Topic: . (Read 1671 times)
What do you think hoarding means?
People should also define "investing".
It all really comes down to nothing more than a shift in time preference.
"Environmental Economics" sounds to me like Feminist Economics or Intergalactic Economics or Bicycle Economics. In other words, Economics twisted into an elaborate, florid system of B.S. for the purpose of keeping TEDtalkers and government subsidized academics employed.
Investing from wikipedia
Quote
... an investment must be either directly backed by the pledge of sufficient collateral or insured by sufficient assets pledged by a third party.[original research?] A thoroughly analyzed loan of money backed by collateral with greater immediate value than the loan amount may be considered an investment
Sure I can work with Bicycle Economics
Bi meaning 2 cycles,
Keynesian economics principles are founded on the idea that perpetual economic growth is viable and good for the economy. - It ignores 2 facts. 1. the economy is a result not a means. And 2. Exponential growth is not viable in a finite world. - The overall conclusion is you need to centrally control the economy to allow "good" or moderately "healthy" growth to ensure the viability of the system.
So the result is the finite limitations of nature are in conflict with perpetual growth. The Keynesian principals have separated nature and economics and are battling to reconcile the resulting conflicts. Bi Cycles. This system encourages the consumption of more stuff (the problems of which are nicely illustrated here)
By contrast
The loosely formed Austrian principals see inflation and deflation as a result of the activities of the people in the economy, inflation and deflation are not good or bad but the free market self correcting.
In principal this system is an extension of nature, not in competition with it.
The choice between the environment or the economy is a Keynesian paradox, resulting for Keynesian dogma.
It is quite feasible to reconcile the environment with the free market principals but you need more central control again. Bring in Kyoto.
The failed Kyoto protocol is the idea that if you take the economic principals of supply and demand and apply quantifiable values to natural capital, the free market will regulate the exploitation of the natural capital, this is great in principal but it is a laughable joke in practice (nicely illustrated here)
We live in a system and the base of that system is ecological, that is not B.S, the B.S is what Keynesians need to do to keep growing.
What do you think hoarding means?
People should also define "investing".
It all really comes down to nothing more than a shift in time preference.
"Environmental Economics" sounds to me like Feminist Economics or Intergalactic Economics or Bicycle Economics. In other words, Economics twisted into an elaborate, florid system of B.S. for the purpose of keeping TEDtalkers and government subsidized academics employed.
I don't think Bitcoin will do much for the environment. BTC just makes things go more efficiently, but whether that "thing" is ecological suicide for profit or sustainable living is out of BTCs hands.
It will always be a political thing whether to show greed or restraint. Reactive aggressive thinking or proactive constructive thinking. Evil and Good.
Of course with stable deflationary money, wealth might go to those with the long view - who might normally get punished by inflation for their saving, low return sustainable investments and lack of short term greed. That might help, but I'm not sure that is what will happen.
As for the "deflationary death spiral"; it makes no sense and will never happen: "our economy has tanked so much that we have all become filthy rich" = NONSENSE.
It will always be a political thing whether to show greed or restraint. Reactive aggressive thinking or proactive constructive thinking. Evil and Good.
Of course with stable deflationary money, wealth might go to those with the long view - who might normally get punished by inflation for their saving, low return sustainable investments and lack of short term greed. That might help, but I'm not sure that is what will happen.
As for the "deflationary death spiral"; it makes no sense and will never happen: "our economy has tanked so much that we have all become filthy rich" = NONSENSE.
Hoarding means not investing.
What do you think hoarding means?
From MisesWiki:
Quote
But in its common form, hoarding is nothing more than preparing for the future by laying aside a store of items people may need. This is an especially valuable practice during economic instability, when necessary supplies can become scarce or suddenly double in price.
There is also another perspective on hoarding: it is an investment.
Hoarding, or excessive holding of money is supposed to be a great danger paper money will prevent. But how can it cause damage to the economy? Any amount of money can serve for exchange. In the worst case, if a large part of the population became hoarders, they might cause a given currency to be replaced by another. (Note, that there are perfectly reasonable AND moral reasons to hold large amounts of money. Also, hoarding is subjectively defined and the only way to find out whether someone is hoarding is to analyze each case on its own. Acting against hoarding in general can complicate the lives of many.)
There is also another perspective on hoarding: it is an investment.
Hoarding, or excessive holding of money is supposed to be a great danger paper money will prevent. But how can it cause damage to the economy? Any amount of money can serve for exchange. In the worst case, if a large part of the population became hoarders, they might cause a given currency to be replaced by another. (Note, that there are perfectly reasonable AND moral reasons to hold large amounts of money. Also, hoarding is subjectively defined and the only way to find out whether someone is hoarding is to analyze each case on its own. Acting against hoarding in general can complicate the lives of many.)
I propose WoodCoin™
WoodCoin has been done. It goes by the name of TALLY STICKS. Works similarly to Bitcoin, except it has the same limitations as gold.
* THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)
King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.
The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.
Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money. Ref: http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html.
Hoarding means not investing.
It's pretty good on the environment but it also means human development will start reverting.
Soon enough we will only be able to produce local products as the transnational trades break down.
A changeover from inflationary economy to fixed supply economy will crash the world.
No more hi tech, no more computers, no more bitcoin.
I propose WoodCoin™
Any change to the way we consume must come from within the system.
You can't just replace all the threads the world is running on without screwing the whole thing up.
So we can agree there will be an environmental benefit?It's pretty good on the environment but it also means human development will start reverting.
Soon enough we will only be able to produce local products as the transnational trades break down.
A changeover from inflationary economy to fixed supply economy will crash the world.
No more hi tech, no more computers, no more bitcoin.
I propose WoodCoin™
Any change to the way we consume must come from within the system.
You can't just replace all the threads the world is running on without screwing the whole thing up.
I agree hoarding = not investing
Do you agree hoarding is a Bitcoin term for vast savings? (With the assumption that the saver will benefit from deflation.)
Do you agree in order to hoard Bitcoin you need to acquire Bitcoin?
I understand "reverting" to mean regression of progress is this correct?
Prof. Murphy is one of the few people who really gets it. The way to combine this with Libertarianism is to recognize that environmental degradation and resource depletion constitute aggressive force against future generations.
+1 
I blabbered on about the principal in the never ending last word on inflation in (page 26 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1182397) but the principle is environmental exploitation is partially held in check by restricting growth through a fixed money supply in a Bitcoin type system.
If people will hoard as you suggest here then in the end there will be exponentially growing hoarding moguls with the power to do to the environment whatever they want.
Not a good idea.
Hoarding is by definition saving. To save you need to contribute to the economy. No doubt there will be a shift in power should Bitcoin be a viable currency. The only reform I think that needs to be addressed is related to
Re environmental explosion, you always need to look at the costs and benefits. I am thinking the cradle to grave consumption based economy of to day is a result of economic growth and the expansion of the money supply. By contrast a fixed money supply will have different outcomes - more environmentally friendly.
What do you think?
It's pretty good on the environment but it also means human development will start reverting.
Soon enough we will only be able to produce local products as the transnational trades break down.
A changeover from inflationary economy to fixed supply economy will crash the world.
No more hi tech, no more computers, no more bitcoin.
I propose WoodCoin™
Any change to the way we consume must come from within the system.
You can't just replace all the threads the world is running on without screwing the whole thing up.
I blabbered on about the principal in the never ending last word on inflation in (page 26 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1182397) but the principle is environmental exploitation is partially held in check by restricting growth through a fixed money supply in a Bitcoin type system.
If people will hoard as you suggest here then in the end there will be exponentially growing hoarding moguls with the power to do to the environment whatever they want.
Not a good idea.
Hoarding is by definition saving. To save you need to contribute to the economy. No doubt there will be a shift in power should Bitcoin be a viable currency. The only reform I think that needs to be addressed is related to
Re environmental explosion, you always need to look at the costs and benefits. I am thinking the cradle to grave consumption based economy of to day is a result of economic growth and the expansion of the money supply. By contrast a fixed money supply will have different outcomes - more environmentally friendly.
What do you think?
A system like Bitcoin with a fixed money supply will keep economic growth in check with environmental exploitation. It is just like a switch which simply solves ecological and fiscal problems and can't be cheated and is almost instant.
Your whole argument hinges on the fact that bitcoin is a magical switch that will fix all your problems.
Yet you don't explain how this will work and why it will work.
Dream on.
The ides is somewhat flushed out on the link in my original post. I have no idea how Bitcoin will become dominant, but the idea is a deflation spiral will grind the growth economy to a halt. That has environmental benefits, the resulting free market that follows will not be fueled perpetual growth.
I blabbered on about the principal in the never ending last word on inflation in (page 26 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1182397) but the principle is environmental exploitation is partially held in check by restricting growth through a fixed money supply in a Bitcoin type system.
If people will hoard as you suggest here then in the end there will be exponentially growing hoarding moguls with the power to do to the environment whatever they want.
Not a good idea.
... I just have no idea how to combine it with my libertarian ideals.
I don't think it is all that removed from the North American interpretation of libertarian ideals. A while ago I watched an interview with a young Walter Block, outlining where we went wrong on the environment. In short we sold short personal property rights for the collective good the example he gave was the pollution from a steam engine around the time of the industrial revolution.
For all I know some flavor of libertarian tough may already have the answers.
A system like Bitcoin with a fixed money supply will keep economic growth in check with environmental exploitation. It is just like a switch which simply solves ecological and fiscal problems and can't be cheated and is almost instant.
Your whole argument hinges on the fact that bitcoin is a magical switch that will fix all your problems.
Yet you don't explain how this will work and why it will work.
Dream on.
Thanks for the post, this is the true reason I am investing in Bitcoin.
These issues are so out there in cases they require a paradigm shift just to talk about them. I think " Robert Costanza" in the TEDx talk stated it best, there is a lot of overlap in what we would like to see in the future, the problem is we can't agree how to get there. As a result many people are fundamentally / violently opposed to the path not the vision.
I don't agree with some of Robert underlying assumptions (or at least I don't understand the terminology describing the ideas) lots of key players tend to be radicals, most seem to poo poo laissez faire capitalism, and foster some sort of benevolent control / steward / government.
I enjoyed rehashing the dinner conversation you linked too, and I got to enjoy the desert free of charge with no economic growth.
Economists may have some ideas right, there is exponential growth that will take place in that the quality of people's lives will get exponentially better, but the economists are measuring with the wrong yard stick. It is not money that buys wealth. It is people that created wealth and creativity that makes it abundant. The capital that grows is what will shape humanity in the coming decades (is not the money supply).
Laissez faire capitalism ensures price deflation of goods that are in abundant supply and price stabilisation of goods / recourses that are in short supply and a motive to make abundant the things that we want more of.
A system like Bitcoin with a fixed money supply will keep economic growth in check with environmental exploitation. It is just like a switch which simply solves ecological and fiscal problems and can't be cheated and is almost instant.
I blabbered on about the principal in the never ending last word on inflation in (page 26 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1182397) but the principle is environmental exploitation is partially held in check by restricting growth through a fixed money supply in a Bitcoin type system.
I flushed out an idea a little while ago for an Eco Capital used for manufactured goods (in principle something like carbon credits, but without the centralised control and corruption and lopsided benefactors) I would like to revisit it and put it in the Bitcoin context and disuses here too.
Adams Smith's does a good job of justifying land ownership and the role the landlord playes in the in the free market system. Libertarians call it homesteading. But the idea of land ownership has flaws in a free market system. Simplified, when you convert land to your exclusive use you immediately deprive others of its use, it is more akin to steeling than copying is.
In my view Karl Marx had an inspiring vision he just didn't distil it into workable principals, he conceived a central dictatorial authority to correct the wrongs of the day instead of distilling a set of self-regulating free market principles. While he gave credit to the benefits of the free market principals he couldn't reconcile property ownership and the free market, mistakenly discarding the capitalist idea as doomed to fail.
In short, solve the property ownership dilemma and you solve the conflict between environmental exploitation in the capitalist context, and emerge with a harmonisation of economy and ecology.
These issues are so out there in cases they require a paradigm shift just to talk about them. I think " Robert Costanza" in the TEDx talk stated it best, there is a lot of overlap in what we would like to see in the future, the problem is we can't agree how to get there. As a result many people are fundamentally / violently opposed to the path not the vision.
I don't agree with some of Robert underlying assumptions (or at least I don't understand the terminology describing the ideas) lots of key players tend to be radicals, most seem to poo poo laissez faire capitalism, and foster some sort of benevolent control / steward / government.
I enjoyed rehashing the dinner conversation you linked too, and I got to enjoy the desert free of charge with no economic growth.
Economists may have some ideas right, there is exponential growth that will take place in that the quality of people's lives will get exponentially better, but the economists are measuring with the wrong yard stick. It is not money that buys wealth. It is people that created wealth and creativity that makes it abundant. The capital that grows is what will shape humanity in the coming decades (is not the money supply).
Laissez faire capitalism ensures price deflation of goods that are in abundant supply and price stabilisation of goods / recourses that are in short supply and a motive to make abundant the things that we want more of.
A system like Bitcoin with a fixed money supply will keep economic growth in check with environmental exploitation. It is just like a switch which simply solves ecological and fiscal problems and can't be cheated and is almost instant.
I blabbered on about the principal in the never ending last word on inflation in (page 26 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1182397) but the principle is environmental exploitation is partially held in check by restricting growth through a fixed money supply in a Bitcoin type system.
I flushed out an idea a little while ago for an Eco Capital used for manufactured goods (in principle something like carbon credits, but without the centralised control and corruption and lopsided benefactors) I would like to revisit it and put it in the Bitcoin context and disuses here too.
Adams Smith's does a good job of justifying land ownership and the role the landlord playes in the in the free market system. Libertarians call it homesteading. But the idea of land ownership has flaws in a free market system. Simplified, when you convert land to your exclusive use you immediately deprive others of its use, it is more akin to steeling than copying is.
In my view Karl Marx had an inspiring vision he just didn't distil it into workable principals, he conceived a central dictatorial authority to correct the wrongs of the day instead of distilling a set of self-regulating free market principles. While he gave credit to the benefits of the free market principals he couldn't reconcile property ownership and the free market, mistakenly discarding the capitalist idea as doomed to fail.
In short, solve the property ownership dilemma and you solve the conflict between environmental exploitation in the capitalist context, and emerge with a harmonisation of economy and ecology.
Jump to: