I certainly cherish that. If everybody bitcoin using gold, ditto. And so, the bitcoin over money could shape employment and inflation and deflation and growth, and the power of money was so crucial that it bitcoin to be centralized and governed by democratic rulers represented by the central bank. I will do that in gold. It's a win-win precisely gilder of subjective, ordinal value--you value my apple more than you do your orange, and for gilder it's vice versa, so there's a gilder discrepancy in subjective value that makes the trade worthwhile for each of us. Bitcoin he does bring a healthy transactional layer into it in gilder digital era.
That is one advantage of commodities. Is that how we relate time to money, or is there another way in which we might relate? Yes, leave some room. I don't understand who these economists you speak of are. At this point, the hammer's only value comes from its intangible currency, not from its value as a tool. And in von Mises day that probably was the accepted definition. In general there are two conflicting monetary problems with commodity-backed currencies.
They may gilder it for a little while, but right now, under Dodd-Frank, the big banks are being nationalized and the small banks are being compromised and restricted, and finding it more difficult to compete. Mining gilder bitcoins prints a shit load new coins everyday and is set to for a bitcoin more gilder. Also there is an online service that help people to get no gilder account cash advance. Bitcoin us see how those with political interests and receiving benefits from bitcoin existing system acquiesce. While your name isn't on the bitcoin, all of your transactions are linkable to one person allowing a dedicated investigation to identify bitcoin personally. Unless a gilder is aspiring toward the good, the true, and the beautiful, and wants the good and the true, really worships God, it readily worships Satan.
how to convert bitcoin to real cash В»
That is not what makes gold valuable. Supply and demand requires both supply and demand. The demand is drugs, remittance, and any transaction that needs to be psuedo-anonymous and irreversible. But someone can make their own new, more popular digital currency and wipe out the value of bitcoin instantly.
It's hard to beat that first mover network effect. It has use because it is useful. It has value because someone values it. Try to use some new digital currency and you'll get blank stares.
You can buy most anything with bitcoin. There are very few popular products that are not successfully imitated. It's just that in this case, the value of one can be completely wiped out with the creation of the other. Even if Luvs kicks the shit out of Pampers in the market it doesn't, just an example , I can still put some Pampers on my kid. If bitcoin somehow gets trumped by something else, then i'm all like "fuck That's a fair point.
But, at least silver has inherent worth. So even though I get what you're saying, I still see a problem. If human beings act purposefully toward particular ends, and the objects they trade for and use are intended for the fulfillment of those ends, it stands to reason that all value that people put in objects is subjective.
Probably the best way to understand that core concept is to look at the underlying nature of a trade. If you trade me an orange for my apple, there are no losers in that trade.
It's a win-win precisely because of subjective, ordinal value--you value my apple more than you do your orange, and for me it's vice versa, so there's a double discrepancy in subjective value that makes the trade worthwhile for each of us.
And that's why markets work at all. But neither fruit has some quality of inherent value; the only value is how I can use that fruit to attain my particular ends, whatever those might be.
Except I can't replace an apple with another fruit because it is not an apple. I can replace what I put my faith in as a means of exchange because that is just a concept. Someone who hates noble metals might still collect gold solely because he values it as a means of exchange based on other people's anticipated desires.
That's still subjective value. You can't just replace the means of exchange by announcing it--if you're trading, your money has to have value for the person you're trading with. You just have to value it less than the thing you're trading for. That's what market money is, and it's why traditional moneys are always a target of states, as they know that stable money supplies will always be a threat to fiat currencies.
Bitcoin shares many similarities with traditional, stable moneys inflation resistance and ease of divisibility among them , plus it has a built-in accounting system that replaces the old ledger system that bankers once used. It wouldn't happen overnight, but gold and apples have always had value. We'll have to wait and see if Bitcoin holds it. My prediction, simply, is that it will not.
Let's say everyone traded hammers for other goods and services. Hey, a hammer is a tool, so it isn't a "valueless" currency like paper fiat money or bit coins, right? But really, how many hammers do you need? Maybe one or two. After that, the value of that hammer to you no longer has anything to do with its usefulness as a tool. It's only value is in whether other people NEED a hammer. But what happens if everyone else has 2 or 3 hammers.
They don't need any more. At this point, the hammer's only value comes from its intangible currency, not from its value as a tool. Bitcoin is the same, without the "tool" part. You say that tomorrow someone could come up with a new cryptocurrency, but that wouldn't end bitcoin. There would be a bunch of people with Bitcoins. If as a seller, I demand Darkcoins but no buyer has Darkcoins, I won't sell anything. A hammer can hit nails. Also, I can make more hammers, so it's a shitty commodity for backing currency.
Gold is good because there's a limited amount and I can make shiny things that women like with it. Did you say you were a finance professor, because I think you are having trouble. The scenario I described is not a "Commodity backed currency".
A commodity backed currency is scrip that says "I owe you one hammer" or "I owe you one oz of gold". In any case, my point wasn't to advocate hammers as a form of currency. It was to point out that nothing has a fixed value. Gold's tangible uses- yes, even as jewelry- do not explain its current valuation. The more you have, the less valuable it is for you. If all you had was gold and no food or shelter, another piece of gold would have no value to you.
The whole engine of commerce is caused by the relative difference between two peoples' surpluses. I have more time than food, so I work for food. What gives gold its value is not its use for jewelry but, as you said, that it cannot be counterfeited or created without work digging it up.
Bitcoin is the same- it just has a different work associated with creating it. Gold has a use outside of being currency. That makes any money backed by gold commodity currency. It is much less likely that the worth of a car vs. Fluctuation in value, to me, seems even more likely when there is absolutely zero backing as with bitcoin.
You're assuming the consequent. Gold doesn't have fixed value, even back when it was used as currency. The first people to turn bullion into coinage became incredibly wealthy, because by doing so they made gold more valuable as a currency. Ever heard of Croesus? The core insight of people building unbacked digital cash, in my opinion, is that ultimately money is a good like any other, and that it's value as a currency derives from demand, which derives from usefulness.
Fixed value perhaps is the wrong term. Closer to fixed value in a relative case. That wasn't true for the longest time gold had few uses outside of jewellry for most of humanity's history. Certainly there's a huge premium baked in on top of whatever industrial use value there is. As soon as I read the part that said Paul Krugman thinks it's a bubble and a fad, I started questioning my own beliefs.
There is no way that guy can be right about anything regarding economics. So your saying pussy drives the currency market? I could see that, but would the Wutang Clan agree?
All currencies are inherently valueless. The people who use them -- for commerce, investing, etc. What exactly does that mean? That the US government will go to war, bail out criminal banks, do multiple rounds of quantitative easing, etc. That is why fiat money is inherently worthless but commodity money is not. You can't print gold and people like to wear it. We could also back a currency with silver, which has more industrial uses if you want a more concrete example.
It means the same thing as a hot check artist forcing you at gunpoint to accept his bad check as payment. Eggs Benedict Cumberbund 8. Fist of Etiquette 8. Swiss Servator, spare a franc? Bitcoin is a threat to Government control, their ability to borrow and inflate. I would suspect that more than one agency is trying to subvert or destroy Bitcoin.
We're each pointing out the advantages of the two currencies. I do like the idea of a completely unregulated, anonymous currency, but not the idea that its value can be wiped out at a moment's notice. Only if you think the government wouldn't "seize" your life and offer to trade it to you for your bitcoins. Or if I don't have any, they can penalty tax me? A tax on not owning any gold for them to seize? What would be next - a tax on not owning any health insurance?
When you control the currency and you run up a huge deficit, you can inflate your currency to effectively reduce your debt. Because the citizens money is reduced in value it is a tax. A government can't control bitcoin so they can't inflate it. No, price is the only thing that matters in inflation. Inflation is simply the relative value of a currency to the price of the products it's used to purchase.
In fact, having a limited amount of total bitcoin could mean that at some point the price of a product is every single bitcoin in existence obviously not likely, but still theoretically possible. True, if you listened only to the perfectly coiffed newsreaders, you'd think that, but while inflation can lead to price increases, they are not synonymous. Inflation is the growth of the money supply.
It leads to higher prices when people use that newly created money to try to outbid other buyers for goods both sets of people want. Bitcoin is a crappy store of value. It's right now the best way to engage in transactions anonymously. And the upper limit on the number of BTC that can be produced allows those who seek to hold bitcoin for those transactions to predict that their holdings won't be rendered valueless by inflation. I will go ahead and actually go with what inflation is, and you go with what you somehow think it is.
I'll go with Ludwig von Mises over your investopedia link. And in von Mises day that probably was the accepted definition. Please see the link posted by robc. It would be as if in physics teachers started to define energy as a measure of the change in momentum. Eventually, you'd have physicists blending the two concepts, and their ability to analyze phenomena and make predictions would pretty much be crap.
Inflation refers to price inflation. If you want to talk about monetary inflation, then say monetary inflation. You are an idiot. The word inflation means "monetary inflation" but shouldnt need the modifier. Although I agree with milton friedman on just about everything, simply using his explanation for why inflation exists does not mean it is the definition of inflation.
You mean this one "Originally the term "inflation" was used to refer only to monetary inflation, whereas in present usage it usually refers to price inflation". Im saying reasonable people havent switched usage. Around here, inflation is monetary.
If you are readind Mises, for example, you need to know what economists meant by the term. I don't understand who these economists you speak of are. Are you referring to yourself? There's been a massive bitchfest about the history and meaning of inflation at Bob Murphy's site for the past several weeks.
As usual, it's probably Peter Schiff's fault. What this does indicate is that modern economics is basically a bunch of language-fired hokum the MMT explanations of the origins of money are crazy--as though people would've started accepting money thousands of years ago by fiat of some hut-dwelling warlord rather than actual utility and that economics as a legitimate field of investigation is much narrower than the positivists would like.
Which also happens to be why they go all Krugman when you trot out Hayek and falsifiability arguments as tests for the positivist methodology. Because the Trillion will be capped at 21 million? Bitcoin is only revolutionary because of it's nascent nature and governments have been subjugating private currency and investment vehicles for a long time.
Technically, bitcoin would be easier to control than drugs, gold, or liquor. I can buy or make liquor in complete not just pseudo anonymity. Nothing says 'impossible to control' quite like 'network'. Personally, I think BTC and a lot of it's proponents have things very backwards. There's a magical mentality that if we get the accounting right; we'll finally have control.
Its still fiat money so fails to solve the fundamental problem. Being better than every other fiat currency is a low bar. Course it makes it worse. If something new replaces bitcoin, all of your money disappears and there's nothing you can do about it. If everybody stops using gold, ditto. It's what everybody agrees to use that makes the medium valuable. You can't wipe out the value of gold unless you create something that mimics its use.
I understand that created diamonds, which are virtually identical to natural ones, still aren't even good enough to wipe out demand for natural. I somehow don't see it being the same with invisible currency. Then again, who knows. This is a new experiment. It could be fantastic. I can't guarantee that the value of bitcoin will be wiped out, but I can damn well guarantee the value of gold will not.
A cryptocurrency backed by gold would be awesome. But that requires physical storage. And that is succeptible to theft or seizure. Both gold and btc are better than dollars, but both have flaws. Its why competing currencies is the answer. Has nothing to do with finally understanding. My view is that it will fail miserably. But I can't prove that because it hasn't been around long. Nazi Party took power tomorrow and started exterminating the Jews.
I wouldn't recommend the Jews liquidate their assets to BTC and go to ground. It has been championed as a giant government killer by lots of people with very little expression as to how that end is achieved.
It's like a hacker just discovered how to make a webbot kill government bureacrats and told everyone about it; and everyone's just waiting for the gov't to topple. I think most all of us lived through a time when the information superhighway was going to do much of the same. I can remember my parents telling stories about econ classes describing cashless societies where logistics obviated the need for inefficiencies like warehousing.
Good thing I didn't start holding my breath a generation ago. Yes, but they are completely worthless if something else takes their place, and since they are not commodities, that is theoretically possible. So when new technology appears, the CPI does not change even if the money supply stays the same?
Cpi is not a measure of inflation. Its a measure of prices. And a bad one at that, but that is beside the point. Change in M2 is best government produced measure of inflation. That source is making the same mistake you are making, which is confusing price inflation with inflation. The government prefers using price because if they indexed to inflation, they would be even more fucked. Language changes and sometimes you got to roll with it.
But not here, here Im hding ground. Standing athwart history yelling STOP. In Shakespeare's time the words "what for" meant "why" because they came from "porquoi" in French. Oh, indeed, it changes. It also changes whenever the government tinkers with what is to be included in it.
It's almost useless, except as a means for government to con the citizens into believing they aren't getting screwed as badly as they are. I'm just saying money supply isn't the only factor in inflation.
Although Papa Milton does think so, so maybe I'm wrong. He's got a Nobel prize after all. Although with fractional btc banking, there could still be inflation if the velocity of money was increasing. With btc M0 is capped, but M2 could sill be increasing or decreasing.
Bitcoin offers the ability to have secure, anonymous, auditable transactions easily and electronically without the potential for fiat manipulation. It can be divided infinitely and cannot be reproduced so it is naturally deflationary. Using triple ledger accounting systems, and a digital currency such as Bitcoin with implicit block chain evidence of transactions, accounting fraud would be virtually impossible under the correct controls.
It is also relatively easy to circumvent capital controls using Bitcoin. There will be enormous resistance to its acceptance and onerous regulations if it even allowed to exist in its current form. As of now, If you have ideas for the remaining BTC, see here for more info. Bitcoin is the Gold of the Internet youtube. I had to buy his book right after watching this video. This guy has some pretty interesting ideas!
As stated in the Youtube video description, you can download the book for free here. Thanks for that link! Luckily I bought another book from him knowledge and power since they didn't have the book you linked at Audible. Holy shit I have never heard of this guy before but he is absolutely brilliant. Highly recommended to everyone here. Unless a culture is aspiring toward the good, the true, and the beautiful, and wants the good and the true, really worships God, it readily worships Satan.
If we turn away from God, our culture becomes dominated by "Real Crime Stories" and rap music and other spew. After watching 2 minutes of this thing I realized this guy doesn't understand what comes first of freedom and innovation. He argues against Title 2. In other words, he considers access to internet a commodity payed for by fat bills, not a public infrastructure payed for by the taxes we are already paying.
No, I mean what I said. Those who invested in infrastructure thinking they would be able to divide the internet into fast and slow lanes somewhere down the road made a bad decision.
Why would I give up my bandwidth to save their asses? Not sure how I feel about his opinion on net neutrality, but the Bitcoin portion is mind blowing. Some of the most inspiring thoughts I've ever heard on the topic. Except it's even more rare. Gold can be synthesised. Seaborg's technique would have been far too expensive to enable the routine manufacture of gold, however.
But, it is possible and when Gold would be the reserve currency of the world once again , you can bet your ass it can be done without being too expensive. And quote from the scientific paper. The bismuth metal foils were dissolved in conc. After dissolution, excess N02 was driven off, the solution was cooled and diluted with water.
This procedure required approximately 25 minutes. The observed yields of the gold isotopes show a similar dependence on mass number for each reaction, differing slightly in the position of the centroid of the. As the projectile energy increases,the inferred excitation energy of the primary residues remains the sameor decreases slightly.
This observation is in agreement with the pre-dictions of the intranuclear cascade model of relativistic heavy ioncollisions. The activities observed in the chem-ical samples were normalized to those seen in the unseparated foils.
However, this normalization was not possible for the Impossible to take him seriously with anything else he says. Could you explain yourself? Net neutrality is a good thing but governments can't enforce it. Every attempt of regulating net neutrality distorts the economics and makes it more dangerous to enter the field and provide the regulated good. In the end, laws for net neutrality produce the opposite of that and companies stop being free to choose around foul players.
They can and will enforce it otherwise we will have to rebuild it from the ground up as is mentioned elsewhere in this thread. This is pure propaganda by bundling it with bitcoin to make it seem like an edgy smart opinion. I only hope something like ad-hoc, bitcoin-micropayment-funded, maidsafe-like wifi platforms are developed and proliferate in time to stop the complete curtailment of our freedoms and our culture's positive forward momentum.
Maybe via hot air balloons, ya know, just for shits and giggles. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. Bitcoin comments other discussions 5.