Why are economists so afraid of Bitcoin?

[NChosting]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

[1714992992]

1714992992

[1714992992]

1714992992

[1714992992]

1714992992

[1714992992]

1714992992

[1714992992]

1714992992

[4mherewego]

Bitcoin is a real world experiment. They know deep down that their theories are wrong and are afraid bitcoin will prove it...

[Misesian]

When the mainstream economic opinion is that having a central bank is beneficial to an economy of course they're going to shit on a currency that has a fixed supply and is decentralised

[Erdogan]

Afraid? More like ignorant.

This is CNN Money:

Of the 30 Wall Street experts surveyed by CNNMoney, more than 70% said they don't follow or analyze Bitcoin.

D.A. Davidson's Fred H. Dickson said it's "too wild to forecast," while Bell Investment Advisor's Matt King and Becker Capital Management's Mike McGarr admitted they had "no clue."

Predictions from the brave few that were willing to make an estimate were all over the map.

Chase Investment Counsel president Peter Tuz expects Bitcoin will be worth nothing at the end of year, and Gary Goldberg Financial Services president Oliver Pursche also agrees the price of the digital currency will implode.

A few strategists expect Bitcoin will be worth something next year, but nobody thought the price of Bitcoin would go sharply higher again. The most bullish estimates ranged from $500 to $1,000. To top of page

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/07/investing/fed-qe-end-survey/index.html

By the way, they think QE ends this year. Nothing about unwinding.

[Lloydie]

Economists are allergic to deflation and bitcoin is a deflationary currency.  Yes i agree that deep down they fear that their bulldust inflationary theories are false.

[skivrmt]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

Not sure its a witch hunt per say but it's something they simple don't understand.  When people don't understand something life's first instinct is to avoid it and be careful around it until you understand it better.

Most economists that you see in print and on TV are NOT the ones you want to be listening to.  Listen to Wall Street.  They are just in the very beginning phases of buying.   Economist are book smart.  They can quote texts from economic policies from around the world.  Bitcoin isn't in a text.  It's not something they can rehash.  It's one of the reasons I was impressed with the Bank of America analyst who came out with an actual research report on Bitcoin.  It was out of the box.

[countryfree]

Really? Who is an economist?

Central bankers are afraid of BTC, but they're not economists, they are warriors protecting their local currency. Wall Street traders aren't economists either, they're salespeople at best, rogue speculators at worst.

The only people I would give the title of economist work in universities, and I still have to hear one of them, saying he's afraid of BTC.

[Bitcoinpro]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

fear of which they do not understand

[thaaanos]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

Not sure its a witch hunt per say but it's something they simple don't understand.  When people don't understand something life's first instinct is to avoid it and be careful around it until you understand it better.

Most economists that you see in print and on TV are NOT the ones you want to be listening to.  Listen to Wall Street.  They are just in the very beginning phases of buying.   Economist are book smart.  They can quote texts from economic policies from around the world.  Bitcoin isn't in a text.  It's not something they can rehash.  It's one of the reasons I was impressed with the Bank of America analyst who came out with an actual research report on Bitcoin.  It was out of the box.

sure economists dont understand it...

You know another neet Idea: Insulating a decision-maker (Satoshi) from the consequences of his decision

EDIT: Here are some more Reovolutionary Ideas Bitcoin Has
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_cow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_apathy

[WompRat]

I have a degree in Economics and work in a University and the professors I have spoken to about Bitcoin have been to a large degree dismissive.  I wouldn't say any are afraid – I also think all used the phrase ‘bubble’.

It is also worth noting that there isn't a lot of money in researching Bitcoin at the moment, nor much that is new. Back in the 90s a number of papers were published on electronic cash and peer to peer payment, but back then Visa and Mastercard and various banks were looking for new ways to exploit the growth of the web and actively trying to find ways to get people to ditch cash which probably meant there was more research money available.  

[Bitcoinpro]

I have a degree in Economics and work in a University and the professors I have spoken to about Bitcoin have been to a large degree dismissive.  I wouldn't say any are afraid – I also think all used the phrase ‘bubble’.

It is also worth noting that there isn't a lot of money in researching Bitcoin at the moment, nor much that is new. Back in the 90s a number of papers were published on electronic cash and peer to peer payment, but back then Visa and Mastercard and various banks were looking for new ways to exploit the growth of the web and actively trying to find ways to get people to ditch cash which probably meant there was more research money available.  

did you check to see if the fear was burning in their eyes

[thaaanos]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Sources?

"the economists"? Which economists are you talking about? I think most economists don't have an opinion because they don't know much about it or they just don't care.

There was a poll of 10 economists linked here recently in which a couple thought it would fail and the rest thought it was too soon to tell. Nobody said they were afraid of it.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/bitcoin-is-evil/
assuming Paul is not The Devil

EDIT: and here
http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2013/04/22/bitcoin-and-the-dangerous-fantasy-of-apolitical-money/

[skivrmt]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Sources?

"the economists"? Which economists are you talking about? I think most economists don't have an opinion because they don't know much about it or they just don't care.

There was a poll of 10 economists linked here recently in which a couple thought it would fail and the rest thought it was too soon to tell. Nobody said they were afraid of it.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/bitcoin-is-evil/
assuming Paul is not The Devil

Ok, there is one of 1000+ economists out there that think it's "evil".  There are a few more as well.  But overall, like several posters have mentioned, most economists don't know a thing about it.  Those that do don't have enough info to judge it good or bad yet. 

[thaaanos]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Sources?

"the economists"? Which economists are you talking about? I think most economists don't have an opinion because they don't know much about it or they just don't care.

There was a poll of 10 economists linked here recently in which a couple thought it would fail and the rest thought it was too soon to tell. Nobody said they were afraid of it.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/bitcoin-is-evil/
assuming Paul is not The Devil

Ok, there is one of 1000+ economists out there that think it's "evil".  There are a few more as well.  But overall, like several posters have mentioned, most economists don't know a thing about it.  Those that do don't have enough info to judge it good or bad yet. 

well when you find 1 economist that says good things about bitcoin tell me about it

[marcus_of_augustus]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0&t=1m30s

... useful to watch closely the acceptance phase towards the end also

[Lloydie]

Bitcoin as a decentralised automated monetary system also obviates the need for economists and central banksters.

[thaaanos]

Bitcoin as a decentralised automated monetary system also obviates the need for economists and central banksters.

and workforce

[thaaanos]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0&t=1m30s

... useful to watch closely the acceptance phase towards the end also

Respect

[MoonShadow]

I have a degree in Economics and work in a University and the professors I have spoken to about Bitcoin have been to a large degree dismissive.  I wouldn't say any are afraid – I also think all used the phrase ‘bubble’.

It is also worth noting that there isn't a lot of money in researching Bitcoin at the moment, nor much that is new. Back in the 90s a number of papers were published on electronic cash and peer to peer payment, but back then Visa and Mastercard and various banks were looking for new ways to exploit the growth of the web and actively trying to find ways to get people to ditch cash which probably meant there was more research money available.  

That is good news.  The longer Bitcoin can grow and mature without these guys' interference, the stronger it will be in the long run.  Let them fawn over whether or not the Federal Reserve will 'taper' or not.

[Lloydie]

Bitcoin as a decentralised automated monetary system also obviates the need for economists and central banksters.

and workforce

Economists and banksters can go get real jobs.

[johnyj]

Economics has never been a science, it is always related to politics, giving up the power of printing money endlessly is the biggest political failure 

[Misesian]

Having an economics degree sadly does not mean you understand economics.

[Jason]

Having an economics degree sadly does not mean you understand economics.

And having a doctorate in physics does not mean you understand physics...  A bit over a hundred years ago, an awful lot of mainstream physicists rejected Einstein's Theory of Relativity too (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity for details).  Their reasons were numerous yet we all know he was vindicated within a handful of decades.  The analogy isn't perfect as Bitcoin isn't a new economic theory, but it definitely threatens to expose the theories of Keynes as fundamentally flawed which apparently makes a lot of closed-minded economists uncomfortable.

[Carlton Banks]

Classic example of the kind of blind-sided thinking that the academic world cultivates.

If we had less emphasis on specialisation strictly within a single field of study, at least some economists would end up doing a little computer science or programming. As things are in academia today, too many end up drilling down into too narrow a field of focus. An economist that knows their monetarism well, and also their systems design, would be capable of recognising the potential in the Satoshi cryptocurrency model.

It's bizarre to think that this forum is infested with people that know just enough computer science and/or just enough economics that we can see what the so many so-called experts in finance and economics cannot.

[minerva]

Here's my economic opinion.

Why the claim that copycat currencies are a threat to Bitcoin is a nonargument.

The value of a currency is the value of goods or currency that are demanded for the currency minus the transaction costs of that currency. These transaction costs tend to be so small that they may as well be ignored for established currencies.

Take for instance, paper money. Anyone can actually design and print paper money. Ignoring instances where people attempt to copy money, unique paper currencies not issued by a government are valueless for one reason: people are less likely to accept them, and it is more difficult to transmit them across vast geographic distances (no banks, no cheque clearinghouse). Both increase transaction costs, if one accepts the paper money, in order to purchase intermediate goods or pay for labor, one can either pay for it in paper money (which wouldn't be accepted), or exchange it for government money (which would be accepted).

You might note that there is a tautology there, value is linked to what you can exchange a currency for minus the transaction costs. If you can't exchange a currency for anything, then the transaction costs are high, and those high transaction costs will discourage people from accepting it because the currency has low value. The reverse will also be true. This is what gives the American dollar it's high value.

Now lets compare ACoin to BCoin. ACoin is accepted at as many places as American Express. BCoin is a new currency. ACoin can be exchanged for hard currency. You have to exchange BCoin for ACoin to get to government money. Which would you use?

[Erdogan]

Here's my economic opinion.

Why the claim that copycat currencies are a threat to Bitcoin is a nonargument.

The value of a currency is the value of goods or currency that are demanded for the currency minus the transaction costs of that currency. These transaction costs tend to be so small that they may as well be ignored for established currencies.

Take for instance, paper money. Anyone can actually design and print paper money. Ignoring instances where people attempt to copy money, unique paper currencies not issued by a government are valueless for one reason: people are less likely to accept them, and it is more difficult to transmit them across vast geographic distances (no banks, no cheque clearinghouse). Both increase transaction costs, if one accepts the paper money, in order to purchase intermediate goods or pay for labor, one can either pay for it in paper money (which wouldn't be accepted), or exchange it for government money (which would be accepted).

You might note that there is a tautology there, value is linked to what you can exchange a currency for minus the transaction costs. If you can't exchange a currency for anything, then the transaction costs are high, and those high transaction costs will discourage people from accepting it because the currency has low value. The reverse will also be true. This is what gives the American dollar it's high value.

Now lets compare ACoin to BCoin. ACoin is accepted at as many places as American Express. BCoin is a new currency. ACoin can be exchanged for hard currency. You have to exchange BCoin for ACoin to get to government money. Which would you use?

I agree. And - if an altcoin should have good and different qualities, so that is just as useful as bitcoin, that altcoin should only reduce the value of bitcoin by half, at the endgame. Which is nothing to cry about.

[Operatr]

I would say "economists" are not so much afraid as either ignorant, or know full well bitcoin technology will oust them as the clueless money magicians they are. Paul Krugman is a prime example of a corporate mouthpiece who apparently doesn't understand basic mathematics or economics.

They warn of Bitcoin but not of their own flawed, corrupted currency system that is edging on an unprecedented financial catastrophe.

[Lethn]

It's simple really, it's a living example of something that goes against all their commonly held beliefs and prejudices, just like with religious people, they'll attack anyone or anything that goes against that belief system until they've either destroyed it or made people believe it's not worth their time. Economics nowadays is often a religion rather than a science or form of mathematics, to the people in charge now it doesn't matter if they are trillions in negative numbers and are committing blatant fraud against other countries by printing their currency out of thin air as long as they and their people believe in it it's okay.

[thaaanos]

This generation is all about accusing the previous for the economic mess they created, true, true but in the lulaby of peace they have forgotten that the 2 previous generation main concern was: Peace
All decisions made in political and economic level had that principle in mind. So why do economists hate deflationary currencies? because it leads to conflict inside and between countries. Look at the Feudal age in europe, those economies were perfect from economic perspective, no inflation, full employment
But... Feud has a double meaning doesnt it?

[MoonShadow]

This generation is all about accusing the previous for the economic mess they created, true, true but in the lulaby of peace they have forgotten that the 2 previous generation main concern was: Peace
All decisions made in political and economic level had that principle in mind. So why do economists hate deflationary currencies? because it leads to conflict inside and between countries. Look at the Feudal age in europe, those economies were perfect from economic perspective, no inflation, full employment
But... Feud has a double meaning doesnt it?

Do you live in the same world that I live in?  I am of one of the two older generations that you speak of, and your statement couldn't be further from the truth.  Do you draw a paycheck from a government contractor, by any chance?

[Misesian]

This generation is all about accusing the previous for the economic mess they created, true, true but in the lulaby of peace they have forgotten that the 2 previous generation main concern was: Peace
All decisions made in political and economic level had that principle in mind. So why do economists hate deflationary currencies? because it leads to conflict inside and between countries. Look at the Feudal age in europe, those economies were perfect from economic perspective, no inflation, full employment
But... Feud has a double meaning doesnt it?

Deflationary currencies make it harder for governments to start wars.

[Wusolini]

For centuries bankers tries to 'enslave' mankind using fiat currency as tool ( they can manipulate it towards their own aim )
suddenly something new and revolutionary appears and now they facing the threat of loosing control of the lever.

Naturally, I would be scared as well, and woud be fighting agains at all costs to sustain domination




 

[thaaanos]

This generation is all about accusing the previous for the economic mess they created, true, true but in the lulaby of peace they have forgotten that the 2 previous generation main concern was: Peace
All decisions made in political and economic level had that principle in mind. So why do economists hate deflationary currencies? because it leads to conflict inside and between countries. Look at the Feudal age in europe, those economies were perfect from economic perspective, no inflation, full employment
But... Feud has a double meaning doesnt it?

Deflationary currencies make it harder for governments to start wars.

Feudal Europe was such a peacefull time...

For centuries bankers tries to 'enslave' mankind using fiat currency as tool ( they can manipulate it towards their own aim )
suddenly something new and revolutionary appears and now they facing the threat of loosing control of the lever.

Naturally, I would be scared as well, and woud be fighting agains at all costs to sustain domination

So all  naysayers are Bankers? or on the payroll? mind we are not against the idea of cryptocurrency, but on the choice of parameters.

[Kungfucheez]

For centuries bankers tries to 'enslave' mankind using fiat currency as tool ( they can manipulate it towards their own aim )
suddenly something new and revolutionary appears and now they facing the threat of loosing control of the lever.

Naturally, I would be scared as well, and woud be fighting agains at all costs to sustain domination




 

"Naturally, I would be scared as well, and woud be fighting agains at all costs to sustain domination"

Then how can you blame them, if infact by your own implication, you would do the same thing?

[thaaanos]

This generation is all about accusing the previous for the economic mess they created, true, true but in the lulaby of peace they have forgotten that the 2 previous generation main concern was: Peace
All decisions made in political and economic level had that principle in mind. So why do economists hate deflationary currencies? because it leads to conflict inside and between countries. Look at the Feudal age in europe, those economies were perfect from economic perspective, no inflation, full employment
But... Feud has a double meaning doesnt it?

Do you live in the same world that I live in?  I am of one of the two older generations that you speak of, and your statement couldn't be further from the truth.  Do you draw a paycheck from a government contractor, by any chance?

Were you born before 1940? yes: I shutup it's up to you to defend your generation.
Why I am a teacher at a Greek Elementary school, does that count as goverment contractor?

[MoonShadow]

Why I am a teacher at a Greek Elementary school, does that count as goverment contractor?

I think that it's sad that an elementary school teacher neglects to use proper punctuation online.

And yes, a public school district employee does qualify as a government contractor in my view.  The point being, it's hard to convince anyone of the truth when his/her paycheck depends upon him/her not understanding.  Any attempt to convince you of anything that doesn't fit the official story is futile, but nor should you have any credibility regarding any subject, and especially one that you "teach" to small children.  (with the possible exception of mathmatics)

[MoonShadow]

This generation is all about accusing the previous for the economic mess they created, true, true but in the lulaby of peace they have forgotten that the 2 previous generation main concern was: Peace
All decisions made in political and economic level had that principle in mind. So why do economists hate deflationary currencies? because it leads to conflict inside and between countries. Look at the Feudal age in europe, those economies were perfect from economic perspective, no inflation, full employment
But... Feud has a double meaning doesnt it?

Deflationary currencies make it harder for governments to start wars.

Feudal Europe was such a peacefull time...

I know that you intended that post as ironic, but the true irony is that Feudal Europe actually was relatively peaceful, particularly when compared against the nature of warfare (in Europe and elsewhere) since the industrial revolution.  Even the 100 years war was mostly a cold one; with long spans of calm delimited by short periods of actual conflict.

For that matter, the "Wild West" wasn't so wild either.  Even the Lincoln County War is only considered a war in the context, because only a couple hundred people were involved and only a few dozen casualties resulted.  This is the kind of 'warfare' that was most common during following the collapse of the Roman Empire and prior to the Renaissance, and is the most common form of "tribal" warfare across the buld of early human history.

[kkaspar]

I don't think that economists are afraid, they just can understand the nature of an unregulated market system that deals with goods that are very attractive to speculation. This is heaven for all kinds of crooks who can use all kinds of dirty tricks to gain wealth at the expense of others. With regulated market systems, you are in danger of going to jail for using dirty tricks, that you can use with the crypto market without any consequences whatsoever.
I like the vision of privatized monetary systems, but I think that it is just naive to hope that everything will be fine without any regulations.
Right now we're in a situation where markets can actually present false market data about ongoing trades to stimulate demand. This means that when bitcoin demand drops, and with it drops the profit of major exchanges, then they can just form a pact to show false market data that people are still buying bitcoin. This will raise demand, because people will buy when it seems that others are buying also. This can't even be considered an "grey area" trick, but as an full blow scam. I think that it is naive to think that everyone will just stay nice and honest because of personal moral codes, especially when money is involved.

[thaaanos]

Feudal Europe was such a peacefull time...

I know that you intended that post as ironic, but the true irony is that Feudal Europe actually was relatively peaceful, particularly when compared against the nature of warfare (in Europe and elsewhere) since the industrial revolution.  Even the 100 years war was mostly a cold one; with long spans of calm delimited by short periods of actual conflict.

For that matter, the "Wild West" wasn't so wild either.  Even the Lincoln County War is only considered a war in the context, because only a couple hundred people were involved and only a few dozen casualties resulted.  This is the kind of 'warfare' that was most common during following the collapse of the Roman Empire and prior to the Renaissance, and is the most common form of "tribal" warfare across the buld of early human history.

Are we counting here conflicts or bodies? normalize to account for weaponry efficiency improvement. I am trully interested on the result.

[MoonShadow]

Feudal Europe was such a peacefull time...

I know that you intended that post as ironic, but the true irony is that Feudal Europe actually was relatively peaceful, particularly when compared against the nature of warfare (in Europe and elsewhere) since the industrial revolution.  Even the 100 years war was mostly a cold one; with long spans of calm delimited by short periods of actual conflict.

For that matter, the "Wild West" wasn't so wild either.  Even the Lincoln County War is only considered a war in the context, because only a couple hundred people were involved and only a few dozen casualties resulted.  This is the kind of 'warfare' that was most common during following the collapse of the Roman Empire and prior to the Renaissance, and is the most common form of "tribal" warfare across the buld of early human history.

Are we counting here conflicts or bodies?

Does it matter?  Keep in mind, the 100 years war is generally consider one continuous conflict.

 normalize to account for weaponry efficiency improvement. I am trully interested on the result.

This would require that we agree on a lot of details, and the outcome would be highly subjective to interpretations anyway.  So I don't think this is going to happen.

[Adrian-x]

This generation is all about accusing the previous for the economic mess they created, true, true but in the lulaby of peace they have forgotten that the 2 previous generation main concern was: Peace
All decisions made in political and economic level had that principle in mind. So why do economists hate deflationary currencies? because it leads to conflict inside and between countries. Look at the Feudal age in europe, those economies were perfect from economic perspective, no inflation, full employment
But... Feud has a double meaning doesnt it?

Yes sure, but it is part of an evolutionary history,  

Feudal age = deadlock, monopoly on the means of production Land. ( the feudal kings did not see the power shift to the leverages of capital until it was too late)

Merchant capitalisation broke that monopoly and ushered in a new age.

Bitcoin is bringing in a new age like FRB superseded Feudalism, Bitcoin will superseded FRB, the people who hold the power of capital today will ignore it and fall as did Feudalism.  

[MoonShadow]

And don't forget the potential effects of Fourth Turning social theory.

[2bfree]

Most economist worship the centralized model and bitcoin is not that. That's their problem.

[Kungfucheez]

Most economist worship the centralized model and bitcoin is not that. That's their problem.

No, that's your problem. Central Banks serve a very real and absolute purpose to the economies of all modern industrialized nations. They are essential, as time and history has clearly proven.

[aminorex]

Every economist hopes in his heart to become the Bernanke.

The power of the Bernanke is the power of the helicopter.

Bitcoin threatens the power of the helicopter.

Hence all economists hate the bitcoin.

[Lloydie]

Most economist worship the centralized model and bitcoin is not that. That's their problem.

No, that's your problem. Central Banks serve a very real and absolute purpose to the economies of all modern industrialized nations. They are essential, as time and history has clearly proven.

Yes, they are a problem. They create inflation which farks everything up. Bitcoin as a decentralised system will prove that central banks are surplus to requirements.

[thaaanos]

The Groupthink runs strong in you!

[Lloydie]

The Groupthink runs strong in you!

No, you're the group think from mainstream central banking and sheep country.

[Lloydie]

Bitcoin is to the US, what the USD is to Zimbabweans.

[thaaanos]

Bitcoin is to the US, what the USD is to Zimbabweans.

A mean to a strip the country out of resources and have people starve?
Finally we agree.

[Lethn]

Most economist worship the centralized model and bitcoin is not that. That's their problem.

No, that's your problem. Central Banks serve a very real and absolute purpose to the economies of all modern industrialized nations. They are essential, as time and history has clearly proven.

Give us some examples from history of it being necessary?

[thaaanos]

Most economist worship the centralized model and bitcoin is not that. That's their problem.

No, that's your problem. Central Banks serve a very real and absolute purpose to the economies of all modern industrialized nations. They are essential, as time and history has clearly proven.

Give us some examples from history of it being necessary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression ? guess how US exited.

[Lethn]

Most economist worship the centralized model and bitcoin is not that. That's their problem.

No, that's your problem. Central Banks serve a very real and absolute purpose to the economies of all modern industrialized nations. They are essential, as time and history has clearly proven.

Give us some examples from history of it being necessary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression ? guess how US exited.

Which section exactly are you referring to? You're being nice and vague as usual, I suppose you mean "Turning point and recovery" right? This wiki article seems to me to be also skewed pretty much in favour or the kind of economic school that you're preaching but even this isn't being clear and specific about when and what actually caused the U.S to exit the depression and I'd argue that the U.S hasn't ever left the great depression because it's still on paper and borrowing more than it earns.

Disregarding the whole paper vs gold argument, the basic mathematics of borrowing more than you're earning means you're just losing money every year and no matter who you are you can't just ignore that, well there are people out there that do like you but that's why you'll never make money in life.

[Lloydie]

Bitcoin is to the US, what the USD is to Zimbabweans.

A mean to a strip the country out of resources and have people starve?
Finally we agree.

With people like you, no wonder greece is going backwards. Maybe you should just stick to fiat currencies.

[htspringer]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

It's really quite simple.
Those who are afraid of bitcoin are spineless liberals who despise grassroots movements by the people.
They believe in government solutions.  Bitcoin contradicts their ideology.

[thaaanos]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

It's really quite simple.
Those who are afraid of bitcoin are spineless liberals who despise grassroots movements by the people.
They believe in government solutions.  Bitcoin contradicts their ideology.

we are not against the design, we are against the initial conditions, when you understan that, maybe you get over your prejudice

[Adrian-x]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

It's really quite simple.
Those who are afraid of bitcoin are spineless liberals who despise grassroots movements by the people.
They believe in government solutions.  Bitcoin contradicts their ideology.

Spineless Liberals - that's harsh, it sounds biased, I have held the overselling opinion that I am a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, even an anarchist. The political ideology is nothing more than a label in defining people who believe in a general method that is the optimal way to achieve social harmony and economic efficiency. Those afraid of Bitcoin are not spineless, just ignorant at some level.  

[Adrian-x]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

It's really quite simple.
Those who are afraid of bitcoin are spineless liberals who despise grassroots movements by the people.
They believe in government solutions.  Bitcoin contradicts their ideology.

we are not against the design, we are against the initial conditions, when you understan that, maybe you get over your prejudice

Who is we?

[diedicar]

Having an economics degree sadly does not mean you understand economics.

And having a doctorate in physics does not mean you understand physics...  A bit over a hundred years ago, an awful lot of mainstream physicists rejected Einstein's Theory of Relativity too (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity for details).  Their reasons were numerous yet we all know he was vindicated within a handful of decades.  The analogy isn't perfect as Bitcoin isn't a new economic theory, but it definitely threatens to expose the theories of Keynes as fundamentally flawed which apparently makes a lot of closed-minded economists uncomfortable.

bitcoin did 'nt exist at the times of keyens or austrians. That's why it does not fit in those frameworks. But:

"If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. " http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/keynes/john_maynard/k44g/chapter10.html

WAIT! why the need of a Treasaury to fill the bottles?
 
Keynes would absolutely agree to coin minining, expecially of litecoins.

[Lloydie]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

It's really quite simple.
Those who are afraid of bitcoin are spineless liberals who despise grassroots movements by the people.
They believe in government solutions.  Bitcoin contradicts their ideology.

we are not against the design, we are against the initial conditions, when you understan that, maybe you get over your prejudice

And again we say to you who are them: don't use bitcoins. Problem fixed. End of story.

[quone17]

Economics are worried it will work and prove something they believe is wrong.  Ignorance is bliss.  Many economists believe you need to keep creating money and the more money the better.  This would dent that argument.  I would think economics want to embrace it and see what happens with this experiment.  I only hope we get to see what happens and it doesn't get ruined by something like a 51% attack...

[thaaanos]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

It's really quite simple.
Those who are afraid of bitcoin are spineless liberals who despise grassroots movements by the people.
They believe in government solutions.  Bitcoin contradicts their ideology.

we are not against the design, we are against the initial conditions, when you understan that, maybe you get over your prejudice

And again we say to you who are them: don't use bitcoins. Problem fixed. End of story.

So you say... what if my houselord demands rent in bitcoins?

[Ibian]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

It's really quite simple.
Those who are afraid of bitcoin are spineless liberals who despise grassroots movements by the people.
They believe in government solutions.  Bitcoin contradicts their ideology.

we are not against the design, we are against the initial conditions, when you understan that, maybe you get over your prejudice

And again we say to you who are them: don't use bitcoins. Problem fixed. End of story.

So you say... what if my houselord demands rent in bitcoins?

He doesn't. Why are you even here?

[thaaanos]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

It's really quite simple.
Those who are afraid of bitcoin are spineless liberals who despise grassroots movements by the people.
They believe in government solutions.  Bitcoin contradicts their ideology.

we are not against the design, we are against the initial conditions, when you understan that, maybe you get over your prejudice

And again we say to you who are them: don't use bitcoins. Problem fixed. End of story.

So you say... what if my houselord demands rent in bitcoins?

He doesn't. Why are you even here?

What if? Because I like cryptocurencies?

[Light]

Many economists believe you need to keep creating money and the more money the better.

I'm not exactly sure that's the viewpoint of most economists, that simply creates inflationary pressures and screws over the consumer in general. As to OP, I personally don't feel economists are afraid of BTC as much as they are wary of it considering the fact that it's a new experiment of which the likes have never been seen in the past; nothing with this kind of idea has made it so far. Plus it's hard to theorise about it considering much of the value is speculation unrelated to actual real-world factors.

[Lloydie]

Many economists believe you need to keep creating money and the more money the better.

I'm not exactly sure that's the viewpoint of most economists, that simply creates inflationary pressures and screws over the consumer in general. As to OP, I personally don't feel economists are afraid of BTC as much as they are wary of it considering the fact that it's a new experiment of which the likes have never been seen in the past; nothing with this kind of idea has made it so far. Plus it's hard to theorise about it considering much of the value is speculation unrelated to actual real-world factors.

I would add that the entire economic "profession" is entirely theoretical.  I'll provide examples:

The econometric models assumes entirely rational decision makers. This is not true in reality.

Neo classical economics assumes debt does not matter. Actually, debt does matter in fractional reserve banking.  It brings forward future money to present day spending. Credit adds to the money supply in the short term.

Ben Bernanke blames the failure of regulation for the GFC, citing predatory lending. In reality, bank debt levels were too high not only at Lehman but at all the investment banks.

The Fed Reserve does not believe in free markets because they are manipulating long term interest rates to spur artificial credit growth.  Central banks all over the world are suppressing long term borrowing costs, which artificially increases asset prices. This widens the gap between the rich and poor.

A fast food worker can work a whole day and not earn as much as a rich person sitting on their bums earning capital gains on their assets in one hour.

This is the real world that we live in. This is the red pill.

[Carlton Banks]

Its like the economists have gone on a witch hunt against Bitcoin!

Whats their problem?

It's really quite simple.
Those who are afraid of bitcoin are spineless liberals who despise grassroots movements by the people.
They believe in government solutions.  Bitcoin contradicts their ideology.

Spineless Liberals - that's harsh, it sounds biased, I have held the overselling opinion that I am a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, even an anarchist. The political ideology is nothing more than a label in defining people who believe in a general method is the optimal way to achieve social harmony and economic efficiency. Those afraid of Bitcoin are not spineless, just ignorant at some level.  

+1.

Too many people don't even think about what "liberal" even means (as a principle). "Liberals" in the US have a very limited sense of actually espousing liberal values (amusingly, very much in itself the opposite of the definition of the word "liberal")

If anyone spends long enough watching or reading Russia Today, they'll notice the European versions of the Libertarians in Britain and France. Apparently, "Libertarian" is characterised by being an ultra-nationalist, borderline or overt racist, pseudo fascist and not forgetting corporate capitalist. Hard right in a Hitler way.

Strange, eh? You identify with being a Liberal in the US, and you end up being statist authoritarian. You want to be a Libertarian in Europe, and you end up with Ultra-Right mega-racist parties to choose from. Why can't we sign up to politics that the label describes?

[thaaanos]

Many economists believe you need to keep creating money and the more money the better.

I'm not exactly sure that's the viewpoint of most economists, that simply creates inflationary pressures and screws over the consumer in general. As to OP, I personally don't feel economists are afraid of BTC as much as they are wary of it considering the fact that it's a new experiment of which the likes have never been seen in the past; nothing with this kind of idea has made it so far. Plus it's hard to theorise about it considering much of the value is speculation unrelated to actual real-world factors.

I would add that the entire economic "profession" is entirely theoretical.  I'll provide examples:

The econometric models assumes entirely rational decision makers. This is not true in reality.

It also assumes market equilibrium which never happens.

Neo classical economics assumes debt does not matter. Actually, debt does matter in fractional reserve banking.  It brings forward future money to present day spending. Credit adds to the money supply in the short term.

It also assumes market equilibrium which never happens. Debt doesn't matter

Ben Bernanke blames the failure of regulation for the GFC, citing predatory lending. In reality, bank debt levels were too high not only at Lehman but at all the investment banks.

Blame Clinton

The Fed Reserve does not believe in free markets because they are manipulating long term interest rates to spur artificial credit growth.  Central banks all over the world are suppressing long term borrowing costs, which artificially increases asset prices. This widens the gap between the rich and poor.

Fed doesnt believe in free markets because they dont exist. Privilege is what widens the gap   

A fast food worker can work a whole day and not earn as much as a rich person sitting on their bums earning capital gains on their assets in one hour.

This is the real world that we live in. This is the red pill.

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

[Lloydie]

Many economists believe you need to keep creating money and the more money the better.

I'm not exactly sure that's the viewpoint of most economists, that simply creates inflationary pressures and screws over the consumer in general. As to OP, I personally don't feel economists are afraid of BTC as much as they are wary of it considering the fact that it's a new experiment of which the likes have never been seen in the past; nothing with this kind of idea has made it so far. Plus it's hard to theorise about it considering much of the value is speculation unrelated to actual real-world factors.

I would add that the entire economic "profession" is entirely theoretical.  I'll provide examples:

The econometric models assumes entirely rational decision makers. This is not true in reality.

It also assumes market equilibrium which never happens.

Neo classical economics assumes debt does not matter. Actually, debt does matter in fractional reserve banking.  It brings forward future money to present day spending. Credit adds to the money supply in the short term.

It also assumes market equilibrium which never happens. Debt doesn't matter

Ben Bernanke blames the failure of regulation for the GFC, citing predatory lending. In reality, bank debt levels were too high not only at Lehman but at all the investment banks.

Blame Clinton

The Fed Reserve does not believe in free markets because they are manipulating long term interest rates to spur artificial credit growth.  Central banks all over the world are suppressing long term borrowing costs, which artificially increases asset prices. This widens the gap between the rich and poor.

Fed doesnt believe in free markets because they dont exist. Privilege is what widens the gap   

A fast food worker can work a whole day and not earn as much as a rich person sitting on their bums earning capital gains on their assets in one hour.

This is the real world that we live in. This is the red pill.

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

You say you are greek but actually you are a republican. Like it or not bitcoin world is here and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

Its about time fat greek republicans get real jobs.

[Kungfucheez]

No ones "afraid" of bitcoin. There's your answer.

[Adrian-x]

No ones "afraid" of bitcoin. There's your answer.

I’m afraid to sell, I think I hang in the wrong circles, and they never tell me when or why I should buy just encourage and justify why to sell.

[Kungfucheez]

No ones "afraid" of bitcoin. There's your answer.

I’m afraid to sell, I think I hang in the wrong circles, and they never tell me when or why I should buy just encourage and justify why to sell.

lol I guess I'm the same way. I think many are in the same boat too 

[htspringer]

No ones "afraid" of bitcoin. There's your answer.

I’m afraid to sell, I think I hang in the wrong circles, and they never tell me when or why I should buy just encourage and justify why to sell.

I can't understand for the life of me where are all of the bitcoin sellers are coming from.  Everyone I know with bitcoins wants to hang on to them.

[Adrian-x]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

[htspringer]

Economics are worried it will work and prove something they believe is wrong.  Ignorance is bliss.  Many economists believe you need to keep creating money and the more money the better.  This would dent that argument.  I would think economics want to embrace it and see what happens with this experiment.  I only hope we get to see what happens and it doesn't get ruined by something like a 51% attack...

It's laughable to watch these naysayers sit in their ivory towers and predict the downfall of bitcoin.  There are going to be alot of people eating crow six months from now.

[Adrian-x]

No ones "afraid" of bitcoin. There's your answer.

I’m afraid to sell, I think I hang in the wrong circles, and they never tell me when or why I should buy just encourage and justify why to sell.

I can't understand for the life of me where are all of the bitcoin sellers are coming from.  Everyone I know with bitcoins wants to hang on to them.

I sold a shitload at an average of $13, the current sellers may just be the next wave at that sell stage.

[MoonShadow]

No ones "afraid" of bitcoin. There's your answer.

I’m afraid to sell, I think I hang in the wrong circles, and they never tell me when or why I should buy just encourage and justify why to sell.

I can't understand for the life of me where are all of the bitcoin sellers are coming from.  Everyone I know with bitcoins wants to hang on to them.

A good percentage of the coins available on the exchanges come directly from mining operations that must sell some percentage of their earnings in order to pay the bills.  This is easily checkable via blockexplorer.com, as those coins you just bought can be traced back to the coinbase transaction pretty quickly.

[htspringer]

No ones "afraid" of bitcoin. There's your answer.

I’m afraid to sell, I think I hang in the wrong circles, and they never tell me when or why I should buy just encourage and justify why to sell.

I can't understand for the life of me where are all of the bitcoin sellers are coming from.  Everyone I know with bitcoins wants to hang on to them.

A good percentage of the coins available on the exchanges come directly from mining operations that must sell some percentage of their earnings in order to pay the bills.  This is easily checkable via blockexplorer.com, as those coins you just bought can be traced back to the coinbase transaction pretty quickly.

If that's true then those who are mining are losing money or breaking even.  Have you checked bitcoin difficulty lately?

[MoonShadow]

No ones "afraid" of bitcoin. There's your answer.

I’m afraid to sell, I think I hang in the wrong circles, and they never tell me when or why I should buy just encourage and justify why to sell.

I can't understand for the life of me where are all of the bitcoin sellers are coming from.  Everyone I know with bitcoins wants to hang on to them.

A good percentage of the coins available on the exchanges come directly from mining operations that must sell some percentage of their earnings in order to pay the bills.  This is easily checkable via blockexplorer.com, as those coins you just bought can be traced back to the coinbase transaction pretty quickly.

If that's true then those who are mining are losing money or breaking even.  Have you checked bitcoin difficulty lately?

No, I haven't.

[Rival]

To the point of the original post:


"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
        - Sinclair Upton

[thaaanos]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

[Lloydie]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Then what are you doing here? Do you even own bitcoins? Who pays you to troll these boards? Don't like bitcoin? Why don't you create your own alt coin!

The rest of us like bitcoin. We like deflation after having given inflationary fiat currency a go for the last fifty years. We like alternatives. We're not going to give it up easily. There is nothing you can do stop people voting with their feet and their wallets.

[Lloydie]

Yes my friend thaaanos. Get used to real democracy in action.  

[Kungfucheez]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Then what are you doing here? Do you even own bitcoins? Who pays you to troll these boards? Don't like bitcoin? Why don't you create your own alt coin!

The rest of us like bitcoin. We like deflation after having given inflationary fiat currency a go for the last fifty years. We like alternatives. We're not going to give it up easily. There is nothing you can do stop people voting with their feet and their wallets.

lol woah man, calm down. Just because someone lists some cons about bitcoins doesn't make them any less relevant than your pros. There are legitimate concerns with bitcoin that need to be addressed. Dismissing them outright just because you don't agree is not the way to go about it, sorry to say.

[Realpra]

Bitcoin is a real world experiment. They know deep down that their theories are wrong and are afraid bitcoin will prove it...

+1

It will disprove the one economist theory that everyone knows.

[Lloydie]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Then what are you doing here? Do you even own bitcoins? Who pays you to troll these boards? Don't like bitcoin? Why don't you create your own alt coin!

The rest of us like bitcoin. We like deflation after having given inflationary fiat currency a go for the last fifty years. We like alternatives. We're not going to give it up easily. There is nothing you can do stop people voting with their feet and their wallets.

lol woah man, calm down. Just because someone lists some cons about bitcoins doesn't make them any less relevant than your pros. There are legitimate concerns with bitcoin that need to be addressed. Dismissing them outright just because you don't agree is not the way to go about it, sorry to say.

No dismissing them outright because they are not genuine attempts to understand bitcoin and deflationary monetary systems is okay with me. I have lived in the fiat inflationary system long enough to observe that it is a sick and oppressive machinery.

In any event, this is a debate no? There is no way to silence anyone here.

The problem is this: fundamentally, Thaaanos repeatedly fails to recognise that you CANNOT change bitcoin. You can only create alternatives and hope that people gravitate to it because it is a fairer system.

This is how a real democratic system works. Not by some person shoving their ideas down on the rest of us.

Bitcoin is deflationary. Get used to it. If it is actually a worse economic system as you and Thaaanos say then people will naturally stop using bitcoins over time.

Please don't assume that ordinary people are ignorant of the consequences affecting their lives. I for one have really had enough of top down planning. It's broken. It's oppressive. And it's just fucking cruel.

[Kungfucheez]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Then what are you doing here? Do you even own bitcoins? Who pays you to troll these boards? Don't like bitcoin? Why don't you create your own alt coin!

The rest of us like bitcoin. We like deflation after having given inflationary fiat currency a go for the last fifty years. We like alternatives. We're not going to give it up easily. There is nothing you can do stop people voting with their feet and their wallets.

lol woah man, calm down. Just because someone lists some cons about bitcoins doesn't make them any less relevant than your pros. There are legitimate concerns with bitcoin that need to be addressed. Dismissing them outright just because you don't agree is not the way to go about it, sorry to say.

No dismissing them outright because they are not genuine attempts to understand bitcoin and deflationary monetary systems is okay with me. I have lived in the fiat inflationary system long enough to observe that it is a sick and oppressive machinery.

In any event, this is a debate no? There is no way to silence anyone here.

The problem is this: fundamentally, Thaaanos repeatedly fails to recognise that you CANNOT change bitcoin. You can only create alternatives and hope that people gravitate to it because it is a fairer system.

This is how a real democratic system works. Not by some person shoving their ideas down on the rest of us.

Bitcoin is deflationary. Get used to it. If it is actually a worse economic system as you and Thaaanos say then people will naturally stop using bitcoins over time.

Please don't assume that ordinary people are ignorant of the consequences affecting their lives. I for one have really had enough of top down planning. It's broken. It's oppressive. And it's just fucking cruel.

So let me try and understand this. He's wrong because he wants to change bitcoin. Yet your not wrong because you want to change the current financial system. How is there a difference? Your doing the same thing you claim he is doing.

And it doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down your throat, it looks more like he's being reasonable and intelligent and willing to discuss the topic like an adult, and it sounds more like you are trying to push some agenda you have

[Lloydie]

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Then what are you doing here? Do you even own bitcoins? Who pays you to troll these boards? Don't like bitcoin? Why don't you create your own alt coin!

The rest of us like bitcoin. We like deflation after having given inflationary fiat currency a go for the last fifty years. We like alternatives. We're not going to give it up easily. There is nothing you can do stop people voting with their feet and their wallets.

lol woah man, calm down. Just because someone lists some cons about bitcoins doesn't make them any less relevant than your pros. There are legitimate concerns with bitcoin that need to be addressed. Dismissing them outright just because you don't agree is not the way to go about it, sorry to say.

No dismissing them outright because they are not genuine attempts to understand bitcoin and deflationary monetary systems is okay with me. I have lived in the fiat inflationary system long enough to observe that it is a sick and oppressive machinery.

In any event, this is a debate no? There is no way to silence anyone here.

The problem is this: fundamentally, Thaaanos repeatedly fails to recognise that you CANNOT change bitcoin. You can only create alternatives and hope that people gravitate to it because it is a fairer system.

This is how a real democratic system works. Not by some person shoving their ideas down on the rest of us.

Bitcoin is deflationary. Get used to it. If it is actually a worse economic system as you and Thaaanos say then people will naturally stop using bitcoins over time.

Please don't assume that ordinary people are ignorant of the consequences affecting their lives. I for one have really had enough of top down planning. It's broken. It's oppressive. And it's just fucking cruel.

So let me try and understand this. He's wrong because he wants to change bitcoin. Yet your not wrong because you want to change the current financial system. How is there a difference? Your doing the same thing you claim he is doing.

And it doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down your throat, it looks more like he's being reasonable and intelligent and willing to discuss the topic like an adult, and it sounds more like you are trying to push some agenda you have

Sure, I might have some growing up to do, dad or big brother. Here it is: bitcoin is changing the financial system. I like that. We are not talking about it, whining about it, theorising about it. We are fucking doing it in real time with real fucking money.

Thaaanos and you are too fucking stupid to realise that bitcoin is a protocol. It cannot be changed.

Sure my agenda is simple: tell everyone that fiat sucks, which it does and that you have an alternative in bitcoin. And if you don't like bitcoin, you can even create a coin that you personally like.

All I know is that humans should not be trusted with central banking.

Justice this and trust that, all somehow ends up raping the 99%. It is clear satoshi realised that centralised third parties who people had to trust were the real fucking problem.

[Lloydie]

I suspect your inflationary alt coin argument will go something like this:

Please use my alt coin because you must trust us to manage the alt coin for the justice of all.It will be inflationary and your purchasing power will devalue over time. Thanks.

Or, you can choose bitcoin where your spending power is preserved and even increased as the bitcoin economy expands.

Lets see what people really want.

[Adrian-x]

In a bitcoin world the only diffrence is that he wouldnt have a job

This may be true, and if it is it highlights the source of the problem.  
 
If “he” is unemployed, and is capable of contributing to society but is prohibited because he can’t find a Job, (people with capital are reluctant to put it to work for “valid” economic reasons) or “he” can’t get hold of the means of production because people who own the means – the land and tools are reluctant to share.  

The Neoclassical economic model is to create debt with interest (treasury bonds) to encourage and benefit those with capital to lend to those who manage the economy so they can create money to lend, to be paid back with interest and taxes so those who have the means, can partake in the economy.  

The simplified problem above and its proposed solution is what led Marx to ridicule capitalism. Although Marx had insights as worthy as Keynes as and Hayek, he undermined entrepreneurship and innovation to the determent of his ideas.


The problem is a meme of Human rights,  sustainable rights do not infringe on each others rights. except for the right of property provided by god. A claim to have a right to god given property, denies all otter human that right, and thus should come with some responsibility.
 
And as long as we construct economic systems to preserve that meme, they will fail, Marx, Keynes as and Hayek, all saw the benefits and perils of right to god given property, Mark sort to eradicate it, Hayek sort to strengthen it, and Keynes sort to manage it with tax and a welfare state.

Untested to date is Hayek’s approach your comment above suggests we will all wind up unemployed, I bet we won’t all wind up unemployed but we will test the limits of the meme of private property and what responsibilities are fair and emerge with a sustainable system.

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Money needs a definition, I see Money as historically an emergent market phenomenon established from commodity money, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money.
I can reconcile your 3 points only by attributing the purchasing potential money if we put our trust in its value.  In our centrally controlled fiat world we do that, we trust “the money” to have its value. Given its value has been diluted and abused and used to squander our natural capital by those who manage it, those institutions are now dysfunctional and beyond repair .

Some like I presume Lloydie and I have been irreversibly abused by the system and are now virulently opposed to it.  (Joe average in the West with a mortgage may be OK will a little inflation but it is causing the biggest wealth inequality in the history of the world and has to stop before all our natural capital has been plundered.)

To be honest Bitcoin 5 years ago was not worth anything, and 6 months later you could buy BTC1000 for $5 US, and today it’s purchasing potential is phenomenal .

In Bitcoin the purchasing potential is only backed up by what individuals are willing to exchange for it. i.e. Bitcoin is backed by a P2P network of users who are willing to give it value, while idiots buy and sell Bitcoin for stupid reasons, the purchasing potential is voluntarily given by the users, not taken by the hoarders.  So I don’t think having lots of Bitcoin = having lots of wealth, Having lots of Bitcoin and managing the distribution among the network of willing participants in an equitable and fair manner as is possible within the laws of supply and demand will result in benefits to all and naturaly reword those who have lots of Bitcoin. If not, trust will fade and value will diminish.  

There are other distribution models coming to the cryptocurrency space that will address your concerns directly they will emerge when the time is right, but for now I don’t believe they will supersede Bitcoin, they will just complement it.  

In shot I feel the same about those who own property as you feel about those who have money, sill I partake willingly and by the rules, just Bitcoins rules are voluntary equitable and irreversible, and I love that.  

[Ibian]

It's ok to reject the other guys premises in a debate. Money does not equal trust.

[marcus_of_augustus]

So let me try and understand this. He's wrong because he wants to change bitcoin. Yet your not wrong because you want to change the current financial system. How is there a difference? Your doing the same thing you claim he is doing.

And it doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down your throat, it looks more like he's being reasonable and intelligent and willing to discuss the topic like an adult, and it sounds more like you are trying to push some agenda you have

No, he's not trying to change the existing financial system at all ... we are trying to replace it entirely and give people an option to OPT OUT.

Something I notice no economists are offering or advocating for at present ... rather they spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep everybody corralled into their sick facist financial system of control and monitoring, cash controls, border checks, sniffer dogs, criminalising cash ... the list is endless with examples of the restrictions of financial freedom to serve their fiat masters and their wrong, failed, sick economic theories.

[thaaanos]

Since you take the conversation to a higher ground I cant help but to agree... But I think bitcoin is not the way Beyond capitalism.
For me holds the truth that  "Money is Trust". From there I derive my inner convictions about how money should be treated.
the lemas of the above go like:
1) A person/entity with a lot of money, has a lot of trust placed upon him by society and should act accordingly.
2) If person/entity cannot be trusted, it must not be allowed to keep the money either
3) Trust requires constant action (revalidation) to be preserved, so must money

Those are propably the reasons that I intuitively don't like bitcoin, as it starts with arbitary/disproportional distribution of trust and that very prematurely.
It allows that trust to grow without reason. Later entrants are regarded with mistrust.

Money needs a definition, I see Money as historically an emergent market phenomenon established from commodity money, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_money.
I can reconcile your 3 points only by attributing the purchasing potential money if we put our trust in its value.  In our centrally controlled fiat world we do that, we trust “the money” to have its value. Given its value has been diluted and abused and used to squander our natural capital by those who manage it, those institutions are now dysfunctional and beyond repair .

No I don't mean Trust in the Value, it's more like a token of trust by the society you live in bestowed upon the holder of the coin, so money/wealth actually generates responsibility rather than freedom to do as one pleases . Moneys value derives from that trust in the form of power/authority/acceptance.
True these are my convictions I don't expect anyone to share them.

Some like I presume Lloydie and I have been irreversibly abused by the system and are now virulently opposed to it.  (Joe average in the West with a mortgage may be OK will a little inflation but it is causing the biggest wealth inequality in the history of the world and has to stop before all our natural capital has been plundered.)

The way I believe is to Refactor society, not to experiment on it.

To be honest Bitcoin 5 years ago was not worth anything, and 6 months later you could buy BTC1000 for $5 US, and today it’s purchasing potential is phenomenal .

I wonder if we had this conversation 5 years ago how it could go, certainly with less passion

There are other distribution models coming to the cryptocurrency space that will address your concerns directly they will emerge when the time is right, but for now I don’t believe they will supersede Bitcoin, they will just complement it.
  

Maybe I make one, I have some ideas, most importantly a name, but I wont make it complement but compete bitcoin

In shot I feel the same about those who own property as you feel about those who have money, sill I partake willingly and by the rules, just Bitcoins rules are voluntary equitable and irreversible, and I love that.  

So no real revolution then, just a regime change...
I would suggest to snap out of it, and go for true revolution.

[thaaanos]

I suspect your inflationary alt coin argument will go something like this:

Please use my alt coin because you must trust us to manage the alt coin for the justice of all.It will be inflationary and your purchasing power will devalue over time. Thanks.

Or, you can choose bitcoin where your spending power is preserved and even increased as the bitcoin economy expands.

Lets see what people really want.

Actually no its going to be right from the start, like

THIS IS NO BITCOIN, NOTHING WATSOEVER TO DO WITH IT
NO EARLY MINE WILL MAKE YOU FILTHY RICH, LATE MINERS GET THE BEST COINS
IF YOU HODL YOU WILL WATCH THEM RUST AWAY.

and then just wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its userbase

[Lloydie]

I suspect your inflationary alt coin argument will go something like this:

Please use my alt coin because you must trust us to manage the alt coin for the justice of all.It will be inflationary and your purchasing power will devalue over time. Thanks.

Or, you can choose bitcoin where your spending power is preserved and even increased as the bitcoin economy expands.

Lets see what people really want.

Actually no its going to be right from the start, like

THIS IS NO BITCOIN, NOTHING WATSOEVER TO DO WITH IT
NO EARLY MINE WILL MAKE YOU FILTHY RICH, LATE MINERS GET THE BEST COINS
IF YOU HODL YOU WILL WATCH THEM RUST AWAY.

and then just wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its userbase

LOL. That is so dumb. Let me see. If I buy your special coin I can watch my wealth disintegrate.  Or I can buy bitcoin and see my wealth increase. Gee, which would I choose?

You are some kind of special stupid to think that would work. Maybe you are an economist.

You are going to wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its user base? Come at us bro. We are ready.

[thaaanos]

I suspect your inflationary alt coin argument will go something like this:

Please use my alt coin because you must trust us to manage the alt coin for the justice of all.It will be inflationary and your purchasing power will devalue over time. Thanks.

Or, you can choose bitcoin where your spending power is preserved and even increased as the bitcoin economy expands.

Lets see what people really want.

Actually no its going to be right from the start, like

THIS IS NO BITCOIN, NOTHING WATSOEVER TO DO WITH IT
NO EARLY MINE WILL MAKE YOU FILTHY RICH, LATE MINERS GET THE BEST COINS
IF YOU HODL YOU WILL WATCH THEM RUST AWAY.

and then just wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its userbase

LOL. That is so dumb. Let me see. If I buy your special coin I can watch my wealth disintegrate.  Or I can buy bitcoin and see my wealth increase. Gee, which would I choose?

You are some kind of special stupid to think that would work. Maybe you are an economist.

You are going to wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its user base? Come at us bro. We are ready.

Ha we'll see who gets to laugh last.
No just a grade school teacher lol.
I will and when I come, I will have Central Banks to back me! yeah!
and Im gone make your bitcoins worth shit so Hodl.

[Kungfucheez]

So let me try and understand this. He's wrong because he wants to change bitcoin. Yet your not wrong because you want to change the current financial system. How is there a difference? Your doing the same thing you claim he is doing.

And it doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down your throat, it looks more like he's being reasonable and intelligent and willing to discuss the topic like an adult, and it sounds more like you are trying to push some agenda you have

No, he's not trying to change the existing financial system at all ... we are trying to replace it entirely and give people an option to OPT OUT.

Something I notice no economists are offering or advocating for at present ... rather they spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep everybody corralled into their sick facist financial system of control and monitoring, cash controls, border checks, sniffer dogs, criminalising cash ... the list is endless with examples of the restrictions of financial freedom to serve their fiat masters and their wrong, failed, sick economic theories.

OPT out of what exactly? Life? If you think btc is going to magically change society for the better you have a serious problem.  The list is endless on the number of people who benefit from a fiat system as well. You sound more like a retarded tin-foil hat nut-job then a rational human.

[marcus_of_augustus]

OPT out of what exactly? Life? If you think btc is going to magically change society for the better you have a serious problem.  The list is endless on the number of people who benefit from a fiat system as well. You sound more like a retarded tin-foil hat nut-job then a rational human.

OPT OUT of fiat (not sure how you missed that glaring detail). Bitcoin is changing societies immensely already, people (even braindead economists) are thinking and talking about the central banksters fiat monetary RORT, it has already won regardless of what happens next.

Ad Hominem = Fail


... got any other pearls of wisdom or are we done here?

[Lloydie]

I suspect your inflationary alt coin argument will go something like this:

Please use my alt coin because you must trust us to manage the alt coin for the justice of all.It will be inflationary and your purchasing power will devalue over time. Thanks.

Or, you can choose bitcoin where your spending power is preserved and even increased as the bitcoin economy expands.

Lets see what people really want.

Actually no its going to be right from the start, like

THIS IS NO BITCOIN, NOTHING WATSOEVER TO DO WITH IT
NO EARLY MINE WILL MAKE YOU FILTHY RICH, LATE MINERS GET THE BEST COINS
IF YOU HODL YOU WILL WATCH THEM RUST AWAY.

and then just wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its userbase

LOL. That is so dumb. Let me see. If I buy your special coin I can watch my wealth disintegrate.  Or I can buy bitcoin and see my wealth increase. Gee, which would I choose?

You are some kind of special stupid to think that would work. Maybe you are an economist.

You are going to wait for the bitcoin bubble to burst and steal its user base? Come at us bro. We are ready.

Ha we'll see who gets to laugh last.
No just a grade school teacher lol.
I will and when I come, I will have Central Banks to back me! yeah!
and Im gone make your bitcoins worth shit so Hodl.

Lord, help those children that this person is teaching. May they always see through his bullshit.

At least now we know who you are Thaaanos: You are a lap dog of central banking. You are in the wrong forum. Go back to where you came from.

[Lloydie]

OPT out of what exactly? Life? If you think btc is going to magically change society for the better you have a serious problem.  The list is endless on the number of people who benefit from a fiat system as well. You sound more like a retarded tin-foil hat nut-job then a rational human.

Yes. In fact I do think that for the first time in history, bitcoin has the potential to change society for the better.

For the first time, bitcoin removes the parasitic third party banking system/central banking/surveillance machinery.

So, we are fighting the FUD that comes from people like you. We are telling people that Bitcoin allows people to opt out of centralised systems.

This is real democracy at work. If people feel the fiat system is better for them, they can stay. For others for whom the fiat system has failed them, they can and have already voted with their wallets.

Yes, people like you will try to regulate us, belittle us, influence us. But that's okay. You are part of the machinery that has just found a superior system that you cannot easily shutdown. It is natural for you to try and fight back.

But once people realise they can leave the oppressive machinery in exchange for something fairer, more transparent and less interfering - you will have lost the war.

The list of people that benefit from fiat are the 1%. The rest of us are tired of enriching the 1%. We want change.

[loopgate88]

So let me try and understand this. He's wrong because he wants to change bitcoin. Yet your not wrong because you want to change the current financial system. How is there a difference? Your doing the same thing you claim he is doing.

And it doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down your throat, it looks more like he's being reasonable and intelligent and willing to discuss the topic like an adult, and it sounds more like you are trying to push some agenda you have

No, he's not trying to change the existing financial system at all ... we are trying to replace it entirely and give people an option to OPT OUT.

Something I notice no economists are offering or advocating for at present ... rather they spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep everybody corralled into their sick facist financial system of control and monitoring, cash controls, border checks, sniffer dogs, criminalising cash ... the list is endless with examples of the restrictions of financial freedom to serve their fiat masters and their wrong, failed, sick economic theories.

Opt out in the future. Maybe.

[Lloydie]

So let me try and understand this. He's wrong because he wants to change bitcoin. Yet your not wrong because you want to change the current financial system. How is there a difference? Your doing the same thing you claim he is doing.

And it doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down your throat, it looks more like he's being reasonable and intelligent and willing to discuss the topic like an adult, and it sounds more like you are trying to push some agenda you have

No, he's not trying to change the existing financial system at all ... we are trying to replace it entirely and give people an option to OPT OUT.

Something I notice no economists are offering or advocating for at present ... rather they spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep everybody corralled into their sick facist financial system of control and monitoring, cash controls, border checks, sniffer dogs, criminalising cash ... the list is endless with examples of the restrictions of financial freedom to serve their fiat masters and their wrong, failed, sick economic theories.

Opt out in the future. Maybe.

No. We can opt out now. If you have little faith in bitcoin, then opt out 1% of your wealth. If you have great faith in bitcoin, opt out 99% of your wealth.

We can decide anytime to opt out as much as we like. We can also opt out to other coins.

[Kungfucheez]

OPT out of what exactly? Life? If you think btc is going to magically change society for the better you have a serious problem.  The list is endless on the number of people who benefit from a fiat system as well. You sound more like a retarded tin-foil hat nut-job then a rational human.

OPT OUT of fiat (not sure how you missed that glaring detail). Bitcoin is changing societies immensely already, people (even braindead economists) are thinking and talking about the central banksters fiat monetary RORT, it has already won regardless of what happens next.

Ad Hominem = Fail


... got any other pearls of wisdom or are we done here?

We'll I'm certainly done. Ignored.

[Lloydie]

OPT out of what exactly? Life? If you think btc is going to magically change society for the better you have a serious problem.  The list is endless on the number of people who benefit from a fiat system as well. You sound more like a retarded tin-foil hat nut-job then a rational human.

OPT OUT of fiat (not sure how you missed that glaring detail). Bitcoin is changing societies immensely already, people (even braindead economists) are thinking and talking about the central banksters fiat monetary RORT, it has already won regardless of what happens next.

Ad Hominem = Fail


... got any other pearls of wisdom or are we done here?

We'll I'm certainly done. Ignored.

Kungfucheez doesn't even like bitcoin. Perhaps people should ignore him instead. And Thaaanos also, a central bank clerk, masquerading as a grade school teacher.

[loopgate88]

So let me try and understand this. He's wrong because he wants to change bitcoin. Yet your not wrong because you want to change the current financial system. How is there a difference? Your doing the same thing you claim he is doing.

And it doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down your throat, it looks more like he's being reasonable and intelligent and willing to discuss the topic like an adult, and it sounds more like you are trying to push some agenda you have

No, he's not trying to change the existing financial system at all ... we are trying to replace it entirely and give people an option to OPT OUT.

Something I notice no economists are offering or advocating for at present ... rather they spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep everybody corralled into their sick facist financial system of control and monitoring, cash controls, border checks, sniffer dogs, criminalising cash ... the list is endless with examples of the restrictions of financial freedom to serve their fiat masters and their wrong, failed, sick economic theories.

Opt out in the future. Maybe.

No. We can opt out now. If you have little faith in bitcoin, then opt out 1% of your wealth. If you have great faith in bitcoin, opt out 99% of your wealth.

We can decide anytime to opt out as much as we like. We can also opt out to other coins.

That would be like buying an extremely unreliable Tesla S believing that equals opting out of using gasoline. The Tesla S is incredibly well built yet how many people do you see opting out of using gasoline by buying one? Now imagine if the Tesla S was a lemon... Not saying bitcoin is a lemon, just that bitcoin's value reliability is very minimal. For now.

[loopgate88]

OPT out of what exactly? Life? If you think btc is going to magically change society for the better you have a serious problem.  The list is endless on the number of people who benefit from a fiat system as well. You sound more like a retarded tin-foil hat nut-job then a rational human.

OPT OUT of fiat (not sure how you missed that glaring detail). Bitcoin is changing societies immensely already, people (even braindead economists) are thinking and talking about the central banksters fiat monetary RORT, it has already won regardless of what happens next.

Ad Hominem = Fail


... got any other pearls of wisdom or are we done here?

We'll I'm certainly done. Ignored.

Something happened here but I advise keeping your mind open when it comes to Marcus. He is very wise.

[Kungfucheez]

OPT out of what exactly? Life? If you think btc is going to magically change society for the better you have a serious problem.  The list is endless on the number of people who benefit from a fiat system as well. You sound more like a retarded tin-foil hat nut-job then a rational human.

OPT OUT of fiat (not sure how you missed that glaring detail). Bitcoin is changing societies immensely already, people (even braindead economists) are thinking and talking about the central banksters fiat monetary RORT, it has already won regardless of what happens next.

Ad Hominem = Fail


... got any other pearls of wisdom or are we done here?

We'll I'm certainly done. Ignored.

Something happened here but I advise keeping your mind open when it comes to Marcus. He is very wise.

Maybe, but that's not the impression I get.

[Lloydie]

No. We can opt out now. If you have little faith in bitcoin, then opt out 1% of your wealth. If you have great faith in bitcoin, opt out 99% of your wealth.

We can decide anytime to opt out as much as we like. We can also opt out to other coins.

That would be like buying an extremely unreliable Tesla S believing that equals opting out of using gasoline. The Tesla S is incredibly well built yet how many people do you see opting out of using gasoline by buying one? Now imagine if the Tesla S was a lemon... Not saying bitcoin is a lemon, just that bitcoin's value reliability is very minimal. For now.

For those that can afford it why not? I would love to own a tesla, especially one that has a five year track record, appreciates in value and has a user base growing at a rate of 30% per month.

Plus the great thing is; unlike a tesla, bitcoins are not an all or nothing proposition. You can allocate as little as 1% of your wealth to it.

I find bitcoin's value plenty reliable, after all it appreciated 60 times in 2013. As far as I can see, it's regulation from central banks that are the primary obstacles. The rest of bitcoin looks perfectly reliable to me.

Even with the issue of regulation: how does one legally ban an entire asset class? I don't know of any such precedents. It would be an unprecedented, unilateral action to ban something that people want to use. Politically, I'm not sure how that is going to fly.

OTOH, they might try to tax it to death. In which case we will probably see the migration of bitcoin to non capital gains taxed jurisdictions that has no GST or value added taxes.

Either way, I see a minimum penetration of >1% of the human population, which is about a 70 times increase from the current user base.

[loopgate88]

It's not a matter of affordability, it's a matter of projected ROI.
When do you think it will cover >1% of the human population? Also, what if it doesn't?

[Lloydie]

It's not a matter of affordability, it's a matter of projected ROI.
When do you think it will cover >1% of the human population? Also, what if it doesn't?

Hard to say when 1% is reached. Current user base of approx. 1 million is increasing by 30% per month. You can extrapolate from there.

If it doesn't get there, I expect to see one of two things: a crypto that is better than bitcoin, in a very fundamental way. Something like totally anonymous transactions or something else very special that we need in a digital currency.

A full worldwide governmental ban is in place. In effect, prohibition, in which case the adoption rate might slow. But for prohibition to even work, usage must already exceed 1% of population right? Otherwise, you'd just be drawing attention to it unnecessarily. 

OTOH, the governments might run some kind of scare campaign saying how crazy volatile bitcoins are, how it is used for drugs, how it could corrupt your children, how deflation is bad, or that it is used to fund terrorism. This kind of campaign might go on for awhile. They might even try to associate bitcoins with some kind of bombing to try and have it banned.

So, 1% adoption rate looks, overall, quite certain to me. We just don't know when and whether it will happen as a banned currency or a widely used open system.

[htspringer]

So let me try and understand this. He's wrong because he wants to change bitcoin. Yet your not wrong because you want to change the current financial system. How is there a difference? Your doing the same thing you claim he is doing.

And it doesn't sound like he's shoving anything down your throat, it looks more like he's being reasonable and intelligent and willing to discuss the topic like an adult, and it sounds more like you are trying to push some agenda you have

No, he's not trying to change the existing financial system at all ... we are trying to replace it entirely and give people an option to OPT OUT.

Something I notice no economists are offering or advocating for at present ... rather they spend a great deal of time trying to figure out how to keep everybody corralled into their sick facist financial system of control and monitoring, cash controls, border checks, sniffer dogs, criminalising cash ... the list is endless with examples of the restrictions of financial freedom to serve their fiat masters and their wrong, failed, sick economic theories.

Opt out in the future. Maybe.

No. We can opt out now. If you have little faith in bitcoin, then opt out 1% of your wealth. If you have great faith in bitcoin, opt out 99% of your wealth.

We can decide anytime to opt out as much as we like. We can also opt out to other coins.

Bitcoin will keep going up for several reasons.
The gross corruption of governments and banks will assure its permeation into every corner of the globe.

[marcus_of_augustus]

OPT out of what exactly? Life? If you think btc is going to magically change society for the better you have a serious problem.  The list is endless on the number of people who benefit from a fiat system as well. You sound more like a retarded tin-foil hat nut-job then a rational human.

OPT OUT of fiat (not sure how you missed that glaring detail). Bitcoin is changing societies immensely already, people (even braindead economists) are thinking and talking about the central banksters fiat monetary RORT, it has already won regardless of what happens next.

Ad Hominem = Fail


... got any other pearls of wisdom or are we done here?

We'll I'm certainly done. Ignored.

Something happened here but I advise keeping your mind open when it comes to Marcus. He is very wise.

Maybe, but that's not the impression I get.

Maybe you are impressionable ... sometimes I mix and mingle with the smell of the sheople, to get a grasp for what's happening on the ground.

[Hunterbunter]

Bitcoin as a decentralised automated monetary system also obviates the need for economists and central banksters.

and workforce

Economists and banksters can go get real jobs.

Like being bitcoin miners...

[thaaanos]

Once [an] innovation has been introduced, people usually become more dependent on it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. When a new item…is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.

[Mobile] phones have changed the way that people make plans. It used to be…“I’ll meet you on the street corner at this time and we’ll go somewhere.” And now, people say “I’ll call you when I’m getting off work.” So if you don’t have that piece of technology, you can’t participate in the way the society is communicating or coordinating. And so what actually ends up happening is now if I decide that I don’t want to participate in this codified communications channel, I’m victim to the ‘No Network Effect’, because I’m trying to be a part of a network that has been destroyed, that no longer exists.

So yes, I made a choice to have a cell phone. But what kind of choice did I make? And I think that this is the way that things tend to go now. What ends up happening is the choices start out very simple. Do I have a piece of consumer electronics in my pocket or not? And over time, the scope of that choice slowly expands until it becomes a choice to participate in society or not.

[Lloydie]

Ha we'll see who gets to laugh last.
No just a grade school teacher lol.
I will and when I come, I will have Central Banks to back me! yeah!
and Im gone make your bitcoins worth shit so Hodl.