|
username18333
|
 |
November 11, 2014, 07:09:07 PM
Last edit: November 11, 2014, 07:55:09 PM by username18333 |
|
When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.
What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans. In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.
Monetary gain, within the context of “loaning,” is, traditionally, realized via positive interest—which is an artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity reserves, for itself, resources that, without its imposition, could be allocated to greater machinations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bitcoin: mining our own business since 2009" -- Pieter Wuille
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My Name Was Taken
Member
 Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
November 12, 2014, 07:34:26 PM |
|
When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.
What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans. In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.
Monetary gain, within the context of “loaning,” is, traditionally, realized via positive interest—which is an artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity reserves, for itself, resources that, without its imposition, could be allocated to greater machinations. Obviously if I'm taking a loan, I know I have to pay it back with interest, which means I will have less money later. That means I've made the decision that having the money now is more important than having more money later. Again, why is that bad? |
|
|
|
|
|
username18333
|
|
November 17, 2014, 05:08:40 PM |
|
When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.
What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans. In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.
Monetary gain, within the context of “loaning,” is, traditionally, realized via positive interest—which is an artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity reserves, for itself, resources that, without its imposition, could be allocated to greater machinations.Obviously if I'm taking a loan, I know I have to pay it back with interest, which means I will have less money later. That means I've made the decision that having the money now is more important than having more money later. Again, why is that bad? My reply has the following two versions: (a) "Interest constrains the pursuit of ends for the pursuit of means," and (b) "Because, though you are not, you are restrained as if you were." (See my emboldened text above.) |
|
|
|
My Name Was Taken
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
November 17, 2014, 06:44:11 PM |
|
When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.
What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans. In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.
Monetary gain, within the context of “loaning,” is, traditionally, realized via positive interest—which is an artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity reserves, for itself, resources that, without its imposition, could be allocated to greater machinations.Obviously if I'm taking a loan, I know I have to pay it back with interest, which means I will have less money later. That means I've made the decision that having the money now is more important than having more money later. Again, why is that bad? My reply has the following two versions: (a) "Interest constrains the pursuit of ends for the pursuit of means," and (b) "Because, though you are not, you are restrained as if you were." (See my emboldened text above.) Sorry, I just can't follow whatever point you're trying to get across.  |
|
|
|
|
|
username18333
|
|
November 18, 2014, 06:15:29 AM
Last edit: November 18, 2014, 06:35:03 AM by username18333 |
|
When bitcoins are loaned by their miners with interest to be paid in bitcoins, they will find their bottom—both ethically and monetarily.
What's wrong with loaning bitcoins? Loans have been around for as long as there was money. No reason to think the rise of bitcoin would end the demand for loans. In a world where the things we need and use go bad, sharing comes naturally. The hoarder ends up sitting alone atop a pile of stale bread, rusty tools, and spoiled fruit, and no one wants to help him, for he has helped no one. Money today, however, is not like bread, fruit, or indeed any natural object. It is the lone exception to nature’s law of return, the law of life, death, and rebirth, which says that all things ultimately return to their source. Money does not decay over time, but in its abstraction from physicality, it remains changeless or even grows with time, exponentially, thanks to the power of interest.
Monetary gain, within the context of “loaning,” is, traditionally, realized via positive interest—which is an artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity reserves, for itself, resources that, without its imposition, could be allocated to greater machinations.Obviously if I'm taking a loan, I know I have to pay it back with interest, which means I will have less money later. That means I've made the decision that having the money now is more important than having more money later. Again, why is that bad? My reply has the following two versions: (a) "Interest constrains the pursuit of ends for the pursuit of means," and (b) "Because, though you are not, you are restrained as if you were." (See my emboldened text above.) Sorry, I just can't follow whatever point you're trying to get across. Interest permits one more value than (s)he creates, and, thus, reduces the perceived necessity of its production. (Note, that "perceived reduction" does not, necessarily, correspond to more extrinsic ones.) |
|
|
|
|
