Economic transaction costs.
They won't be doing that once the government requires them to report all BTC related transactions.
Bitcoins at $75
- Thread starter schockergd
- Start date
Well I've not heard too many people besides you say that deflation can be good thing to economic progress and innovation.
I see what you're saying about how there are usually periods of inflation and deflation like a wave.. but usually the periods of money supply contraction (deflation) are not great growth periods at all.
Personally, I am taking no strong stance cause I would need to look at more data, run experiments, watch human investing behavior in deflationary periods, etc.
But if I had to make a guess right now I'd guess that mild controlled inflation might have some benefits over deflation for some people but at the same time it is theft to those with money. It also depends on your definition of benefits though.
Why can't it? Because you won't accept any form of policy, government, or currency manipulation that doesn't agree with your AnCap principles because you think they're morally wrong. I get that. You hate the whole idea of government manipulation of markets/currency/etc and the limiting of your individual freedom.
If there was a policy that imposed a law (like a tax) on individuals but at the same time had the benefit improving the quality of life for nearly everyone you would be against that law - without question. You'd probably go even further and say that life will always be better for everybody or at least most people under a system with no laws or tax. But I don't see things so black and white so I don't know exactly what the best course would be w/out experimentation and examples.
I don't even know how I'd define 'better' qualities of life. If i had to give up some freedom for some comfort (quality of life) I don't know at what freedom vs comfort level I'd buckle.
Basically, it sounds like for AnCap purists, individual freedom trumps everything else in life. I can respect that. But you'll sacrifice any benefit of any other system to get pure individual freedom.. or you'll outright deny that there could ever be any benefit whatsoever from any other system. Am I wrong about that? Could there ever be any benefits from other systems? 'Benefit' being subjective...
I don't know if this was the greatest period of economic growth. There were plenty of depressions in this time period. Yes, it's all cyclical.
Not sure I am understanding you. In an inflationary period credit is created by the desire of those with wealth to not let it dwindle away through inflation. They want to loan it, or risk it, or else it dies. I feel this fucking need every day. If there were a currency that definitely would not lose value during my lifetime I'd likely put most of my wealth in it instead of trying to figure out how to invest my money. The credit doesn't come out of thin air it comes from saver's savings accounts. It only is made from thin air at the level where the FED creates it and first loans it out.
I agree that too much credit is a bad thing. I agree not all investments should pay off. If you go the AnCap way.. the market naturally determines what the average available credit should be. But if you go the manipulated market way it might be possible to artificially increase the average available credit to the benefit of the economy? The question then becomes can a manipulated market maintain itself in that way if inflation is artificially kept at low levels?
Well I'm tired an half of what I said was prob rambling and the other half poorly worded and not well thought out.
But about BTC.. of course it's a currency.. the question is is it a good currency. Then define good. Anything can be a currency. BTC is definitely an interesting one.
So, I think most libertarians and anarchists overstate the early periods of US history. Austrian economics is a-ok with deflation. Personally, I'm on board with the idea that deflation is just fine. The arguments regarding early America, however, are a bit unnuanced, I think and here's why: sure America went through economic booms and busts. But the really insane economic growth came when we went off the gold standard and said fuck everybody, we're just going to borrow tons of money and build shit. Now, we're in a big mess because of it. But it's hard to argue that the biggest period of borrowing didn't coincide with the most incredible period of innovation in US history. The question is whether that was all worth the destruction of our country as we know it. Basically our greed produced progress and huge debt.
BitCoin will give you the chance to see what happens in a deflationary economy.
I'm guessing you're wrong. Much of inflationary pressure, while modeled robustly, is created at the whims of a few people. It's entirely subjective. In my experience, markets are much better at deciding which way something should go. There are a lot of people working on this problem, however. I spoke with a friend of mine who is currently writing a paper proposing a fix to the deflation problem, if it is a problem that would have a crypto currency like BTC, however it's mining rates, it's inflationary and deflationary pressures, would be mitigated by a secondary market. Neat idea, no idea if it would work. But I bet that it would work beter than the fed.
I won't answer the rest of the questions because I don't think quesitons about why anarchism won't work are that relevant. I personally believe it's where we're headed regardless. Either 1 world government or no world governments. The world is going one of two ways as a result of the internet. It may be a long way off, but it's coming.
Silver: As a last resort, can be used to make jewelry / or for industrial purposes as tangible value.
BTC: As a last resort, can be used to buy illegal narcotics anonymously, or sell them to junkies...(and round and round) as tangible value.
Did I get that right? even if one's probably a quicker sell than the other. The problem I see is that in a doomsday scenario, one gets wiped out along with the internet. while the other doesn't.
My deep thoughts after reading the thread. who knows...
IMHO The real value/backbone behind BTC is and will always be the black market
BTC: As a last resort, can be used to buy illegal narcotics anonymously, or sell them to junkies...(and round and round) as tangible value.
Did I get that right? even if one's probably a quicker sell than the other. The problem I see is that in a doomsday scenario, one gets wiped out along with the internet. while the other doesn't.
My deep thoughts after reading the thread. who knows...
IMHO The real value/backbone behind BTC is and will always be the black market
This is kind of how i see it too. It's kind of what I was getting at. And was there a level where we could have maintained it that is better than the natural AnCap level.
One has to wonder if Moore's law would exist if we didn't have this high-credit supercharged unnatural economy.
But I think that's the point. You give up something by being outside of the parameters of the optimization caused by markets. In economics, oftentimes this inefficiency is referred to as deadweight loss. That would be, for example, the amount of money that is sort of just disappeared as a result of artificial interventions like taxes. I have to assume that there is some similar principle governing growth of economies. But my position as a person who says that governments are inevitably going to fall has very little to do with principle. To me it seems like the natural state of things as they are. We have a bunch of dominoes, they are set up to fall, and either they will consolidate and call themselves fixed, or they will fall. I think if we do end up in a world without governments, we will all look back and fondly remember the last breath that they took, eulogizing governments run-up of her debt as the rocket thrust that made us all rich libertines that live in a world of incredible possibilities, where 3d printers are printing replacement hearts and we all live to 168.
Hey Joe.
Just reading this thread and decided to pick this part of your argument out.
If the "tax" (forced purchase) is so obviously beneficial to everyone than why isn't it voluntary? If it serves everyone so well, why not let people make the choice?
When *ANY* consumer product is valuable it doesn't need to be brought to market by force. People who see the value will buy. People who don't see the value, or can't afford to buy in, or choose not to for any reason should be allowed to pass.
If it's forced it's theft.
If it will benefit me and I want it you don't need to hold a gun to my head to make me buy in.
Except the reason America had amazing growth was that Europe was smashed, and became America's debtor, and America became the holder of the world's gold, which it then used to print more money than it had gold to redeem, until 71 when it had to break way from gold.
I have this argument on facebook often. American prosperity has a LOT to do with printing money and exporting it to other countries for real goods, services and natural resources.
Take the value of all USD held in overseas banks and by overseas governments, and that's approximately the net wealth the US has been able to import for nothing more than printing (and in the digital era, not even that).
We're talking 10, 15 trillion? More?
That's a massive economic advantage. It's also not possible for everyone in the world to do it (only one lucky country gets to) and it's certainly not sustainable.
So I'd personally be slow to think that the current economic system is rational, or even successful.
I will try to respond to your other post tomorrow. Very tired.
Because for example, many people won't see the need to build a dam until their house is 2 feet underwater.
So the moral response is to force them to pay for the dam at gunpoint? Why not let them suffer the consequences of letting their house flood?
If they live close enough to the river to have their house flooded, don't you think they're aware of the risk? So the answer, if they don't voluntarily pay for the dam, is to extort them at gunpoint?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
The IMF does not give two shits.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
No, he disengaged because you can't debate without relentless name calling and personal insults, which weakens anything you say and makes you look like you're about 12 years old. Grow the fuck up and quit acting like a complete douche.
Ok, let's change the scenario a bit. Your town has a valley in it, and 60% of the residents in that valley decide to chip-in to build a dam. The other 40% don't believe it's useful, because they simply aren't educated enough on the benefits or possible consequences of having a dam, or they simply can't afford it. Then what happens? The 60% foot the bill, while the 40% get to reap the benefits for free?
Or how about if we're neighbors, and you decide it's beneficial to have the water supply tested by an independent company, whereas I don't see the value in it? Do we have to drink from different water supplies? Or do you just foot the full bill for the testing, while I reap the rewards of drinking tested water?
Or when a forest fire shows up 70km outside of town, which water bombers help put out, but I didn't help pitch-in to purchase them. Why do I get to live with the benefits of having water bombers in town, and my house saved because of them?
As you can see, there's an unlimited number of these scenarios. There's loads of different things like this that help make our lives as safe and comfortable as they currently are, and we should all be forced to pay our fair share of them.
If the majority of sales (not transactions) aren't black market based, what are they based on? How often do you realistically spend your BTC? The whole market is built around speculation and black market dealings at the moment.
As I said, let's revisit this thread in three months, six months and a year and see where the BTC is at compared to the USD.
As I said, let's revisit this thread in three months, six months and a year and see where the BTC is at compared to the USD.
Let's be fucking honest. BTC transactions unrelated to speculation is all blackhat/underground shit. Saying otherwise, you are delusional. What other transactions would it be? Surely not public, legal transactions... because then the obvious thing in that case is to go with the flow and do it like it be.
I don't know about majority, but spending time at bitcointalk.org I see more and more digitally based services/service providers accepting bitcoin. like this designer. if people believe it has value, more will accept it.
How can you not see how retarded your argument is?
First, define fair share. If I don't want something but I am forced to pay for it (say public schools but I send my kids to a private school), what is my fair share?
What if I have my own water supply, what if my house is fireproof etc... Why would I have to pay for those services if I don't want them?
Even if they would benefit me, where do you get the right to force me to use them?
Logic, not even once.