID: FA868D77   bitcoin-otc:forever-d
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1010


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 02:36:05 PM
 #91

As far as I can tell, the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of bitcoin is the dirty reputation of our self appointed cheerleader.
Huh

ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1008


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 02:38:07 PM
 #92

As far as I can tell, the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of bitcoin is the dirty reputation of our self appointed cheerleader.

Well if that really is the biggest obstacle that Bitcoin needs to deal with, its success is assured.
Timo Y
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1001


bitcoin - the aerogel of money


View Profile
December 09, 2010, 02:44:41 PM
Last edit: December 09, 2010, 03:34:44 PM by forever
 #93

As far as I can tell, the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of bitcoin is the dirty reputation of our self appointed cheerleader.
Huh
I suspect he has a problem with the fact that Bruce Wagner is a phytoestrogen-infested New Yorker.  Smiley

GPG ID: FA868D77   bitcoin-otc:forever-d
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 09, 2010, 07:05:43 PM
 #94

I never thought a "no use value" money could be a good money until bitcoin. If you think about how long people will trade pieces of paper even while governments actively debase them it's amazing.

That's only because of habit combined with no working alternative that the public is aware of.

If the pubic becomes generally aware of bitcoin, and a common method of in person transactions is developed, many people will switch in mass, and governments will start to have to deal with the population demanding their wages in bitcoin directly.  I've mentioned before, that I think that the day that I can walk into a Kroger or a Wal-Mart and buy stuff, even if I have to go through a special line to do so, then Bitcoin will already be unstoppable.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
farmer_boy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 10, 2010, 08:57:49 AM
 #95

Paul and narrator Bob Bossin both live in Nanaimo. I have not met Paul but do know Bob personally and can go knock on his door any time.

I suspect these men are put off by promoters of Sodom. We don't ingest phytoestrogens or BPA here.

You know, most people don't care if you are gay, straight or even zoo as long as you close your bedroom door before you fuck.

Wearing your gonads out on your shirtsleeve is bound to put off normal people regardless of your "orientation".

Promotion of perversion is just that, and normal people are repulsed by those who do it.

As far as I can tell, the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of bitcoin is the dirty reputation of our self appointed cheerleader.
What is Sodom? I also had no idea what phytoestrogens or BPA were, but BPA surely seems like a very bad idea according to all kinds of referenced studies (or are they part of yet another conspiracy) Wink

I also think a promotor could better be a someone who is not from a minority group fom a marketing point of view and it should also be someone who picks the communication channels somewhat better. Really, all those advertisements on that show are certainly not mainstream. The only reason those advertisements are in that show is because the target audience is willing to buy that stuff. Since nobody did a scientific study showing that one actually needs those products to live longer (people do still get over 120 years old), there is no reason to buy them.   

I agree mostly with nanaimogold.
sarah331
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 17, 2010, 08:37:37 PM
 #96

I enjoyed this.  I thought it had a lot of good points, and was pretty true on most cases.  On point that it made was that money does not have any value until it is spent.  This is a huge fact that many people forget.  It's a waste to do just sit on your money and do nothing.  It has no value just sitting idle somewhere.  Use it or at least invest in something so that it's actually doing some good.
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
December 17, 2010, 11:40:02 PM
 #97


I also think a promotor could better be a someone who is not from a minority group fom a marketing point of view and it should also be someone who picks the communication channels somewhat better. 
 

It doesn't matter if someone is better everyone who wants to will promote. This isn't an election. Everyone is from some minority group anyway. I'm probably in 6.

I think Bruce is doing great work.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
daniel g
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 28, 2010, 06:31:21 AM
 #98

I've written a reply to this thread, but since it's very long I've posted it in a new thread:
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2492.0

I explain in detail how I think Digital Coin might work and why it should be compatible with Bitcoin.
Bruce Wagner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 251


View Profile
January 07, 2011, 07:31:05 PM
 #99


I also think a promotor could better be a someone who is not from a minority group fom a marketing point of view and it should also be someone who picks the communication channels somewhat better. 
 

It doesn't matter if someone is better everyone who wants to will promote. This isn't an election. Everyone is from some minority group anyway. I'm probably in 6.

I think Bruce is doing great work.

Wow.   See what happens when you start a thread and then get busy and don't check back in until a month later....   Smiley

No one elected me promoter.    I'm just doing what I feel compelled to do.    If you don't like it:

(1)   Ignore me.
(2)   Make yourself a promoter.

It's true that everyone is in at least a few minorities.    And if that's so important to you, then become THE promoter yourself.    I'd be willing to bet that nanaimogold is in more minorities than I am.    But who the h*ll cares.    I really thought this was 2011.    Get with it, and get over it.   I'm gay.    If you don't like it, don't marry me.
just a man
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 100


Partner of UBER GRAB GOCAR


View Profile
January 08, 2011, 07:29:06 PM
 #100

Paul and narrator Bob Bossin both live in Nanaimo. I have not met Paul but do know Bob personally and can go knock on his door any time.

I suspect these men are put off by promoters of Sodom. We don't ingest phytoestrogens or BPA here.

You know, most people don't care if you are gay, straight or even zoo as long as you close your bedroom door before you fuck.

Wearing your gonads out on your shirtsleeve is bound to put off normal people regardless of your "orientation".

Promotion of perversion is just that, and normal people are repulsed by those who do it.

As far as I can tell, the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of bitcoin is the dirty reputation of our self appointed cheerleader.

Wow. What an absolute tosser.

nanaimogold
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 662
Merit: 251



View Profile
January 08, 2011, 10:00:32 PM
 #101


I also think a promotor could better be a someone who is not from a minority group fom a marketing point of view and it should also be someone who picks the communication channels somewhat better. 
 

It doesn't matter if someone is better everyone who wants to will promote. This isn't an election. Everyone is from some minority group anyway. I'm probably in 6.

I think Bruce is doing great work.

Wow.   See what happens when you start a thread and then get busy and don't check back in until a month later....   Smiley

No one elected me promoter.    I'm just doing what I feel compelled to do.    If you don't like it:

(1)   Ignore me.
(2)   Make yourself a promoter.

It's true that everyone is in at least a few minorities.    And if that's so important to you, then become THE promoter yourself.    I'd be willing to bet that nanaimogold is in more minorities than I am.    But who the h*ll cares.    I really thought this was 2011.    Get with it, and get over it.   I'm gay.    If you don't like it, don't marry me.

You clearly have a comprehension problem.

The goal is to disassociate our commerce from the Federal Reserve. You do all you can to make Bitcoin an extension of the US dollar. Talk about unclear on the concept.

You publicize a business that operates in only one country as "global" while on the same page describe a truly global service as "local".

I criticize your lack of public decency and your airing of private issues in public and you fail to understand that too.

My observation has nothing to do with "minorities". It has nothing to do with what year this is nor who I chose to marry.

It's your lack of moral decency and inappropriate public airing of your private junk and the association with my work that troubles me.

Decent people keep their junk in the closet; they don't define themselves by their peccadillos nor do they parade their embarrassing abnormalities for all to see.

I imagine all the people who punched your name into Google and got goatse'd after hearing that lame interview you gave on radio.

You do not speak for me.

Bruce Wagner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 251


View Profile
January 10, 2011, 09:48:00 PM
 #102

You do not speak for me.

Ditto.   Smiley
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1003


View Profile
January 19, 2011, 08:08:13 PM
 #103

No one elected me promoter.

http://twitter.com/brucewagner/statuses/27802000846495744

Unichange.me

            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █


kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1010


View Profile
January 19, 2011, 11:49:57 PM
 #104

This statement doesn't prove that brucewagner considered himself, "elected."

kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1010


View Profile
January 19, 2011, 11:59:41 PM
 #105

Decent people keep their junk in the closet; they don't define themselves by their peccadillos nor do they parade their embarrassing abnormalities for all to see.

Stop cloaking your personal attack of Bruce Wagner in sexual euphemisms. It's disrespectful and embarrassing for community members to attack others' sexual orientation.

Sultan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 214
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 01:05:25 AM
 #106

I don't understand where the hostility is from. I listened to the appearance on the One Radio or whatever it's called, and I liked it. It made me download the client.

http://images.onbux.com/banner.gif
I then use the money to buy BitCoins. You can too!
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 03:02:47 AM
 #107

I'm a bit more then just a socialist and I know bitcoin is a step towards getting away from government/corporation authority and control. After that it will help move into a classless society and possibly money will be abolished altogether.

Is it just me, or is there something not quite right with someone who is "more than a socialist" but yet wants to eliminate or reduce government?  Bitcoin is a pure capitalist system, and, honestly, the past N years of capitalism don't seemed to have worked out so great for society - witness A) the BP oil spill and countless other environmental disasters, B) the continuously widening gap between rich & poor right throughout all western (& other) society.  Are you sure, bober182, that you're not a closet anarchist?


I'm enjoying this thread - much of it has been discussed before (see https://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=376.0).  There is an important point which I think many people are missing.  As some of you have pointed out, bitcoins only have value if you spend them.  There is no point in hoarding 99% of all bitcoins.  However, if you become "The Bitcoin Bank" and lend at interest, then as "Money as Debt" says, you will continue accumulating more and more bitcoins.  As people pay you back, you'll naturally have to find a way to spend them, or loan them again.  BUT, when people can't pay you back, you get to repossess their physical property.  This is why interest can't really work.  Interest does nothing other than increase the wealth of the wealthy, at the expense of those in poverty.  And *that's* the clincher - bitcoins have value only insofar as they can help you obtain property.  But if you can get the property another way, well, then bitcoins just become a tool.

Now, if you can *inflate* your currency, or tax it, then maybe you can mitigate the accumulation, at least until the wealthy people become so powerful as to dictate tax & inflation policy to the policy-makers.

Anarchism has been a socialist movement longer than it has been a capitalist one.  There is no contradiction in being a socialist and also against government.

I think you may be conflating socialist and authoritarian, and the two are not the same.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 03:26:03 AM
 #108

Ok...  I got a reply today.   Smiley

To refresh your memory, I sent the following email to the creator of the film, "Money As Debt II"...

Quote
To: Paul Grignon <pgrignon@island.net>

Hello!

We are discussing your film in the Bitcoin Forum  ( here
http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1992.0 )

Are you already familiar with Bitcoin?!?!?

If not, please see  http://BitcoinMe.com for a quick introduction to
what it's all about.

Bitcoin is a FOSS (free open source software) project that is making
huge advances very quickly.   The Bitcoin economy is already over
US$1.3 Million in total value.

We already have a "bounty"  ( sort of a contest, to see who can come
up with the best animated video explaining Bitcoin to everyday
people... with the best video winning the prize pot... currently about
$2,520 ).   See http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.0;all

I think it would be wonderful if you were to create a film explaining
"What is a Bitcoin?"

Also, I've gotta ask...     Toward the end of "Money As Debt II", you
were describing a digital currency enabled through encryption
technology....   Were you already aware, at that time, that Bitcoin
existed... or was about to be invented?

Bruce Wagner
New York City
http://BitcoinMe.com
646-580-0022 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              646-580-0022      end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Today, I received his reply...

Quote
Hi Bruce

No I did not know about bitcoin when I made Money as Debt II

It sounds like you didn't watch to the end of the credits where I send you to digitalcoin.info

The idea came from the technology being developed at maidsafe.net.

The  inventors, having seen Money as Debt asked me for help explaining their technology. This is the animated movie I made for them (the 12 min. link)

 http://www.paulgrignon.netfirms.com/MoonfireStudio/PAGES/PD/Perpetual_Data_homepageFlash.html

They also asked me for ideas how to use it as a completely liberated money system.

Money as Debt II ends by sending the viewer to digitalcoin.info   which is my answer to their question.

I didn't get paid for any of this by the way.  I am not working FOR them.


I was previously invited to enter this contest and declined.

Making it a contest is, from my viewpoint, highly disrespectful of the work it would take to do a good job.

But if someone does have the time to spare you may get what you want.

I am currently busy completing Money as Debt III, Evolution Beyond Money explaining my alternative economy concepts.

It will hopefully be as educationally useful and well-accepted as the first two movies.

By the way there are no "producers'.  Other than the narration I do everything.


Paul

First, I wanted to let Paul Grignon know that we meant no disrespect by calling it a "bounty" or a "contest".

We all just want to honor those who create great works.  We have a desire to scrape together whatever coins we can, to say "Thank You" to those who create such fantastic works.  In fact, I propose that we stop calling these things "a bounty" or "a contest".   We should call it  "an award".   We have created "a new award"... "an award with a prize attached".   Because that's what it really is.  We can also express that "we are seeking nominations" for the award.   That sounds so much more respectful of all the hard work - blood, sweat, and tears - that software developers, film animators, and any other types of content-creators produce... and contribute for the benefit of us all.  The small "prize" we offer is not a purchase price.  It's simply one token of our appreciation for their hard work.  It's a Thank You.

Next, I want everyone here to look at Paul's ideas.   They're very interesting.   Don't just skim over them.  Study them.  His concept of - what he calls "Digital Coin" - encompasses TWO TYPES of digital currency.  One Type, which he calls the "Perpetual Coin", represents "permanent value" (that one sounds like an exact match to Bitcoin - correct me if I'm wrong?).  The Other Type, which he calls a "Credit Coin", represents a form of a "value voucher" that anyone can issue themselves... and spend into circulation... in effect, giving themselves instant credit.  (For example, if I install Linux for people.  I can issue a "Bruce Wagner Consulting 20 BTC Credit Coin".  That coin would be worth 20 BTC worth of my services/products, as they are priced whenever it is redeemed.)  However, he proposes that the actual value of the Credit Coins I issue would vary... based on real-time trading of these Credit Coins on automated markets (think http://MtGox.com).  If demand for my services/products was low, the value (the relative value, as measured in how many "real" BTC people are willing to buy/sell them for) of the "Bruce Wagner Consulting 20 BTC Credit Coins" I issued would be lower.  If demand for my services/products was high, the value (again, the relative value, as measured in how many "real" BTC people are willing to buy/sell them for) of the "Bruce Wagner Consulting 20 BTC Credit Coins" I issued, would be higher.  However, in any case, that Credit Coin would ultimately always be redeemable by ME (the issuer) at 20 BTC WORTH of my services/products (at MY current "real" BTC prices).   He also proposes that these Credit Coins would have a premium value if used (spent at Bruce Wagner Consulting) within a certain timeline (not immediately), and also that they would have a decreasing value over time... ultimately expiring completely.  Thus, "forcing them" to ultimately be "spent" at Bruce Wagner Consulting, not hoarded.

Anyway...

You MUST WATCH this first.  Don't be deceived by the title.  You need to watch this 7 minute video first:   http://www.digitalcoin.info/The_Essence_of_Money.html

Second,  this video translates the concepts of the first video, into the dual coin "Digital Coin" concept.  You must watch this 8 minute video:  http://www.digitalcoin.info/Digital_Coin_Introduction.html

Finally, read this 4 page article... where Paul describes the concept in detail:   http://www.digitalcoin.info/Digital_Coin_in_Brief_07-17-09.pdf

You must see these videos, and read that article, before any of this will really make sense.

For example, NOW I understand what farmer_boy was saying earlier, when he said...

Another money system is described on http://digitalcoin.info (this is what the Money as Debt 2 movie refers to). As with bitcoins, I see no formal specification of how it is supposed to work, but it seems to me to be a better system than bitcoins if you look at the kind of properties one would want to get out of a money system and those that are actually obtained.

Bitcoins are similar to the permanent digital coins type, but have the downside (or upside depending on your role) of having a purely speculative value. The credit coin has no counterpart in the Bitcoin system and as such doesn't perform all functions one would like to get from a money system.

The author of bitcoins has a technical background, but less of an experience in money history (correct me if I am wrong). The designer of the digitalcoin probably has a less technical background, but a firm understanding of money and its history.

The most important feature that the digital coins have is that you never have the "we won't do this project, because there is no money"-problem, which was what happened in 1929. There were workers, people wanting to eat, and factories, but no money.

Initially, it does seem rather complicated to make these kinds of credit coins contract (see the movie), but if one were to label ever product with a number (which already happens for a lot of products (e.g. a soda)), then it wouldn't really be a problem.  

What are your thoughts on digital coin?

P.S.
Is the guy from OpenTransactions also on this forum? It seems he has the broadest technical view as he has implemented a very wide range of systems and documented these on his website.

The overall idea proposed by Paul is a VERY intriguing concept...   And, from my viewpoint, they seem very much in concert with Bitcoin concepts... just an EXPANSION of the Bitcoin idea... from being only about VALUE... into the world of CREDIT...  Self-created credit.  Automatically-adjusted-value credit.  And Interest-Free credit.   Very interesting.  Smiley


Credit coins are a popular idea on alternative money sites.

The usual set up is slightly different than what you are putting forth though, rather than 20 BTC of your services they are worth a time increment of your time.  This would allow for them to be worth more than 20 btc, whereas only a fool would pay more than 20btc for a voucher that can only be redeemed for 20btc worth of services.  if it is worth an hour however it could be worth 20btc now, and considerably more in the future as you become more recognized or more trained.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 03:30:08 AM
 #109

Paul and narrator Bob Bossin both live in Nanaimo. I have not met Paul but do know Bob personally and can go knock on his door any time.

I suspect these men are put off by promoters of Sodom. We don't ingest phytoestrogens or BPA here.

You know, most people don't care if you are gay, straight or even zoo as long as you close your bedroom door before you fuck.

Wearing your gonads out on your shirtsleeve is bound to put off normal people regardless of your "orientation".

Promotion of perversion is just that, and normal people are repulsed by those who do it.

As far as I can tell, the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of bitcoin is the dirty reputation of our self appointed cheerleader.

Having prudes in our more prominent voices is likely to hurt us just as much if not more.

Now I do expect Bruce, or anyone else, to keep actual sex behind the bedroom doors.  I wouldn't want to be associated with someone foolish enough to do it in the road.  On the other hand bringing your spouse or lover with you to a dinner, business meeting, or public event is not only normal it is expected.  Whether that person is the same gender as you, a different gender, or is even more than one person is not something that needs to be judged by anyone else. 

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 03:33:35 AM
 #110

Decent people keep their junk in the closet; they don't define themselves by their peccadillos nor do they parade their embarrassing abnormalities for all to see.

Stop cloaking your personal attack of Bruce Wagner in sexual euphemisms. It's disrespectful and embarrassing for community members to attack others' sexual orientation.

I am glad that he has done so.  I had considered dealing with nanimogold and the fact that he has been clear about his on prejudice allows me to make an informed business decision not to do so.

I hope he and any other homophobes, racists, sexists etc continue to spout their hatred so that I will know who I do not wish to enter into dealings with.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
just a man
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 100


Partner of UBER GRAB GOCAR


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 02:35:03 PM
 #111

Decent people keep their junk in the closet; they don't define themselves by their peccadillos nor do they parade their embarrassing abnormalities for all to see.

Stop cloaking your personal attack of Bruce Wagner in sexual euphemisms. It's disrespectful and embarrassing for community members to attack others' sexual orientation.

I am glad that he has done so.  I had considered dealing with nanimogold and the fact that he has been clear about his on prejudice allows me to make an informed business decision not to do so.

I hope he and any other homophobes, racists, sexists etc continue to spout their hatred so that I will know who I do not wish to enter into dealings with.

Bravo, completely agree.

I found nanimogol posts off-putting and offensive, almost turning me off bitcoin completely, no matter how good an idea it may be I wouldn't want to involve myself in something where racists and homophobes were so deeply involved. after more reading of the forum I got the impression that nanimogol is an aberration, which is a relief.

I can just about tolerate Libertarians ("Collectivist?" here in Europe we call it a "Society" fer chrissakes, lol), but Stormcunts are a step too far.


kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1010


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 03:20:57 PM
 #112


Come on.  Isn't that hate about homophobism just as hateful as homophobism itself ?

Even if naimogold doesn't like gay people.  So what ?  Nobody's perfect.

Nobody's perfect, indeed. However, homophobism(and especially communication of homophobism) simply cross the line.

Quote

I don't like gay people either.  I kind of despise them.  Beat me.


As long as gay people don't ask hetrosexual males like me out on date, I don't care.

kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1010


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 03:43:05 PM
 #113

As long as gay people don't ask hetrosexual males like me out on date, I don't care.

But what would you think of someone who, everytime he meets someone, says something like :

"Hi, my name is Bob, and I like to eat my shit."

And what would you think if this person manages to remind us this aspect of his personnality, in every conversation we have ?


Hmm. Eating his shirt? Is that guy supposed to be funny or something. Of course, I would be rather annoyed if he keep reminding me that he eat his shirt.

You know what? I eat balut. It's the kind of Asian delicacy that disgust Westerners.

grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1005


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 03:45:45 PM
 #114

As long as gay people don't ask hetrosexual males like me out on date, I don't care.

But what would you think of someone who, everytime he meets someone, says something like :

"Hi, my name is Bob, and I like to eat my shit."

And what would you think if this person manages to remind us this aspect of his personnality, in every conversation we have ?


Hmm. Eating his shirt? Is that guy supposed to be funny or something. Of course, I would be rather annoyed if he keep reminding me that he eat his shirt.

You know what? I eat balut. It's the kind of Asian delicacy that disgust Westerners.

Pff.  I shouldn't have written that anyway.  I don't want to make any ennemies on this forum.  It's pointless.

At the end of the day, the debate between communism and capitalism is not an economic one, because economics is not a reliable science.  It's a moral one.  It's whether or not people should be allowed to not care about other people's problems. I, for one, am not enthused by the idea of a world where everyone would be enslaved in order to avoid that anyone is miserable.
ElectricGoat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
January 20, 2011, 04:03:35 PM
 #115

Come on.  Isn't that hate about homophobism just as hateful as homophobism itself ?

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not so much hating homophobs as avoiding contact with them and pretending that they don't exist. If the hater shouts in a forest and no one is around to hear him, does he make any sound ?
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
January 20, 2011, 04:38:00 PM
 #116


Come on.  Isn't that hate about homophobism just as hateful as homophobism itself ?

Even if naimogold doesn't like gay people.  So what ?  Nobody's perfect.

Nobody's perfect, indeed. However, homophobism(and especially communication of homophobism) simply cross the line.


How is it any better or worse than any other form of prejudice?  Don't take the high road here, everyone has their cultural taboos.  I didn't say anything about this part of this thread, because I know that I have my own.  In this case, I agree with both sides to some degree.  I have no problem with Bruce's lifestyle, provided that I'm not exposed to it.  However, as Namigold has already pointed out, in his first interview Bruce kinda shared a bit too much.  He was also somewhat led there as well.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1010


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 05:03:40 PM
 #117

How is it any better or worse than any other form of prejudice?  Don't take the high road here, everyone has their cultural taboos.  I didn't say anything about this part of this thread, because I know that I have my own. 

I suspect the only thing you'll be seeing from me is "WOAH! That's taboo" or just being a little jumpy.

However, as long it is an voluntary act, I can't do anything about it.

Now, I may not be the world's most consistent ethical actor...so I expect others to keep me in line when I got out of hand.

Yesterday, somebody resort to personal attacks. Discipline is on the menu.

Anonymous
Guest

January 20, 2011, 05:31:17 PM
 #118

Those who are most outspoken about gay individuals likely are closeted themselves.

Something worth thinking about.
just a man
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 100


Partner of UBER GRAB GOCAR


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 06:20:10 PM
 #119

As long as gay people don't ask hetrosexual males like me out on date, I don't care.

