Stefan Molyneux Bitcoin vs. Political Power (Must see if you haven't yet)

[5flags]

However I don't politicize the information

Well, it was a talk on political power...

Having fewer wars?  Lack of money never stopped anyone from going to war.  But if you go to war you need to finance it somehow

But that's kinda the point. These magical ways to create new money (inflation of money supply is effectively wealth confiscation by stealth) mean that a government always has the ability to fund its wars. If currency is limited, that no longer holds true.

[1714637047]

1714637047

[1714637047]

1714637047

[1714637047]

1714637047

[twiifm]

However I don't politicize the information

Well, it was a talk on political power...

Having fewer wars?  Lack of money never stopped anyone from going to war.  But if you go to war you need to finance it somehow

But that's kinda the point. These magical ways to create new money (inflation of money supply is effectively wealth confiscation by stealth) mean that a government always has the ability to fund its wars. If currency is limited, that no longer holds true.

Do you realized that govt sells war bonds in order to BORROW from private sector.  Don't buy them if you don't wanna support

[5flags]

Do you realized that govt sells war bonds in order to BORROW from private sector.  Don't buy them if you don't wanna support

Yes. Do you realise that the US government effectively defaults on bond repayments every time it devalues the currency? In 1935, the US removed the "gold clause" from the bond, reducing the amount of gold a dollar was worth, described by the City of London at the time as "One of the most egregious defaults in history". Nixon defaulted again, completely removing the gold linkage.

[Beliathon]

Up you go.

[bitcerto]

So glad I watched that. Now I have a raging hard on for Bitcoin acceptance and adoption. Let's put power back in the hands of the populous!

[Beliathon]

So glad I watched that. Now I have a raging hard on for Bitcoin acceptance and adoption. Let's put power back in the hands of the populous!

Spread it to everyone you know! I host parties at my house once per month, where I show this and a few other educational vids. I pay people to attend in Bitcoin, $20 in BTC, plus free food.

It's very gratifying and always a good turnout. And they get their first Bitcoins for many of them, and they learn how to use it so they can spend it!

[jonald_fyookball]

So glad I watched that. Now I have a raging hard on for Bitcoin acceptance and adoption. Let's put power back in the hands of the populous!

Spread it to everyone you know! I host parties at my house once per month, where I show this and a few other educational vids. I pay people to attend in Bitcoin, $20 in BTC, plus free food.

It's very gratifying and always a good turnout. And they get their first Bitcoins for many of them, and they learn how to use it so they can spend it!

Dude that is awesome

[Beliathon]

Page 5? That is simply unacceptable. Everyone needs to see this.

[wasserman99]

Stefan Molyneus is sort of a cult leader.

Check it -- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JqngrsDHU6Y

"Molyneux believes the world needs his show for its survival" ... delusional people will be delusional

[Beliathon]

"Molyneux believes the world needs his show for its survival" ... delusional people will be delusional

If Molyneux is a cult leader, his cult is the truth. I strongly recommend checking out his "the tyranny of illusion" video. The man is a very respected public intellectual, an easy target for a nobody to slander.

Why is this thread not stickied yet? At least for Americans, this is by far the most important video on Bitcoin. Sticky it.

[twiifm]

"Molyneux believes the world needs his show for its survival" ... delusional people will be delusional

IThe man is a very respected public intellectual.

Hahahahahahaha!!!! LOLOLOLOL He is NOT a "respected public intellectual".  He's a YouTuber fear monger and "truther".  He's a rebel rouser and tunnel visioned politically narrow minded libertarian know-it-all.  He just tries to instigate controversy.  No research no empiricism

No different than Ted Nugent, Alex Jones, Zietgeist dude.

[5flags]

Hahahahahahaha!!!! LOLOLOLOL He is NOT a "respected public intellectual".  He's a YouTuber fear monger and "truther".  He's a rebel rouser and tunnel visioned politically narrow minded libertarian know-it-all.  He just tries to instigate controversy.  No research no empiricism

No different than Ted Nugent, Alex Jones, Zietgeist dude.

Maybe. Can you point to anything he said that you think is wrong?

I don't like truthers or conspiracy theorists, but his thoughts on Bitcoin (specifically fixed supply currencies) as being useful for limiting political power are interesting.

[twiifm]

Hahahahahahaha!!!! LOLOLOLOL He is NOT a "respected public intellectual".  He's a YouTuber fear monger and "truther".  He's a rebel rouser and tunnel visioned politically narrow minded libertarian know-it-all.  He just tries to instigate controversy.  No research no empiricism

No different than Ted Nugent, Alex Jones, Zietgeist dude.

