Topic: The economic model behind Bitcoin is flawed - page 5. (Read 14061 times)

World population grew a lot, but large part of the growth was in Africa and Asia.
A complete picture here:

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?

You are downright wrong on this, bro. The fact that you say this pretty much proves than you know nothing (despite all your brass and gas) about economics, why and how exactly the society's real wealth gets increased over time. Even per capita with an ever growing population, notwithstanding whatever Malthusians would say...

In fact, the growing population is a requirement for the increase in wealth


The metric is pretty simple (I have already mentioned it), and it is directly related to the exponential growth of population during the last 60 years...

There's a cookie for you

You obviously forget about the threat of an all-out full-scale nuclear war between the major superpowers back then (well, and now too), something that doesn't quite warrant the idea of runaway reproduction. Besides, the growth started circa 1800, i.e. well before the last world war. There had been Napoleonic wars and Franco-Prussian War in Europe as well as the Civil War in the US, and the First World War in between these dates...

So what about globalization and its effects on the population growth rates? How are they interconnected, if at all?

I hate to interject, but didn't the population increase exponentially due to the end of World War 2 and the lack of wars between developed countries thereafter? There is also more globalization and so that ended up occurring during that period, so I would assume that a lot of the growth was related to that. I could be wrong.

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



Note the exponential growth after 1950

Special kudos to deisik for taking the impossible devils advocate position in this thread
However, lets not get too carried away.    


I lolled!!  It is tough to match that statement but I will try:  
 
Shooting yourself in the head is also the best way to extend your lifespan from a medical standpoint.    

Or how about:  letting somebody steal your coat is the best way to keep warm.  



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, meaning that individual's fraction of ownership of the whole shebang has gone down.  Of course none of this has anything to do with being robbed blind due to stupidity of accepting counterfeitable dimensionless tokens in exchange for labor but I am still curious what metric you refer to which has increased in 100 years.  

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!" 

  

Just in case, it is estimated that smallpox alone killed about 500 million (sic) people in the 20th century only, until the decease was finally extinguished in the late 70s (that is, within 80 years). Are you going to count those dead people's unborn children and their grandchildren or what? It should have spared humanity a lot more resources than the two world wars combined, right? What about the Black Death then, when half of the European population died within just a few years in the mid-14th century? Did it make those who managed to survive richer and their lives better?

You are treading on a very slippery path going this way, the Malthusian way

Are you a central banker or something?

So I agree to whatever your economy belief, I will print money and you work, I'm fine with that

You did not count those dead people's children and grand children?

If you have been reading not only my posts (wow) but also the posts I replied to, you would have seen that "this system" referred to something else, surely not to a monetary system of society. Actually, it was more about the structure and organization of it that we have, or just the society that we live in...


Then yes, the masses have brought "that system" upon themselves all by themselves. Otherwise, who did this really, some "bad guys" that we should find and punish? There are no genuine "bad guys" out there (Putin or no Putin)...

And why are you constantly trying to misinterpret my words, wtf?

There is no linear dependence between productivity growth and the wealth of society. And I'm doubtful about the productivity growth in terms of hundreds of times (during the last 100 years, at least), though I understand what made you think so. Obviously, you don't know what actually moves the society to the next level of wealth. Hint, this is not productivity per se, but since you think it is, you should necessarily gauge its growth so much (given the growth in total wealth). But this is irrelevant because you obviously prefer that we were all equal in poverty (under the gold standard) rather than different in wealth (after we moved to fiat)...

Are you a communist, johny, Swedish style?

Billions of people, wow?! What did I miss? The world population on the eve of WWII was only slightly above 2 billions of people, and around 1.7 billion in 1914, before the First World War started. By the way, the Spanish flu of 1920 killed in one year more people than had been killed during the four years of the First World War. And just smallpox killed by far more people than all wars combined (literally billions of people throughout history)...

So your argument of "a little bit more resources" is inconsequential at best

And so what? Economics (as a set of economic, monetary, fiscal methods) is a tool with which the state sets up its economy, but this doesn't in the least prevent us from 1) considering these methods (and models that they implement) separately from the state on a purely technical (i.e. economic) basis, and 2) assessing their efficiency in attaining the aims that the state tries to achieve. I don't know whether you understand it yourself, but if your claims that economic models (e.g. monetary models) should be ethically judged were to be taken seriously, then your "sound" money system should have been written off long ago as the most atrocious, hideous, and revolting system in the known history since it was the primary economic (monetary) model behind the most inhuman and brutal political systems that ever existed...

In fact, your own view taken to its logical conclusion actually reveals that fiat is by far more "humane" than any other monetary system out there (that were tested on a society level)

First, two world wars killed billions of people, so the rest of the people get to share a little bit more resources on the planet

Second, people's productivity raised by hundreds of times due to technology advancement, but their income just increased by 10 times, they indeed became richer, but their slave master became millions of times richer, that is the huge wealth gap we observe since removing of the gold standard

I pretty much don't care. I'm not interested in expanding this issue any further here since it is of no interest to me. You can hardly say anything that I haven't heard before. I hope you understand also it is quite off-topic in this thread and surely deserves its own one, though, most likely, not in the Economics section

You are again distorting the meaning of words as you see fit. Humans like animals want their familiar surroundings and habitat (their way of life, in short). Man is a social being (a handy substitute when you just wanted to say herd animal, lol), and as such he is willing and naturally predisposed to delegate the responsibility for his actions and life to some bellwether, meaning that obedience and submission are built-in features in him...

Still wanna talk about what is Man's nature?

Actually, I have already posted what I claim (just in case, as a reply to your post), though you seem to have missed it (or just decided to ignore). But never mind, I can post it again, wtf...


As you can see, I don't even mention the economic growth as such

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

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?