Post: #26

(03-12-2014 08:06 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  I don't know the context, but I've head that John Kenneth Galbraith was quoted as saying " In the long run, we are all dead."

No, that was the homosexual pedophile John Maynard Keynes, who is the inspiration for most the current new-Keynsian economists like Paul Krugman.

The problem is, Keynes may be dead, but we are now in the 'long run' from what began with Bretton-Woods 60 years ago.

Post: #27

I think the only reason Keynesian economics became widespread was because Keynes gave theoretical justification for the governments to do all the stupid shit they want to do in order to increase their power at the expense of a common citizen. If you have read The General theory, you should know that anyone with some common sense can see that it has pretty ridiculous concepts. Haven't read his other works but apparently Keynes has a book called 'Economic consequences of peace' which could justify war...

The reason our monetary system is a ponzi scheme because debt is basically stealing money from our future citizens: like in a classic ponzi scheme, the early-adopters win while the later adopters only lose. In a sense, the whole socialist government is a ponzi scheme because the first citizens got the pensions and whatnot with very little contribution while future generators need to pay more and more taxes with money which has less and less value. Inflation is a hidden tax.

Post: #28

The current society don´t give a fuck about future so they could as well destroy future generations. In comparison stealing money from future generations is maybe more acceptable.

Post: #29

You guys need to understand the difference between and independent central bank and a private central bank. Once you do that, you'll realize that all these YouTube conspiracy videos are bullshit.

Post: #30

(03-13-2014 06:38 AM)j r Wrote:  You guys need to understand the difference between and independent central bank and a private central bank. Once you do that, you'll realize that all these YouTube conspiracy videos are bullshit.

Genuinely interested - what is the difference, and how does it make the Youtube videos invalid? Thanks.

Post: #31

(03-13-2014 06:54 AM)Scuba_Instructor Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 06:38 AM)j r Wrote:  You guys need to understand the difference between and independent central bank and a private central bank. Once you do that, you'll realize that all these YouTube conspiracy videos are bullshit.

Genuinely interested - what is the difference, and how does it make the Youtube videos invalid? Thanks.

A central bank is a country's monetary authority. It sets the country's monetary policy. It is independent of the other parts of the government to maintain an independent monetary policy. In other words, the Fed is independent of Congress to keep Congress from being able to do things like dictate interest rates or increase the money supply for political reasons.

Central banks are not private in the sense that they are owned by private citizens. The people who run and staff central banks are government employees. The Fed System is a little weird in that the Fed branches are technically owned by the commercial bank in that district, but ownership in this sense only means that the bank keeps its reserves at the Fed branch and is entitled to borrow at the overnight window. Banks don't make any real money off of being a part of the Fed system. It's just the way the banking system is designed.

Post: #32

(03-12-2014 10:40 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  Not true. Most societies for most of human history have been egalitarian.

If "history" means the time since the invention of writing, not so much. Prehistory, ok, sure.

Post: #33

(03-13-2014 12:39 AM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 11:55 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  Can you buy groceries with bitcoin or gold?

Didn't think so, and I don't see it happening in our lifetime. If someone proves me wrong, great, I actually hope someone does.

Your wish is granted.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rakeshsharma...-bitcoins/

http://www.coindesk.com/groceries-bitcoi...r-walmart/

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments...reshfully/

(03-12-2014 11:55 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  There are families and organizations that have been in power for centuries. They control resources that you cannot possibly fathom. To think that you can simply opt out of the structure that they have built is laughable.

People laughed about e-commerce in 1996 when your local mall probably transacted more business than the entire internet combined.

The network effect once combined with tech is an unstoppable force.

It sweep aside all before it. You don't think Whatsapp messaging is going to surpass all SMS traffic combined?

There are countless examples and this will be no different.

(03-12-2014 11:55 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  But mark my words, if anything ever came close to threatening their control over the socioeconomic power schemes that are in place, they would stomp it out faster than you can blink.

Except that they can't this time and this is the reason why.

I'm as anti-establishment as the next guy but I'm still not buying it.

I saw those articles about buying groceries with Bitcoin after I wrote that post. The problem that I see is that Bitcoin only comes into play in the final transaction and is still valued in terms of exchange to dollars.

The grocery store buys the product from a vendor with dollars.

The vendor buys the product from a supplier with dollars.

The supplier runs their business in dollars. Pay their controllable and non-controllable expenses in dollars.

As I see it, the only vendors that accept Bitcoin might as well accept Euros and Pesos as well and just run an exchange during checkout.

I'm not too savvy on Bitcoin but it appears to me that people are still valuating it in relation to USD. It seems that people getting into Bitcoin are mostly interested as an investment vehicle and not a currency. Ok so a bunch of people jump on board and have a certain % of their assets in Bitcoin...doing what with it? Waiting to sell? Waiting to be able to pay rent in Bitcoin? What exactly is the game plan there?

I can absolutely see the value in alternative currencies that are independent of a central bank and valuated by a peer-based network. I think it's fantastic idea. I just don't see it threatening the current system at all.

I was a teen in '96 btw and I don't remember anyone laughing at all. I remember a shitload of people that were excited to shop online.

Quote:The network effect once combined with tech is an unstoppable force.

Right, and now we have the NSA with their tentacles deep into Google and telecom. If you think tech is somehow independent from government control I think Edward Snowden would like to have a word with you....

Post: #34

I just want to clarify that I don't want to come across as a naysayer here. I hope with all my heart that Bitcoin catches on and we can push the Fed into obsolescence.

But once The Establishment starts to feel the threat, I anticipate Big Brother to double down on his efforts. I can foresee some crazy high level monitoring system from the NSA that's able to track Bitcoin transactions and you'll see penalties, fines, taxes, the same shit we have now. Could you imagine buying stock on a new exchange with Bitcoin? That'd be fucking sweet but there's no way the gov't is going to miss out on cap gains tax.

Post: #35

JJ: I give you credit for starting this thread. Most people will not get it. They would rather keep their heads stuck in the sand -- and not bother learning the most basic precepts of money supply or economics.

Quote:Why the Founding Fathers Made Their Own Money
FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE · Mar 13th, 2014

It is an interesting historical fact that people who take part in rebellions tend to coin their own money – not when the rebellion concludes, but as it starts.

There is good evidence that silver half shekels, like the one pictured above, were actually minted on the Temple Mount during the Jewish Rebellion against Rome in 66-70 AD. (The wonderful Biblical Archaeology Review ran an article on the subject.)

And this case is hardly unique; there have been many rebellions that promptly issued their own currency. Here is Massachusetts currency from 1776, issued early in the American Revolutionary War:

The primary reason that rebels create their own currency is that monetary control is far more of a force than people realize. Baron Rothschild was not being overly flamboyant when he said, “Give me control over a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.” Being able to manipulate a money supply is a fantastic power, affecting every part of an economy. If you know in advance that the money supply will go up (diluting its value) or contract (concentrating its value), you immediately gain a massive advantage over everyone else – and you can target this advantage to help or hurt almost any group you choose.

Because of this, a rebel group that is tied to their opponent’s money has nearly lost before the battles begin. Serious rebels learn this quickly.

The Modern Rebellion

The rebellion that we’re all part of is not an armed rebellion, but a moral rebellion. And, interestingly enough, our rebellion understood very early on that money was a primary factor in our enslavement.

The roots of our rebellion go back as far as the first oppressed man or woman who thought clearly about morality, whenever that was. In modern times, however, we can trace our rebellion back to the 1940s – a time in which Mises had already been examining the foundations of money, Hayek was interested in competing currencies, and Rand was examining the morality of money.

(I’m passing over very many good people in the above paragraph. May they forgive my brevity.)

In our lifetimes, we’ve had David Chaum’s work on digital cash, Orlin Grabbe’s work (both theoretical and practical), e-gold, Pecunix, networks of exchangers, subsidiary services, and, most recently, crypto-currencies, beginning with Bitcoin. Our moral rebellion is not slowing down.

What matters about all of these currencies (and many more I haven’t mentioned) is that they are all rebel currencies. Sure, a few criminals and Ponzi operators have made use of our technologies, but that’s simply unavoidable. How many crooks use government money? (Answer: all of them.)

Rebel Morality

I think it’s important to make a few points about this moral rebellion of ours:

This is not about attacking anyone or even attacking the current systems of oppression. Yes, every individual has the right to self-defense, but what we’re after here is not to lord it over anyone else, but being left alone to live as we wish.

We must treat our fellow men and women with respect, even if they are wrong. If they want to be ruled by a state, that’s their choice, and we have no right to rip it away from them. (If it crashes without our coerced “support,” that’s not our problem.) If we think that people are being stupid to choose state serfdom, we should convince them that other ways are better, but we cannot force them to live our way and still call ourselves moral.

Our rebellion money has actually done a fine job of supporting these two moral points. The supposed failures of these currencies were primarily that they couldn’t withstand coercive and violent attacks. In other words, they worked very well; their “problems” were attacks from the status quo: a system of coercion and violence, masquerading as justice.

What we are now seeing is a moral awakening. Young people are questioning the systems that supposedly sustain them but actually use them as slaves.

When people begin to see the world in moral terms, they quickly perceive the deep immorality of the status quo – a system that is utterly dependent upon coercion and deception. If there is a root to the continuance and success of honest, rebel money, this is it.

In the end, our battle is this: morality versus coercion and deception.

http://www.freemansperspective.com/rebel...d%20online

Post: #36

(03-13-2014 03:51 AM)berserk Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 08:06 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  I don't know the context, but I've head that John Kenneth Galbraith was quoted as saying " In the long run, we are all dead."

No, that was the homosexual pedophile John Maynard Keynes, who is the inspiration for most the current new-Keynsian economists like Paul Krugman.

Geez, I know the libertarians hate Keynes, but what about attacking his work instead of his sexual preference? Oh wait, Keynes was right and the Austrians have always been wrong, therefore it's easier to attack the man than his theories.

Post: #37

(03-14-2014 12:41 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 03:51 AM)berserk Wrote:  

(03-12-2014 08:06 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  I don't know the context, but I've head that John Kenneth Galbraith was quoted as saying " In the long run, we are all dead."

No, that was the homosexual pedophile John Maynard Keynes, who is the inspiration for most the current new-Keynsian economists like Paul Krugman.

Geez, I know the libertarians hate Keynes, but what about attacking his work instead of his sexual preference? Oh wait, Keynes was right and the Austrians have always been wrong, therefore it's easier to attack the man than his theories.

That is an amazingly short-sighted comment. Nothing exists in a vacuum. A person's sexuality will certainly influence his politics and his economic views. You can see it everywhere today with the in-your-face forced acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.

I myself did not realize that Keynes was a homosexual, but it actually makes perfect sense in light of his strange economic policies that lack any logic.

By way of example, as noted above, Keynes is most famous for his quip, “In the long run we are all dead.” This was his response to any criticism of his work that argued that the long-run consequences of his policies would be disastrous. In other words, why care about the future? Simply live for today -- and forget about the potential economic ruin of tomorrow.

Ideas have consequences. Sexual preferences influence people’s ideas. If an economist is a homosexual who will never have children, then it is obvious that he could care less about future generations and the fact that his short-run economic policies are disastrous. That is exactly the problem that we face today, because of Keynes' imbecilic economic policies.

In that sense, Keynes’ economic system can honestly be described as the economics of perversion.

Post: #38

Short sighted? How so, because I don't agree with your ideology? I could say the same thing about your point of view. I know all about how libertarians follow Austrian economics but the thing is that the people who argue against Keynes never really tell us how his theories are wrong. How are his policies imbecilic, perverted, strange or lacking any logic? How? The old argument that he was gay, therefore couldn't have children, therefore he didn't care about the future generations is not only silly but has been debunked so many times, and yet ideologues still cling to it.

If libertarianism/austrian economics provided more than the same old "the collapse is coming any minute now", "buy gold", "fiat money is not real money" mantras I'd be all hears, but no, it's the same thing over and over, for decades and decades. That's the problem with ideology, people get stuck in their mindset. I don't care about ideology, I care about making money, unfortunately following the advice of the Peter Schiffs of the world will make you lose money in the real world, not make it, otherwise I'd be all over it.

Post: #39

(03-14-2014 01:18 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  Short sighted? How so, because I don't agree with your ideology? I could say the same thing about your point of view. I know all about how libertarians follow Austrian economics but the thing is that the people who argue against Keynes never really tell us how his theories are wrong. How are his policies imbecilic, perverted, strange or lacking any logic? How?

If libertarianism/austrian economics provided more than the same old "the collapse is coming any minute now", "buy gold", "fiat money is not real money" mantras I'd be all hears, but no, it's the same thing over and over, for decades and decades. That's the problem with ideology, people get stuck in their mindset. I don't care about ideology, I care about making money, unfortunately following the advice of the Peter Schiffs of the world will make you lose money in the real world, not make it, otherwise I'd be all over it.

I am not a libertarian. Try again.

Moreover, I did not suggest that you were short-sighted because you do not agree with my ideology, but because you put forth the rather strange proposition that a person's sexual preference cannot impact their economic or political views. Re-read my post.

In fact, a person's sexual preference can impact many things. For example, most of the top serial killers in U.S. history were homosexuals.

Quote:How are his policies imbecilic, perverted, strange or lacking any logic? How?

If a family spends vastly more each year than it receives in yearly wages and does this over the course of many decades while expecting prosperity to magically appear as a result, would you not call such reasoning "imbecilic, perverted, strange or lacking any logic?"

Post: #40

Bitcoin is an example of why we don't have the gold standard anymore. The people who accumulate the most bitcoin at the very beginning get an "unfair" advantage over the rest of the populace. Some people say it's because the original "pioneers" were "risk-takers", but when did it become natural to become a risk-taker? Nature is risk-averse. We only take risks when it is absolutely necessary.

Our current currency system, with the FED lending money at low interest rates is also un-fair, but is it less un-fair than something like BitCoins or the gold-standard? I think so. Why? Because at least the availability of funds is much more fluid (and much more natural).

BitCoins are also unregulated, so when some problem occurs, as happened with Mt Gox, there is no powerful government agency with a mighty enforcement force to take care of the discrepancy.

Post: #41

(03-14-2014 02:03 AM)kerouac Wrote:  The people who accumulate the most bitcoin at the very beginning get an "unfair" advantage over the rest of the populace.

But couldnt we say the same about those who buy stock and keep it, hoard commodities, or buy gold expecting it to "steadily rise its market price"?

Post: #42

Related:

Post: #43

(03-14-2014 02:21 AM)germanico Wrote:  Related:
[video]

I liked the second one better. I have listened it 9999 times






Bitcoin is for the government similar threat what bittorrent was to music industry. They cannot stop it, they can only slow it down and in order for them to stay relevant they have evolve.

Post: #44

(03-14-2014 02:16 AM)germanico Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 02:03 AM)kerouac Wrote:  The people who accumulate the most bitcoin at the very beginning get an "unfair" advantage over the rest of the populace.

But couldnt we say the same about those who buy stock and keep it, hoard commodities, or buy gold expecting it to "steadily rise its market price"?

I'd say no, because money is a form of lubrication for the marketplace. The money supply directly affects how many people are employed, etc. Having a fixed market-supply, like gold-standard or bitcoin, slows down economic movement, and places it in the hands of too few. A looser money supply, with available credit, gives more people an opportunity to thrive.

Bitcoin, from what I understand, was meant to be a sort of alternative currency that could be used to exchange goods (ie. a new form of money). Its fixed supply isn't conducive to much, aside from people using the available supply, exchanging it for hard-money currency, and making more-anonymous transactions. Or using it as many use gold, holding onto the currency and hoping for a rise in value (in other words, for speculation). I don't think Bitcoin could have ever overtaken the regular money supply.