Maybe. Can you point to anything he said that you think is wrong?

I don't like truthers or conspiracy theorists, but his thoughts on Bitcoin (specifically fixed supply currencies) as being useful for limiting political power are interesting.

1.  He claims "Historically, politicians have always fought for the power to create money out of thin air, so they can increase their spending without having to directly increase taxes." 

Wrong -- Most wars are over land disputes, ideology, religion, economics or a combination.  Please name one war fought over the issue of printing fiat.  He certainly didn't

2.  Trotsky, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pinochet, Castro, etc..  These guys had nothing to do w banking.  They are astute politicians and fierce military guys.  Their power didn't come from raising money but politics and convincing people to follow them.

3.  Limiting money limits govt from printing to pay for war.  Wrong again.  Govt borrow money for war by selling (war) bonds.  Or maybe raise taxes.  Or they might borrow it from foreign banks.  No govts can just print money for no reason.  They can increase money supply in form of gov debt though.


All he says on stage is that govt do bad shit and it costs a lot of money.  Blah blah blah.  Well how does he know what's overpriced?  what is he comparing to?  Like "war on drugs" costing 100s of billions.  How much is a war on drugs supposed to cost?  Is there an empirical comparison?  No because he just want to make people irate.  What about good shit that govt do that costs 100s of billions?  He picks his projects be he wants to rile up people.  Anyways it was a goofy speech.  Nothing to do w BTC and more to do with scare mongering

[acoindr]

1.  He claims "Historically, politicians have always fought for the power to create money out of thin air, so they can increase their spending without having to directly increase taxes." 

Wrong -- Most wars are over land disputes, ideology, religion, economics or a combination. ...

Stefan didn't say politicians have always fought wars for the power to create money. You implied that. There are many ways to gain political objective without fighting war.

...  Please name one war fought over the issue of printing fiat.  He certainly didn't ...

The Iraq War.

Was Operation Iraqi Freedom fought over land dispute? Ideology? Religion? Economics? That's certainly not what we in the U.S. were told. Iraq is nowhere near our borders.

We were specifically told it was over weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and further we knew where they were. Although I wouldn't hold my breath for an official government explanation of what went wrong let me propose a guess. Let me first remind viewers Americans in general didn't seem to be clamoring for war over WMD. There was also the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 where 500K to 1M were killed with no intervention from the U.S. If we are so concerned for the well being and slaughter of distant people, why not?

The real downfall of Saddam Hussein was interests of a powerful nation (the U.S.) were aligned against him. An empire the size of the U.S. which doesn't produce much domestically needs something else to export to sustain a debt fueled economy: war. The Iraq war cost over 2 Trillion dollars of additional U.S. debt. Second, as Stefan mentioned there are those who do profit from war and somebody got paid from those dollars.

Third, Saddam proposed selling oil for euros which threatened the petrodollar. While Iraq wasn't the world's biggest oil producer, others could get ideas and Iraq was small enough to be made an example of. Combine all this with the fact Saddam wasn't the most saintly ruler and you probably have the real basis for that war. Now that explanation I'd argue makes far more sense, and is certainly about the ability to continue printing fiat (the U.S. dollar).

... 2.  Trotsky, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pinochet, Castro, etc..  These guys had nothing to do w banking.  They are astute politicians and fierce military guys.  Their power didn't come from raising money but politics and convincing people to follow them.

I'd agree with the fierce part.

... 3.  Limiting money limits govt from printing to pay for war.  Wrong again.  Govt borrow money for war by selling (war) bonds.  Or maybe raise taxes.  Or they might borrow it from foreign banks.  No govts can just print money for no reason.  They can increase money supply in form of gov debt though.

You're missing the point. It's not printing money that restrains government. It's cost. The two are not the same.

If the barometer for what people use as money is gold, something which government can't simply create to dish out, then people will feel the cost of things like war in a more pronounced way, rather then gradually over years by inflation.

... Anyways it was a goofy speech.  ...

Maybe the speeches of George W. Bush in the lead up to the Iraq War were more to your taste.

[twiifm]

1.  He claims "Historically, politicians have always fought for the power to create money out of thin air, so they can increase their spending without having to directly increase taxes."  

Wrong -- Most wars are over land disputes, ideology, religion, economics or a combination. ...

Stefan didn't say politicians have always fought wars for the power to create money. You implied that. There are many ways to gain political objective without fighting war.

...  Please name one war fought over the issue of printing fiat.  He certainly didn't ...

The Iraq War.

Was Operation Iraqi Freedom fought over land dispute? Ideology? Religion? Economics? That's certainly not what we in the U.S. were told. Iraq is nowhere near our borders.

