Topic: Next generation money - page 17. (Read 16688 times)

I'm curious if you don't really see the distinction between my and your examples. Governmental diktat in case of potatoes vs corn would mean that we should actually eat 100% potatoes (or 100% pop-corn). The same outcome would be if there is no governmental coercion as to what to eat but the majority (i.e. those who, according to you, "bet correctly" but in fact just make up this majority) still decide that everyone should eat only potatoes (or pop-corn). There is a difference in the ways but not in the result ("ein reich ein volk ein führer"). That's the point I'm trying to make...

As you can see, there is no room for voluntarism in both of these cases

I'll quote Joseph Schumpeter here:

"Capitalism [...] is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is, but never can be stationary. [...] The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers' goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates, the same process of industrial mutation—if I may use that biological term—that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism."

There is no coercion in the importation of the potato and corn crops from South America into Europe.  If the government gets involved in dictating we should all eat 50% potatoes (or drives a financial system that inflicts a bias towards new and risky productions -- which amounts to the same thing) that is a different issue altogether.

In both of these cases there is coercion in respect to accepting the new money. Surely not something which you would expect from a system which allegedly honors "voluntarism"

To err is human. If I remember correctly, he made a reference to Silk Road on his LinkedIn page, which also contained his personal info. This seems to be the path by which he got finally traced down and holed...

I don't know how you are going to prevent this kind of mistakes by software

"Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a particular country or socio-economic context,[1][2][3] or is easily converted to such a form. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, sometimes, a standard of deferred payment.[4][5] Any item or verifiable record that fulfills these functions can be considered as money." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

for me it's a bitcoin money. bitcoin can be said transaksiyang tool very quickly and well on the internet, can even be said that bitcoin is the best tool on the internet transactions. I began to think that someday bitcoin will emerge and be recognized in the real world as money

I think Ulbricht had to make a mistake to be caught.  There's probably a way for these mistakes to be prevented by software.

The two are not remotely comparable.

They abandoned gold because they had absolutely no choice.  The various gold standards were designed when they had enough gold to keep the system stable.  But the incentives for the elites to destabilize the system always ended up causing a run on gold by the public and foreign countries.

I'm not sure why you link gold to the motivation of the design.  Perhaps I'm just blanking out...

It's true that the elites, in effect, ally with the rest of society (to different degrees for different groups) by giving them a small share of the spoils.  Real economic activity does pick up as a result of money and other asset issuance.

But the key is that, by distributing the riches (esp. at the very top of the ladder) in an essentially centrally planned manner, the whole economy is distorted towards serving, directly or indirectly, the beneficiaries of the central-authority largesse.  When trust in the asset values eventually crashes (which it does because of the built-in incentives for the elites to keep issuing and hiding bad news,) the bigger beneficiaries cut back spending, and the whole economy suffers.  (A suffering which is not necessary -- we never needed those extra fancy restaurants and chefs in the first place if there had been no state-driven asset inflation.)

In any case, we don't need the elites to give wealth to us by asset inflation -- the Italian Renaissance and Scottish "free banking" era saw spectacular growth without this inflation.

So you implicitly assume that the minority should obey what the majority decides since "those who bet correctly on one money [] will reap the benefits", right? Their benefits will necessarily be someone's losses, i.e. losses of those who betted on the wrong horse...

And how is that different from the state enforcing its own idea of money?

If so, then why have they abandoned gold? I don't think the elites can somehow overrule the social laws just like we can't escape the laws of nature. The ultimate irony is that they can't enjoy power and wealth unless some part thereof is bestowed upon the rest of society...

Because their riches come from the riches of society

I see the temporary uncertainty (of whether a new money is accepted) as a benefit, not a problem.  If there is no state intervention, each money will have to compete on its merits in the open market.  That those who bet correctly on one money or another will reap the benefits is an incentive for all participants to make careful judgments before they buy into anything.

People who have traveled outside the West know that there is no real need for there to be one money, or even one dominant money, at all times.  Many developing countries have an effective dual currency system, where the local currency is accepted everywhere but dollars are considered more stable but less acceptable, and everyone knows the current exchange rate.  (What keeps this going is the high interest paid by banks for local currency deposits.)  A form of this condition existed in the West under the classical metallic standards period, too.

What differentiates the Bitcoin with other existing currencies is that it is virtual, and anyone in the world can buy Bitcoins online, earn, or sell them almost instantly.
The Bitcoin mining is also new.

The view of this is flawed automatically, since most already see it can be exchanged for fiat money.

What it really should be viewed is a "money transmitter" which is similar how "travelex" does it with other foreign currencies when youre at a airport converting your countries money.

The problem is we can't just take and add Bitcoin to the pool of world monies. Let's assume there is no governmental intervention in the process of establishing new money. So how are you going "to add Bitcoin" in practice? What if someone doesn't quite like it and wants "to add", say, Dogecoin (or whatever)?

And right then we are right back to the main problem of monetary voluntarism (i.e. the problem of consensus)

The problem with 'monetary voluntarism' exists in theory, but in practice the reign of one or two monies (e.g. both gold and silver) have been generally stable over most of history.  If we were to add Bitcoin, it would just add one to a world already used to having more than one money, over the millennia.

Narrowing down the choice to one by government diktat might have slight benefits of efficiency, but is not worth the introduction of the incentives to maximize discretionary issuance.

And let's face it, the real motivation for state money issuance has never been about this efficiency, but the power and wealth the elites can enjoy without doing real work.

Tell that to Ross Ulbricht, a creator of the DarkNet market known as Silk Road. Are you an undercover FBI agent (which are known to infest this forum), or just a clueless rookie (no offense intended) who needs a cuff on the nape?

i think they will follow their route, by building a fiat altcoin, and not following bitcoin, they hate bitcoin, so bitcoin will never be legalized by government, they have already some centralized altcoin in project

Yes obviously as bitcoin being totally anonymous it is hard for them to legalize in most of the countries but its up to us We are always anonymous too so no need to fear anything. I am really enjoying this next generation money.

It is a well-known fact that any empire should be constantly expanding to remain internally stable (keep internal stability). In this way, I would argue that whenever it stops expanding, or something stops it from expanding (natural limits or belligerent neighbors), then and only then the asset inflation begins to outrun the counterbalancing factors (i.e. expansion) and eat away the power of an empire. This may be called a point of no return after which the empire starts to decline. But since the elites can't restrain themselves, the point of no return is eventually reached and passed by...

They simply can't stop since that would promote (or trigger off) an even faster decline in power, so they got stuck between the upper and the nether millstone with a one-way ticket in the pocket