Topic: The Future of Money? - page 10. (Read 8114 times)

Indeed, you can make people believe that you can control, for example, the movement of the Sun, and that wouldn't be a real power over the Sun. But, on the hand, as long as the direction that the world takes or the outcome of the events having global significance depends on the choices that people make (for example, the Allies winning over or losing to the Axis powers in the WWII), control over the general public ("mind control" in your speak) is exactly that, i.e. the real power by whatever name...

And as I get it, this kind of power is exactly what the elites and those attempting to become them are craving for

I think you're looking at it wrong, the 'elite' are a consequence and not the cause of the current system. They appear to have the power to control the direction the world takes when in fact they have no say in the unfolding of events. They only pretend that they have the power and the non-elite believe them. It's mind control not real power.
 
That's how Tintin gets out of a tight spot in 'Prisoners of the sun'. He pretends to have the power to banish the sun and the Inca believes him when all of a sudden the sun starts to dim because of an eclipse  

Okay, but how would it then be different from Bitcoin if anyone can mine it? Also, if your Imfcoin is to back up national currencies (like gold was backing up dollars up to a certain point), it shouldn't be used directly as a currency. Otherwise, there will be a case for a special kind of Gresham's Law, but even closer to the original idea than the interpretation I suggested a few year ago here. In short, why would the elites want the populace to mine it, and why would then the latter want to mine it?

How could it possibly give more stability to crippling economies?

Paper money can not be replace of plastik money like credit card becuase paper money is use all over the world and it is hard to replace it as you sais many country poor they can not provide to get a credit card so nothing can replace our paper money.

The future of money is, that most probably paper money will be replaced with plastic money. But paper money will be in use many years ahead. Many poor countries from Asia, etc. are using only paper money, they do not have Internet connections in shops - so, they can not use credit cards. 

This is a good point.  As I implied in the original post, the SDR never really took off (and the elites never really promoted it) because it's human-issued debt that's payable in fiat currencies, and the IMF has no economy or military power with which to support it.  Such a currency doesn't inspire market confidence in the same way Imfcoin would.

Imfcoin would not be a fiat currency, in the sense that it'd be limited in supply and could be mined by anybody.  This, plus its promotion by the global elites, I'm afraid, might be enough to inspire confidence in national currencies backed by Imfcoin.  (Of course, eventually it would lose all confidence, but 'eventually' could be a long time in this case.)

Yes it is true that gold is always a very important technical metal because of it being  better conductor on most of metals available in this planet.  It is also proven a symbol of greatness and wellness in life.  Gold will never be obsolete and will never goes down to worthlessness.

They already created such a coin long ago (in the late 1960s). It is called SDR, or a Special Drawing Right, allegedly to supplement the official reserves of the IMF member countries. Needless to say that this "currency" is purely virtual, and as the IMF itself claims, it is not a currency per se but rather a claim on the currencies of IMF members...

How is it essentially different from what you suggest?

Gold unlike crypto-currencies can't go down in price to zero in the worst case it is just a valuable technical metal will remain...separate gold is not difficult, if you know how to do it and also have the necessary expensive equipment. In practice, however, this process is not available to the common man. At the same time, anyone can divide a bitcoin into pieces up to eight decimal digits each. If necessary, the division could go on and on. Moreover, this operation is capable of any computer system. Such things happen automatically during each transaction. In addition, you can create any amount of free wallets to store your money in small fractions of bitcoins. There may be hundreds or thousands — there are no restrictions.

I sincerely hope you're right, but the idea is that Imfcoin would be essentially no different from Bitcoin (or gold,for that matter), in order to build market confidence.  It would be open to mining by anyone -- it's just that the IMF would have already mined more than half of the 21 million coins possible before announcing it.  (Countries would be given coins from the IMF stash according to their GDP, foreign currency reserves, etc.)

Note that this would be no different from the gold-standard period.  The elites enjoyed and praised the gold standard when they owned enough gold to keep the system stable while issuing paper to benefit themselves.  (Initially, they would set the peg rates so countries would own more than enough imfcoins -- so they would be able to borrow and print lots of local currency to stimulate economies and to keep political discontent to a minimum.)

And I wouldn't be surprised if the elites would boost public faith in Imfcoin by making a couple of examples: some small, marginal country would come begging to borrow a few dozen imfcoins to tide itself over after a financial crisis, and the IMF would refuse unless the country implemented 'reforms' that made the pain even worse.

But you're correct that there's fundamental problem to the whole project.  If a new 'gold' can be created at will, what good is this 'gold' that the elites are promoting?  I'm worried, though that it might take a couple hundred years (a couple of boom-bust cycles of new international monetary arrangements) for the public to wake up to the problem.

The idea of central bank controlled cryptocoins has been around for a while. I fail to see that these coins pose any serious risk for the valuation of Bitcoin or precious metals and I don't think such a concept will be successful.

The reason for this is pretty simple: Even if such a coin is constructed under the umbrella of the IMF it still doesn't represent a real valuable asset, because it is subject to political influence. There are also many questions regarding its creation. For example how should the coin be mined - should every country mine its own stash or will there be fixed quotas allocated to each country? How would all countries of the IMF even be able to form a consensus?

An IMF coin will never constitute a real asset like gold or Bitcoin, because it's not functioning as a incorruptible natural resource. Instead an IMF coin would be some kind of "meta-fiat" used as backing for fiat.

ya.ya.yo!

It was like one of those AH-HA moments of dectective novels, where everything comes together and it all makes sense, all of a sudden.

I've always imagined that gold, silver and/or Bitcoin will go up astronomically if and when bad enough news forces the major countries to devalue national currencies against these non-state monies in one way or another.

From the global elites' point of view, it seems there is a more desirable way to stabilize national currencies, if it comes to that.  Why not use Bitcoin's blockchain technology to create a new cryptocurrency, say, 'ImfCoin,' where most coins have already been secretly mined by the IMF, and make that the global reserve currency?

Imfcoins would be issued to each country to use as reserves for backing its national currency.  The whole system would be similar to the gold and dollar based systems over the last century and a half.  Using a new blockchain (rather than gold, silver or Bitcoin) would avoid the embarrasment of having to set a very high price of one or more of these non-state monies to achieve stability.

I will discuss detailed 'justifications' in a later post, but everything from economics to politics seems to check out on this plan.  There is also a precedent.  John Maynard Keynes proposed his Bretton Woods alternative as an IMF-issued reserve currency called Bancor.  The Americans who were in favor of a dollar-based system won the debate.  (As I've discussed, there is a problem of faith in a fiat currency issued by an entity with no national economy and army behind it.  But the limited issuance imposed by the blockchain should solve this problem.)

Maybe this is why Bitcoin was legitimized by the global elites, and why it has been holding very steady or going up slowly or fast since it reached the $250 level a couple of years ago.  The elites need to build trust in this totally new money in order to spread faith in the blockchain as money.

If this happens, gold, silver and Bitcoin will lose a lot of value, in the same way that silver lost out when all major countries went exclusively on gold in the 1870s.  But until then, Bitcoin should basically be a one-way bet.

Bitcoin is not just the new gold.  Its technology allows creating *a* new gold by the authorities.  Assuming a new gold will be trusted by the markets (being armed by a combination of state power and unified elite propaganda,) the question remains, if the elites can create a new gold today, why can't they take on another gold later, and abandon this gold, when they have created too much currency and debt for this gold to support?  Unfortunately, the public may not wise up to this issue until at least one or two new IMF altcoins have been created, and each phase of international money seems to last many decades.

The reason this story reads like a detective novel, rather than a scientific study, is that the system is inherently based on deception.  Savers must operate on a fundamentally uncertain terrain because the elites are able to use a combination of state power and lack of public awareness to benefit from manipulating the market in money.  I wish I had come to this idea earlier, but we're only human.

[Added 12/13/2016]
There IS one major obstacle to this plan, from the elites' point of view.  Countries would have to be united behind the IMF's general agenda for this to work.  For the foreseeable future, this will be difficult, not only because big countries Russia and China are rebelling against the Western alliance, but most countries also (correctly) perceive that the US and the West have too much power in the IMF.  (I made this point in one of the replies, some days after the initial post.)