Pages:
Author

Topic: The economic model behind Bitcoin is flawed - page 4. (Read 14061 times)

legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
December 13, 2015, 12:24:29 PM

It all depends. As I have explained it earlier, the ultimate idea of money is to provide a handy and universal tool for measuring the value of goods against each other. If the number of goods produced in the economy increases, then you have to create more money so that to keep the reference point of the scale the same (which you set when you bootstrap the money). Conversely, if the number of goods decreases, you have to destroy some fraction of money. The fiat money (namely, the credit money) fulfills this function automatically through a positive feedback loop...

That is, increased production triggers creation of new money (so-called endogenous money), and vice versa

LOLK!  As you explained earlier, fiat money ELIMINATES any reference point of the scale.  "Dimensionless" you called it.  Production of tokens is not tied to any physical unit or good, therefore every token is unverifiable as is the total supply.    

Your claim that "if the number of goods increases we have to create more exchange commodities" is laughable.  When apple makes more iphones do they issues more shares of Apple thus robbing all shareholders?  Are you afraid that prices will go down when there is a supply glut?  Guess what, that is called price discovery in a marketplace and is important in a functioning economy.  Issuing new dimensionless exchange commodities thus thwarting market forces and robbing existing holders is always and without fail unmitigated disaster.    

    
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
December 13, 2015, 12:20:55 PM
Gee u know it is over when the experts start rolling out wikipedia links Cry

Btw i think op has me on ignore or he just cant find any wikipedia counter argument. ( just make your own wikipage and link it ) Undecided
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
December 13, 2015, 12:10:18 PM

You'll find that human population growth has been FASTER than exponential from roughly the year 0 onward

Are you kidding or what? The human population was roughly constant most of its history (and most here means 99.999...% of the time of its existence), even dramatically declining in the case of some natural disasters like worldwide pandemics (say, the Plague of Justinian of the 6th century), up to a point of the so-called bottleneck. Do you (fail to) see the flat line from year 1050 till 1500 in the chart that I posted earlier? Is this what you call exponential, lol?

Quote
In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change. This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age

The rate of the population growth that started in the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented and has no match in the entire human history

Still wanna talk about the exponential growth from year 0?



That plot appears to have been made from the "Hyde 2007" data in your link, though also mostly agrees with "McEvedy & Jones" from your link.  No I never wanted to talk about your population growth as it is a complete nonsequitur.  Seriously: this has nothing at all to do with exchange commodities.  What is your point here?  


But while we're here let me help you out with basic literacy.  "Exponential" means that the slope of a function is proportional to the value of the function.  Full stop.  df/dx = k*x.  That's what an exponential is.  Logarithms are an absolutely essential part of basic math as is understanding what exactly the number "e" is.  Until you are very familiar with these concepts I would recommend avoiding use of the word "exponential".

When you plot a pure exponential function on a linear scale you see that at the far right it shoots upwards.  It doesn't "go exponential" there.  It always is exponential.

Yes, every set of data you have in your wikipedia article shows exponential and greater than exponential growth from e.g. year 0 to 1500.  







 



legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 10:19:22 AM
If you decided to interfere with this process either way, you would in fact be stealing from either producers (by excessively restricting the money supply) or consumers (by excessively expanding it). And sometimes it is actually useful and beneficial to forcefully change the money supply for a number of reasons beyond just the level of production in the economy...

For example, if you want to stimulate the economy, cool it down, or change the unemployment rate (yes, you can)
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 10:19:08 AM
Nice non-sequitur huh?  As you yourself CORRECTLY pointed out earlier in the thread, what we have been using for exchange commodities means little with regard to e.g. slavery or other societal conditions, which includes those that influence population growth.  You're not really trying to imply now that people's being robbed via exchange commodity fraud has led to population growth are you? 

If you assume that fiat is a means to rob population, then I obviously can't agree with this assumption in the first place.

Why? Is the creation of money not theft?  Would you not print millions if you had the legal permission?

It all depends. As I have explained it earlier, the ultimate idea of money is to provide a handy and universal tool for measuring the value of goods against each other. If the number of goods produced in the economy increases, then you have to create more money so that to keep the reference point of the scale the same (which you set when you bootstrap the money). Conversely, if the number of goods decreases, you have to destroy some fraction of money. The fiat money (namely, the credit money) fulfills this function automatically through a positive feedback loop...

That is, increased production triggers creation of new money (so-called endogenous money), and vice versa
hero member
Activity: 672
Merit: 508
LOTEO
December 13, 2015, 09:49:09 AM
Nice non-sequitur huh?  As you yourself CORRECTLY pointed out earlier in the thread, what we have been using for exchange commodities means little with regard to e.g. slavery or other societal conditions, which includes those that influence population growth.  You're not really trying to imply now that people's being robbed via exchange commodity fraud has led to population growth are you? 

If you assume that fiat is a means to rob population, then I obviously can't agree with this assumption in the first place.

Why?   Is the creation of money not theft?  Would you not print millions if you had the legal permission?
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 06:49:30 AM
Nice non-sequitur huh?  As you yourself CORRECTLY pointed out earlier in the thread, what we have been using for exchange commodities means little with regard to e.g. slavery or other societal conditions, which includes those that influence population growth.  You're not really trying to imply now that people's being robbed via exchange commodity fraud has led to population growth are you? 

If you assume that fiat is a means to rob population, then I obviously can't agree with this assumption in the first place. Thereby, your conclusion presented as a question makes no sense to me...

I think you may want to stop juggling with words and facts
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 06:45:16 AM
The use of internal combustion engines in agriculture especially correlated with rapid growth in the last 100 years

So you agree that the use of machinery allowed to produce more foods and goods by the same hands, right?
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 06:43:25 AM
a metric which we agree on of what that phrase means.. then we can see if individual's economic well being does or doesn't so contribute

Why should I care? I'm not very much interested in this issue since it is now evident that you are pretty much incompetent in the field, and the way you brazen it out doesn't in the least make me feel inclined to cast pearls here. Nevertheless, I have suggested that you try to coherently explain the exponential growth of population since 1950, but you apparently shrink from that. Most likely, you are afraid of making a fool of yourself by inadvertently confirming my point...

Or just failing to explain this phenomenon by mouthing some outright bullshit, lol

You'll find that human population growth has been FASTER than exponential from roughly the year 0 onward

Are you kidding or what? The human population was roughly constant most of its history (and most here means 99.999...% of the time of its existence), even dramatically declining in the case of some natural disasters like worldwide pandemics (say, the Plague of Justinian of the 6th century), up to a point of the so-called bottleneck. Do you (fail to) see the flat line from year 1050 till 1500 in the chart that I posted earlier? Is this what you call exponential, lol?

Quote
In 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change. This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age

The rate of the population growth that started in the second half of the 20th century is unprecedented and has no match in the entire human history

Still wanna talk about the exponential growth from year 0?
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
December 13, 2015, 06:26:01 AM
a metric which we agree on of what that phrase means.. then we can see if individual's economic well being does or doesn't so contribute

Why should I care? I'm not very much interested in this issue since it is now evident that you are pretty much incompetent in the field, and the way you brazen it out doesn't in the least make me feel inclined to cast pearls here. Nevertheless, I have suggested that you try to coherently explain the exponential growth of population since 1950, but you apparently shrink from that. Most likely, you are afraid of making a fool of yourself by inadvertently confirming my point...

Or just failing to explain this phenomenon by mouthing some outright bullshit, lol


You'll find that human population growth has been FASTER than exponential from roughly the year 0 onward.  This is due to MANY factors, the most commonly sited are agriculture, technology, favorable growth conditions, and societal behaviors such as acceptance of large families.  The use of internal combustion engines in agriculture especially correlated with rapid growth in the last 100 years.  

Nice non-sequitur huh?  As you yourself CORRECTLY pointed out earlier in the thread, what we have been using for exchange commodities means little with regard to e.g. slavery or other societal conditions, which includes those that influence population growth.  You're not really trying to imply now that people's being robbed via exchange commodity fraud has led to population growth are you?  

      
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 05:35:43 AM
a metric which we agree on of what that phrase means.. then we can see if individual's economic well being does or doesn't so contribute

Why should I care? I'm not very much interested in this issue since it is now evident that you are pretty much incompetent in the field, and the way you brazen it out doesn't in the least make me feel inclined to cast pearls here. Nevertheless, I have suggested that you try to coherently explain the exponential growth of population since 1950, but you apparently shrink from that. Most likely, you are afraid of making a fool of yourself by inadvertently confirming my point...

Or just failing to explain this phenomenon by mouthing some outright bullshit, lol
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 05:23:57 AM
Using a monetary system in which you are not constantly being robbed always will help, and always has helped, your economic well being.  Do you somehow disagree with this statement?  It's impossible to argue it

No doubt, it is impossible to argue this. But it is not what I actually said. I was precise in my words and terms while you are now distorting and misinterpreting them. Why the "sound" money cannot possibly contribute to the wealth of society I have pretty much explained in my second post in this thread. In practice, though, there were periods in human history when the "sound" money behaved more like fiat in a runaway mode, thereby it didn't just fail to contribute to the wealth of society (which is a given), but in fact robbed the society of its wealth...

If you somehow think that the "sound" money is totally free from the primary drawback that the fiat money is always credited as well as blamed with, you are way off base
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 13, 2015, 05:23:23 AM
Wait, my tacit agreement of what now?

I feel that you don't deny in general that people are actually better off today than they were centuries ago, or just before the First World War as a point of reference (say, 1913, when the Fed was established), but were rather doubtful about the ways to prove it. But it is up to you, of course...

You may think what you please
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
December 12, 2015, 07:43:21 PM
Irregardless of your metric, this is hardly an argument in favor of rule-by-counterfeitters.  

Consider a similar argument:  

"I've been slamming every finger hard in the door every morning since I was 6 years old.  Now I'm 12 and look how much taller I am!  Everyone should slam their fingers in the door.  So successful!"  

In fact, I never said that a monetary system based on fiat is the only factor contributing to the increase in the well-being of the majority of population (which you yourself tacitly seem to agree with), or that it is such a factor at all. But I can think in reverse, wow. That is, even if it can't be said that fiat does somehow contribute to the wealth of society (personally, I think that it helps greatly), it can be said with surety that a monetary system based on gold (or any asset, for that matter), i.e. so-called "sound" money, absolutely does not, in no case...

Can you think in reverse too, lol?



Wait, my tacit agreement of what now?  Now we have "well-being".. is that another thing that means population?
 
Using a monetary system in which you are not constantly being robbed always will help, and always has helped, your economic well being.  Do you somehow disagree with this statement?  It's impossible to argue it.  However there is another step to "wealth of society", that is, defining a metric which we agree on of what that phrase means.. then we can see if individual's economic well being does or doesn't so contribute.      


 
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
December 12, 2015, 07:30:52 PM
Then you have to deal with the fact that people during the last 100 years have become much richer overall, despite all the fiat floating around since then. Otherwise, you will have a hard time proving that "for more than 100 years fiat has been a parasite living off people across the world"...

Since becoming richer and better off is surely not something you would expect from the victim of a parasite

It is certainly off topic but I'm still interested in what you might possibly mean by "people have become much richer".  Perhaps a reference to improvement of infrastructure on global average, e.g. more running water, or technological progress?  Clearly the population has hugely increased

You still have to explain this. Given all your courage you should necessarily be granted the chance to be the first (to fall, wow):
[image snipped\]

Note the exponential growth after 1950

Aha.  So by "richer" you meant "more numerous".  That's fine, a bit unusual of a definition but I was just curious.  Not like it relates to the topic anyway.   
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
December 12, 2015, 06:53:51 PM
you are not only a moron, you cherry pick and use strawmans like a boss.

population explosion because everyone got richer? lmao

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016

you probaly believe in the millenia targets, no poverty till 2030 and santa clause Cry

This doesn't prove he's wrong (whoever you're referring to, no quote). It only shows that the rich are getting richer faster. It says nothing about the richness of everyone else.

atleast read the first sentence of my link.

Quote
[...]next year unless the current trend of rising inequality is checked, Oxfam warned today ahead of the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos.

the reports that you can dl for free gives detailed information about dimension nd kind of inequality and that it is rising.

edit: even without reading the whole report you only need to look at numbers.
from year to year less people own more and more of the worlds economy.
now just compare increase in world gdp and net value of top 1-10%
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1115
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
December 12, 2015, 06:42:48 PM
you are not only a moron, you cherry pick and use strawmans like a boss.

population explosion because everyone got richer? lmao

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016

you probaly believe in the millenia targets, no poverty till 2030 and santa clause Cry

This doesn't prove he's wrong (whoever you're referring to, no quote). It only shows that the rich are getting richer faster. It says nothing about the richness of everyone else.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1115
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
December 12, 2015, 06:29:16 PM
Virtually all nations have a central bank based upon the fiat model, and virtually all are controlled by the same cartel.
I've only been bouncing around this thread, but what are you implying here? Exactly what cartel controls all the central banks in the world?
I am making a correction to my statement above in bold.

A search engine can answer that question. I did a search and found that this page has some good answers; you do have to read the whole page from top to bottom (including comments) to get a real understanding, so I will not be quoting any short answers:
http://henrymakow.com/2013/07/do-the-rothschilds-own-all.html

Ok, yeah, so as I thought. Jewish illuminati tinfoil hat fodder. This nonsense invalidates all your other comments in this thread.
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
December 12, 2015, 06:17:15 PM
@deisik

you are not only a moron, you cherry pick and use strawmans like a boss.

population explosion because everyone got richer? lmao

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2015-01-19/richest-1-will-own-more-all-rest-2016

you probaly believe in the millenia targets, no poverty till 2030 and santa clause Cry
legendary
Activity: 3486
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
December 12, 2015, 02:19:02 PM
World population grew a lot, but large part of the growth was in Africa and Asia.

And it can be very easily and accessibly explained... Your take?
Pages:
Jump to: