Author

Topic: Zero-sum arguments (Read 884 times)

legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1011
November 17, 2013, 08:02:49 PM
#5
In particular they use the classic zero-sum argument that says that for whoever makes $1 from bitcoin, someone else has lost $1.
In this case, the one who loses $1 is the bank. By not being able to make profit from controlling bitcoins like they do with dollars.
hero member
Activity: 529
Merit: 527
November 17, 2013, 07:41:10 PM
#4
Bitcoin creates more savings which creates more wealth. Fiat coin creates more debt which destroys wealth.
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
November 17, 2013, 05:59:26 PM
#3
In particular they use the classic zero-sum argument that says that for whoever makes $1 from bitcoin, someone else has lost $1.

Anyone who says that isn't worth listening to.   That dynamic is only true if Bitcoin goes to $0, fails completely and is never revived/rebooted.


newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
November 17, 2013, 05:55:45 PM
#2
Quote
n particular they use the classic zero-sum argument that says that for whoever makes $1 from bitcoin, someone else has lost $1.

That makes absolutely no sense.
member
Activity: 95
Merit: 10
November 17, 2013, 05:52:27 PM
#1
A lot of smart people are worried about Bitcoin's increasing importance and value.  They worry that all bitcoin is doing is simply taking money from elsewhere in a speculative frenzy, chasing what is an irrational bubble.

In particular they use the classic zero-sum argument that says that for whoever makes $1 from bitcoin, someone else has lost $1.

Well, in pure accounting terms this is true.  But if Bitcoin represents a beneficial new paradigm in global finance ( and the world certainly needs one!) , then Bitcoin can be adding economic value to the world. 

How does this work ?  Just like any company that builds a better mouse-trap.  People rush to use the new product as it uses less resources than before.  The surplus economic resources represent true global profit.




Jump to: