clearly James D'Angelo has been reading this thread.
is he "World"?
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 1246. (Read 2032270 times)
what's that sucking sound?
oh yeah, mofo. get the hell outta the way!
oh yeah, mofo. get the hell outta the way!
why are all these ppl bashing gold? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4QFErOdTag
Ringos? hadn't heard of that one, lol!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4QFErOdTag
Ringos? hadn't heard of that one, lol!
I feel we might be talking past each other here. I interpreted part of your earlier post as "the sum of all monies represents the sum of all of the purchasing power". And "purchasing power" to me is a term that is a synonym for the value of an asset, and can be used for all assets, not just money (so you car has purchasing power too, because you can trade it for something else). So I disagreed that the sum of all monies corresponds to the value of all assets on the world, but perhaps this is not what you were saying.
What's happening here is I'm not really sure what I was saying there. Need to think about it a little more.
The limited supply and wild price fluctuation maybe Bitcoin's greatest advantage over anything else.
As for the issue of helping the poor: anything that is/was designed to help just a specifically defined group of human beings almost inevitably ends up disastrously, Bitcoin is awesome because it's designed to give everyone who really wants a chance a chance. I don't like to say there is an issue of government not helping the poor, I would like to say it's an issue of the established shying away from creating a world where everyone is given equal opportunities.
As for the issue of helping the poor: anything that is/was designed to help just a specifically defined group of human beings almost inevitably ends up disastrously, Bitcoin is awesome because it's designed to give everyone who really wants a chance a chance. I don't like to say there is an issue of government not helping the poor, I would like to say it's an issue of the established shying away from creating a world where everyone is given equal opportunities.
I feel we might be talking past each other here. I interpreted part of your earlier post as "the sum of all monies represents the sum of all of the purchasing power". And "purchasing power" to me is a term that is a synonym for the value of an asset, and can be used for all assets, not just money (so you car has purchasing power too, because you can trade it for something else). So I disagreed that the sum of all monies corresponds to the value of all assets on the world, but perhaps this is not what you were saying.
What's happening here is I'm not really sure what I was saying there. Need to think about it a little more.
Bitcoin will incite a much bigger reaction because banks are bigger than media, but there's not a lot that can really be done. No wars will work; centralized power just cannot beat decentralized power. It's too late now anyway, the big-time nerds are jumping aboard the ship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
nice vid !
Spread it far and wide! It already has more views that Mark Zuckerberg's talk.
thanks for posting this.
really interesting foresight theory there.
i'll throw it on documentary thread. (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/documentary-on-bitcoin-summary-thread-268955)
Whoah, cool thread - hadn't seen that before.
I don't think it represents all purchasing power. The value of all the money does not equal the value of all valuables (stocks, housing, commodities etc.). Rather, I think you should see money as an asset class of its own, whereby all moneys represent only a certain percentage of the world purchasing power.
It's the purchasing power within the Bitcoin panarchy. That is, it's the purchasing power within the community of people who agree to use Bitcoin for trade. (Technically, only insofar as they use bitcoins exclusively, which may be your point.)
I feel we might be talking past each other here. I interpreted part of your earlier post as "the sum of all monies represents the sum of all of the purchasing power". And "purchasing power" to me is a term that is a synonym for the value of an asset, and can be used for all assets, not just money (so you car has purchasing power too, because you can trade it for something else). So I disagreed that the sum of all monies corresponds to the value of all assets on the world, but perhaps this is not what you were saying.
Agreed, Bingledert Zangleback and Molecular. There are myriad methods of oppression - probably the most important being inflationary monetary policy, but so many others. The government does indeed generate poor people, and yes, any government intervention in the economy will always end up hurting the market [in the long run]. As Von Mises would say - economic history is a long series of government policies that failed because they went against the fundamental laws of economics.
Welfare, for example, hurts poor people in the long run - because of many factors but mainly (1) its unnatural effect on prices, and (2) the issue of dependency - but most of the plebs are only interested in a short-term solution.
Vokain raised a good point - with no state, or even with a smaller state, the price of stupidity is greatly increased. It stands to reason that when the price of stupidity is increased, fewer people will be able to purchase it.
This gives me hope. The "barrier of entry" to the "stupidity industry" is inversely proportional to the power of state hierarchy.
I like the bit about "hollowing out" these archaic systems without much fanfare.
Welfare, for example, hurts poor people in the long run - because of many factors but mainly (1) its unnatural effect on prices, and (2) the issue of dependency - but most of the plebs are only interested in a short-term solution.
Vokain raised a good point - with no state, or even with a smaller state, the price of stupidity is greatly increased. It stands to reason that when the price of stupidity is increased, fewer people will be able to purchase it.
This gives me hope. The "barrier of entry" to the "stupidity industry" is inversely proportional to the power of state hierarchy. I like the bit about "hollowing out" these archaic systems without much fanfare.
Bitcoin will incite a much bigger reaction because banks are bigger than media, but there's not a lot that can really be done. No wars will work; centralized power just cannot beat decentralized power. It's too late now anyway, the big-time nerds are jumping aboard the ship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
nice vid !
Spread it far and wide! It already has more views that Mark Zuckerberg's talk.
thanks for posting this.
really interesting foresight theory there.
i'll throw it on documentary thread. (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/documentary-on-bitcoin-summary-thread-268955)
Bitcoin will incite a much bigger reaction because banks are bigger than media, but there's not a lot that can really be done. No wars will work; centralized power just cannot beat decentralized power. It's too late now anyway, the big-time nerds are jumping aboard the ship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
nice vid !
Spread it far and wide! It already has more views that Mark Zuckerberg's talk.
Bitcoin will incite a much bigger reaction because banks are bigger than media, but there's not a lot that can really be done. No wars will work; centralized power just cannot beat decentralized power. It's too late now anyway, the big-time nerds are jumping aboard the ship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
nice vid !
So what do you guys think: is the idea of a "peaceful revolution and shift of power back to the people through use of sound money" viable? What needs to be done to make it possible?
Absolutely. The Internet has been a peaceful revolution on centralized media so far, despite Hollywood and old media throwing a fit and trying some legal shenanigans. These decentralized, anti-fragile systems simply hollow the establishment structures out little by little, without much fanfare.
Bitcoin will incite a much bigger reaction because banks are bigger than media, but there's not a lot that can really be done. No wars will work; centralized power just cannot beat decentralized power. It's too late now anyway, the big-time nerds are jumping aboard the ship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
Thanks Zangelbert for getting me back on track, I was a bit down this morning.
Still: there's dangers, we need to be watchful.
I don't think it represents all purchasing power. The value of all the money does not equal the value of all valuables (stocks, housing, commodities etc.). Rather, I think you should see money as an asset class of its own, whereby all moneys represent only a certain percentage of the world purchasing power.
It's the purchasing power within the Bitcoin panarchy. That is, it's the purchasing power within the community of people who agree to use Bitcoin for trade. (Technically, only insofar as they use bitcoins exclusively, which may be your point.)
So what do you guys think: is the idea of a "peaceful revolution and shift of power back to the people through use of sound money" viable? What needs to be done to make it possible?
Absolutely. The Internet has been a peaceful revolution on centralized media so far, despite Hollywood and old media throwing a fit and trying some legal shenanigans. These decentralized, anti-fragile systems simply hollow the establishment structures out little by little, without much fanfare.
Bitcoin will incite a much bigger reaction because banks are bigger than media, but there's not a lot that can really be done. No wars will work; centralized power just cannot beat decentralized power. It's too late now anyway, the big-time nerds are jumping aboard the ship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A
@molecular Rants are cool. Whatever releases your stress. But you seem to have two conflicting emotions. First you want things to be fair but if that's true then smarter more capable people will of course be more wealthy. Remember half the population has below average intelligence. But then you want some peaceful revolution that takes wealth away from current holders and redistributes it to the people? Bitcoin isn't magic. Idiots using bitcoin will still be idiots and likely end up broke given a long enough time frame. Given the two choices I'll take fair over socialism any day and twice on Sunday.
No, I don't want wealth taken from the rich... not at all. I just want noone to be able to unfairly acquire wealth by printing money.
I consider things "fair" when everyone has equal possibilities... a level playing field. It can be totally fair that some have less money than others (if sound money is used). It just reflects how well they have acted. They received that money for a reason.
Spaceman_Spiff: You may be right about that. I was wondering the same myself. GDP is right out, but is it X% of all purchasing power or X% of the total "value of the economy" (whatever that really means)? The answer eludes me at the moment.
I don't think it represents all purchasing power. The value of all the money does not equal the value of all valuables (stocks, housing, commodities etc.). Rather, I think you should see money as an asset class of its own, whereby all moneys represent only a certain percentage of the world purchasing power.
@molecular Rants are cool. Whatever releases your stress. But you seem to have two conflicting emotions. First you want things to be fair but if that's true then smarter more capable people will of course be more wealthy. Remember half the population has below average intelligence. But then you want some peaceful revolution that takes wealth away from current holders and redistributes it to the people? Bitcoin isn't magic. Idiots using bitcoin will still be idiots and likely end up broke given a long enough time frame. Given the two choices I'll take fair over socialism any day and twice on Sunday.
yeah but under this new bitcoin society without welfare states and whatnot the cost of being stupid is greater => long run net society benefit
@molecular Rants are cool. Whatever releases your stress. But you seem to have two conflicting emotions. First you want things to be fair but if that's true then smarter more capable people will of course be more wealthy. Remember half the population has below average intelligence. But then you want some peaceful revolution that takes wealth away from current holders and redistributes it to the people? Bitcoin isn't magic. Idiots using bitcoin will still be idiots and likely end up broke given a long enough time frame. Given the two choices I'll take fair over socialism any day and twice on Sunday.
Jump to: