Topic: [CHART] Bitcoin Inflation vs. Time - page 45. (Read 1204638 times)
Oh it got stickies nice
Now we just need a chart showing the price at $500.00!!!
Just wait two years, then you'll either see that or something very much closer to zero.
Now we just need a chart showing the price at $500.00!!!
Nicely done charts 
Great chart, thx!
100% Truthful
nice
Insightful graph.
Very nice! 
So helpful, will keep an eye on this,
very sensible posting mr. agentbluescreen !
The obviously sane thing to do is to keep the value of money constant. That is the whole point of money. Come on now, you know im right, say it
Obviously the basic value of labour is much unchanged since Adam moved the wife and boys out to Palestine, nor should it ever change too much regardless of what other costs that principle implies.
What exactly does that mean? Strikes me as nonsense. Measured in what?
Measured in cubic meters of soil moved, the value of a modern worker with a digger is many times that of an ancient worker with a shovel. Measured by calorie intake or by sweat output you get just the opposite result.
In short, you can produce any result you like by twisting your measurement method.
There goes your constant value of money as well. Measured in what? The number of slaves you can buy?
A sane currency would keep its total supply in the same proportion to the population. That's basically all we should hope for or need to require. Neither bitcoin nor the current fiat system does this.
By keeping currency supply in constant proportion to the population, it is guaranteed we will be rewarded with a discount when paying for the labor to produce cubic yards of empty space where dirt used to be as a result of the invention of a trac ho, in your example. This price drop is a perfectly appropriate and accurate outcome in a sane monetary system. You don't get that result if the proportion of money to population is always changing one way or the other.
Trying to keep the value of money constant beyond maintaining its proprtion to the population is impossible. Some sectors of an economy will innovate and it will cost less to produce real wealth, and concurrently other sectors of the same economy will suffer setbacks and it will cost more to produce real wealth in those sectors.
I'm not calling for the nominal cost of producing any and all wealth across the whole economy to remain constant for every player in all situations, but rather an environment where neither savers of money nor spenders of money nor producers of goods nor consumers of goods are unduly punished or rewarded just for the acts themselves of saving, spending, producing, or consuming. This undue punishment or reward happens when the money supply changes in proportion to the population in either direction.
Measured in cubic meters of soil moved, the value of a modern worker with a digger is many times that of an ancient worker with a shovel.
Sure, but in that case, you are measuring the value of the shovel against the value of the digger, not the basic value of the labor performed by the laborer.
I suspect the point is that the value of a laborer with a shovel ought to result in earning roughly the same sustenance. So if a laborer with a shovel 2000 years ago could earn themselves enough food and shelter to survive for a day on 6 hours of work, then that same laborer with that same shovel ought to still be able to earn themselves enough food and shelter to survive for a day on 6 hours of work.
Just a few observations here. First you cannot compare the "Work Resource Swap Compensation" of a bonded slave to the Work Resource Swap Compensation of a free and willing worker. Secondly the values of the much more highly skilled, resourceful and inventive labours of the workers and producers who innovated and built the digger were vastly greater and more valuable than those of the guys who built the old shovels. Thirdly a "digger" costs 100,000 times more than a dozen truckloads of shovels and requires dozens of other industries and a litany of other "hidden" innovative and resourceful workers to run them. In fact the costs of any and all who's labours involves them being mining commodity producers today are likely all astronomically higher than anything even near what it "cost" the criminal Spanish armed robber conquistador-navies to rape the indigenous peoples of Peru to steal their silver and gold from them back in the day.
I mean, even just look at the $trillion dollar long-term costs of the Bush-UZSR's reconquest of the Tory-Bilderberger's 1959 "Iran Insurance" Iraqi oil-thieving, lousy, gay little Tory-Duchy of Kuwait-City in Iraq!
Certainly there are some classes of "labour resources" (like being a trench digger or a marauding killer-grunt) that are mere "fixed-price commodities" but the Prime Human Resources of our most constructive labours are definitely not.
well Technology makes many views of the world obsolete
like print made the "educated cleric" die out, diggers made slaves obsolete
in dexterity intensive work you still find slaves today: housemaids, sweatshops and mining in poor(er) countries around this planet.
its rather hard to compare anytime in history with now, due to the rate of invention ever increasing and the complexity of the worlds free trade and increase in speed & efficiency of travel. (interesting fact: on the middle ages people lived and died within 30km of their birthplace)
like print made the "educated cleric" die out, diggers made slaves obsolete
in dexterity intensive work you still find slaves today: housemaids, sweatshops and mining in poor(er) countries around this planet.
its rather hard to compare anytime in history with now, due to the rate of invention ever increasing and the complexity of the worlds free trade and increase in speed & efficiency of travel. (interesting fact: on the middle ages people lived and died within 30km of their birthplace)
Measured in cubic meters of soil moved, the value of a modern worker with a digger is many times that of an ancient worker with a shovel.
Sure, but in that case, you are measuring the value of the shovel against the value of the digger, not the basic value of the labor performed by the laborer.
Actually, no. The usual worker with a digger gets the digger from his employer. He does not rent it and he gets his salary only for his personal work. The amplification by the digger is separately calculated by the employer, who is usually the owner of the digger.
I disagree. If the worker with the digger today is being compensated better (valued more) than the worker with a shovel 2000 years ago, then what is being valued is the skill involved in operating the digger and not the labor. Greater skill in any effort is typically valued more than lesser skill. The basic value of labor is still the same. It is the result of the skill that is valued more.
I suspect the point is that the value of a laborer with a shovel ought to result in earning roughly the same sustenance. So if a laborer with a shovel 2000 years ago could earn themselves enough food and shelter to survive for a day on 6 hours of work, then that same laborer with that same shovel ought to still be able to earn themselves enough food and shelter to survive for a day on 6 hours of work.
No. The amount of work that can be done with a shovel is so ridiculously little that nobody will even consider using a shovel worker for any significant work these days.
But if you say that a worker with a shovel 2,000 years ago can make a living approximately equivalent to a worker using a digger today, that may be more like it. It is still very difficult to compare, because today the worker can buy about the same food, maybe a little bit better, but he also owns a washing machine, etc.
Right, the because the skill of the worker with the digger is valued more than the basic value of labor, the digger worker can afford additional luxuries (such as a washing machine). If you look at what the guy with a shovel could buy (in terms of the basic necessities of food and shelter) after 8 hours of work 2000 years ago, and what someone equally skilled with a shovel could buy today after 8 hours of work. I suspect you'll find it pretty similar.
Measured in cubic meters of soil moved, the value of a modern worker with a digger is many times that of an ancient worker with a shovel.
Sure, but in that case, you are measuring the value of the shovel against the value of the digger, not the basic value of the labor performed by the laborer.
Actually, no. The usual worker with a digger gets the digger from his employer. He does not rent it and he gets his salary only for his personal work. The amplification by the digger is separately calculated by the employer, who is usually the owner of the digger.
I suspect the point is that the value of a laborer with a shovel ought to result in earning roughly the same sustenance. So if a laborer with a shovel 2000 years ago could earn themselves enough food and shelter to survive for a day on 6 hours of work, then that same laborer with that same shovel ought to still be able to earn themselves enough food and shelter to survive for a day on 6 hours of work.
No. The amount of work that can be done with a shovel is so ridiculously little that nobody will even consider using a shovel worker for any significant work these days.
But if you say that a worker with a shovel 2,000 years ago can make a living approximately equivalent to a worker using a digger today, that may be more like it. It is still very difficult to compare, because today the worker can buy about the same food, maybe a little bit better, but he also owns a washing machine, etc.
Such comparisons are not very meaningful. Many things are not comparable or the comparison is arbitrary.
Measured in cubic meters of soil moved, the value of a modern worker with a digger is many times that of an ancient worker with a shovel.
Sure, but in that case, you are measuring the value of the shovel against the value of the digger, not the basic value of the labor performed by the laborer.
I suspect the point is that the value of a laborer with a shovel ought to result in earning roughly the same sustenance. So if a laborer with a shovel 2000 years ago could earn themselves enough food and shelter to survive for a day on 6 hours of work, then that same laborer with that same shovel ought to still be able to earn themselves enough food and shelter to survive for a day on 6 hours of work.
The obviously sane thing to do is to keep the value of money constant. That is the whole point of money. Come on now, you know im right, say it
Obviously the basic value of labour is much unchanged since Adam moved the wife and boys out to Palestine, nor should it ever change too much regardless of what other costs that principle implies.
What exactly does that mean? Strikes me as nonsense. Measured in what?
Measured in cubic meters of soil moved, the value of a modern worker with a digger is many times that of an ancient worker with a shovel. Measured by calorie intake or by sweat output you get just the opposite result.
In short, you can produce any result you like by twisting your measurement method.
There goes your constant value of money as well. Measured in what? The number of slaves you can buy?
The obviously sane thing to do is to keep the value of money constant. That is the whole point of money. Come on now, you know im right, say it
Obviously the basic value of labour is much unchanged since Adam moved the wife and boys out to Palestine, nor should it ever change too much regardless of what other costs that principle implies.
hgmichna true dat
Jump to: