Bitcoin Forum
August 01, 2015, 11:50:04 AM *
News: New! Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.11.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Altcoin - the alternative cryptocurrency?  (Read 8694 times)
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


Beyond Imagination


View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2011, 12:39:37 PM
 #61

In the current system, banks provide credit and came to treat debt as money, but they do not increase the monetary base. Ironically, if the banks did print their own money, the ongoing financial crisis probably wouldn't be as pronounced although other issues would arise.

I would agree that speculation on expanding economic development can be categorized as demand. The question is whether we're talking about a hypothetical system such as one predominantly based on Alt/Bitcoin or the current system.

In the current system, speculation builds on itself because there are no consequences for being wrong if the speculator is a major player or otherwise in a position to be bailed out. In a Bitcoin-based system, there is no way to manipulate the monetary base, so a speculator who is wrong will have to take his losses.

I think this post better move to economics subcategory  Smiley

In my understanding, only commercial banks treat debt as money, the central bank has to produce money to facilitate the trading

In old time, it was gold production, and today printing paper money/digital money with the amount matching the GDP growth. Like gold belongs to gold miner, the printed money also belongs to central bank. Although the central bank create money supply to buy the government bond, but without having the ownership of those printed money, they can not do this through an accountable way

Of course they do not need these money for private usage, but they are issentially like a bitcoin miner who provide the market with liquidity. They are more flexible than a bitcoin miner since the amount of money they can provide at any time (to keep price stable)  will not be limited by difficulty/electricity/hashing power etc... So their effort is moved from creating money and more focused on watching the money flow in the whole society

Anyway, the FED just feels like "the biggest end customer" in today's financial system. If he spend, everyone start to make money, if he  save, everyone feel the pain. If he spend too fast(easing), that will cause inflation; if he spend too slow(tightening), there will be deflation and recession; it's really an art to be a FED chairman

In the bitcoin world, same thing happens, but we all know this "biggest end customer" only have limited amount of bitcoin (he is not very rich), so we might not want to do big business with him  Grin 








1438429804
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1438429804

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1438429804
Reply with quote  #2

1438429804
Report to moderator
COINROYALE BITCOIN CASINO GET UP TO 1 BTC FREE Use Code: FORUM100 PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1438429804
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1438429804

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1438429804
Reply with quote  #2

1438429804
Report to moderator
iopq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2011, 12:50:53 PM
 #62

Bitcoin may easily die after the last 6.25 block (or whatever the number is)

here's the scenario: a bunch of miners are trying to get that last block because bitcoins are worth $100 each
the difficulty is around 5M, but with electricity prices at 30 cents per kilowatt hour so it's still worth it

now the last block is mined, a couple of people don't notice and mine the next block too... a couple of hours later the network slows down a lot and the difficulty takes a long time to adjust
however, before it is adjusted, the transfer fees are like 0.5BTC and not worth mining
the difficulty doesn't update because no one is mining blocks
transactions are halted, nobody can move their bitcoins out
BTC value crashes as everyone tries to sell

nobody wants to mine and BTC transactions take ages because all the miners already went to mine AltCoin

jackjack
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742


May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage


View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2011, 12:58:30 PM
 #63

Bitcoin may easily die after the last 6.25 block (or whatever the number is)

here's the scenario: a bunch of miners are trying to get that last block because bitcoins are worth $100 each
the difficulty is around 5M, but with electricity prices at 30 cents per kilowatt hour so it's still worth it

now the last block is mined, a couple of people don't notice and mine the next block too... a couple of hours later the network slows down a lot and the difficulty takes a long time to adjust
however, before it is adjusted, the transfer fees are like 0.5BTC and not worth mining
the difficulty doesn't update because no one is mining blocks
transactions are halted, nobody can move their bitcoins out
BTC value crashes as everyone tries to sell

nobody wants to mine and BTC transactions take ages because all the miners already went to mine AltCoin
You forgot 'the sky is falling'

Own address: 19QkqAza7BHFTuoz9N8UQkryP4E9jHo4N3 - Pywallet support: 1AQDfx22pKGgXnUZFL1e4UKos3QqvRzNh5 - Bitcointalk++ script support: 1Pxeccscj1ygseTdSV1qUqQCanp2B2NMM2
Pywallet: instructions. Encrypted wallet support, export/import keys/addresses, backup wallets, export/import CSV data from/into wallet, merge wallets, delete/import addresses and transactions, recover altcoins sent to bitcoin addresses, sign/verify messages and files with Bitcoin addresses, recover deleted wallets, etc.
iopq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2011, 01:06:41 PM
 #64

Bitcoin may easily die after the last 6.25 block (or whatever the number is)

here's the scenario: a bunch of miners are trying to get that last block because bitcoins are worth $100 each
the difficulty is around 5M, but with electricity prices at 30 cents per kilowatt hour so it's still worth it

now the last block is mined, a couple of people don't notice and mine the next block too... a couple of hours later the network slows down a lot and the difficulty takes a long time to adjust
however, before it is adjusted, the transfer fees are like 0.5BTC and not worth mining
the difficulty doesn't update because no one is mining blocks
transactions are halted, nobody can move their bitcoins out
BTC value crashes as everyone tries to sell

nobody wants to mine and BTC transactions take ages because all the miners already went to mine AltCoin
You forgot 'the sky is falling'
that's what they said about fulltiltpoker and the sky did, in fact, fall

johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


Beyond Imagination


View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2011, 01:19:58 PM
 #65

You're a bit wrong on this... The central bank creates money through loans which today is the equivalent of typing up an I.O.U. in a computer system, no actual printing is done.  It puts money into circulation by loaning to banks, foreign govs, U.S. gov, etc.  Commercial banks further don't need but a portion of their money for their loaning so every time someone makes a mortgage, a car loan etc. that is more new money in circulation.

The treasury prints money, and the central bank buys some of this to back their loans but the amount of paper currency is dwarfed by the digi-dollars in circulation.

I also read this from economic books, these do not change the issentials, in this way of understanding, central bank works as final loan issuerer, and these loans are own created money

Someone has to create the money and get the ownership, without this very first step, everthing afterwards won't happen


bitv
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 34


View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2011, 01:26:52 PM
 #66

Inflation sucks, a bottle of Coke is 4 times more expensive than it was just a couple years ago but salaries haven't increased anything near that

This would only make sense if you kept X amount of money over Y period of time (hoarding the currency).

I suspect it's either the one selling the bottle of coke (the price has in fact gone up and they're profiting more) or the one paying you the salary ripping you off (they're actually paying you less than before), not problem of the currency you're using.

The exactly same thing can easily happen with deflation: your salary will decrease, but price of the bottle of coke will remain the same.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


Beyond Imagination


View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2011, 02:18:38 PM
 #67

Someone has to create the money and get the ownership, without this very first step, everthing afterwards won't happen

It is created AS A loan, when the loan is paid it is gone, it is not real money our money IS debt.  It is punched into a computer on the bank ledger as a promise to pay from some entity, then that entity goes off and spends it on whatever putting it into circulation, there literally is not the Multi-Trillion dollars of paper money in existence, our money is Debt on top of Debt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

That video puts it in simple terms but explains it quite well.  Simple fact is there is very little original money left.

I have seen these videos years ago, at that time I was still confused about how money works.  But after I have mined my first bitcoin, I can look from a money producer's point of view, suddenly everything is so clear.

Loan is just a term to relate future and present, it moved the consumption to present and leave the labour in the future. It does not change the fact: With increasing amount of good/services in the society, more money has to be produced

johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456


Beyond Imagination


View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2011, 03:48:53 PM
 #68

more money has to be produced

OR the value (buying power) of that money must increase (This is what Bitcoin will be good at)


Price decreasing of goods/services is already a norm in IT industry, that lead to chasing higher and higher efficiency and aggresive cost cutting, I think this is not sustainable in the longrun. Sooner or later the speed can not hold and investers will prefer to hold the cash and stop the business altogether. So does an economy with limited amount of money supply

miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2011, 05:00:51 PM
 #69

Biggest threat to bitcoin right now is the fragile state of the "real" economy since bitcoin is as of yet still not well established.... if the "real" economy falters too bad no one will be thinking about switching to an as of yet unestablished economy.

Without awareness of its existence, there won't be capital flows into Bitcoin. Keep in mind that capital will seek the best balance of risk and return, so if fiat currencies prove inhospitable, there are bonds, commodities and equities. Of the three, bonds are increasingly unreliable, equities are in free-fall and commodities are being dragged down by global reduction in demand expectations.

That leaves certain real assets, precious metals (especially gold) and whatever alternatives might arise. The quintessential standby for thousands of years has been gold. One of the alternatives is community, or direct lending. Bitcoin is yet another different location for capital to flow.

As awareness of Bitcoin grows and it proves its potential and stability over time, more capital will flow into Bitcoin. The same is occurring with gold, only gold has already proven itself over time. A collapsing economy is really among the greatest supports for Bitcoin and its ilk.

that's what they said about fulltiltpoker and the sky did, in fact, fall

Was FTP a new form of money?

Simple fact is there is very little original money left.

In comparison to the amount of expanded credit, absolutely. That's why there's a rush to monetize the credit that hasn't experienced a return (debt) before it all collapses down and the illusory, unrealized losses become real. Nobody wants to be hit by that financial haymaker.

Loan is just a term to relate future and present, it moved the consumption to present and leave the labour in the future. It does not change the fact: With increasing amount of good/services in the society, more money has to be produced

Exactly - the temporal aspect is critical to understand, but most either don't or ignore it.

The money supply doesn't actually need to expand, but without monetary expansion to match economic growth, prices can fluctuate rapidly. Inflating the monetary base allows for perception of value to remain consistent, maintaining convenience through familiarity.

... once the coins in existence are fixed, my critiques (simillar to your view on money and what I think Altcoin here is trying to address?...) is that coins lost are lost forever and that one day there will not be enough coins to spread to all users and adopters.

That could become a problem, but only as the number of coins approach parity with the number of participants. If there are fewer indivisible Bitcoins in existence than individuals using them and no expansion is possible, transaction reliability suffers and could trigger a panic - first to acquire Bitcoins, then out of them and into other assets.

Quote from: viperjbm
The solutions to this that I feel the altcoin style system will address is with a "fixed" growth rate (NOT inflation as the coins should still deflate given the growth rate of the coinbase is slower than the growth rate of the economies using it).  This is is "solved" in 2 ways.  Lost coins are lost forever still but new coins are injected and at some point the coinbase will naturally establish an equilibrium ( X % coins lost == Y coins added ) which establishes a stable coinbase.  Furthermore, while this coinbase will likely still in time be outpaced by it's use and adopters, the timeframe to insolvency is greatly extended making this style of coinbase more ideal for a longer period of time.  The Key is NOT to have a % of current coinbase rate of growth but rather a FIXED growth rate, I don't even mind the issue of hoarding and saving (there is a difference and I don't believe either is bad unless it is too prevalent leading to hyper-deflation).

I guess to sum my stance in simple terms FIXED Growth does NOT equate to inflation and should be a part of the system. 

This also overcomes some of the worry of what happens when miners only earn transaction fees.  The Bitcoin system was for the most part very well thought out and set out on a mission to mimic the properties of Gold/Silver/etc. and that is great, but there is one problem the finiteness of precious metals has not been realized and no one knows how this will truly effect an economy, there was some times in history though where the growth rate of precious metal resources became very slow (too slow for the economy), notably the Roman Empire, and it had very negative effects on the system as a whole... fixed growth would not fully address this problem as like I said once the coin loss rate is the same as the coin growth rate it would be the equivalent of hitting Bitcoins 21 Million very subdivisable coins with NO loss rate.  Eventually both systems will see a time when their demand eventually exceeds their supply to the point where people will be forced to jump to something new.

I feel strongly the need to create a new coinbase but there are too many "fad" coins being created right now, and would prefer to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of the systems before embarking on that journey.  I like the demurage idea that was posted by jtimon as it may be another way to handle these issues as well.  Namecoin had a very innovative idea by coupling a native service into the coinbase system increasing it's value right out of the gate so to speak and well Bitcoin by itself was an amazing currency innovation.

A fixed growth rate is arbitrarily inflexible and thus counter to the required convenience factor necessary for an ideal transactional medium, as real goods and services are much more likely to fluctuate wildly in price. This is the danger Bitcoin faces during its main growth phase.

For example, using Bitcoin's rate of 50 units generated every 10 minutes and fixing that indefinitely, approximately 216,000 units will be introduced into the system per month. If the demand is for only 100,000 units per month, market value will fall; if demand is for 500,000 units per month, market value will rise. As the magnitude of participation increases, demand could well double during each cycle. How would an arbitrary, fixed growth rate prevent massive price fluctuations?

You are correct in that a continual rate of growth would take care of the transaction fee problem. As long as demand supports mining, the miner is the first to benefit from production of additional coins which can then be used to acquire additional share of the savings pool - Bitcoins, gold, real estate, etc.

The suggestion of a fixed growth rate would be excellent to alleviate Bitcoin's eventual limitation of ~21mm units, allowing it to continue at a moderate pace to account for lost coins and overall economic growth. However, even then it would be preferable to use a fixed relative expansion limit of perhaps 2% rather than a set number.

My reasoning for this is because what will work for an economy of scale X will be woefully inadequate for an economy of X^10 scale, but overwhelming for one of X^-10 scale. Relative ratios allow for applicability no matter the magnitude.

What if a water treatment plant were suitable for a population of 1,000 people and the population exploded to 10,000? There would have to be 10 water treatment plants. If only 2 water treatment plants can be built per year, the population can only expand by 2,000 per year, but if the growth rate is increasing and the construction rate remains at 2 plants per year, the population will still be limited to a linear growth rate. Water is essential to life, but a currency that acts in such a limiting nature will be abandoned for a more flexible alternative.

That's the distinction between Altcoin and Bitcoin. From what I see of Altcoin's principle, there is no arbitrary limit to the growth rate, either absolute or relative. Because of this the market value of Altcoin will determine the growth rate. If more is needed, the value rises and mining resumes or accelerates. If the value decreases due to reduced demand, mining slows or stops. It's a much more convenient and flexible manner of effecting a transactional medium and is almost exactly how currencies work today. The critical difference is the management - modern currencies are managed by increasingly ineffective central human authorities. Currencies based on the Bitcoin system are managed automatically from within by the system itself. Therefore, the potential for rampant monetary base expansion is virtually nullified.

A transactional medium is necessary for day-to-day economic activity. That means that it doesn't matter whether the currency depreciates, so long as it doesn't do so too quickly. What savers use to store their accumulated wealth must retain its value independently of any other factors. Again, Bitcoin serves this latter function perfectly - it appreciates in value over time due to its deflationary nature. For the transactional, even disposable, medium - Altcoin is flexible, maintains stability in pricing perceptions and has the highest in convenience of any currency.

Think of Altcoin as the translation layer between a consistent measure of value (Bitcoin or gold), and the fluctuating quantity and quality of goods and services in an entire economy. It doesn't matter whether there are 10,000 potatos or 1,000,000 - the price for them will still be the same in Altcoins. The more potatos there are, the cheaper they become in Bitcoins. Assume that potatoes are the only goods in our example economy, a maximum for Bitcoin of 1,000 Satoshis and an initial 10:1 Altcoin/Bitcoin to potato ratio:

Annual Potato Yield>Total Altcoins>Value in Altcoins>Total Bitcoins>Value in Bitcoins
1001,000101,00010
1,00010,000101,0001
10,000,000100,000,000101,0000.0001

Can you imagine if potato crop yields fell significantly one year and people saw the US dollar-denominated price of potatoes go from $1/ea to $10,000?

Now under a fixed 2% annual rate rise for Altcoins, with the same starting assumptions as above:

Annual Potato Yield>Total Altcoins>Value in Altcoins>Total Bitcoins>Value in Bitcoins
1001,000101,00010
1,0001,0201.021,0001
10,000,0001,0400.0001041,0000.0001

The same problem arises as that with Bitcoin. A fixed absolute value increase would obviously be even more divergent. You can see from these tables that it is impossible for Bitcoin to serve both purposes alone. A second, more flexible Bitcoin system is necessary in the vein of Altcoin.

Private firms could even issue registered physical paper notes associated with the Altcoins being held. Picture a QR code on each paper note printed with the appropriate denomination. No personal digital device? No problem. So long as a business has a scanner (and which one doesn't have a laser barcode scanner), you can pull out a wad of Altcoin paper bills and use them just as you would dollars and Euros. Everything here can be smoothly transitioned to from the existing system by way of integration with the Open Transactions platform.

Coinbase | 12qc3PQnukHbWzMmjsdiwnE5Z1qTS1Q5oC
BTC >$30 by 7/2013 | BTC > $100 by 5/2014
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2011, 06:20:48 PM
 #70

So ya under that statement it is entirely fixed (unless the difficulty adjustments were forgotten).

Ah, you're right - I have my own take on Altcoin where I was envisioning a constant payout period, but I hadn't elaborated on the dynamic adjustment of payout amount. As with Bitcoin currently, a block reward every 10 minutes, but a variable amount of coins generated; just a shift of variability from difficult to block size.

Recalculation of the block size could occur at the same 2016 block period as difficulty, although that may be calculated dynamically as well. Still no upper limit on number of blocks generated.

That way, demand could rise 2% or 200% and would still be closely aligned with established prices. All of the other issues would likewise be resolved as described in the OP.

Coinbase | 12qc3PQnukHbWzMmjsdiwnE5Z1qTS1Q5oC
BTC >$30 by 7/2013 | BTC > $100 by 5/2014
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2011, 06:40:33 PM
 #71

I think (correct me if I am wrong), this is very similar to my post above, where I suggest the block reward go up and down with difficulty?

You're correct, that's the concept. Should we flip a Bitcoin to see who'll code the changes?

Coinbase | 12qc3PQnukHbWzMmjsdiwnE5Z1qTS1Q5oC
BTC >$30 by 7/2013 | BTC > $100 by 5/2014
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


View Profile

Ignore
August 19, 2011, 08:08:45 PM
 #72

lol good, I don't feel so ignoramus lol....  Here I would have to concede to you, time won't permit me to code it up atm.

...

If difficulty is finite (and I think it is), you'll want to set the payout there to achieve a max realistic growth rate, hypothetically lets say 1000 coins per block (about 52 million coins per year.... once the economy is churning at that rate added hash power will decrease block generation time and the economy will be likely to be very well established), the easiest difficulty should give nominal reward, i.e. 1 coin per block.... now here is where it gets a little tricky you have to scale up the coin generation at a steady gradient so there does not form an "ideal" difficulty, i.e. at difficulty Y miners are greatly profitable but as soon as difficulty Z sets in they instantly start loosing money... for what it is worth my heart tells me that a linear increase to payout would not work but for the life of me I can't think if it should be accelerated on the front of the curve or the back of the curve.

The only difference right now that I can conceive is that if it accelerates quicker on the front it will attract miners in earlier and then the mechanics later would keep out too much mining until the economy catches up.  Vice versa, the system doesn't offer huge incentive to join early but allows the economy to grow and then the miners will catch up.  It's a tug of war system in the early stages either way but that is the case in all these new currencies.

I would certainly try and work with you on this however, and can offer a little coding support.  PM me if interested.  I just worry a little that too many new coinbases are being started at once, particularly ones that are essentially the same as the rest (won't mention any names lol) that don't bring any new dynamics to experiment with, and only modifying the speed at which they hit the golden 21 million coins number....

Not at all - there were good points brought up all around. It was a goof on my part, skimming your explanation of utilizing the difficulty. I'm kind of busy myself, but I do have opportunities here and there. PM is good...

A max growth rate was something I was considering, but only as a means to restrain ridiculous block generation early on. It would have to be like Bitcoin's gradual slow-down, only in reverse; slow initially and finally getting to a point of no programmatic restraint, instead relying upon market demand (assuming sufficient adoption). A linear growth rate is almost guaranteed to fail, so acceleration on the back end of the curve would be preferred. That's because unrestrained growth would lead to far too-rapid depreciation of the units in the initial phases.

Early adoption reward isn't necessarily a bad thing. And the "ideal" difficulty will always exist, it'll just be a moving target that the system adjusts to. If any of the other *coins introduce anything truly worthwhile, they'll eventually rise above the others. This one has immense potential...

Coinbase | 12qc3PQnukHbWzMmjsdiwnE5Z1qTS1Q5oC
BTC >$30 by 7/2013 | BTC > $100 by 5/2014
iopq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


View Profile

Ignore
August 20, 2011, 07:26:16 PM
 #73


that's what they said about fulltiltpoker and the sky did, in fact, fall

Was FTP a new form of money?
yes, it had FTP dollars which are like real dollars until feces hit the ventilation

the difference is that everyone thought they were playing with real dollars, but it turned out not to be the case   Angry

rbc2012
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 16


View Profile

Ignore
September 02, 2011, 03:21:09 AM
 #74

Ideally the best block difficulty is one that is extremely high so as to protect the block chain.
However, without adequate computing power an extremely high difficulty would make block generation take far too long.
So the difficulty is adjusted periodically to allow available computing power to generate a block in about 10 minutes.
The sole reason for changing block difficulty is to adjust for computing power available.
However computing power available does not readily equate to economic activity.
Initially it may to a great degree. Miners will come and go as the price rises and falls, but over time inefficient miners will be driven from the market by competition.
Left standing will be miners who have paid off hardware and low cost or free electricity who will stay and mine regardless of the block reward. Even if all they earn is transaction fees.
The block reward should be based on the value of altcoin.
If the value rises the block rewards continue to increase until the value returns to the set level.
If the value falls the block rewards continue to decrease (even to 0) until the altcoin value returns to the set level.

The issue is what to use to determine the value of altcoin.
It needs to be something that is constant.

For example, if the USD is used and  1 USD = 1 ATC
and the USD falls in value it will look as if ATC is increasing in value, but really it's just the USD losing value.
But block chain rewards would increase thereby decreasing the value of ATC to bring it in line with the devalued dollar.
Gold wouldn't work well either as the price fluctuates greatly due to varying demand as well as the values of the currencies used to purchase it.
steelhouse
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 692


View Profile

Ignore
September 02, 2011, 06:38:56 AM
 #75

"-> I personally think that inflation > deflation."

You must either be a neocon or a democrat.  Inflation is never good if you use the coins and don't have any loans outstanding.  If your a miner inflation is good because you get to steal off the workers and businesses.  If you are a government inflation can be good because it is a hidden tax.
JohnDoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile

Ignore
September 02, 2011, 03:46:42 PM
 #76

"-> I personally think that inflation > deflation."

You must either be a neocon or a democrat.  Inflation is never good if you use the coins and don't have any loans outstanding.  If your a miner inflation is good because you get to steal off the workers and businesses.  If you are a government inflation can be good because it is a hidden tax.

On the other hand deflation is never good for anyone because saving is heavily encouraged so the economy stagnates.
finnthecelt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile

Ignore
September 02, 2011, 04:33:47 PM
 #77

"-> I personally think that inflation > deflation."

You must either be a neocon or a democrat.  Inflation is never good if you use the coins and don't have any loans outstanding.  If your a miner inflation is good because you get to steal off the workers and businesses.  If you are a government inflation can be good because it is a hidden tax.

On the other hand deflation is never good for anyone because saving is heavily encouraged so the economy stagnates.

Yes, saving is terrible for the economy. Damn the individual! Long live the economy! (Whatever that is). (sarcasm off).

Economies expand and contract. I.e., they inflate and deflate just as we inhale and exhale. Some may like it if the sun never set but would not the crops all burn up?

No deflation in an economy is simply unnatural and should not be avoided. Individuals need to learn this and ignore politicians and bankstas who say they can mediate this process.  But of course that would require people to grow up.
JohnDoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile

Ignore
September 02, 2011, 11:01:56 PM
 #78

Yes, saving is terrible for the economy.

It is terrible for the economy. If everyone is saving there's no commerce going on. What do you think triggers recessions?

Damn the individual! Long live the economy! (Whatever that is). (sarcasm off).

What is this stupidity? Are you saying the individual is better off in a shitty economy?

Economies expand and contract. I.e., they inflate and deflate just as we inhale and exhale. Some may like it if the sun never set but would not the crops all burn up?

No deflation in an economy is simply unnatural and should not be avoided. Individuals need to learn this and ignore politicians and bankstas who say they can mediate this process.  But of course that would require people to grow up.

A lack of deflation would be unnatural huh? Looks like you are just resorting to mysticism because you don't know what causes the business cycle.
becoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966



View Profile

Ignore
September 03, 2011, 09:30:07 AM
 #79

It is terrible for the economy. If everyone is saving there's no commerce going on. What do you think triggers recessions?
Do you mean saving triggered recession?!... That is laughable. That is nonsense, of course. Statistics clearly show savings rate is currently at its historical bottom!

As matter of fact, it is just the opposite. It is the brainless hyper consumption encouraged by mass hysteria, based on ever increasing debt levels during last 40 years, that caused distortions and bubbles in the economy. You can't inflate bubbles for ever. There always comes a moment when they burst.

By the early 1970s, as the costs of the Vietnam War accelerated inflation, Richard Nixon canceled the direct convertibility of US dollar to gold. Gold standard was canceled and the world entered the era of pure fiat money. Since then economy entered into downward spiral of vicious cycles. To sustain such a 'model' growth was needed at any rate! But... consuming more things you don't actually need is not growth, because they do not positively contribute to your physical, intellectual or mental condition!

So, what do you do to show there is growth when there is no growth? You start by changing statistics methodology to hide the unpleasant truth. When this is not enough, you start printing more money under the pretext of 'stimulating' the economy. You can use 'jerking' if you like instead of 'stimulating'... Does 'jerking' the economy actually change something? Next step is to artificially decrease the price of oil on relative base. Everything around us is OIL! By decreasing the price of oil you are again 'jerking' the economy. So, you press OPEC countries to increase oil production. But what do you do when easy oil is gone? What do you do when oil producers need to invest $80 to pump and ship 1 barrel of oil? This is where your rosy dreams and wishful thinking collides with the crude reality of a consumer based economy!

Of course, we all know what followed. Next step is to export 'democracy' on board of battle ships and planes to 'easy' oil countries you don't control like Iraq and Libya. What is the next oil pie that needs situation with human rights improved? Iran, Venezuela or Nigeria?!

It is high time our economy be changed from consumer based to resource based.

Quote
If everyone is saving there's no commerce going on.
Again, that is laughable. Do you mean people will prefer to walk without cloths or shoes and die of thirst or hunger just to save their money?! Resource based economy means people will buy only those things they actually need. They will not be forced to buy things today just because their savings will be valued less tomorrow. It shouldn't be difficult to understand this! Monetary inflation is just another tax imposed by governments. A tax that is not defined by law. A tax they can change at their own discretion to serve their own hidden agenda. No, thanks. I don't need such a tax!



18sNtvUmtW6nrQXfYt1wvviGockSWxhPBX
JohnDoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile

Ignore
September 03, 2011, 04:55:02 PM
 #80

Do you mean saving triggered recession?!... That is laughable. That is nonsense, of course. Statistics clearly show savings rate is currently at its historical bottom!

So? We are not in the middle of a recession. We are heading for one no doubt, and then savings will jump just like they jumped during the last one.

As matter of fact, it is just the opposite. It is the brainless hyper consumption encouraged by mass hysteria, based on ever increasing debt levels during last 40 years, that caused distortions and bubbles in the economy. You can't inflate bubbles for ever. There always comes a moment when they burst.

I agree that's how bubbles are created and that they always burst. But why does a bubble bursting in one industry, like housing, end up affecting the whole economy? The only explanation in my opinion is because people see dark times ahead so they panic and stop spending, then as people stop spending companies have to reduce costs to maintain solvency, many times in the form of firing employees, reducing spending even further. It is this chain reaction that creates a self fulfilling recession.

Quote
Quote
If everyone is saving there's no commerce going on.
Again, that is laughable.

How is something that is true by definition laughable? You do know the definition of commerce, don't you?

Quote
Do you mean people will prefer to walk without cloths or shoes and die of thirst or hunger just to save their money?!

No, I mean people will only buy what's absolutely necessary and nothing else. Thus people will get fired, companies will go bankrupt and the economy contracts.

Quote
Resource based economy means people will buy only those things they actually need. They will not be forced to buy things today just because their savings will be valued less tomorrow. It shouldn't be difficult to understand this! Monetary inflation is just another tax imposed by governments. A tax that is not defined by law. A tax they can change at their own discretion to serve their own hidden agenda. No, thanks. I don't need such a tax!

You are not forced to buy stuff you don't need in inflation or demurrage. You can save your money by buying assets instead of holding the money in your bank account. And you seem to have the impression that I'm advocating inflation, I'm not.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!