Bitcoin discussion thread - Page 25

On December 09 2013 08:08 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, that sounds nice, but then how do people turn their money into more money? our entire social order is predicated on the ability for capital to valorize itself and increase. when this falls apart you have to totally reorganize society

On December 09 2013 08:08 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, that sounds nice, but then how do people turn their money into more money? our entire social order is predicated on the ability for capital to valorize itself and increase. when this falls apart you have to totally reorganize society



i would love to see some literature on this if you weren't just talking out of your ass.

trade and financial crises are very different things. even the sorts of debasement problems that the roman empire ran into, or the class imbalances that led to periodic necessity of land reform or debt jubilee, e.g., are very different beasts than a financial crisis of the sort we are concerned with here.

I know you want to believe that everything is always the same and nothing ever changes and so therefore we don't have to worry about trying to solve problems

On December 09 2013 08:16 sam!zdat wrote:
hmm that sounds like what Proudhon wanted to do, I don't think it worked out very well

On December 09 2013 08:20 Shival wrote:


Ah, crawling back are we? We're talking about only financial crisis that are similar to this one? I thought we were talking about financial crisis' itself.

Trade and financial crisis are linked. Trading in tullips caused one even.

The crisis of the third century is actually widely accepted as part a financial crisis.

On December 09 2013 08:24 Mstring wrote:

Lol solid argument. I hope you give some serious thought to what I've been saying. If you want more information there's lots of work by others regarding these ideas: search for "MPE". It isn't anything we aren't already doing in the world today, just no more fraud and lies. No ideology, just destruction of scams. Good day my friend.

On December 09 2013 08:20 Shival wrote:
Brown, Augustus. (undated booklet) The Financial Collapse of the Roman Coinage in the 3rd Century A.D. 20 pp. 1 plate. Published by Augustus Brown, Kyrenia, Kingston, Canterbury, Kent.

On December 09 2013 08:11 Shival wrote:


Anyway, to try and get the topic a bit more back on track.

You're assuming the only money that goes into the system are savings, but whenever you can invest in something that can make your Peugeot 207 into a Porsche in a month, would you spend the money now, or wait a month? Exactly. Thus, it's not only savings that are being spend into bitcoin, there's even huge loans already put into bitcoin, hoping to gain alot quickly.

Near to nothing will replace current valuta, BTC least of all, and yet it is hyped to be. If you take that possibility away, what exactly are you investing in?

On December 09 2013 08:24 sam!zdat wrote:


the tulip bubble was a result of a crisis of overaccumulation in the dutch capitalist system, it didn't cause anything, it was a symptom.



that's the debasement problem I was talking about. it was not a financial crisis in a sense that is meaningful for us today. the problem was that they didn't have enough specie to pay their troops, so they started debasing the coinage. the fiscal problems of a despotic empire are not really a good point of comparison with the financial crises of a capitalist state, even though on a very superficial level there is "something going funny with the money"

On December 09 2013 08:24 sam!zdat wrote:



lol @ "undated booklet"

LOLOLOLOL http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Financial_Collapse_of_the_Roman_Coin.html?id=Qi02HAAACAAJ

Good source mr shival http://www.accla.org/actaaccla/kramer.html
do they pay you to do this kind of research on a daily basis?

On December 09 2013 08:31 0x64 wrote:


In a replacement for online payment solution that is universal. I think that is something worth investing in. Even if the money come from loans, it has been given to someone else on the other end, and unless that person is keeping it in cash, it is invested.
The major case I see is when someone would invest that money professionally somewhere else and he buys from someone who will then keep it in cash or something similar.
I'm not looking hard toward your side though, it's getting late but thanks for your answer

On December 09 2013 08:35 Shival wrote:
Keeping it in cash is nearly the same as keeping it in bitcoin, gold, etc, it isn't benefiting economic growth.

On December 09 2013 10:52 Mstring wrote:

What is the purpose of striving for "economic growth"? Wanting to increase growth in the system we live in is like wanting to increase your food intake when you've got intestinal parasites eating half your food. The smart thing to do is get rid of the parasites, not accommodate and compensate for them!

If we didn't live in an usury-mad perpetually inflating world, holding cash wouldn't be a problem for anyone. If you keep $100 in your pocket for 25 years there'd be a matching $100 debt that is yet to be payed out of circulation, a debt that someone has promised to pay down, a debt that created the $100 that you are holding in the first place! In any case, at the bare minimum there will always be at least some circulation that constantly flows, no matter how much people try to stash their cash, because everyone needs to eat and producing food takes labour that must be paid for with flowing money.

When money is available to purchase property at no interest you will be able to horde as much of your hard earned cash as you like. That money is a representation of the labour you have inputted into the system and you deserve to be able to use it however you like whenever you like. Your holding $100 isn't stopping someone from selling something worth $100 since new money can be issued against that new item. When money is a commodity such as BTC or gold, this is impossible, since issuing new commodity currency has an intrinsic opportunity cost-- you must actually transfer something of value that you can no longer use yourself (not to mention the fact that you must actually mine the stuff). This is a backwards step compared to what money-as-a-primisory-note can do for us.

If you have low water pressure at the faucet because there's a leak in your pipe do you increase the mains water pressure or do you fix the leak?!?! If you answered up the pressure you should apply for a job running the world's economy XD

On December 09 2013 11:43 Shival wrote:


If fixing the leak means I will eventually in the long term have low to no water pressure I would increase the pressure.
Can't I have both?

But yes, preferably I would very much like to change certain parts of capitalism, such as rampant lending schemes and derivatives. Minor inflation is not one of them though, I'm afraid.

On December 09 2013 11:51 Mstring wrote:

Why would you want "minor" inflation? What is the benefit over a system that guarantees no inflation through equal circulation, debt and property? (i.e. the exact system we have now minus the leeches and lies)

I run into people all the time who feel the need to 'invest' their money in order to keep up with the rest of the game. In Australia it's all about buying property and 'shares'. Why on earth should someone who has zero value to add, zero expertise, have to invest anything? Make no mistake they wouldn't do it if they didn't feel like they had to. Investment should be for people to leverage their earned wealth by their expertise. People give away their savings to 'experts' to manage just to keep level. To what end? What could be better than keeping what you earn and not having it erode at all? A system where we don't need 'experts' to make a living off of their backs.

On December 09 2013 11:57 Shival wrote:


The benefit is exactly that, more money that is pumped into companies and therefore higher development.

I don't recommend anyone to give away their savings to so called 'experts' though. Never seen it really work, and often times they're simply benefiting from you, instead of you benefiting from them.

On December 09 2013 12:05 Mstring wrote:
Imagine if you had a business where you only had to pay down depreciation on your equipment. How do you think that would affect your "development" costs? And if your customers only had to pay down depreciation on your products, how do you think that would affect sales?

What do you think the average joe does? He doesn't have a clue how his super fund makes money but he gives his money to it all the same. Not because he wants to, because he understands, but because he must, else he falls behind in the game.

Why is a system to guarantee retirement wealth through super-fund parasites better than a system in which he can simply put cash into a jar and use that for his retirement?

On December 09 2013 12:17 Shival wrote:


Positive. But I doubt it'll weigh up to the investments lost, especially so for new companies that need investments to stay afloat.

Because money is spend that way, money is still circulating in the financial system. Otherwise it would be dead money, and thus no money to develop. I would like to do without the parasitic behaviour of the 'experts' though.

On December 09 2013 12:22 Mstring wrote:
So you are saying that new companies should be floated on the backs of the average joe who invests not because he wants to but because he has to?

If you want people to invest, let them invest of their own volition don't force them.

This is only a problem when you are viewing it through the frame of reference of the current financial system.

$100 of kept out of circulation today can only be replaced by $100 loaned at interest, thus, it costs less tomorrow if we use that $100 that's in our pocket rather than saving it and keeping the flow going by borrowing $100 at interest. The $100 is "dead" because it costs us to replace it with a new $100.

Without usury, $100 kept out of circulation today can be replaced by $100 of new circulation without interest. My keeping it out of the circulatory flow does nothing to stop someone buying that $100 good with new issued money (backed by their future promise to pay it back, at a rate of depreciation, summing to the total principal and not a cent more).

On December 09 2013 12:35 Shival wrote:


They aren't forced, they're merely incentivized. They can still say, nope, not for me, too risky. Obviously there's a drawback to denying the option, but hey, if we don't think on the level of the average joe, but on human developmental growth, then I would say screw you average joe. The system isn't in place for the average joe, it's in place for the entire species as a whole.

Bolded: What the hell? I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but I don't think that's how it works. There's no net loss as a whole society for inflation.

You're saying that because you're saving your money in a sock, someone else can loan that $100 with the promise to pay it back, without interest? Nice utopia, what if he can't pay back because he lost it on an investment?

On December 09 2013 12:46 Mstring wrote:
I for one want a system that actually services the needs of every individual, not makes them suffer for some 'good of the species' ideology.
You don't think that's how what works?

If you don't have $100 and want to buy something for $100. How do you get it? You borrow it. How much does it cost you, in this world, to borrow $100? More than $100, over time. What aren't you understanding?

Of course there is a loss over time, that's my whole point!! This is why the parasite analogy is so apt!

You could only issue new currency for new property, exactly the same way the banks do it now. If you can't pay it back, the property is sold. This is the core of what I've been saying: currency = debt = property. If ever there's a default, the property value remaining is always equal to the remaining debt, and thus it can always be fully recovered.

There is nothing utopian about this my friend. This is exactly the same as the way that banking work today, except instead we all agree to pay back far in excess of the principal, and at a far greater rate than property depreciation. All that interest is stolen. Yes, it's a jagged little pill.

On December 09 2013 13:07 Shival wrote:


Obviously for borrowing $100 you need to pay back a certain interest. That's the loss you yourself have to take, but there's no loss for society as a whole. Thus no net loss. Why would you want people to be able to borrow without interest, there's no incentive for them to pay you back in any short amount of time. Besides, you're only looking at the lending part right now, inflation can certainly be a damper on lending, but that's not the point of inflation.

It is an utopia, if that system you're proposing was in place right now.. I think I would buy myself a villa and sportscar right now. I mean society won't lose anything at all in the end anyway if I can't pay it back, thus why do they need to put a damper on what I can spend?

That interest is stolen only for that moment, eventually, because the money is in the system, you get it back as long as you're getting paid. Normally your salary also increases roughly around the same amount as the inflation. Thus it means you should spend, but you're eventually not getting stolen from.

On December 09 2013 13:19 Mstring wrote:
The whole point is there is no incentive to pay you back any time soon. You don't need them too!

The only reason we want people to pay us back fast in this insane system is because money now is worth more than that money tomorrow. If we don't get it back as fast as possible we lose out. It doesn't need to be this way.

One legitimate thing the banks actually do is assess creditworthiness. If you can demonstrate you can pay down the depreciation on your sports car and villa then all the power to you. In the system I'm describing (which again, employs the exact same methods of money creation, except is sucked dry by parasites) far more people would be able to afford higher quality goods, like luxury villas. After all, the incentive is for long lasting quality goods that people actually want.

Lol.

'I'm ok with the local gang stealing from everyone because I'm on the payroll'

You said it, you don't care about average joe, just "the entire species", whatever that means.

Thanks for the chat my friend. I've enjoyed it.