|
On December 09 2013 11:51 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 11:43 Shival wrote:On December 09 2013 10:52 Mstring wrote: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.
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 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. 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.
minor inflation is good because it is controllable, and not too close to deflation and a minor inflation is ideal for economic development.
And if you think this problem of investment exist in Australia is to "keep up", you are wrong.
I studied in Australia and has paid a lot of attention to the property market.
People don't buy housing because they want to keep up, it is because there is a nice property boom due to all the international students coming in, the Chinese for example, sometimes buy the houses just for their study.
In other words, it is a nice profitable market that looks good to invest in.
There are other things far more important you should look at when it comes to purchasing power of your currency, beyond inflation.
Australia import ban for vegetables for one makes the price of banana ten fold more expensive after the flood.
China RMB has been increasing in value quite rapidly and making your imports more expensive.
International students are boosting the demand of a lot of things, increasing your living cost.
This is the result of a more international integrated economy, not inflation.
Of cause it all seems bad now, but your mining industry boom was sustained by the Chinese's demand of the raw material.
Specalisation will always lead to this problem, this is why Australia post an import ban on some vegetables in order for your farmers to stay in the market (not saying they aren't competitive, but it is to ease the competition)
Hong Kong experienced it, from a manufacturing and shipping based economy into a service, tourist and finance based economy.
|
On December 09 2013 13:34 Shival wrote:Yeah, enjoyed it aswell in fact. Different views, no middle ground it seems.
There's no need for us to find a middle ground, the truth will be demonstrated to us all, in time. I'm not here to be right, I'm here to help 'know thy enemy'.
P.s. I saw what you wrote here pre-edit (both edits) 
|
On December 09 2013 13:54 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 13:34 Shival wrote:Yeah, enjoyed it aswell in fact. Different views, no middle ground it seems. There's no need for us to find a middle ground, the truth will be demonstrated to us all, in time. I'm not here to be right, I'm here to help 'know thy enemy'. P.s. I saw what you wrote here pre-edit (both edits)
Hoped you did see it, both edits. Figured you would, seeing the timing on your own post. Misunderstood your meaning on the end of your post so went a bit passive aggressive there without thinking it through, my bad. :D
I mentioned the middle ground not as something we should reach, but rather that it simply isn't there it seems.
|
On December 09 2013 13:54 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 13:34 Shival wrote:Yeah, enjoyed it aswell in fact. Different views, no middle ground it seems. There's no need for us to find a middle ground, the truth will be demonstrated to us all, in time. I'm not here to be right, I'm here to help 'know thy enemy'. P.s. I saw what you wrote here pre-edit (both edits)
You are living in a fantasy land. You want a free market, libertarian system without usury and a constant money supply?
|
On December 09 2013 14:52 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 13:54 Mstring wrote:On December 09 2013 13:34 Shival wrote:Yeah, enjoyed it aswell in fact. Different views, no middle ground it seems. There's no need for us to find a middle ground, the truth will be demonstrated to us all, in time. I'm not here to be right, I'm here to help 'know thy enemy'. P.s. I saw what you wrote here pre-edit (both edits) You are living in a fantasy land. You want a free market, libertarian system without usury and a constant money supply?
I didn't say anything about a constant money supply, the opposite infact. I spoke of issuing new currency in the exact same way we do today: against unrepresented property value, backed by our future promise to pay [out of circulation, not 'back' to anything]. The difference that I am trying to highlight between what I spoke of and our current system is that every dollar you 'repay' over the rate of depreciation of the represented property is unnecessary and is 'feeding the beast', so to speak. We don't need banks to loan back to us our future promise to pay, at interest. We can issue these promises to each other without them. We don't need inflation to 'fuel growth', unless of course you mean growth of a parasite whose shit you will be left to clean up. Banks do three legitimate things: (1) Assess creditworthiness (make sure you can repay what you say you can repay) (2) publish our promissory obligation (get all our details and get us to sign a contract permitting repossession in case of default) (3) legitimise our promissory notes (give access to cash/give computer bank deposit). A few hundred bucks worth at most, in today's money.
So how is this a fantasy? It's what we already have...minus the parasites.
|
So why would anyone invest money?
What happens when you issue currency and the venture fails, i.e. the unrepresented property was overvalued?
|
On December 09 2013 15:16 IgnE wrote:
So why would anyone invest money?
