Bitcoin - Part 2

[Craig B]

Instead of comparing bitcoin with a share, why not compare it with a fiat Federal Reserve Note?

Because fiat FR notes don't fluctuate in value by prodigious amounts, rising and collapsing by huge percentages in short periods. If they did they would be of little use for their main functions, to act as a store of value and as a means of conducting purchases and sales.

Shares sometimes fluctuate madly in times of bubbles, so they are in fact a better comparator. However, shares of viable companies have a fundamental lower value in virtue of their representing ownership of a going concern. Bitcoin doesn't, and it doesn't function as a predictable currency unit, so isn't really an effective form of money.

Except for speculation, it seems to have no value at all.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Champagne anyone?

 

[Tippit]

Because fiat FR notes don't fluctuate in value by prodigious amounts, rising and collapsing by huge percentages in short periods. If they did they would be of little use for their main functions, to act as a store of value and as a means of conducting purchases and sales.

They don't fluctuate so much as just lose value constantly, as real wealth is stolen in perpetuity by money issuers. They've certainly fluctuated (down) vs. bitcoin, and virtually any other asset.

Shares sometimes fluctuate madly in times of bubbles, so they are in fact a better comparator. However, shares of viable companies have a fundamental lower value in virtue of their representing ownership of a going concern. Bitcoin doesn't, and it doesn't function as a predictable currency unit, so isn't really an effective form of money.

Except for speculation, it seems to have no value at all.

Lol. It has a value of $19,110 as of right now. I think we get your point though. Do you have anything else to add to the thread? It's a bubble, we get it. You're the smart money in the room.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Because fiat FR notes don't fluctuate in value by prodigious amounts, rising and collapsing by huge percentages in short periods. If they did they would be of little use for their main functions, to act as a store of value and as a means of conducting purchases and sales.

Shares sometimes fluctuate madly in times of bubbles, so they are in fact a better comparator. However, shares of viable companies have a fundamental lower value in virtue of their representing ownership of a going concern. Bitcoin doesn't, and it doesn't function as a predictable currency unit, so isn't really an effective form of money.

Except for speculation, it seems to have no value at all.

 

[psionl0]

If a dealer sold 100,000 bitcoins a month ago they got paid a certain amount. If all their customers decided to cash in tomorrow do you think they have the money to pay out?

Stockbrokers don't buy and sell stocks and anybody who has sold stocks (unless it was a short) has no obligation to buy them back.

Why should it be any different with bitcoin?

 

[Craig B]

They don't fluctuate so much as just lose value constantly, as real wealth is stolen in perpetuity by money issuers. They've certainly fluctuated (down) vs. bitcoin, and virtually any other asset.



Lol. It has a value of $19,110 as of right now. I think we get your point though. Do you have anything else to add to the thread? It's a bubble, we get it. You're the smart money in the room.

You must be even smarter than me if you know that the Federal Reserve system is a secret cabal of evil doers stealing our wealth in perpetuity, while Bitcoin has a "value" of €19,110. I think you mean a "price".

If that price suddenly goes down, will the lost "value" have been stolen from innocent citizens by a conspiracy of crooks? You'll need to tell us who they are, because I'm sure you'll have special information unavailable to the ignorant masses about these miscreants who steal "value". Soros? The Rothschilds?

 

[Thabiguy]

They don't fluctuate so much as just lose value constantly, as real wealth is stolen in perpetuity by money issuers.

I believe you are talking about inflation. One could also call it the "money holding tax". If one regularly spends all they earn and never makes any substantial savings, inflation is practically inconsequential to them, because it is very low on short time scales - quite negligible in fact in comparison to other taxes they have to pay.

If one does make substantial savings and holds them over a longer period of time, yes, it's unwise to hold them as nominal currency, because the savings would lose value over time. But that's hardly a brilliant insight; anyone who knows the first thing about economics will tell you that. Which is also why most people who do have substantial savings don't just keep them in monetary form, but invest them in some way.

Since fiat currencies are not (or should not) be used to store value over extended periods of time, it is pointless to compare bitcoin to them in that regard. One should instead compare bitcoin to what people do store value in.

One can of course compare bitcoin to fiat currencies in how they work as a currency, in which case bitcoin will come out particularly atrocious.

 

[Tippit]

You must be even smarter than me if you know that the Federal Reserve system is a secret cabal of evil doers stealing our wealth in perpetuity, while Bitcoin has a "value" of €19,110. I think you mean a "price".

Yes, now that you mention it, I am smarter than you. Also, why did you quote the price in Euros? More evidence.

If that price suddenly goes down, will the lost "value" have been stolen from innocent citizens by a conspiracy of crooks? You'll need to tell us who they are, because I'm sure you'll have special information unavailable to the ignorant masses about these miscreants who steal "value". Soros? The Rothschilds?

Possibly, yes. There are rumors of central bank manipulation in bitcoin. They could press a few keys on a computer and buy as much as they want. There are also some bitcoin manipulators engaged in wash sales and other types of manipulation (google "spoofy bitcoin").

As far as Soros, he's only worth $20 or $30 billion, as I recall, which is a pittance compared to the Rothschilds, who are undoubtedly worth trillions. Soros is merely an agent, much like JP Morgan was in years past.

 

[Tippit]

I believe you are talking about inflation. One could also call it the "money holding tax". If one regularly spends all they earn and never makes any substantial savings, inflation is practically inconsequential to them, because it is very low on short time scales - quite negligible in fact in comparison to other taxes they have to pay.

I'm talking about money creation, which is specifically different than "inflation", which is a concocted government index that is hedonically manipulated. The problem with your logic is that it is not only savings which are denominated in depreciating currencies, but also wages themselves. So even if you act to disown fiat currency as quickly as you receive it, unless your employer is willing to renegotiate your wage, or you're lucky enough to be paid in gold or something for which the supply is not infinite, then you will be adversely affected anyway.

Realistically, poor people don't spend everything they earn, and their meager savings represent a larger part of their net worth than wealthy people, so they are hurt proportionally more by the money scam.

If one does make substantial savings and holds them over a longer period of time, yes, it's unwise to hold them as nominal currency, because the savings would lose value over time. But that's hardly a brilliant insight; anyone who knows the first thing about economics will tell you that. Which is also why most people who do have substantial savings don't just keep them in monetary form, but invest them in some way.

A lot of people are only "invested" in checking or savings accounts, and many around the world don't even have bank accounts, so they're "invested" in fiat currency. Many of these people don't have much choice, as they don't have disposable income to invest. And what of all of these people? Why should they be forced to pay such a regressive tax (or theft, depending).

Since fiat currencies are not (or should not) be used to store value over extended periods of time, it is pointless to compare bitcoin to them in that regard. One should instead compare bitcoin to what people do store value in.

The fact that fiat currency is a terrible store of value doesn't mean that people don't and aren't forced to use them as a store of value, in many cases. I'm merely remarking on the poster's apparent and implicit love for fraudulent and intrinsically worthless fiat currency, while badmouthing bitcoin.

One can of course compare bitcoin to fiat currencies in how they work as a currency, in which case bitcoin will come out particularly atrocious.

That depends on whether you bought or sold that 10,000 bitcoin pizza of legend, doesn't it?

 

[Craig B]

Yes, now that you mention it, I am smarter than you. Also, why did you quote the price in Euros? More evidence.



Possibly, yes. There are rumors of central bank manipulation in bitcoin. They could press a few keys on a computer and buy as much as they want. There are also some bitcoin manipulators engaged in wash sales and other types of manipulation (google "spoofy bitcoin").

As far as Soros, he's only worth $20 or $30 billion, as I recall, which is a pittance compared to the Rothschilds, who are undoubtedly worth trillions. Soros is merely an agent, much like JP Morgan was in years past.

Morgan hid his subservience to the trillionaire Rothschilds, who secretly control the whole world, by adopting notoriously anti Semitic behaviour. I bet the Rothschilds told him to do this, so Jews are responsible for anti semitism too, eh?.

... conditions got worse, not better, for American Jews in the late 19th century, as many social clubs, universities, and resorts began excluding Jews. J. P. Morgan made anti-Semitic comments in his private correspondence. He even made the hyperbolic claim that his bank and Barings were the only ’white’ (that is, non-Jewish) banks in New York (p. 91). In effect, he was questioning the whiteness of the Jews at a time when non-white immigrants could not even become citizens. Pak suggests that rising anti-Semitism led to the marginalization of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. and the entrenchment of Morgan’s privileged position in the financial world.​

 

[Craig B]

The fact that fiat currency is a terrible store of value doesn't mean that people don't and aren't forced to use them as a store of value, in many cases. I'm merely remarking on the poster's apparent and implicit love for fraudulent and intrinsically worthless fiat currency, while badmouthing bitcoin.

Bitcoin is a bubble. I'm no more badmouthing it than I'm badmouthing Railway lines (1845 bubble) or tulips (1637).

That depends on whether you bought or sold that 10,000 bitcoin pizza of legend, doesn't it?

If nobody can predict whether a pizza is going to be worth 10,000 bitcoins, or a Bitcoin worth 10,000 pizzas, then it's not an effective currency, is it?

 

[psionl0]

Bitcoin is a bubble. I'm no more badmouthing it than I'm badmouthing Railway lines (1845 bubble) or tulips (1637). If nobody can predict whether a pizza is going to be worth 10,000 bitcoins, or a Bitcoin worth 10,000 pizzas, then it's not an effective currency, is it?

You can't refute posts by repeating your POV ad-nauseum.

 

[Thabiguy]

I'm talking about money creation, which is specifically different than "inflation", which is a concocted government index that is hedonically manipulated. The problem with your logic is that it is not only savings which are denominated in depreciating currencies, but also wages themselves. So even if you act to disown fiat currency as quickly as you receive it, unless your employer is willing to renegotiate your wage, or you're lucky enough to be paid in gold or something for which the supply is not infinite, then you will be adversely affected anyway.

This doesn't sound like a particularly revealing insight. The fact that if your employer doesn't give you any raises, your effective wage is decreasing over time, should be common knowledge. Of course you have to renegotiate your wage, not only because of inflation, but also because your work experience should presumably make your market worth increase over time. And if it does, and your employer is not willing to give you a raise, then they are ripping you off, and you should quit and find a better employer. I believe you can get that much wisdom from any basic online article about job and wage negotiation.

Realistically, poor people don't spend everything they earn, and their meager savings represent a larger part of their net worth than wealthy people, so they are hurt proportionally more by the money scam.

My experience with lower income class is exactly opposite. The poor people that I know have no appreciable savings; if anything, they have debts.
It's conceivable that my experience is not representative, but in that case I'm only willing to be convinced otherwise by some verifiable statistical evidence to the contrary, not by your claims.

A lot of people are only "invested" in checking or savings accounts, and many around the world don't even have bank accounts, so they're "invested" in fiat currency. Many of these people don't have much choice, as they don't have disposable income to invest. And what of all of these people? Why should they be forced to pay such a regressive tax (or theft, depending).

I believe you are contradicting yourself. Either these people have savings, or they don't. If they have savings, then they have something to invest (the savings, obviously). If they have nothing to invest, then they have no savings either.
Perhaps in a totalitarian country you could find people who do have savings and cannot invest them. Anywhere else, people who have savings but do not have the choice of investing them in anything (housing, education, working tools, children, precious items, cans of food, or anything else), so they are "forced" to keep their savings in currency under their bed, do not exist. Therefore, nothing of those people.

The fact that fiat currency is a terrible store of value doesn't mean that people don't and aren't forced to use them as a store of value, in many cases. I'm merely remarking on the poster's apparent and implicit love for fraudulent and intrinsically worthless fiat currency, while badmouthing bitcoin.

Again, you are contradicting yourself. Nobody is "forced" to use money as a store of value for decades (which is the scale where inflation becomes appreciable), and if they genuinely are forced to do that, then by definition they are unable to store their value in anything else, which then of course also includes bitcoin, so bitcoin is of no use to all these imaginary unfortunates. As much as they might wish to buy it, they cannot, because they are forced to store their savings in fiat currency, remember?

That depends on whether you bought or sold that 10,000 bitcoin pizza of legend, doesn't it?

It definitely doesn't, no.

 

[Craig B]

You can't refute posts by repeating your POV ad-nauseum.

I suppose I can refute them by changing my point of view in each post?

 

[psionl0]

 

[Tippit]

Morgan hid his subservience to the trillionaire Rothschilds, who secretly control the whole world, by adopting notoriously anti Semitic behaviour. I bet the Rothschilds told him to do this, so Jews are responsible for anti semitism too, eh?.

... conditions got worse, not better, for American Jews in the late 19th century, as many social clubs, universities, and resorts began excluding Jews. J. P. Morgan made anti-Semitic comments in his private correspondence. He even made the hyperbolic claim that his bank and Barings were the only ’white’ (that is, non-Jewish) banks in New York (p. 91). In effect, he was questioning the whiteness of the Jews at a time when non-white immigrants could not even become citizens. Pak suggests that rising anti-Semitism led to the marginalization of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. and the entrenchment of Morgan’s privileged position in the financial world.​

The Rothschilds create hysteria about and hide behind anti-semitism, because anyone who calls them out is simply discredited as a bigot by small-minded people. It's historical knowledge that JP Morgan was an agent of the Rothschild dynasty in the US.

 

[Tippit]

If nobody can predict whether a pizza is going to be worth 10,000 bitcoins, or a Bitcoin worth 10,000 pizzas, then it's not an effective currency, is it?

That depends on whether being a store of value (or in this case, a parabolic gain in wealth) is more or less important to you than a medium of exchange. My friend who is worth hundreds of millions now is happy with it whatever you call it.

 

[Tippit]

This doesn't sound like a particularly revealing insight. The fact that if your employer doesn't give you any raises, your effective wage is decreasing over time, should be common knowledge. Of course you have to renegotiate your wage, not only because of inflation, but also because your work experience should presumably make your market worth increase over time. And if it does, and your employer is not willing to give you a raise, then they are ripping you off, and you should quit and find a better employer. I believe you can get that much wisdom from any basic online article about job and wage negotiation.

I agree with most of this, except the idea that real wages decreasing over time is "common knowledge". Most people haven't a clue about the money scam. Also, your employer not giving you a raise is not the one ripping you off, the money issuers who are stealing wealth by issuing money are the ones ripping you off. How is this not crystal clear to you?

My experience with lower income class is exactly opposite. The poor people that I know have no appreciable savings; if anything, they have debts.
It's conceivable that my experience is not representative, but in that case I'm only willing to be convinced otherwise by some verifiable statistical evidence to the contrary, not by your claims.

Truly poor people don't have any credit, and therefore don't have any debts, or assets, and live mostly day-to-day. Since everyone needs money to survive, it follows that money is the largest share of their few assets, and so they are hurt the most by the debasement of currency. This is obvious a priori, you don't need any evidence to know that poor people have few assets, and that most of those are probably cash - the very thing that is being devalued.

I believe you are contradicting yourself. Either these people have savings, or they don't. If they have savings, then they have something to invest (the savings, obviously). If they have nothing to invest, then they have no savings either.

If they literally live hand-to-mouth, then no, they don't have savings, in which case the suppression of their wages is their biggest problem, and this occurs for a number of reasons including the money scam. People who have savings but no credit are the ones who are hurt the most.

Perhaps in a totalitarian country you could find people who do have savings and cannot invest them. Anywhere else, people who have savings but do not have the choice of investing them in anything (housing, education, working tools, children, precious items, cans of food, or anything else), so they are "forced" to keep their savings in currency under their bed, do not exist. Therefore, nothing of those people.

The fact that investments may or may not exist as alternatives to fiat currency doesn't excuse the corruption of the money system, and the issuance of untold trillions to elites in order to suppress interest rates and appropriate the world's most valuable assets.

Again, you are contradicting yourself. Nobody is "forced" to use money as a store of value for decades (which is the scale where inflation becomes appreciable), and if they genuinely are forced to do that, then by definition they are unable to store their value in anything else, which then of course also includes bitcoin, so bitcoin is of no use to all these imaginary unfortunates. As much as they might wish to buy it, they cannot, because they are forced to store their savings in fiat currency, remember?

It definitely doesn't, no.

Wrong. In fact, vast numbers of people are forced to hold and use fiat currency because of legal tender laws, as well as the petrodollar scam which serves the same purpose globally as legal tender laws do domestically. If you're trying to argue that elites vastly increasing the money supply doesn't have any appreciable consequences and isn't the root cause the insane condensation of wealth and visible wealth disparity in the world, then you're just clueless and I can't help you.

 

[Thabiguy]

I agree with most of this, except the idea that real wages decreasing over time is "common knowledge". Most people haven't a clue about the money scam. Also, your employer not giving you a raise is not the one ripping you off, the money issuers who are stealing wealth by issuing money are the ones ripping you off. How is this not crystal clear to you?

It's clear to me that if my employer pays me less than I'm currently worth on the job market, and refuses to give me a raise, then it's my employer who is ripping me off. This would obviously be true even in a hypothetical case of zero inflation.

Truly poor people don't have any credit, and therefore don't have any debts, or assets, and live mostly day-to-day. Since everyone needs money to survive, it follows that money is the largest share of their few assets, and so they are hurt the most by the debasement of currency. This is obvious a priori, you don't need any evidence to know that poor people have few assets, and that most of those are probably cash - the very thing that is being devalued.

If a person lives from paycheck to paycheck, then they are barely affected by inflation, because the money they are paid and the money they spend (before the next paycheck, by definition) has almost the same value. Any value lost to inflation is negligible compared to what such a person pays in sales tax, income tax, and other taxes.
What inflation does affect is money that is spent a significant time after it is gained, such as savings.

If they literally live hand-to-mouth, then no, they don't have savings, in which case the suppression of their wages is their biggest problem, and this occurs for a number of reasons including the money scam. People who have savings but no credit are the ones who are hurt the most.

I do agree that wage earners need raises to offset inflation, and should not leave their savings uninvested to avoid their gradual devaluation over time.
I wouldn't say that's their biggest problem.

The fact that investments may or may not exist as alternatives to fiat currency doesn't excuse the corruption of the money system, and the issuance of untold trillions to elites in order to suppress interest rates and appropriate the world's most valuable assets.

Oh. Okay.

Wrong. In fact, vast numbers of people are forced to hold and use fiat currency because of legal tender laws, as well as the petrodollar scam which serves the same purpose globally as legal tender laws do domestically. If you're trying to argue that elites vastly increasing the money supply doesn't have any appreciable consequences and isn't the root cause the insane condensation of wealth and visible wealth disparity in the world, then you're just clueless and I can't help you.

That's all right. Thanks for trying to help me, though; I do appreciate the sentiment.

 

[Tippit]

It's clear to me that if my employer pays me less than I'm currently worth on the job market, and refuses to give me a raise, then it's my employer who is ripping me off. This would obviously be true even in a hypothetical case of zero inflation.

Sure, but that's obvious, and irrelevant. We're not discussing the difference between your job market value and your wage, we're talking about the perpetual debasement of the unit of account for your wage. Are you trolling?

If a person lives from paycheck to paycheck, then they are barely affected by inflation, because the money they are paid and the money they spend (before the next paycheck, by definition) has almost the same value. Any value lost to inflation is negligible compared to what such a person pays in sales tax, income tax, and other taxes.
What inflation does affect is money that is spent a significant time after it is gained, such as savings.

Wrong. See above. If the unit of account for their wages is debased, then their wages as opposed to their nonexistent savings are debased, and they're affected by inflation. Any idea how many minimum wage hours it takes to buy premium Manhattan real estate? Lifetimes. We're going in circles.

I do agree that wage earners need raises to offset inflation, and should not leave their savings uninvested to avoid their gradual devaluation over time.
I wouldn't say that's their biggest problem.

Why do employers owe their employees raises for inflation? The theft of purchasing power accrued to the money issuer, not the businessman. The businessman's costs all go up, because there are fewer scarce resources as a result of the monetary debasement, yet you want to blame the businessman and not the banker. It seems you're one of the 999,999 thousand people that Keynes was talking about when he said:

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
​

That's all right. Thanks for trying to help me, though; I do appreciate the sentiment.

Sure thing.