But what would you think of someone who, everytime he meets someone, says something like :

"Hi, my name is Bob, and I like to eat my shit."

And what would you think if this person manages to remind us this aspect of his personnality, in every conversation we have ?


Hmm. Eating his shirt? Is that guy supposed to be funny or something. Of course, I would be rather annoyed if he keep reminding me that he eat his shirt.

You know what? I eat balut. It's the kind of Asian delicacy that disgust Westerners.

Pff.  I shouldn't have written that anyway.  I don't want to make any ennemies on this forum.  It's pointless.


You are right, I hereby apologize for what I said about Libertarians. Though their opinions are a bit twattish in my opinion that doesn't make them bad people. The main thing is they're not out to oppress anyone. For the most part Libertarians can handle the idea of there being people in the world that are different from themselves, and that's a good thing.

I save my hatred and despising for the sadists and the rapists, for the thieves and abusers, the tyrants and the murderers.

Hatred is precious and I don't like to see it flaunted and wasted on the undeserving.

MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
January 20, 2011, 08:33:08 PM
 #120

How is it any better or worse than any other form of prejudice?  Don't take the high road here, everyone has their cultural taboos.  I didn't say anything about this part of this thread, because I know that I have my own. 

I suspect the only thing you'll be seeing from me is "WOAH! That's taboo" or just being a little jumpy.


One can assume that homosexuality is a taboo subject to anyone that could reasonably be considered a homophobe.  It's not taboo to myself, and likely not yourself; but I would wager that neither of us would seek it out, either.

My point was that everyone has something that is taboo/offensive to themselves, whether it's due to their upbringing, culture or personal issues.  I am not an exception whether I could prevent others from engaging in my taboos or not.  I would be willing to wager that you are not an exception either, if I could disprove a negative without your participation.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 08:49:47 PM
 #121


Come on.  Isn't that hate about homophobism just as hateful as homophobism itself ?

Even if naimogold doesn't like gay people.  So what ?  Nobody's perfect.

Nobody's perfect, indeed. However, homophobism(and especially communication of homophobism) simply cross the line.

Quote

I don't like gay people either.  I kind of despise them.  Beat me.


As long as gay people don't ask hetrosexual males like me out on date, I don't care.

They've asked me out before.  I politely say "no thanks, I'm straight" and consider it flattering.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 08:52:00 PM
 #122


Come on.  Isn't that hate about homophobism just as hateful as homophobism itself ?

Even if naimogold doesn't like gay people.  So what ?  Nobody's perfect.

Nobody's perfect, indeed. However, homophobism(and especially communication of homophobism) simply cross the line.


How is it any better or worse than any other form of prejudice?  Don't take the high road here, everyone has their cultural taboos.  I didn't say anything about this part of this thread, because I know that I have my own.  In this case, I agree with both sides to some degree.  I have no problem with Bruce's lifestyle, provided that I'm not exposed to it.  However, as Namigold has already pointed out, in his first interview Bruce kinda shared a bit too much.  He was also somewhat led there as well.

Some sorts of hate are better than others because they are based on a more valid basis.  I hate nazis, because Nazis will kill me if they get the chance (I am part Gypsy)  I hate homophobes because they will cause trouble for friends of mine. 

So yes, I would say some sorts of prejudice are better than others.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1010


View Profile
January 20, 2011, 09:46:46 PM
 #123

They've asked me out before.  I politely say "no thanks, I'm straight" and consider it flattering.

Plausible scenario.

MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1001



View Profile
January 20, 2011, 09:53:56 PM
 #124


Come on.  Isn't that hate about homophobism just as hateful as homophobism itself ?

Even if naimogold doesn't like gay people.  So what ?  Nobody's perfect.

Nobody's perfect, indeed. However, homophobism(and especially communication of homophobism) simply cross the line.


How is it any better or worse than any other form of prejudice?  Don't take the high road here, everyone has their cultural taboos.  I didn't say anything about this part of this thread, because I know that I have my own.  In this case, I agree with both sides to some degree.  I have no problem with Bruce's lifestyle, provided that I'm not exposed to it.  However, as Namigold has already pointed out, in his first interview Bruce kinda shared a bit too much.  He was also somewhat led there as well.

Some sorts of hate are better than others because they are based on a more valid basis.  I hate nazis, because Nazis will kill me if they get the chance (I am part Gypsy)  I hate homophobes because they will cause trouble for friends of mine. 

So yes, I would say some sorts of prejudice are better than others.

That only applied from your own frame of reference.  Self-preservation is a logical basis for ranking prejudices, and such prejudices help keep us safe.  But I don't hate nazi's for the same reasons.  I am both part Native American and part European Jew, but you would have been hard pressed to tell by looking at me.  Beyond your self-framed references, your personal taboos have no basis in a larger society.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1005


View Profile
January 21, 2011, 04:16:19 AM
 #125

I seriously doubt that homophobes want to kill all gay people, as nazies wanted to eradicate jews.

But this is a useless debate.  It brings nothing but anger.  We have much more interesting things to talk about on this forum.  Or at least people who want to continue this should go in "off-topic".

At the end of the day, the debate between communism and capitalism is not an economic one, because economics is not a reliable science.  It's a moral one.  It's whether or not people should be allowed to not care about other people's problems. I, for one, am not enthused by the idea of a world where everyone would be enslaved in order to avoid that anyone is miserable.
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1042


View Profile
January 21, 2011, 04:50:37 AM
Last edit: January 21, 2011, 05:09:08 AM by genjix
 #126

Paul and narrator Bob Bossin both live in Nanaimo. I have not met Paul but do know Bob personally and can go knock on his door any time.

I suspect these men are put off by promoters of Sodom. We don't ingest phytoestrogens or BPA here.

You know, most people don't care if you are gay, straight or even zoo as long as you close your bedroom door before you fuck.

Wearing your gonads out on your shirtsleeve is bound to put off normal people regardless of your "orientation".

Promotion of perversion is just that, and normal people are repulsed by those who do it.

As far as I can tell, the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of bitcoin is the dirty reputation of our self appointed cheerleader.

was u raped by a black dude you rascist closet homo

lol some of your other quotes are gold. i should dig them up for everyone.

As long as gay people don't ask hetrosexual males like me out on date, I don't care.

You should be extremely flattered. when it happens to me i get a massive confidence boost from being attractive and think im casanova. gay people and girls like the same dudes
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1042


View Profile
January 21, 2011, 04:51:58 AM
 #127

Here's some money Grin

The promotion of miscegenation and the homosexual agenda and other moral corrosives, along with widespread poisoning by flouride and phyto-estrogens is a calculated assault committed by the master racists.

The result is partially illustrated here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBhersb5l40&feature=related

Consider the quality of the people who lived in the USA only three generations ago.

I remember my grandfather grousing about the world going to hell. I was lead to believe that was a complaint typically made by old men. Since then I have seen the foundation of civilisation reduced to a rot far worse than my grandfather could imagine. Obviously there was a time when civilisation was improving, not desolving.

This was not a natural progression, it has been a calculated plan. Some say an ancient plan, other say the conspiracy was hatch about 100 years ago.

This 4+ hr documentary was produced in Nanaimo by a filmaker who prefers I don't mention her name online;
http://www.google.ca/search?q=ring+of+power&tbo=p&tbs=vid%3A1&source=vgc&hl=en&aq=f

I think you will find it enlightening.

QuantumMechanic
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 110
Merit: 19


View Profile
January 21, 2011, 05:07:02 AM
 #128

lol, this thread is awesome
ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1008


View Profile
January 21, 2011, 12:28:53 PM
 #129

I think it's healthy for people to express their bigotry freely. It's healthy for the individuals concerned, and healthy for society as a whole, to have all this stuff aired.

But...

Quote from: nanaimogold
Wearing your gonads out on your shirtsleeve is bound to put off normal people

Nanaimogold is wearing his hetero-gonads far more prominently than Bruce wore his gay-gonads, therefore nanaimogold should not be surprised that, by his own explanation, so many people were "put off".
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!