Topic: Bitcoin mentioned at congressional hearing. - page 4. (Read 6757 times)

Im fairly left-wing as well. Not all left-wings are authoritarian.

I just rember our right-wing prime-minister defending banking regulations he wanted to relax (such as allowing longer mortgage terms).

I am fairly left-wing. I never thought that I would see the US Nationalizing the banks in my lifetime (that is so left wing I didn't really advocate for it)

Edit: Governments largely have a monoply on dispute resolution too: government intervention!

Freddie and Fannie are not government entities?

Also, even when they were private banks offering the money, they are largely subsidized and incentivized to expand the money supply by the government.

I dont understand how anyone can say the government has taken a hands-off approach when we live under a monopolly of money.

Well, you have pretty much set up a tautology there. I have to come up with an economic crisis not directly related to government intervention in the economy. My first though it that the security theater since 9/11 may have dragged down the economy, but there are too many variables to say if it had an effect either way.

One major crisis since then was the collapse of the housing bubble. I would argue that the government was taking a largely hands-off approach. It was private corporations messing with the money supply through credit default swaps. Of course, it could be argued that corporations form part of the government and that the US is actually a Facist Corpratist state (bringing the tautology full-circle).

Edit: double checked the definition of Facism.

And just 30 minutes later, some asshole says that "greed is part of the human condition". Blaming us for the bullshit that religion, government and bankers have perpetrated on human beings for centuries.

+1
OPEC Money

The real problem with the gold standard, or things like it, is that it makes it harder for governments and central banks to rip off their own people. Take any example of an economic crisis from U.S. history -- or even the world -- and if you study it carefully you will find that it was government attempting to screw with the money at the root of it.

(I'm waiting for some smartass to provide a counterexample. Go.)

You've been misinformed. To the extent that the gold standard "caused" the depression, it was because the government had printed and spent more money than the corresponding gold reserves, and thus creditors opted to take possession of the gold instead of dollars, causing a run on the bank type of situation. This is what happened to Britain as it entered its great depression. In other words, gold forces fiscal discipline, and when politicians don't behave, the economic consequences are made clear early on.

Compare this with today, where politicians can print and print and print, artificially keeping prices from correcting and risking hyper-inflation by so doing. The consequences of their actions in these past several years have not yet been felt, fyi.

The gold standard doesn't hurt economies. It protects savings, property, and value. If you prefer a world in which politicians perpetually steal your money by simply printing more of it (thus driving prices up which you pay), then you'll be antagonistic to a gold standard.

And your claim that "any economist will tell you that the gold standard hurts economies" is very wrong. Mainstream media and government economists will tell you that, but economists who aren't fools will not. If you'd like an excellent article on this topic, written by Alan Greenspan himself (back when he wasn't a fool in the 60s), check this out... it might just blow your mind:  http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

I was trying to find more information on the gentleman, thanks!

I only know of this mention at 21 min:



Was that the only one?

In one slide at 11:30ish


14:25+ cat/dog reference to explain fraudulent us dollar is quite interesting

House Resolution 1098

2nd speaker that referenced 'bitcoins' is Dr. Lawrence H. White.

The way I read it is, the bill doesn't create a gold standard, it simply allows it to be used as currency.  Also I would argue that the depression had more to do with the federal reserve shrinking the money supply which had nothing to do with the money supply.

That being said, I would say there is nothing more detrimental to an economy than an unregulated and unelected body that can print money out of thin air on a whim and that's what the Federal Reserve is now.  The Federal Reserve is no more a part of the government than Federal Express is.

Here's a little bit about what happened when we moved from the gold standard to the oil standard and why the only currency you can purchase oil (at the commodity-trade level) with is the US dollar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oARBdBtGenM

Did he really meant Bitcoin, or was it just "bit coins" as a generic term for digital currencies without him even knowing about Bitcoin itself?

in school they teach that it had to do with people buying things on credit/margin if you are talking about investments. then being unable to pay, thus banks collapse, no FDIC, then more people loose money.

hhmmmmmm.   but didn't the gold standard help drive us into a depression because the gov couldn't print money to help the deflation that caused the depression?

so now I am torn.  I want the law so as to help bitcoin...  but dont want the law because any economist will tell you that the gold standard hurts economies.

The law also removes legal tender laws so it would be great for Bitcoin.

Ron Paul schedules House hearing to push gold standard



http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/09/ron-paul-schedules-house-hearing-to-push-gold-standard/


?

Was watching this and the guy said something about bitcoins around 20 minutes 30 seconds

Ron paul was listening, wonder if he knew what he was talking about.

http://mfile3.akamai.com/65722/wmv/sos1467-1.streamos.download.akamai.com/65726/hearing0913112pm.asx