Banning Usury will promote cryptocurrencies

BobK71

hero member

Activity: 2128

Merit: 655

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: deisik on February 13, 2017, 01:16:00 PM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 13, 2017, 11:59:16 AM

Not entirely sure what your point is here, but if you think 19th and 20th century gold standards constitute a 'fixed-money-supply' system, the discussion will be wrong from the start

I refer to Industrial Revolutions

Two of them occurred in the 19th century. The first encompasses the period from the late 18th till your date of the British Empire expansion (1840). The second occurred in the last quarter of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century as I said. Gold standard is synonymous with a "fixed-money-supply" system (at least, as long as the supply of gold itself is constant and governments actually stick to it). Though you are free to choose any definition of that as you feel like (this is not a school and I'm not a teacher)

The gold standard was a 'fixed-money-supply' system only by elite propaganda (with mainstream economists singing the supporting chorus.) Paper money was printed all the time and various manipulations were used to keep the system stable. That was why Britain only had enough gold to redeem 3% of its paper money at the start of World War I. (Does this look like any effort to keep money 'sound' in reality?) That was why the system collapsed entirely by 1971. The system was no different from today's in essence, just with a slower pace of asset inflation.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: BobK71 on February 13, 2017, 11:59:16 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 11, 2017, 03:29:24 AM

In fact, in your place I would try to address the lack of sustainability in the economies based on a fixed-money supply on reality, not on references to "savers" (which you still didn't explain what they have to do with this model). In reality (as it actually happened for some time during 19th-early 20th centuries), the constant loss of nominal amount of money received by the consumers as wages in such an economy can be offset through the growth in productivity. In that case, the less amount of money would still be able to buy more or the same quantity of goods, and thus we can't claim that this economy wouldn't be sustainable (at least, as long as real purchasing power of an average wage remains the same)

Not entirely sure what your point is here, but if you think 19th and 20th century gold standards constitute a 'fixed-money-supply' system, the discussion will be wrong from the start

I refer to Industrial Revolutions

Two of them occurred in the 19th century. The first encompasses the period from the late 18th till your date of the British Empire expansion (1840). The second occurred in the last quarter of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century as I said. Gold standard is synonymous with a "fixed-money-supply" system (at least, as long as the supply of gold itself is constant and governments actually stick to it). Though you are free to choose any definition of that as you feel like (this is not a school and I'm not a teacher)

BobK71

hero member

Activity: 2128

Merit: 655

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: deisik on February 11, 2017, 03:29:24 AM

In fact, in your place I would try to address the lack of sustainability in the economies based on a fixed-money supply on reality, not on references to "savers" (which you still didn't explain what they have to do with this model). In reality (as it actually happened for some time during 19th-early 20th centuries), the constant loss of nominal amount of money received by the consumers as wages in such an economy can be offset through the growth in productivity. In that case, the less amount of money would still be able to buy more or the same quantity of goods, and thus we can't claim that this economy wouldn't be sustainable (at least, as long as real purchasing power of an average wage remains the same)

Not entirely sure what your point is here, but if you think 19th and 20th century gold standards constitute a 'fixed-money-supply' system, the discussion will be wrong from the start.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: BobK71 on February 10, 2017, 05:35:27 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 10, 2017, 03:52:20 PM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 10, 2017, 03:27:02 PM

See my original statement. I guess I'll just have to keep waiting

Honestly, I can't fathom what you mean by me "having only actors who must increase their savings". Just in case, it is about consumers and producers. Essentially, it is not about saving, it is about having enough means for pure subsistence

I laid out as plainly as possible why your model is unrealistic. Yet you "honestly can't fathom." I hope this model is not the sole basis of your "proof," but I can't seem to recall there's anything else.

Unless we have anything new to add, wouldn't you agree this discussion has come to the end of its useful life?

You must be kidding (really)

In fact, in your place I would try to address the lack of sustainability in the economies based on a fixed-money supply on reality, not on references to "savers" (which you still didn't explain what they have to do with this model). In reality (as it actually happened for some time during 19th-early 20th centuries), the constant loss of nominal amount of money received by the consumers as wages in such an economy can be offset through the growth in productivity. In that case, the less amount of money would still be able to buy more or the same quantity of goods, and thus we can't claim that this economy wouldn't be sustainable (at least, as long as the real purchasing power of an average wage remains essentially the same)

BobK71

hero member

Activity: 2128

Merit: 655

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: deisik on February 10, 2017, 03:52:20 PM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 10, 2017, 03:27:02 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 09, 2017, 10:40:24 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 09, 2017, 10:26:02 AM

Your point was that a fix-money-supply system is logically provable to be inherently unstable. Have we moved the goal post?

I don't quite understand what you mean. Anyway, you should keep in mind that if you want to logically disprove something you should yourself use logic but not refer to examples. Regarding your examples themselves, the Italian Renaissance cities are irrelevant as such since their economies are not sustainable on their own at all, in the first place. They were basically bankers and traders (read resellers). Without the rest of the world, they would quickly die out in a matter of months if not weeks. And which book are you talking about?

The producer-consumer example was my invention, just in case

Sorry, you're the one who has to prove that a fixed-money-supply economy is inherently unstable, since that was your assertion. I only have to provide counter-examples

This certainly won't do

I think that I have logically proven my point. Ultimately, this is irrelevant (since you still consider my arguments as not sufficient). What is relevant here is that you can't just pop up and claim that my point is shaky or invalid. Basically, you should either disprove it by showing that it is internally wrong and inconsistent using the same logic as I used (which you simply can't since it is logically perfect) or somehow prove that this model, though internally consistent and coherent, is not applicable to real life. Obviously, your so-called example are not disproving (or proving, for the record) anything in any conceivable way

Quote from: BobK71 on February 10, 2017, 03:27:02 PM

Trade was only one of many supporting factors for the Renaissance economy. Every economy has them. I suppose you're going to say that if a Medieval crop economy was subject to destruction by climate change, it would prove that fixed-supply-money is inherently unstable? Grin

Or that the economy was no example of a stable, fixed-money-supply system?

It doesn't matter if it was only one of the factors in the Renaissance economy. What actually matters here is that it was not in the least sustainable on its own and greatly depended on the outside world. That pretty much renders your example useless. It is like claiming that you live on your own while in fact you live in the basement of your parents' house

Quote from: BobK71 on February 10, 2017, 03:27:02 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 09, 2017, 10:40:24 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 09, 2017, 10:26:02 AM

You still have not addressed the core issue with your model, that having only actors who must increase their savings will naturally not work with a fixed money supply, so that the model was unrealistic and actually could be argued to have been chosen for its conclusions

I assume that all other actors ain't relevant. If you disagree, explain how they should be

See my original statement. I guess I'll just have to keep waiting

Honestly, I can't fathom what you mean by me "having only actors who must increase their savings". Just in case, it is about consumers and producers. Essentially, it is not about saving, it is about having enough means for pure subsistence

I laid out as plainly as possible why your model is unrealistic. Yet you "honestly can't fathom." I hope this model is not the sole basis of your "proof," but I can't seem to recall there's anything else.

Unless we have anything new to add, wouldn't you agree this discussion has come to the end of its useful life?

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: BobK71 on February 10, 2017, 03:27:02 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 09, 2017, 10:40:24 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 09, 2017, 10:26:02 AM

Your point was that a fix-money-supply system is logically provable to be inherently unstable. Have we moved the goal post?

I don't quite understand what you mean. Anyway, you should keep in mind that if you want to logically disprove something you should yourself use logic but not refer to examples. Regarding your examples themselves, the Italian Renaissance cities are irrelevant as such since their economies are not sustainable on their own at all, in the first place. They were basically bankers and traders (read resellers). Without the rest of the world, they would quickly die out in a matter of months if not weeks. And which book are you talking about?

The producer-consumer example was my invention, just in case

Sorry, you're the one who has to prove that a fixed-money-supply economy is inherently unstable, since that was your assertion. I only have to provide counter-examples

This certainly won't do

I think that I have logically proven my point. Ultimately, this is irrelevant (since you still consider my arguments as not sufficient). What is relevant here is that you can't just pop up and claim that my point is shaky or invalid. Basically, you should either disprove it by showing that it is internally wrong and inconsistent using the same logic as I used (which you simply can't since it is logically perfect) or somehow prove that this model, though internally consistent and coherent, is not applicable to real life. Obviously, your so-called example are not disproving (or proving, for the record) anything in any conceivable way

Quote from: BobK71 on February 10, 2017, 03:27:02 PM

Trade was only one of many supporting factors for the Renaissance economy. Every economy has them. I suppose you're going to say that if a Medieval crop economy was subject to destruction by climate change, it would prove that fixed-supply-money is inherently unstable? Grin

Or that the economy was no example of a stable, fixed-money-supply system?

It doesn't matter if it was only one of the factors in the Renaissance economy. What actually matters here is that it was not in the least sustainable on its own and greatly depended on the outside world. That pretty much renders your example useless. It is like claiming that you live on your own while in fact you live in the basement of your parents' house

Quote from: BobK71 on February 10, 2017, 03:27:02 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 09, 2017, 10:40:24 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 09, 2017, 10:26:02 AM

You still have not addressed the core issue with your model, that having only actors who must increase their savings will naturally not work with a fixed money supply, so that the model was unrealistic and actually could be argued to have been chosen for its conclusions

I assume that all other actors ain't relevant. If you disagree, explain how they should be

See my original statement. I guess I'll just have to keep waiting

Honestly, I can't fathom what you mean by me "having only actors who must increase their savings". Just in case, it is about consumers and producers. Essentially, it is not about saving, it is about having enough means for pure subsistence

BobK71

hero member

Activity: 2128

Merit: 655

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: deisik on February 09, 2017, 10:40:24 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 09, 2017, 10:26:02 AM

Your point was that a fix-money-supply system is logically provable to be inherently unstable. Have we moved the goal post?

I don't quite understand what you mean. Anyway, you should keep in mind that if you want to logically disprove something you should yourself use logic but not refer to examples. Regarding your examples themselves, the Italian Renaissance cities are irrelevant as such since their economies are not sustainable on their own at all, in the first place. They were basically bankers and traders (read resellers). Without the rest of the world, they would quickly die out in a matter of months if not weeks. And which book are you talking about?

The producer-consumer example was my invention, just in case

Sorry, you're the one who has to prove that a fixed-money-supply economy is inherently unstable, since that was your assertion. I only have to provide counter-examples.

I am not asserting the stability of anything, since there are so many factors, that you can't guarantee stability, without looking at all of them. But I'm proving that fixed-money-supply systems are not inherently unstable by giving you two counter-examples (Renaissance city states and 3 centuries near the end of Imperial China.)

Trade was only one of many supporting factors for the Renaissance economy. Every economy has them. I suppose you're going to say that if a Medieval crop economy was subject to destruction by climate change, it would prove that fixed-supply-money is inherently unstable? Grin

Or that the economy was no example of a stable, fixed-money-supply system?

Quote from: deisik on February 09, 2017, 10:40:24 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 09, 2017, 10:26:02 AM

You still have not addressed the core issue with your model, that having only actors who must increase their savings will naturally not work with a fixed money supply, so that the model was unrealistic and actually could be argued to have been chosen for its conclusions

I assume that all other actors ain't relevant. If you disagree, explain how they should be

See my original statement. I guess I'll just have to keep waiting.

Quote from: deisik on February 09, 2017, 10:40:24 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 09, 2017, 10:26:02 AM

That fixed-money-supply is unstable is an establishment-promoted myth that has become something of an orthodoxy today, in a world where the 'top' mainstream economists are essentially bought off by the establishment (that is, surely blind on purpose unless they are so obtuse as to miss the elephant in the room.)

Talk is cheap, show me how it is actually sustainable

In this case, I'll stick to cheap talk. Thank you very much.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: BobK71 on February 09, 2017, 10:26:02 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 08, 2017, 10:52:28 AM

The real question is how well it survived

I didn't hear about any economic miracle in respect to post-Mongol China. If it was mostly agrarian society, which seems to be the case (compare with England ca. 1840), then your example is meaningless since in such a society money itself is mostly irrelevant. It could survive without any money altogether, be it fiat, silver, gold, or whatever. Regarding my model, you can include in it as many people as you see fit, but if it can still be reduced down to a 2-person model, that makes no particular sense either

Your point was that a fix-money-supply system is logically provable to be inherently unstable. Have we moved the goal post?

I don't quite understand what you mean. Anyway, you should keep in mind that if you want to logically disprove something you should yourself use logic but not refer to examples. Regarding your examples themselves, the Italian Renaissance cities are irrelevant as such since their economies are not sustainable on their own at all, in the first place. They were basically bankers and traders (read resellers). Without the rest of the world, they would quickly die out in a matter of months if not weeks. And which book are you talking about?

The producer-consumer example was my invention, just in case

Quote from: BobK71 on February 09, 2017, 10:26:02 AM

You still have not addressed the core issue with your model, that having only actors who must increase their savings will naturally not work with a fixed money supply, so that the model was unrealistic and actually could be argued to have been chosen for its conclusions

I assume that all other actors ain't relevant. If you disagree, explain how they should be

Quote from: BobK71 on February 09, 2017, 10:26:02 AM

That fixed-money-supply is unstable is an establishment-promoted myth that has become something of an orthodoxy today, in a world where the 'top' mainstream economists are essentially bought off by the establishment (that is, surely blind on purpose unless they are so obtuse as to miss the elephant in the room.)

Talk is cheap, show me how it is actually sustainable

BobK71

hero member

Activity: 2128

Merit: 655

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: deisik on February 08, 2017, 10:52:28 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 08, 2017, 10:30:28 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 08, 2017, 10:17:59 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 08, 2017, 10:13:12 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 08, 2017, 04:24:27 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 07, 2017, 05:59:46 PM

Where is your proof?

Maybe, in this post

But then again you are free to disagree, but unless you somehow manage to make a viable rebuttal (you didn't so far), I will stick to my guns, obviously.

I didn't think you would still consider this a 'proof.'

As I mentioned, you can't model this economy properly by only having actors who must increase their savings. And I told you where the profits would come from (ie people outside your model)

Are you serious mate?

When I tell you that your examples don't work in real world, you throw out the window my arguments since they would be "external factors", and right now you use the same argument to challenge my point. I don't think this is an honest approach. Anyway, there are no people outside the planet Earth so your reference to "people outside your model" remains as invalid as ever before. I basically said everything what I wanted to say, but you may think as you please

I am dead serious.

So a physical-silver monetary system that survived for 3 centuries and only got eroded after a British invasion is inherently not stable? It is 'an example that doesn't work in the real world?'

The real question is how well it survived

I didn't hear about any economic miracle in respect to post-Mongol China. If it was mostly agrarian society, which seems to be the case (compare with England ca. 1840), then your example is meaningless since in such a society money itself is mostly irrelevant. It could survive without any money altogether, be it fiat, silver, gold, or whatever. Regarding my model, you can include in it as many people as you see fit, but if it can still be reduced down to a 2-person model, that makes no particular sense either

Your point was that a fix-money-supply system is logically provable to be inherently unstable. Have we moved the goal post?

Not to mention, the Renaissance had great progress with a physical gold and silver only money system. But of course that was an unimportant example in your book(!)

BTW money seemed to be important in 'agrarian' China. The reason for going to physical silver was partly that hyperinflation after centuries of the state-issued money had reduced much of the economy to barter. Under physical silver, the few decades before the British invasion of 1840s were also known for general prosperity.

You still have not addressed the core issue with your model, that having only actors who must increase their savings will naturally not work with a fixed money supply, so that the model was unrealistic and actually could be argued to have been chosen for its conclusions.

That fixed-money-supply is unstable is an establishment-promoted myth that has become something of an orthodoxy today, in a world where the 'top' mainstream economists are essentially bought off by the establishment (that is, surely blind on purpose unless they are so obtuse as to miss the elephant in the room.)

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: BobK71 on February 08, 2017, 10:30:28 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 08, 2017, 10:17:59 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 08, 2017, 10:13:12 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 08, 2017, 04:24:27 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 07, 2017, 05:59:46 PM

Where is your proof?

Maybe, in this post

But then again you are free to disagree, but unless you somehow manage to make a viable rebuttal (you didn't so far), I will stick to my guns, obviously.

I didn't think you would still consider this a 'proof.'

As I mentioned, you can't model this economy properly by only having actors who must increase their savings. And I told you where the profits would come from (ie people outside your model)

Are you serious mate?

When I tell you that your examples don't work in real world, you throw out the window my arguments since they would be "external factors", and right now you use the same argument to challenge my point. I don't think this is an honest approach. Anyway, there are no people outside the planet Earth so your reference to "people outside your model" remains as invalid as ever before. I basically said everything what I wanted to say, but you may think as you please

I am dead serious.

So a physical-silver monetary system that survived for 3 centuries and only got eroded after a British invasion is inherently not stable? It is 'an example that doesn't work in the real world?'

The real question is how well it survived

I didn't hear about any economic miracle in respect to post-Mongol China. If it was mostly agrarian society, which seems to be the case (compare with England ca. 1840), then your example is meaningless since in such a society money itself is mostly irrelevant. It could survive without any money altogether, be it fiat, silver, gold, or whatever. Regarding my model, you can include in it as many people as you see fit, but if it can still be reduced down to a 2-person model, that makes no particular sense either

BobK71

hero member

Activity: 2128

Merit: 655

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: deisik on February 08, 2017, 10:17:59 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 08, 2017, 10:13:12 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 08, 2017, 04:24:27 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 07, 2017, 05:59:46 PM

Where is your proof?