We were specifically told it was over weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and further we knew where they were. Although I wouldn't hold my breath for an official government explanation of what went wrong let me propose a guess. Let me first remind viewers Americans in general didn't seem to be clamoring for war over WMD. There was also the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 where 500K to 1M were killed with no intervention from the U.S. If we are so concerned for the well being and slaughter of distant people, why not?

The real downfall of Saddam Hussein was interests of a powerful nation (the U.S.) were aligned against him. An empire the size of the U.S. which doesn't produce much domestically needs something else to export to sustain a debt fueled economy: war. The Iraq war cost over 2 Trillion dollars of additional U.S. debt. Second, as Stefan mentioned there are those who do profit from war and somebody got paid from those dollars.

Third, Saddam proposed selling oil for euros which threatened the petrodollar. While Iraq wasn't the world's biggest oil producer, others could get ideas and Iraq was small enough to be made an example of. Combine all this with the fact Saddam wasn't the most saintly ruler and you probably have the real basis for that war. Now that explanation I'd argue makes far more sense, and is certainly about the ability to continue printing fiat (the U.S. dollar).

... 2.  Trotsky, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Pinochet, Castro, etc..  These guys had nothing to do w banking.  They are astute politicians and fierce military guys.  Their power didn't come from raising money but politics and convincing people to follow them.

I'd agree with the fierce part.

... 3.  Limiting money limits govt from printing to pay for war.  Wrong again.  Govt borrow money for war by selling (war) bonds.  Or maybe raise taxes.  Or they might borrow it from foreign banks.  No govts can just print money for no reason.  They can increase money supply in form of gov debt though.

You're missing the point. It's not printing money that restrains government. It's cost. The two are not the same.

If the barometer for what people use as money is gold, something which government can't simply create to dish out, then people will feel the cost of things like war in a more pronounced way, rather then gradually over years by inflation.

... Anyways it was a goofy speech.  ...

Maybe the speeches of George W. Bush in the lead up to the Iraq War were more to your taste.

I took that quote right off the youtube page.  

Iraq War was about economics and land grab of oil reserves and strategical positioning in Middle East.  If you follow the careers of Bush-Cheney-Romsfeld & PNAC you can see where the ideology comes from.  

But besides the point it has nothing to do w his speech.  BTC would have not prevent Iraq, cause Iraq has nothing to do w whether Fractional Reserve Banking exists or not

His speech was about how the power of govts to print money and in return this pays for wars.  This hypothesis is so wrong because he is drawing causation where there is none.  Wars existed before the Govt could print money.  Wars don't have to be paid by govt money.  Most Communist uprisings aren't paid for by govts or bankers

He tries to portray that he discovered some "alternative" view of history that's somehow hidden from the masses.  However, his views is not supported from rigid research.  Maybe it appeals to you, but to me it's very weak academics.   The guy is a shock jock.  He's not as bad as Alex Jones and that ilk.  I'll give him that.  

[acoindr]

I took that quote right off the youtube page.  

Apparently you didn't read it carefully. As I tried to point out the word war isn't in the quote. Fighting to achieve something doesn't always mean you're fighting war.

Iraq War was about economics and land grab of oil reserves and strategical positioning in Middle East.  If you follow the careers of Bush-Cheney-Romsfeld & PNAC you can see where the ideology comes from.  ...

I agree there has probably been in place a U.S. military wishlist to invade and occupy Iraq, Iran, Syria, regardless who landed in the Oval Office. Also as my Rwandan Genocide example shows it must be about oil, not morality.  What I'm saying is Saddam Hussein allowed enough interests to align to turn a wish into action.

But besides the point it has nothing to do w his speech.  BTC would have not prevent Iraq, cause Iraq has nothing to do w whether Fractional Reserve Banking exists or not

Aha, but this is my (and Stefan's) point. If BTC (or gold) was used by Americans as the dollar is it absolutely could have prevented the Iraq War. Why? As I pointed out that war cost over 2 trillion dollars, all borrowed. If everyone was using BTC those costs would have been due and payable in BTC.

The problem is the government doesn't have the ability to create BTC on demand. It would have to actually get BTC from its citizens in some way, all bad: taxation, bonds (lending), or confiscation. In the case of taxation with such a large cost taxes would be high enough to anger the populace, and the war would be over quickly. In the case of borrowing with such a large cost interest rates would be high (remember things like gold or BTC hold or increase in value over time) and repayment would be steep so as to again require higher taxes. Confiscation, well you should know the rest...

None of those war finance options are preferable to a government that wants to remain easily in power, due to the cost felt by its citizens. This is how sound money prevents, or at least limits, war. Wars are then only fought over legitimate conflict, not frivolous, profiteering motives.

His speech was about how the power of govts to print money and in return this pays for wars.  This hypothesis is so wrong because he is drawing causation where there is none.  Wars existed before the Govt could print money. ...

That's a false dichotomy. You're implying either govts can print money or there will be no war. Other possibilities exist, such as starting limited, less costly, war.

He tries to portray that he discovered some "alternative" view of history that's somehow hidden from the masses.  

I'd argue there is a lot hidden from the masses, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, but either way the masses remain ignorant of much.

The guy is a shock jock.  He's not as bad as Alex Jones and that ilk.  I'll give him that.

The fact is both he and Alex Jones have amassed large and growing audiences, so what they're saying obviously resonates with someone. Even if they don't get all of their information 100% correctly proven and presented in the best possible way, it seems foolish to dismiss the whole of their content as worthless and never deserving any attention.
  

[twiifm]

Yeah but you can't single out War Financing.  If the govt cannot print money then nothing else can get financed (or limited financed).   Govts don't want the power to print money in order to engage in war.  They want that power to finance whatever they want to finance

Also you & Stefan are conflating separate issues.  Wars still occurred when money was backed by gold.  WW1 & WW2 are examples of huge wars that occurred when currencies backed by gold

The flaw of his arguments goes like this:

Wars cost money
If money is limited then war is limited
Therefore, to limit war we should limit money

I could try to make a similar illogical argument

Wars are fought by soldiers
If less soldiers then less wars
Therefore, to limit wars we should limit soldiers

It seems to me he had a hypothesis about war finance & banking.  Then he tried to connect BTC to that somehow.  Poor academics for a guy who claims to be a "philosopher"

[DooMAD]

"Molyneux believes the world needs his show for its survival" ... delusional people will be delusional

IThe man is a very respected public intellectual.

Hahahahahahaha!!!! LOLOLOLOL He is NOT a "respected public intellectual".  He's a YouTuber fear monger and "truther".  He's a rebel rouser and tunnel visioned politically narrow minded libertarian know-it-all.  He just tries to instigate controversy.  No research no empiricism

No different than Ted Nugent, Alex Jones, Zietgeist dude.

Pretty much this.  I'd be spreading the video around if I hadn't seen some of his prior videos which put me off the guy.  He might be right about Bitcoin.  In fact, I sincerely hope he is, but if other people start looking more closely at his other videos, they might end up taking him less seriously and that in turn casts doubt on what he's saying about crypto.

I can see why the more radical people out there are drawn to Bitcoin, but in terms of helping spread mainstream adoption, we ideally want to publicise details coming from a more moderate source to avoid alienating the general populace.  If we give the impression that Bitcoin is just for extremists and anarchists, it's going to hinder the cause.

[jc01480]

So glad I watched that. Now I have a raging hard on for Bitcoin acceptance and adoption. Let's put power back in the hands of the populous!

Spread it to everyone you know! I host parties at my house once per month, where I show this and a few other educational vids. I pay people to attend in Bitcoin, $20 in BTC, plus free food.

It's very gratifying and always a good turnout. And they get their first Bitcoins for many of them, and they learn how to use it so they can spend it!

Can I get $20 for trolling?

[acoindr]

Yeah but you can't single out War Financing.  If the govt cannot print money then nothing else can get financed (or limited financed).

Then how did the U.S. survive prior to 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created?

Govts don't want the power to print money in order to engage in war.  They want that power to finance whatever they want to finance

Governments want ability to print money to do whatever they (and their special interests, including war profiteers) want to do. This includes financing popular social programs which help politicians win election, but put a costly drain on the economy.

Also you & Stefan are conflating separate issues.  Wars still occurred when money was backed by gold.  WW1 & WW2 are examples of huge wars that occurred when currencies backed by gold

That's our point. Governments did suspend gold standards and inflate for those wars. Check out the following:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/war-causes-inflation-and-inflation-allows-government-start-unnecessary-wars

From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard

Impact of World War I

Governments with insufficient tax revenue suspended [gold] convertibility repeatedly in the 19th century. The real test, however, came in the form of World War I, a test which "it failed utterly" according to economist Richard Lipsey.[4]

By the end of 1913, the classical gold standard was at its peak but World War I caused many countries to suspend or abandon it.

It was the newly created Federal Reserve in 1913 which inflated for WWI leading to a bubble facilitating the "roaring twenties". The subsequent popping of that bubble caused the stock market to crash in 1929 ushering in the Great Depression.

World War II cost the U.S. 15 times more gold than it had in Fort Knox and the Fed.