Because they have expertise/insight in a certain field and the money to put it to work.
It makes no sense to incentivise people to invest and take on risk in ventures they have no clue about, e.g. superannuation. It's using people for their money: ala the matrix, turning them into batteries. This usury system makes it a necessity though because everything must grow. We're all growing to grow because grow.
What happens when you issue currency and the venture fails, i.e. the unrepresented property was overvalued?
Consider the system I'm talking about and tell me, what would you do? What would be fair? Should certain parties be responsible? General/specific taxation to recover? Insurance? There's a million ideas to brainstorm, but it all rests on agreeing on the core issues.
I'm not trying to present to you some idealistic fantasy utopia that I have all the answers for. I'm primarily presenting how the banking system is a brutal parasite on the general public, and how easy it could be to remove it through a re-understanding of how we issue promises to each other through money. I don't know how all the specifics of the future could work, but I'm damn sure that a half-arsed solution with a solid foundation will be far better than the best solution which keeps parasites around (a non-solution).
|
Havent checked in on the thread for a day and now the topic has gone in politics/money. same thing, but shouldnt be the same.
the fact that there is so much confusion about a pretty simple topic (money) shows why our current systems are not efficient.
Had difficulty reading the whole thread but lets put the focus back on beloved bitcoin.
Current price 869USD
News: Snoop Dog using BTC
SC2 Tourny to Pay out Winners in BTC
BTC Mention on Simpsons
Free our money. Lets make it happen guys.
|
On December 09 2013 15:39 Chrono000 wrote:Havent checked in on the thread for a day and now the topic has gone in politics/money. same thing, but shouldnt be the same. the fact that there is so much confusion about a pretty simple topic (money) shows why our current systems are not efficient. Had difficulty reading the whole thread but lets put the focus back on beloved bitcoin. Current price 869USD News: Snoop Dog using BTCSC2 Tourny to Pay out Winners in BTCBTC Mention on SimpsonsFree our money. Lets make it happen guys.
I've actually been specifically talking about freeing our money, freeing us from usury, something BTC can't do.
BTC ain't money, it's a commodity. Perhaps a useful one, no doubt, so speculate away. It ain't money though. You can't issue new BTC for new property backed by your promise to pay. You can't retire BTC out of circulation when represented property has been consumed. That's the power of money. With Bitcoin you must own actual BTC before you can buy or sell. If it becomes primary currency, early adopters with all the stockpiles will be wearing all the rings of power, just like the 'money changers' did back in the days of the Roman empire, forcing you to first trade for their special currency, charging you whatever interest/price they could get away with in the process.
I haven't yet decided whether or not the creator of Bitcoin is an evil genius or a lucky fool. All eyes on those first million coins. Time will tell XD
|
On December 09 2013 16:10 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 15:39 Chrono000 wrote:Havent checked in on the thread for a day and now the topic has gone in politics/money. same thing, but shouldnt be the same. the fact that there is so much confusion about a pretty simple topic (money) shows why our current systems are not efficient. Had difficulty reading the whole thread but lets put the focus back on beloved bitcoin. Current price 869USD News: Snoop Dog using BTCSC2 Tourny to Pay out Winners in BTCBTC Mention on SimpsonsFree our money. Lets make it happen guys. I've actually been specifically talking about freeing our money, freeing us from usury, something BTC can't do. BTC ain't money, it's a commodity. Perhaps a useful one, no doubt, so speculate away. It ain't money though. You can't issue new BTC for new property backed by your promise to pay. You can't retire BTC out of circulation when represented property has been consumed. That's the power of money. With Bitcoin you must own actual BTC before you can buy or sell. If it becomes primary currency, early adopters with all the stockpiles will be wearing all the rings of power, just like the 'money changers' did back in the days of the Roman empire, forcing you to first trade for their special currency, charging you whatever interest/price they could get away with in the process. I haven't yet decided whether or not the creator of Bitcoin is an evil genius or a lucky fool. All eyes on those first million coins. Time will tell XD
o yeah for sure. watch that account with millions of btc in it. it be glories if it never moves, art in itself.
anyway, maybe its about time for a wealth transfer. old money is old. and the direction of money keeps going up to the fatty catys.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Thats it then, Simpsons mentioned BTC, all is right with the world and it is now globally accepted!
Also glad it has jumped back up to a decent amount xD Was getting a bit concerned after it was bouncing back quicker.
$887 currently per 1BTC
Up $200 since the crash (nearly $300)
|
On December 09 2013 17:48 Pandemona wrote:
Thats it then, Simpsons mentioned BTC, all is right with the world and it is now globally accepted!
Also glad it has jumped back up to a decent amount xD Was getting a bit concerned after it was bouncing back quicker.
$887 currently per 1BTC
Up $200 since the crash (nearly $300)
I heard TB announce that naniwa/skarlett showmatch for 12 BTC and he mentioned that it was about 8k bo7. Which is weird because last week it BTC were up over 1000 right? How did it change so fast?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Yeah whoever did the calculations for that showmatch was using a dodgy calculator lol.
At the moment it is; $10,644 prizepool
|
That's just the nature of it though. Tomorrow it could be a show match for a grand total of 2 cents
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Well, i don't say in 1 day it will drop that much xD
Biggest crash was on Saturday or Friday of $400 and its clawed half of that back already. Plus there is alot of people trying to manipulate the market in BTC. So to say it will drop down to that much is a bit over stated. Might of been meant as that though.
|
On December 09 2013 12:46 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 12:35 Shival wrote: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. 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. 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. While we're sharing ideology, I believe that a system that is fair and provides for each individual will service "the entire species" far better than any top-down approach could ever dream of doing. Show nested quote +
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).
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 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! When your water pipes are leaking onto the ground you don't ignore it and say 'it's really not a loss because it's going back into the earth'. You're paying for something you're not getting!! We're all funding things that we otherwise wouldn't if we were informed! That's a net loss!! Show nested quote +
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?
You could only issue new currency for property of value, new or otherwise, exactly the same way the banks issue currency today. It isn't "someone" doing the lending, it is new currency being issued into existence. If you can't pay it back, the property is sold and the circulation retired 100%. This is the core of what I've been saying: circulation = outstanding debt = represented property value. If ever there's a default (much less likely when you only have to pay down depreciation, not fund everyone who works at the bank and all the other parasites), the property value remaining is always equal to the remaining debt, and thus it can always be fully recovered. "Pay[ing] back" this money is not to another person but out of circulation, maintaining the 1:1:1 ratio. There is nothing utopian about this my friend, except in the sense that it is actually a fair system for all! It's exactly the same as the way that banking works today, except instead we've all been conditioned to agree to pay back far in excess of the principal, and at a far greater rate than property depreciation. Virtually all of that interest is stolen. Yes, it's a jagged little red pill.
For a 0% loan to ever work, you'd need draconic punishments for those who do not pay back their loans.
In the current system that "punishment" is an interest rate, which is estimated by the loaning party. When I lend (small amounts of) money to friends on a short-term basis, I know I'll get it back (soon) and I can do it informally at a 0% interest rate. However, most of the time this doesn't apply, and you need to pay for the risk I am taking that you will never give my money back. If I think the risk is high, I will only lend you money if you promise to pay a high % interest... and because I am lending lots of money to lots of people, that will allow me to break even in the end, because some people won't pay me back, and others will, including interest.
And yes, we still need some kind of system to persecute those who don't pay back their loans, but we can get away with less drastic measures, because the risk to the lender is covered by the interest rate.
EDIT: actually even with draconic punishments, the person borrowing money can never completely guarantee he will pay the money back... and without some kind of way of incentivizing the borrower to lend that money anyway, he has absolutely no reason in your system to actually loan that money, rather than sticking it in a sock under his bed.
|
On December 09 2013 15:39 Chrono000 wrote:Havent checked in on the thread for a day and now the topic has gone in politics/money. same thing, but shouldnt be the same. the fact that there is so much confusion about a pretty simple topic (money) shows why our current systems are not efficient.Had difficulty reading the whole thread but lets put the focus back on beloved bitcoin. Current price 869USD News: Snoop Dog using BTCSC2 Tourny to Pay out Winners in BTCBTC Mention on SimpsonsFree our money. Lets make it happen guys.
The nature of value and how we value work is in itself abstract, money will therefore (probably) never be simple, and those whom believe otherwise are most likely fools or they are fooling themselves. To judge a systems efficiency you first need to define what said system is trying to achieve - and that's why you easily end up with a value-based political discussion.
Personally I believe it would be wise to first define what the goals are before discussing the most effective tools to get there.
And it seems to differ among the supporters of BTCs what the goals are? Some claim the goal is monetary revolution, others just want an online payment method (my debit card been working just fine for that purpose and doesn't have fee to my knowledge (witch could means it's just small enough for me to not notice))
|
I think the most interesting thing about the bitcoin is how it's generated. by definition, it grows more scarce over time simply because people mine out every last code there is. what will happen when we find them all?
|
On December 10 2013 01:22 Warent wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 15:39 Chrono000 wrote:Havent checked in on the thread for a day and now the topic has gone in politics/money. same thing, but shouldnt be the same. the fact that there is so much confusion about a pretty simple topic (money) shows why our current systems are not efficient.Had difficulty reading the whole thread but lets put the focus back on beloved bitcoin. Current price 869USD News: Snoop Dog using BTCSC2 Tourny to Pay out Winners in BTCBTC Mention on SimpsonsFree our money. Lets make it happen guys. The nature of value and how we value work is in itself abstract, money will therefore (probably) never be simple, and those whom believe otherwise are most likely fools or they are fooling themselves. To judge a systems efficiency you first need to define what said system is trying to achieve - and that's why you easily end up with a value-based political discussion. Personally I believe it would be wise to first define what the goals are before discussing the most effective tools to get there. And it seems to differ among the supporters of BTCs what the goals are? Some claim the goal is monetary revolution, others just want an online payment method (my debit card been working just fine for that purpose and doesn't have fee to my knowledge (witch could means it's just small enough for me to not notice))
The fee is included in the price of the item you pay, the shop is paying the bank card company. Also interest rates of credit cards are good for the company, it's the free to pay model :D.
|
On December 09 2013 20:56 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 12:46 Mstring wrote:On December 09 2013 12:35 Shival wrote: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. 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. 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. While we're sharing ideology, I believe that a system that is fair and provides for each individual will service "the entire species" far better than any top-down approach could ever dream of doing.
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).
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 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! When your water pipes are leaking onto the ground you don't ignore it and say 'it's really not a loss because it's going back into the earth'. You're paying for something you're not getting!! We're all funding things that we otherwise wouldn't if we were informed! That's a net loss!!
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?
You could only issue new currency for property of value, new or otherwise, exactly the same way the banks issue currency today. It isn't "someone" doing the lending, it is new currency being issued into existence. If you can't pay it back, the property is sold and the circulation retired 100%. This is the core of what I've been saying: circulation = outstanding debt = represented property value. If ever there's a default (much less likely when you only have to pay down depreciation, not fund everyone who works at the bank and all the other parasites), the property value remaining is always equal to the remaining debt, and thus it can always be fully recovered. "Pay[ing] back" this money is not to another person but out of circulation, maintaining the 1:1:1 ratio. There is nothing utopian about this my friend, except in the sense that it is actually a fair system for all! It's exactly the same as the way that banking works today, except instead we've all been conditioned to agree to pay back far in excess of the principal, and at a far greater rate than property depreciation. Virtually all of that interest is stolen. Yes, it's a jagged little red pill. For a 0% loan to ever work, you'd need draconic punishments for those who do not pay back their loans. In the current system that "punishment" is an interest rate, which is estimated by the loaning party. When I lend (small amounts of) money to friends on a short-term basis, I know I'll get it back (soon) and I can do it informally at a 0% interest rate. However, most of the time this doesn't apply, and you need to pay for the risk I am taking that you will never give my money back. If I think the risk is high, I will only lend you money if you promise to pay a high % interest... and because I am lending lots of money to lots of people, that will allow me to break even in the end, because some people won't pay me back, and others will, including interest. And yes, we still need some kind of system to persecute those who don't pay back their loans, but we can get away with less drastic measures, because the risk to the lender is covered by the interest rate. EDIT: actually even with draconic punishments, the person borrowing money can never completely guarantee he will pay the money back... and without some kind of way of incentivizing the borrower to lend that money anyway, he has absolutely no reason in your system to actually loan that money, rather than sticking it in a sock under his bed.
His system is unworkable but there isn't much point in arguing with him. He doesn't seem to understand how the current system works and so has no hope of explaining to you why his system will work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