Maybe, in this post

But then again you are free to disagree, but unless you somehow manage to make a viable rebuttal (you didn't so far), I will stick to my guns, obviously.

I didn't think you would still consider this a 'proof.'

As I mentioned, you can't model this economy properly by only having actors who must increase their savings. And I told you where the profits would come from (ie people outside your model)

Are you serious mate?

When I tell you that your examples don't work in real world, you throw out the window my arguments since they would be "external factors", and right now you use the same argument to challenge my point. I don't think this is an honest approach. Anyway, there are no people outside the planet Earth so your reference to "people outside your model" remains as invalid as ever before. I basically said everything what I wanted to say, but you may think as you please

I am dead serious.

So a physical-silver monetary system that survived for 3 centuries and only got eroded after a British invasion is inherently not stable? It is 'an example that doesn't work in the real world?'

While your 2-person model of the economy where both must keep saving money is 'proof' of anything?

BobK71

hero member

Activity: 2128

Merit: 655

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Xester on February 07, 2017, 11:46:30 PM

If the United States of America will use bitcoin then they could no longer reproduce us dollars which is more than the prescribed amount to be circulated. The united States of America is constantly printing us dollars so the public could not notice that their nation is already bankrupt. With bitcoin at hand the public can monitor how much remaining btc are in the hands of the government and they will also see how the government are spending the funds.

Correct. The big picture is that the international banking elite latched onto the US as ally to use its imperial power to artificially support the values of its printed dollars, Treasuries, bank debt, etc.

Before they did this to the US, they did it to Britain, and before that the Netherlands, and before that Spain. Each time, the empire ends tragically, one way or another, as the world eventually refuses to support the value of the paper.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: BobK71 on February 08, 2017, 10:13:12 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 08, 2017, 04:24:27 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 07, 2017, 05:59:46 PM

Where is your proof?

Maybe, in this post

But then again you are free to disagree, but unless you somehow manage to make a viable rebuttal (you didn't so far), I will stick to my guns, obviously.

I didn't think you would still consider this a 'proof.'

As I mentioned, you can't model this economy properly by only having actors who must increase their savings. And I told you where the profits would come from (ie people outside your model)

Are you serious mate?

When I tell you that your examples don't work in real world, you throw out the window my arguments since they don't work due to "external factors", and right now you use the same argument to challenge my point. I don't think this is an honest approach. Anyway, there are no people outside the planet Earth so your reference to "people outside your model" remains as invalid as ever before. I basically said everything what I wanted to say, but you may think as you please

BobK71

hero member

Activity: 2128

Merit: 655

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: deisik on February 08, 2017, 04:24:27 AM

Quote from: BobK71 on February 07, 2017, 05:59:46 PM

Where is your proof?

Maybe, in this post

But then again you are free to disagree, but unless you somehow manage to make a viable rebuttal (you didn't so far), I will stick to my guns, obviously.

I didn't think you would still consider this a 'proof.'

As I mentioned, you can't model this economy properly by only having actors who must increase their savings. And I answered your question (ie the profits will come from people outside your model.) I'm still waiting for your response to that.

I'm sorry, but at this point, I have trouble believing that you want to be convinced of anything you don't already think.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: BobK71 on February 07, 2017, 05:59:46 PM

Quote from: deisik on February 07, 2017, 09:45:04 AM

If you don't want to accept my proof, I simply can't force you

Other than that, there are always external forces present, and somehow countries that stick to a state-controlled money supply overcome countries that are using hard currencies backed up by, say, precious metals. After all, money is only a tool, even if fiat is just a powerful performance-enhancing drug. No one knows about clean athletes, but you can't become an Olympic champion unless you are juicing (where it applicable, of course). In any case, the winner takes it all

Where is your proof?

"Overcome" is not the same thing as "achieve true happiness." In fact, I would argue quite the contrary. Theft is ultimately just as bad, if not worse, for the thief as it is for the victim

Maybe, in this post

But then again you are free to disagree, but unless you somehow manage to make a viable rebuttal (you didn't so far), I will stick to my guns, obviously. Regarding "achieving true happiness", this is a matter of convention really. The rich also cry, but as the proverb goes, money may not buy you happiness, but it is still more comfortable to cry in a Mercedes than on a bus

Xester

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 544

If the United States of America will use bitcoin then they could no longer reproduce us dollars which is more than the prescribed amount to be circulated. The united States of America is constantly printing us dollars so the public could not notice that their nation is already bankrupt. With bitcoin at hand the public can monitor how much remaining btc are in the hands of the government and they will also see how the government are spending the funds.

BobK71

hero member

Activity: 2128

Merit: 655

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: deisik on February 07, 2017, 09:45:04 AM

If you don't want to accept my proof, I simply can't force you

Other than that, there are always external forces present, and somehow countries that stick to a state-controlled money supply overcome countries that are using hard currencies backed up by, say, precious metals. After all, money is only a tool, even if fiat is just a powerful performance-enhancing drug. No one knows about clean athletes, but you can't become an Olympic champion unless you are juicing (where it applicable, of course). In any case, the winner takes it all

Where is your proof?

"Overcome" is not the same thing as "achieve true happiness." In fact, I would argue quite the contrary. Theft is ultimately just as bad, if not worse, for the thief as it is for the victim.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: BobK71 on February 07, 2017, 09:26:14 AM

Quote from: deisik on February 06, 2017, 11:28:43 AM

And then we are right back to my example which proves that any economic system based on a fixed money supply is unsustainable in the long run. I don't know much about China of that period, so I can't say anything specific. But for it to be a viable example, you should confirm two things. Namely, that the amount of silver in circulation was in fact constant (more or less) during that time span and that the level of well-being didn't substantially decrease. If silver really helped them, why the British were able to so easily conquer them?

Maybe, they shouldn't have used silver as money (if they had been, in the first place)

Pardon me for scratching my head, but how does your 'example' prove anything? I just gave two historical examples of constant money-supply systems that were more than stable (in the case of China, lasting for 3 centuries before being dissolved by external forces.)

If you don't want to accept my proof, I simply can't force you

Other than that, there are always external forces present, and somehow countries that stick to a state-controlled money supply overcome countries that are using hard currencies backed up by, say, precious metals. After all, money is only a tool, even if fiat is just a powerful performance-enhancing drug. No one knows about clean athletes, but you can't become an Olympic champion unless you are juicing (where it applicable, of course). In any case, the winner takes it all

BobK71

hero member

Activity: 2128

Merit: 655

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: deisik on February 06, 2017, 11:28:43 AM

And then we are right back to my example which proves that any economic system based on a fixed money supply is unsustainable in the long run. I don't know much about China of that period, so I can't say anything specific. But for it to be a viable example, you should confirm two things. Namely, that the amount of silver in circulation was in fact constant (more or less) during that time span and that the level of well-being didn't substantially decrease. If silver really helped them, why the British were able to so easily conquer them?

Maybe, they shouldn't have used silver as money (if they had been, in the first place)

Pardon me for scratching my head, but how does your 'example' prove anything? I just gave two historical examples of constant money-supply systems that were more than stable (in the case of China, lasting for 3 centuries before being dissolved by external forces.)

Such examples are extremely rare because any existence would be under attack from the imperial system. (E.g. the IMF stipulates that if you want to enjoy the help that comes with membership, you can't use gold.)

No non-Western country could be the military equal of Britain. Britain's power came not just from decent fundamentals, but also from the international bankers' choice to push it as the global top dog. We have to remember that in this situation 'flexible' money is a powerful performance-enhancing drug. It also always addicts the country and lead to eventual implosion or decline.

It's probably more correct to change a couple words and say 'any economic system based on a state-controlled money supply is unsustainable in the long run.'

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: BobK71 on February 06, 2017, 11:10:28 AM

When you have a money that the state cannot (or realizes it shouldn't) manipulate, you're (literally) golden. Part of the problem is allowing the state to define the monetary unit. Once transactions are denominated in the state-defined unit (dollar, franc, etc.) the system is open to such manipulation, although state-defined units are harder to prop up in multipolar worlds like Medieval Europe than in, say, pre-15th century China

And then we are right back to my example which proves that any economic system based on a fixed money supply is unsustainable in the long run. I don't know much about China of that period, so I can't say anything specific. But for it to be a viable example, you should confirm two things. Namely, that the amount of silver in circulation was in fact constant (more or less) during that time span and that the level of well-being didn't substantially decrease. If silver really helped them, why the British were able to so easily conquer them?

Maybe, they shouldn't have used silver as money (if they had been, in the first place)

Topic: Banning Usury will promote cryptocurrencies (Read 4316 times)