Topic: Peter Schiff on Bitcoin - page 11. (Read 38915 times)

It depends on how you compute the GDP. As far as I know, currency exchanges are not counted as goods and services in the computation of GDP. However, purchases and sales of assets I believe are counted. When you buy and sell a house, this indeed does cause people in the economy to earn salaries and commissions, and thus does increase the GDP. Buy and selling BTC does also to some extent.

Sorry if you are arguing that velocity of money has no relationship to GDP, then I should just ignore you as being retarded. It is quite obvious that the rate at which money changes hands in the economy, effects the amount of salaries and commissions earned by humans and thus the level of the economic activity.

Fact:
The Quantity Theory of Money is circular logic. It basically says that the velocity of money determines the value of money which determines the velocity. It treats velocity as a cause of human action, when it actually is the result.

https://mises.org/daily/2916

Added:

Nov 15, 2013  I cut this show up.  Two callers here.  The first is anti-BTC, 2nd is pro-BTC.  The first tries to say the media promotes BTC, LOL!  I'm not sure what media he's listening to.  Judge for yourself.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21580995/Peter.Schiff.11.15.13.bitcoin.mp3

A bitcoin is a goody. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP.

Velocity is relevant when the trades are in exchange for goods and services, which applies to everything I wrote in the posts upthread.

The velocity is not relevant. If you sell a bitcoin to me and buy it back tomorrow, we won't have additional GDP. Additional credit (debt) leads to additional GDP.

If we know that prices P were declining or rising significantly less than P x Q at roughly 5%, then it is impossible to argue that large increases in productivity Q was not the cause of deflation. The other side of the equation M x V must balance, but isn't a cause.

The question is whether exponentially rising V was sustainable, assuming you are correct that M was constant or declining.

Clearly it was not. We had numerous frequent bank failures and short duration depressions throughout the 1800s, because the demand for money was exceeding the supply and the banks were writing fractional reserves to meet that demand. If the banks had not been able to do that, then the corrections would have been even more frequent (the monetary leash would have been shorter).

And the high level of V was correlated with very much instability in the economy.

And where did that end up? Ultimately the banking system had to be bailed out by the elite and they created a central bank to backstop the banking system so that instability could be prevented (the monetary leash was extended to be MUCH longer as in $trillions of printing we are seeing now).

What they accomplished was the ability to delay corrections and to increase debt levels to astronomical levels as what we have now with 300+% total debt-to-GDP levels for every major country in the world today and government at 50 - 70% of the GDP in every developed country (except maybe Switzerland).

So I want to see someone make an cogent argument based on the evidence and math, that constant money supplies accomplish anything good.

They seem to just exacerbate fractional reserves and thus the trend towards fiat.

That is what I was trying to explain to MoonShadow yesterday.

P.S. Gold also has an expanding money supply. God apparently wasn't so myopic.

Okay my recollection about my data source was incorrect, but I don't think it invalidates my point.

It was nominal GDP that was increasing by 5% since 1790.

Nominal GDP is a rough proxy for P x Q in the Quantity Theory of Money. Thus it means either velocity or money supply was expanding or both.

Do you have any number from Rothbard on the rate of decrease in the money supply from that period? Although base money (gold) may have been stagnant or decreasing, the private banks were expanding credit and the money supply by printing fractional reserve receipts for that gold, i.e. bank notes.

It is not near to -5% then it was not the most significant factor causing deflation at that time. Rather it would the rise in productivity which would have been reflected in rising Q possibly falling or moderated P and a rising V with either a slightly rising or falling M.

See I don't think you can argue that a declining or constant money supply had anything to do with the deflation at that time, unless you can show it was near to -5% and velocity was thus going radically exponential and staying there (which we know isn't true because there were numerous recessions in the 1800s), which I claim would not be a healthy economy.

In short, the velocity V does not stay continuously high without expansion of the money supply because the rich would aggregate all of the money via usury since they spend a negligible (minute) percentage of their income. Wealth and income is power-law distributed [1]. Thus debasement is required else there is no money for the working class to use.

[1] Dragulescu, Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States

And who will control that? The whole point was to create something sustainable that is decentralized and does not end up in the lap of the government every time there is a bank run and it fails and the people demand to be protected.

Fractional reserves are what leads to the bad outcome we have now. Look how JP Morgan bailed out the USA then got his central bank in 1913.


Agreed. But we need to recognize the desirable features such altcoins should have. And diminishing coin rewards means Bitcoin is subject to the "transactions withholding attack" and thus will end up a fiat.


I found my data source, but while I am reviewing that here is a quote the shows Austrian economics never said that a constant money supply is desired.

By the way fractional reserve is possible with Bitcoin too. So money supply will not necessarily be constant.

And Bitcoin is not doomed to be a monopole, other currencies will still exist and they well have an adjustment role of money supply.

Wait I will go find my data source.

Armstrong claims before his death Rothbard admitted that Armstrong had insight he didn't. Martin Armstrong also explains why the money can be constant.

I see my ignores increased after posting this. Goldbugs are very hard-headed even in the face of math.

That's not what Rothbard wrote in The Mystery of Banking.
His number say that money supply was decreasing during deflationary period.

Which is consistant with the theory of Austrian business cycles.

Deflation is not only that always. Learn the Quantity Theory of Money. Deflation can also be a drop in the velocity or a rise in productivity which causes prices to decline.

The banking sector did not reduce its production of money. I have the data since the 1800s. The money supply always increased at roughly 5% since the 1800s until the 1970s.

What was actually happening is the productivity was increasing at such a fast rate, because the government was only < 10% of the economy. Now it is > 50% probably 70+%.

What you want is small government, not a constant money supply.

You've been fooled!

By definition deflation is contraction of money supply, and actually the US banking sector reduced its production of money. You describe exactly the contrary of what actually happened.

But I could also speak about the IT sector which is under ongoing deflation since the outset and yet thriving.

The USA has never had a period where the only circulating money was a constant supply. Even gold (ignoring that it also expands in supply) was debased by fractional reserve receipts (which were traded as money) the private banks were creating on bank deposits.

So that deflation was kept in reasonable balance by an expanding money supply. And that is why it didn't devolve immediately into the unhealthy outcome.

The mathematical conclusions of my original statement are irrefutable. You can only try to refute the Quantity Theory of Money.

Fact :
USA had several periods of concomitant growth and deflation in the 19th.

Corollary :
Any economic theory which state that deflation is bad for economy is false and should be rejected.

Corollary :
Any argument against Bitcoin which involve its deflationary charateristic is inoperative.

Defend your argument.

Exponentially falling price levels leads to hoarding and Dark Age.

Exponentially rising velocity leads to a bubble and massive misallocation of resources as people take on debt faster and faster.

Even if you dispute the above two, you have the problem that exponential trends can not continue forever.

Thus you mathematically require that all growth has to be taken back at some point.

Sorry you have no argument.

Fixed that for you

I regret entering the earlier immature tit-for-tat debate.

It would be better for me to phrase my view succinctly and unarguably.

Fact:

In the Quantity Theory of Money a constant money supply requires that the economy can grow only if the velocity-of-money circulation rises exponentially or the price level declines exponentially, neither of which are plausible for a healthy economy.

Goldbugs give up. You have no argument.

Yes, but 'free market' is an oxymoron. The market has always been a state bastard; organized, enforced and controlled by the state (mafia).
The state is the player in the game that makes the game (supracommunal collectivism) dysfunctional from the very beginning.
The state doesn't write down its own debt and therefore the state is growing in the long run in relation to the private part of the economy. Collapse of society is always predetermined as soon as a society is established (transformation of the human into a cartoon of itself: the citizen, by organized violence through the eternal complicity of military and church).
Historically and empirically there is only one alternative to the society (collectivism): the self-sufficient community beyond the state and the market. In the rainforest, some communities are living self-sufficient until today: beyond the state and beyond the market. Beyond the state there is no need for a market.

Sorry for my poor english.


I already had a long discussion with him and others about anarchy vs. patriarchy ...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2311170
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2311504
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2316060
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2360803
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2365513
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2370741
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2376880
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2379142

... and the fairytales of the aristocrats from Vienna. Austrians are not anarchists, they are minarchists (=collectivists).

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2573373
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2601822
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2611507