Topic: commodities vs fiat (martin armstrong question) (Read 982 times)

You cannot adequately compare bitcoin to gold because the bitcoin protocol is capable of an entire plethora of things, whilst gold is merely raw material.

Bitcoin allows machine to machine payments to occur, without the interference of human beings. In fact, bitcoin itself is a piece of autonomous software that literally pays humans (miners) to maintain the security of it's network.

Gold... is just gold.

An entire industry based on autonomy is being created due to the existence of the blockchain

That is precisely the "nonsense" that Martin Armstrong was referring to in the blog post quoted above. A government certainly can control the value of a crypto-currency, through regulation of fractional-reserve banking.

Like gold, Bitcoin is not immune to fractional-reserve banking.

usually they all deflate because they have limited supply, but there are case like doge wth its infinite supply

government simply don't like deflation, he don't want everyone to be rich and maybe even richer than the gov itself, they want to have absolute control on everything

This is a major point of confusion even for people who are united in their scepticism of the current system.

From a moral and long-term-economic-health point of view, the key is not whether we use gold, Bitcoin, or fiat money in whatever way.  The key is whether the state gets involved in issuing and/or propping up the value of any financial asset (money, debt, whatever.)

Seen in this light, the gold standard (where the government issued paper money as debt redeembale by gold, and of course tried to prop up the value of the paper) was not essentially different from today's fiat system, in that the elites always have the incentives to destabilize the system by maximizing the issuance of paper money and debt.

That said, destabilization was slower under the gold standard, as the public had the option to dump paper and create a crisis for the authorities, if they were seen as poor managers of the system.  But history has shown that, the slow and long-term destabilization of a continuously "stable" gold standard was just as certain to cause crisis.

Objective speaking, it *is* possible to go back to the gold standard.  The authorities will always have enough gold to stabilize the paper money.  The only question will be, at what price of gold.

Also, a government doesn't control a crypto-fiat coin. It inflates and deflates automatically with mathematics.

From this comment I take that the gold standard, or fiat standard both collapse when debt is leveraged out to much.

Maybe the killer crypto app will be the ability to loan money without all the leverage. ie : the loaner doesn't create money out of thin air.

Otherwise a bitcoin standard or a crypto fiat standard will both eventually collapse due to leveraged debt

from armstrong blog.

COMMENT:

“The system is collapsing. It is not because of some derivatives bubble. It is not because of fiat. This is because of the debt gone wild”

Sure! And you don’t see the connection with the lack of a gold standard?
This would never have happened during a gold standard, without someone having gone out of business. Honest money =gold
I think that much should be clear by now.

kind regards

gk

REPLY: The degree of people indoctrinated with gold propaganda is the greatest threat we have to solving any crisis or advancing in society. They constantly regurgitate this nonsense without any factual proof, relying completely on made up sophistry. We had Bretton Woods that was a gold standard, which collapsed because they tried to peg gold at $35 yet increased the supply of dollars. So where did gold prevent anything?

ANYONE who believes this nonsense that a gold standard will miraculously convert politicians into saints should really just check yourself into an insane asylum. Long before there was paper money, there has always been debt. People borrowed and still had the same leverage on gold for there was more debt owed in gold than there was ever gold.

This rhetoric seriously prevents us from observing a simple fact: there was debt under a gold standard and every gold standard throughout history has collapsed. NOT A SINGLE gold standard ever survived.  You just do not understand history. It is the politicians who blow it up, regardless of what you call money.

As long as you argue for this nonsense, we will never advance as a society. If you really believe in returning to a gold standard, which has never worked in history, you will condemn your children the same financial chaos time and time again.
A gold standard would never prevent a debt crisis for money is always LEVERAGED in debt. If you deposit $100 the bank will lend that out to someone else, and two accounts will show $100 when there is only $100 in actual money. It does not matter if that $100 is gold coin, soybeans, cattle, or paper.

If you do not understand the system, you should just hang it up for your solutions will condemn the rest of us to watch you repeat history.

Adapt or adopt?

The butcoin system is different from fiat in two way: 1) a government doesn't control it, and 2) it can't be manufactured to control it's value (inflation or deflation).

Would it be better, yes? But are the ppl in power likely to try to control it if the world were to adopt it? Yes...they're human. For this reason i think it's best to keep bitcoin as an alternative rather than a replacement to bitcoin.

I'm making this thread because this is a different point to the main Martin Armstrong thread

Bitcoin acts like a commodity due to it's volatility. Tether(substitute your pegged choice) acts like fiat due to its central issuance.

Martin Armstrong frequently talks about the gold standard not being any better long run then a fiat system. However fiat also doesn't work out that well long run.

If we as a global community were to adapt bitcoin will it truly be any better then a gold backed money supply? Likewise, assuming that crypto pegged currencies were adapted, would these be truly any better then a central reserve fiat system?


What would Martin Armstrong say about crypto commodity (ie:bitcoin) vs crypto fiat (ie:tether)? 


sorry readers, I haven't quite figured out how to word my question yet