Occupy Round Table on Bitcoin

[cbeast]

Atlas, your fictional scenario is entertaining, but absurd. I have advocated for people to actually write fan fiction to support a valid RBE. Sadly, there seems to be little effort to do so. I do not wish to continue this discussion because it is much easier to let the world choke to death on pollution. Your libertarian dream is even easier to ridicule than one based on actual science.

[1713901995]

1713901995

[1713901995]

1713901995

[cbeast]

I have advocated for people to actually write fan fiction to support a valid RBE.

It's called 1984.

like this
http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Backward-2000-1887-Edward-Bellamy/dp/1420925709

[Harvey]

I am going to read this. Expect an intelligent, effortful critique in the coming days. I will go into this open-minded.

All assumptions are going into the trash.

[o]

Bitcoin still behaves like money.

In what way would you prefer it to behave?

Money forces everyone to assign a positive real number to every exchangeable stuff. Even more, the real number line in everyone's mind are forced to match with the real number line with each other. But in reality, the real number lines match very poorly because stuff A have larger values than stuff B in one person mind can have the opposite ordering in another person mind.

[Harvey]

Bitcoin still behaves like money.

In what way would you prefer it to behave?

Money forces everyone to assign a positive real number to every exchangeable stuff. Even more, the real number line in everyone's mind are forced to match with the real number line with each other. But in reality, the real number lines match very poorly because stuff A have larger values than stuff B in one person mind can have the opposite ordering in another person mind.

Yes because there is an objective value on everything and people just don't know it. People don't know what they want. They don't know what's best for themselves. We should assign specialized technocrats to decide such values and how we should lead our lives. There is a real number and only the wise and virtuous technocrats know.  

Now, back to reality: The numbers match up perfectly because they are the culmination of asks and bids of the people who own said "stuff". Nobody knows better than the person who had to make the choices and actions necessary to produce and possess said product and/or service. Now, of course, there is not only one individual that can produce a good or service; there are many and the prices will adjust to competing bids and asks. The spot price is the "real" number. Just because somebody is willing to pay more than you are, it doesn't mean the price is wrong. It just means you don't value the object as much and you will have to pay just as much with whatever goods if you can only barter. Actually, bartering will only make it more expensive with the time you have to spend trading to get it.

Individual desires differ. We are all unique and special in our own way. Didn't they teach you that in preschool? I'm sorry everybody doesn't think and desire the same. We are called sentient individual human beings for a reason. If we all acted and thought unilaterally in unison, guess what: We would be a single individual. Sorry, we are not.

At the least, I am my own organism.

[o]

It isn't straightforward to remove money even if this was chosen as the proper direction, money has radically corrupted our incentive systems which is one of the main obstacles for a different kind of system. But I think that it won't take very long anymore for automation to get cheap enough that companies don't have any cheap country to go to for cheap labor, they will simply build robots. That is the breaking point for our current system, because there won't be enough work for people anymore.

The real problem needed to be solved is the situation with limited resource, but not the situation with abundance resources. Robotics and other technologies does not solve this problem.

For example, after an Earthquake, there are no food, no medcine and no doctors, someone have to die, so what do you do?

For a more realistic situation, if everyone sudden want the same stuffs, then the sharing mechanism break and we need to produce a large number of same stuff. In this sense, advertisement is devils because it creates a huge demands for the same stuff in a short time. Even more, people can change mind in a matter of minutes. Everything produced by robots in the previous minutes are wasted then. So how to solve it?

Suppose now we have technology travelling to and from Mars. But the fact that everyone go to Mars every year can consume more energy that the Earth absorb, so how would you solve the problem. Remember, in the world without money, you are restricting my freedom to move!

I always think that it is more important to change our mind and take some sacrifice. We must deal with the situation that lacking resource. Hoping that we have abundance resources is just bullshit. Hope so is the same situations that governments do nothing in "good economy" period.

[o]

Bitcoin still behaves like money.

In what way would you prefer it to behave?

Money forces everyone to assign a positive real number to every exchangeable stuff. Even more, the real number line in everyone's mind are forced to match with the real number line with each other. But in reality, the real number lines match very poorly because stuff A have larger values than stuff B in one person mind can have the opposite ordering in another person mind.

Yes because there is an objective value on everything and people just don't know it. People don't know what they want. They don't know what's best for themselves. We should assign specialized technocrats to decide such values and how we should lead our lives. There is a real number and only the wise and virtuous technocrats know.  

Now, back to reality: The numbers match up perfectly because they are the culmination of asks and bids of the people who own said "stuff". Nobody knows better than the person who had to make the choices and actions necessary to produce and possess said product and/or service. Now, of course, there is not only one individual that can produce a good or service; there are many and the prices will adjust to competing bids and asks. The spot price is the "real" number. Just because somebody is willing to pay more than you are, it doesn't mean the price is wrong. It just means you don't value the object as much and you will have to pay just as much with whatever goods if you can only barter. Actually, bartering will only make it more expensive with the time you have to spend trading to get it.

Individual desires differ. We are all unique and special in our own way. Didn't they teach you that in preschool? I'm sorry everybody doesn't think and desire the same. We are called sentient individual human beings for a reason. If we all acted and thought unilaterally in unison, guess what: We would be a single individual. Sorry, we are not.

At the least, I am my own organism.

I do not believe there is such objective value on everything. It has such price points because money are at the center linking everything. When you need to exchange stuff with other and convert it to money first, you must go through that price. The price may differ by the number in your mind, but you have to deal with it.

But in fact, if you bypass the money at the center and directly exchange it will others, and both of you agree with the exchange stuff. It is very likely that you two get more value in your own "real number line". In this sense, I do think there is any objective value.

Barter in today is much more convenient than years before, but still not yet any sophisticated, so lets see what will happen on ti

[the joint]

People who say "we need a world without money" are actually saying "we need a world without trading and barter," for the two are the same.

Money is simply the good for which people most commonly barter. Remove any form of money from society and you'll quickly observe people finding other things to trade with.

If trade and exchange are occurring, then goods are being traded between people. Whichever good is most commonly used in trade is given the name of money. Not only is it a silly idea to "remove money" from society, but it is in fact as impossible as removing speech.

No.  I think this is wrong and that it's important to say why it's wrong.

Forgoing the legal definitions of what fiat currency is, money, generally speaking, is something of value.  And, as you said, it is the most commonly traded good.

But a world without money is NOT the same as a world without barter.

The thing about money is that it displaces value away from all other objects and redistributes it according to the value of the accepted currency.  I'm a musician.  I love instruments because I can play them; playing them is intrinsically beneficial to me.  I'd much rather have my guitar than, say, a watch.  But because money exists, if that watch happens to be a Rolex, you better believe I'd rather have the watch.

One of my first posts I made was about this same idea.  I still believe it to be true, and, unfortunately, I believe BTC does nothing to escape it.  In my opinion, an all-barter world is ideal, ignoring all of the psychological and other considerations that make it currently impossible (e.g. bye-bye global economics and mass production.  "Yeah, we'll give you 10 million plastic spoons for 50,000 boxes of Captain Crunch.").  Still, I think it's money's ultimate negative effect on society and people in general.

[Harvey]

What's stopping a person from using gold to trade for any good he desires?

[cbeast]

What's stopping a person from using gold to trade for any good he desires?

Muggers would love for folks to start carrying around gold again instead of plastic.

[the joint]

Gold has the same problem.  It's money.  It's not just "a stupid rock."

[cbeast]

What's stopping a person from using gold to trade for any good he desires?

Muggers would love for folks to start carrying around gold again instead of plastic.

Heh, I bet they would love my P90 strapped to my back as well unless your ideal society has a government monopoly on guns and the like.

Beautiful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C0dmGeE4MI

It's called the element of surprise. Unless of course you can afford bodyguards.

[evoorhees]

But a world without money is NOT the same as a world without barter.

Yes, it is. In a world wherein people barter, you would find them inevitably tend to barter with common goods that were marginally more universally desired. If you want the wheat I'm selling, and I want something from you, I will tend to desire a good that you have which I know I can trade to someone else. That means, I'll pay you a higher quantity of wheat in return for, say, some lumber planks as opposed to your collection of paintings. Why? Because the lumber planks are more easily tradeable to someone else.

As this process happens, a natural price-differential occurs favoring those items which are more easily traded. Eventually, a few of these items become so universally traded (whether lumber planks or rice or seashells or gold) that BOOM they are now the money of that society.

"Money" is simply the most successful barter-good in an economy. It is thus impossible to remove "money" from society without removing trade entirely.

[cbeast]

"Money" is simply the most successful barter-good in an economy.

So far. Something better will come along as only technology will provide.

[evoorhees]

Animals don't need money. Humans are animals. Therefore humans don't need money.

OMG

Neither do animals need computers, vehicles, agriculture, electricity, chairs and tables, and ski resorts. Shall we do away with all benefits unique to humans because lesser creatures have been unable to produce them as well? Perhaps you'll bless humanity by ridding it of running water, for animals seem quite happy without it.

Families take care of one another throughout most of the animal kingdom. They share resources.

Many families in the animal kingdom also eat each other. You look to curious places for behavioral guidance.

For resources to be shared among a family, they must first be produced. Will each family produce all the things it needs? Who among your family knows how to produce a ballpoint pen - remembering to drill for iron, smelt into steel, procure and prepare plastics and inks and molds. Who among your family has the skills to conjure up the LCD screen upon which you read this message? Who among them can produce penicillin or even soap? What narrow diet will you enjoy having only a few people, unable to engage in food production for they are busy trying to decipher the instructions for the penicillin? And how did you acquire those instructions?

Animals do share resources with each other - among tiny groups of families. And, consequently, they live in poverty, like animals. There is nothing stopping you from restraining your trade to only those within your family. You can start today, why wait?

Money was probably created to make the weekly sacrifice to the gods easier.

Money wasn't "created." It evolved organically via barter over time. That thing most commonly bartered for was given a name - money. It was not "decided" by a church or government or some wise tribal leader. Just as nobody "created" language as a tool of humanity, neither did anyone create money.

Money allowed wealth to aggregate for the institution of temples and palaces.

Actually, deceit, lies, and coercion allowed wealth to aggregate at temples and palaces.

Sure, money makes barter easier just as dogma makes thinking easier.

That's a pretty disingenuous comparison. More accurate: money makes barter easier just like language makes communication easier.

Maybe we can soon put money to rest and learn to go back to sharing resources smartly.

You first, there's absolutely nothing stopping you.

[cbeast]

You first, there's absolutely nothing stopping you.

I already have within the limits that people with guns have allowed me. Resist. Their game is one of diminishing returns.

[edit]
I would debate you face to face anytime.

[Cryptoman]

Maybe we can soon put money to rest and learn to go back to sharing resources smartly.

You first, there's absolutely nothing stopping you.

This is what has turned me off to the OWS movement.  They have all the resources they need at their disposal to start creating the world they dream of.  Don't like big corporations?  Then don't buy name-brand products, trade with your fellow OWSers and start a new web site exposing the travesties of corporations.  Angry about your student loans?  Then don't pay them back, or, better yet, don't sign up for a degree if you aren't sure it will pay for itself.  Can't get a loan from a bank?  Make your spiel on a crowdfunding site.  Don't like banks at all?  Then get behind Bitcoin, or fork it if you don't like some aspects of it.  Can't get a job?  Try one of the many freelancing sites on the web.

In spite of sharing many of the concerns of OWS members, I don't see them accomplishing anything by "occupying" any longer.  The only way we are going to move forward is for people to start implementing positive, new ideas so that we can find out what works and what doesn't.

[mrdavis]

This is what has turned me off to the OWS movement.  They have all the resources they need at their disposal to start creating the world they dream of.  Don't like big corporations?  Then don't buy name-brand products, trade with your fellow OWSers and start a new web site exposing the travesties of corporations.  Angry about your student loans?  Then don't pay them back, or, better yet, don't sign up for a degree if you aren't sure it will pay for itself.  Can't get a loan from a bank?  Make your spiel on a crowdfunding site.  Don't like banks at all?  Then get behind Bitcoin, or fork it if you don't like some aspects of it.  Can't get a job?  Try one of the many freelancing sites on the web.

In spite of sharing many of the concerns of OWS members, I don't see them accomplishing anything by "occupying" any longer.  The only way we are going to move forward is for people to start implementing positive, new ideas so that we can find out what works and what doesn't.

+1

[Red Emerald]

Angry about your student loans?  Then don't pay them back, or, better yet, don't sign up for a degree if you aren't sure it will pay for itself.

That way only the rich get college level educations?  Sounds ideal...

The only way we are going to move forward is for people to start implementing positive, new ideas so that we can find out what works and what doesn't.

I agree that we need to build and start using alternatives.  But I think many of those systems aren't fully ready to replace the "norm" yet.  Nothing to but keep trying though.

[LightRider]

Money isn't a network, it's a loop. It originates in a bank and must return to a bank, causing fraud, waste, abuse, destruction and death along the way. Bitcoin is a web, in which all nodes are equal, and promotes peer relationships among those who engage in its operation. Unfortunately, it exists in the context of our current corrupt monetary system, promoting theft, abuse and concentration in its operation as well. This is not a result of human nature, but the corrupting influence of our environment, that promotes contrived competition, excess in accumulation and the inequality in value of one's own life over another. When we finally outgrow the traditional appeals to false authority and contrived scarcity, using our technology, ability and knowledge for the betterment of all people, then we will stop acting like animals and become human beings worthy of any distinction from the animal kingdom.