|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to get the maximum amount of activity points possible, you just need to post once per day on average. Skipping days is OK as long as you maintain the average.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Madhatter
|
 |
November 28, 2010, 10:51:56 PM |
|
Yes.
Have you seen the sequel? "Money as Debt II"? It's even better, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
farmer_boy
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
November 28, 2010, 11:25:49 PM |
|
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
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1076
|
|
November 28, 2010, 11:48:10 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce Wagner (OP)
|
|
November 28, 2010, 11:51:33 PM |
|
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
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1076
|
|
November 29, 2010, 12:07:11 AM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
farmer_boy
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
November 29, 2010, 12:48:43 AM |
|
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
|
|
November 29, 2010, 12:56:23 AM |
|
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
Activity: 980
Merit: 1014
|
|
November 29, 2010, 01:00:48 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1652
Merit: 2216
Chief Scientist
|
|
November 29, 2010, 01:12:42 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014
Strength in numbers
|
|
November 29, 2010, 01:42:25 AM |
|
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
Activity: 202
Merit: 109
GCC - Global cryptocurrency
|
|
November 29, 2010, 01:46:33 AM |
|
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
|
|
November 29, 2010, 01:48:41 AM |
|
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
|
|
November 29, 2010, 01:49:49 AM |
|
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
|
|
November 29, 2010, 01:53:12 AM |
|
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
|
|
November 29, 2010, 01:55:35 AM |
|
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
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014
Strength in numbers
|
|
November 29, 2010, 02:01:23 AM |
|
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
|
|
November 29, 2010, 02:08:51 AM |
|
It should be called the "cancel your promises like we always do" deal or something.
Hahaha! I just spilt my coffee! Hahahahaha  |
|
|
|
|
QuantumMechanic
Member
Offline
Activity: 110
Merit: 19
|
|
November 29, 2010, 02:19:21 AM |
|
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 (OP)
|
|
November 29, 2010, 02:23:10 AM |
|
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!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
