Enslave? I think one wotld currency would be a good thing. Anything to bring humanity together instead of dividing us. We need to tear down political boundaries and remake the world. And hey, isn't that what bitcoin is for?
It would help a lot if you'd my prior posts in this thread (when I used to have the username 'iamback'):
I chose to agree. This would be the single biggest issue that would cause an enslaving of nations.
thats why we need country fiat and bitcoin.
I thought we are already in this situation.
*Ahem the US dollar? last time I checked everyone loves it, despite its covered bad value.
So why would it recourse into another world reserve currency.
The difference will be that the new one-world reserve coming approximately 2020, will not be controlled by any nation, but rather by a world government body.
This will be viewed by the world as more fair. But in reality it will be much less fair, because the world government will act basically the way the Troika does in the EU now, lending to the nations and never letting them default. They will lend in the world currency, but the people will be paid in their nation's shit currency which is debased like hell by the national politics. So then when the national currency loses value, the people are stuck paying back loans in the relatively more expensive world currency.
This is precisely what the Troika did to the PIIGS to destroy them. They will then do this on a global scale to enslave us all.
I hope everyone understands the implied point in the OP of comparing the Euro vs. Greece to the one-world reserve currency vs. nations.
Greece was forced to borrow denominated in Euros during the speculative inflow of investment at the turn of the 21st century, but as Germany was more productive they benefited more from the Euro and Greece had no way to devalue their debt. So they are repaying the debt with a lower productive economy with massive egress of speculative investment.
The same problem with happen when the reserve currency for debt is SDRs and then all nations will be repaying their debts in SDRs while they won't have the policy tools to inflate nor deflate their debt burdens to respond to volatility in relative productivity and speculative ingress and egress of capital. Effectively they become a slave to the international central bank who can issue fractional reserve debt denominated in SDRs, which the banksters will surely have in their back pocket again. Just like the Fed now is pumping debt into the developing world making them short the dollar, then it will pull the rug from under them by raising interest rates sending the dollar higher and causing them to repay debt in more expensive dollars.
The only solution to this problem is for the Knowledge Age to rise and say "I don't need stored monetary capital, I need knowledge". I will quote from myself about this as follows.
[...]
So Armstrong has been pitching this idea that governments could just print the money they need for taxes. So the model he is proposing is where national currencies float against an international reserve currency, so governments can then mess up their own currencies if they wish. He prefer the governments just print the money from their central banks, and the relative success of nations at managing their economic and fiscal policies will determine their relative value of the national currencies relative to the inevitable one-world reserve currency.
But by Armstrong's own admission, trade only accounts for 10% of the world's capital flows and thus the vast majority of the world's wealth will choose the one-world reserve currency as its unit-of-account and thus who ever has their hands on the levers for the debasement and fractional reserves rules of the one-world reserve currency (e.g. the elite who run the World Bank, BIS, IMF, etc..) can then speculate and manipulate the national economies at-will. This will be just Goldman Sachs take over of Europe and Greece but on a global economy-of-scale level.
For analogous reasons as to why the Euro failed, the one-world reserve currency with national government debts denominated in separate currencies will also cause the nations to fail just like Greece did. The bottom line is that who ever controls the reserve currency of the world, holds the power to destroy and enslave the other nations.
Also Armstrong is contradicting himself on claiming above that the impetus for a move to a one-world reserve currency will be only for economic reasons and "not political".
coinits, calm down you are preaching to the choir. You perhaps don't realize I wrote the
syndicated essay
Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch. I am the one who has been writing that Bitcoin is owned by TPTB.
In spite of the arguable fact that Bitcoin is controlled by the global elite, my guarantee that it won't be the "winner take all" global currency remains certain.
First of all, simpleton readers don't seem to understand the distinction between a reserve currency and a circulating currency. Crypto-currencies are the latter. Dollar and Euro cash are examples of the latter. US Treasury and Euro-denominated bonds are the former (Tier 1 reserve assets in the BIS Basel model). IMF SDRs are the former.
The global elite are planning for a national (or regional) currencies floating against a global reserve currency. And they are planning for circulating currencies which are all digital. Bitcoin is one gambit in that mix.
Nope, but it would probably enslave Russia. Just look at what happened to the Ruble!
Incorrect! The one-world reserve currency will enslave all of the nations. Study
my post #11 more carefully. You didn't comprehend it.
I suggest you relate that to "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins. And also relate that to the Asian crisis in 1998, which was caused by speculative international capital flows fleeing to Europe to take advantage of the ingress in investment that corresponded with the launch of the Euro.
Nations are inherently prone to short-term capital ingress and egress. Without their own central bank to inflate out of an egress crisis, they are enslaved by the unit-of-account which is imposed on them by investors.
The problem is fundamentally rooted in the ability of stored money to be a claim on future production. Instead when profitable production results from a diversity of knowledge innovations that are DIRECT (e.g. the customer uses your software, or they 3D print your design) and not just proxies diluted by mass production (e.g. factories make a million copies of your design), then stored money becomes incredibly difficult to invest. The more stored money you have, the faster it withers in relative value.
This is the paradigm shift coming on now due to the Knowledge Age.
In short, investing will become active instead of passive, and investing will be small and numerous (i.e. bottom-up) instead of large economy-of-scale fascism (i.e. top-down).
Sorry Armstrong! Storing capital in money instead of fine-grained (maximum division-of-labor) knowledge thus causing international capital flows that are the problem! That paradigm must be eliminated! We need capital flows to be instead actual finely-grained, bottom-up knowledge exchange, where capital becomes knowledge and not stored claims on future production.
Then there won't be any more nations, nor any one-world top-down slavery.
You say "no one will save and be productive"? Wrong! They will save up their knowledge gained by being productive instead of lazy! This is the paradigm shift of epic proportions and nearly no one sees it is happening.
I am very surprised that Armstrong can not conceptualize what I wrote above. He responded by pretending to himself that I am some simpleton who is only learning from him. He failed to understand I am not talking about the existing debts. I am talking about the new debts that will form after the global monetary reset (restructure or default).
My point is if we look at Greece, it sold its sovereign bonds denominated in the Euro(pean) reserve currency and thus it suffered pernicious (and self-reinforcing downward spiral of) austerity because it was not able to devalue the debt it owed by printing money to devalue its own currency and stimulate its economy by lowering the international cost of its exports and tourism industries.
Even more importantly as we can see with the dollar reserve currency now, countries that sell debt in denominated in their national currencies pay an interest premium compared to when they sell debt denominated in the reserve currency. This is one example of many reasons[1] that those who have control over the reserve currency's central bank, have enslaved the other nations. This is why a USA Treasury official famously said to his Third World cohort, "its our dollar, but it is your problem".
Armstrong is failing to understand that a reserve currency is inherently an enslavement paradigm. And the only possible way to eliminate this paradigm, is to make debt not profitable for investors. I explained how that will become the case with the shift from an Industrial Age to a Knowledge Age. But I think Armstrong is not smart enough to grasp the concept. Or he is too lazy to read the essays I wrote, which I had provided him links to.
Additionally I am shocked that Armstrong is conflating unit-of-account with unit-of-exchange. That is the most basic error. The coming one world reserve currency will not be a circulating currency that is used for retail transactions. If that were the case, then the nations wouldn't even have their own currencies any more. The reserve currency will be used for settlement internationally for exchange between the national currencies which will float against the one world reserve currency. I don't think the nations will agree to give up their control over their national currencies, rather they will just agree to a reserve currency that isn't controlled by the USA exclusively.
[1]
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/an_exorbitant_privilegehttp://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2009/09/cohen.htmhttp://www.financialsense.com/contributors/john-butler/curse-reserve-currency-triffin-dilemma
you mean reserve is a backup?
Read the thread!
Replies from others are emphasizing the use of BTC for gambling, but the keyword in my subject title is "reserve".
My point is that BTC is the unit-of-account by which everyone measures their gambling success, not fiat.
When someone gambles on an altcoin "investment" (speculation), they are hoping to get more BTC. They don't cash it out to fiat, they HODLit to gamble some more altcoin "investments". Even if you include gambling sites that accept Bitcoin, the gambler is likely HODLing their BTC gains (if any) and not cashing out to fiat.
Unit-of-account doesn't mean backup. You need to learn what reserve currency means.
Poll
