|
I too want to believe that cypto-currencies will wrest control of our money out of the hands of the central banks but history shows that entire countries can be brought to their knees by the banks. The pragmatist in me acknowledges that the banks will most likely win in the end.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Foothill wrote: The primary reason is that the central banks spent several centuries getting a nearly world-wide monopoly on our money supplies.
Banks just like any other reasonable organization have come to realize that a stable economic exchange system leads to a better economic system.
There is no conspiracy to gain control but rather the historical reality that attempts at other systems always lead to failures where the current system provides stability that no one could have imagined before.
Banks do, just as the vast majority of organizations do, benefit from stable economies. And that is true for the world not just nations as many organizations seek to benefit from internationalization either directly or indirectly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been studying currencies for years now due to an interest in Forex. I am not a bazillionaire. This is a hobby of mine, so take my words with a grain of salt...
1) Rather than talk about the CEO of Bitcoin (he's obviously biased) I'll mention analysts...
First, psychology teaches us its fun to jump on the bandwagon AFTER we see positive movement. And while that's all fine and dandy because people following along gives us swings in the markets to play with. But it A: limits profits and B: by its very nature means most people don't have to have a clue as to *why* it happened. And that's actually ok if you don't care about long term trends, but I digress.
However, most will pretend they know to why things happened to sound smart. Remember, in the markets everyone claims to be rich and yet over 90% of people lose money (they just lie about it). So, forget what most people say. Watch what they DO. Because if they really know what they're talking about, they'd be in a yacht drinking mai tais.
The point... most analysts get paid to sound smart and get readers. They don't make millions from the market themselves. So really, what do most know, if they themselves aren't profitable with the market they claim to know? They're not scientists. They're not economists. They're not even bankers. So really... what do they know?
2) Now, on to the future. Paper currency will die in developed countries. Over the past 100 years humanity has had a digital revolution. That's going nowhere. As population keeps on increasing but land and resources don't, we'll have to find a way to stop using paper for this. And we have it... digital crypto-currencies.
However, it will take two generations at least to catch on big time. As in at least another 100 years. Old people that don't want to change will have to die to be blunt. Paper money will be around for a while, but it'll be phased out eventually just like gold was. In fact, there's not enough paper money right now to cover all the "money" in the US. Most of it is already just a number in a computer.
Bitcoin is the guinea pig. It's being watched heavily as a tool for the future. It could die a sudden death though and that won't stop crypto-currencies or digital currencies in general. We need something new. The US dollar is doomed for failure. Right now it's impossible to fix it. As soon as people try to cut costs to pay off debt, people want to wage war. It's gotten out of hand and we're headed for hyperinflation as a way to "lower our deficit" if we don't do something about it.
What will happen is regulation by banks before it's accepted ubiquitously. Banks aren't just going to give up their power willy-nilly. They're going to have some control over it. And since they have the money right now, they can watch Bitcion et al to see what happens then develop their own... to keep control.
And like most markets, I'm sure there will be another flip-flop in the future when that transition starts to happen. But we're still a long way away from it.
3) Yeah I'm long winded... whoops.  If you're asking if it's a good idea to invest in Bitcoin right now though, the answer is for the short term it depends... rallies don't last forever. For the long term... yes. Gold too for that matter. The dollar will die. It will be replaced by something. It may take a 100-200 years, but it's going away. Welcome to the digital age.
Jeremy Falcon
modified 24-Oct-17 17:41pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking of mining but I did the sums and it doesn't pay unless you are doing it as a hobby or you have enough to make a large investment in kit and you can fix your power and other costs.
|
|
|
|
|
From what I know (I never mined at all)... yeah mining doesn't really pay off these days. But I know zilch about mining, so you never know...
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: but it'll be phased out eventually just like gold was.
Since when is gold phased out? Did the US sell their stock?
A lot of economists idiots called it an relic, without knowing the basics of economics. Value is determined by how many uses a human has for it, with some things being required (food) and some not required, but usefull (coal). A kilo smartphones has more gold than a kilo of ore; it has always been valuable because humans have multiple uses for the easily-shaped non-corrosive metal. It can easily be divided, retains its value, does not rot, and even acts as a currency in wartime.
Did the Germans repatriate their gold out of tradition for a phased-out currency? Or are they stocking up a common resource that has a lot of demand?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Since when is gold phased out? Did the US sell their stock?
The gold standard was phased out. It's gone. Kaput. Of course gold exists. But the gold standard doesn't. This is pretty common knowledge with economists so I really didn't elaborate on it.
Gold Standard History and Facts[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote: A lot of economists idiots called it an relic, without knowing the basics of economics. Value is determined by how many uses a human has for it, with some things being required (food) and some not required, but usefull (coal). A kilo smartphones has more gold than a kilo of ore; it has always been valuable because humans have multiple uses for the easily-shaped non-corrosive metal. It can easily be divided, retains its value, does not rot, and even acts as a currency in wartime.
Yeah sure. But the gold standard is still phased out Eddy. And we're comparing apples and oranges here.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: This is pretty common knowledge with economists so I really didn't elaborate on it.
Listen to Alan Greenspan[^] on gold. Common knowledge with economists might not be reality 
Jeremy Falcon wrote: But the gold standard is still phased out Eddy. And we're comparing apples and oranges here.
I beg to differ; only gold is money. Everything else is credit.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Listen to Alan Greenspan[^] on gold. Common knowledge with economists might not be reality
I'm not convinced Greenspan takes his job seriously. That being said, my point still stands. I'm sure he's aware of the gold standard being gone too. Which is what I mean. Gotta stay on track bro.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I beg to differ; only gold is money. Everything else is credit.
I'm not gonna get into this. I know how precious metals and valuations work. Anyone who spends 1 day online googling "how to get rich" will find some information on gold.
I'm talking about governmental currencies. You can't go to the grocery store and buy food with gold.
Also, money and currency are not the same thing... read the links Eddy...
Currency vs Money: What’s the Difference? - Peter Schiff's Gold News[^]
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I'm not convinced Greenspan takes his job seriously. That being said, my point still stands. I'm sure he's aware of the gold standard being gone too. Which is what I mean. Gotta stay on track bro.
His job? His job was being the president of the FED. You did not provide any arguments on anything that might supercede it
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I'm talking about governmental currencies. You can't go to the grocery store and buy food with gold.
Haha, I bet you can in Venezuala 
The government can decide that any promise has value; they cannot deny the value of a commonly traded resource
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Also, money and currency are not the same thing... read the links Eddy...
Currency is mandated by the politicians, and worth as much as their promises. Compare that to an industrial resource that has value because it has multiple applications and some special chemical properties.
And yes, I prefer money above currency; wouldn't you, knowing that currencies are watered down? 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: His job? His job was being the president of the FED. You did not provide any arguments on anything that might supercede it
That's because, unlike you, I don't enjoy spending my time arguing online. I prefer talking to people with experience and not arguing online to kill time. 
Eddy Vluggen wrote: The government can decide that any promise has value; they cannot deny the value of a commonly traded resource
Apples and oranges man.... apples and oranges. Not gonna bother with this anymore.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Currency is mandated by the politicians, and worth as much as their promises. Compare that to an industrial resource that has value because it has multiple applications and some special chemical properties.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: And yes, I prefer money above currency; wouldn't you, knowing that currencies are watered down?
Try paying your rent with gold. I'm not anti-gold, but what you're doing is arguing against a point I never made just because you want to argue. That being said, google the word "liquidity" and go read some more. There's a time and place for each.
Why I allowed you to sucker me into this I don't know. Bye.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Try paying your rent with gold.
Gold is easily converted to the legal tender of your respective country.
Liquidity is what makes it a currency globally, regardless of your politics
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know much about economics if you can't even tell me what liquidity means. Have a nice day.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: You don't know much about economics if you can't even tell me what liquidity means. Have a nice day.
Nice deduction, and I will
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: . Banks aren't just going to give up their power willy-nilly. They're going to have some control over it. And since they have the money right now, they can watch Bitcion et al to see what happens then develop their own... to keep control.
I am wondering about this. And I still don't see a way they can do it, even if they create their own, they can't stop Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies from existing, plus the base of blockchain is no centralized control so... I see this as a point of no return, where banks can either board the train or be left behind.
PS: I saw the pointless discussion you got drawn into. Economics is hard, many people don't get it. It's hard to imagine value that's not based on a touchable asset (like gold). Gold does not back the currencies anymore, but they are an asset. Bitcoin is an asset (crypto asset) what I find hard to grasp is how much of it is a bubble, as it's hard to see what backs it, except for computing power and electricity.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Franco wrote: And I still don't see a way they can do it, even if they create their own, they can't stop Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies from existing, plus the base of blockchain is no centralized control so...
Drown the market with alternatives of lower quality.
Fabio Franco wrote: Economics is hard, many people don't get it. It's hard to imagine value that's not based on a touchable asset (like gold).
You mean things like labor, or idea's? Knowledge? Living in a country where summer is more than three months worth of rain?
Fabio Franco wrote: Bitcoin is an asset (crypto asset) what I find hard to grasp is how much of it is a bubble, as it's hard to see what backs it, except for computing power and electricity.
It is not "backed" by computing power nor by electricity. It has no other use outside of being usefull as a currency, meaning that that is the only thing giving it value.
As for the bubble-idea, it is not yet even a mainstream-thing.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Franco wrote: I am wondering about this. And I still don't see a way they can do it, even if they create their own, they can't stop Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies from existing, plus the base of blockchain is no centralized control so... I see this as a point of no return, where banks can either board the train or be left behind.
Yeah, I have no idea how it's going to be done either. It's a new world out there. Maybe they'll have government specific. Who knows, as we can only guess at this point. But I'm willing to bet something will change about it before the banks are like cool "it's gonna be the new dollar now."
Fabio Franco wrote: PS: I saw the pointless discussion you got drawn into. Economics is hard, many people don't get it. It's hard to imagine value that's not based on a touchable asset (like gold). Gold does not back the currencies anymore, but they are an asset. Bitcoin is an asset (crypto asset) what I find hard to grasp is how much of it is a bubble, as it's hard to see what backs it, except for computing power and electricity.
You are correct sir. When it comes to money and economics there are so many pretenders out there, and we've unfortunately found one on CP. Anyway, to your point, kinda makes you wonder, I know there are limits to the amount of BitCoin that can be generated, but in the future with quantum computing becoming mainstream... if we'll effectively be able to generate the max amount of currencies quickly and thus deflate them from popping the bubble instantly. We can only guess, but the future is crazy to think about.
About to read your hyperinflation post...
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: with quantum computing becoming mainstream...
I try no to think about it, because it asks more questions than it answers. What will happen with current cryptocurrencies once quantum computing becomes viable. Even before it reaches mainstream some powerful hands could break current cryptography. The defense of blockchain is because it's hard to crack, if it's not hard anymore then it becomes vulnerable.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: but the future is crazy to think about.
Tell me about it. Mind boggling.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Franco wrote: I try no to think about it, because it asks more questions than it answers. What will happen with current cryptocurrencies once quantum computing becomes viable. Even before it reaches mainstream some powerful hands could break current cryptography. The defense of blockchain is because it's hard to crack, if it's not hard anymore then it becomes vulnerable.
Yeah exactly. So something will need to change I'm sure. I suppose when computers eventually rule us they'll figure something out. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I suppose when computers eventually rule us they'll figure something out. 
Haha, singularity. I am scared of that.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
About Hyperinflation.
I have been working on a theory about that so let me know what you think if you so choose to read this.
When it comes to our commonly traded tenders, you sort of have to throw common sense out the window up to a point. Fiat currency does not behave like normal commodity backed currencies. Instead of being pegged to a commodity, fiat currency becomes a commodity itself which allows its price to fluctuate and this is where things can get a little weird.
Inflation has two ways of explaining it.
One is the commonly held idea that things naturally become more expensive over time. Now, when you apply this to a long-term valuation chart where each inflation drives up the cost a little each year, the curve becomes parabolic (x2). Approaching inflation from this point of view, it becomes inevitable that hyperinflation will occur for any fiat currency.
Another approach is not that everything is becoming more expensive but it is that our fake currencies are loosing a little bit of their value each year (a.k.a. devaluation). Since fiat currency is not physical and has no intrinsic value, it is impossible to apply any sort of science to it therefore using economics to analyze or predict its movements is pointless. So, if we approach this from the devaluation point of view, as long as people think that the currency has at least some value, hyperinflation cannot happen. The valuation curve will drop steadily for a while but will level off and decrease very slowly.
Math: since I forgot how to write up those sum formulas, I will use spreadsheet formulas. For this, let A1 be 100 for both approaches
where i is the inflation rate for that year
Inflation (adding a percentage):
A2 = A1 + (A1 * i)
Deflation (subtracting a percentage):
A2 = A1 - (A1 * i)
When graphing inflation adding a percentage, eventually it will lead to a nearly vertical line straight up.
When graphing devaluation subtracting a percentage, eventually it will lead to a nearly horizontal line into perpetuity.
My argument in support of devaluation is based on observations that the economies of scale and technology have driven down the cost of doing business far more than inflation has increased it since the mid 1970's when the U.S. ended the gold standard. To get an accurate comparison, you need a common point of reference. I like to use gold as a reference because it always had, still has, and always will have intrinsic value. If you compare how much you can buy with an ounce of gold today versus what you could buy with an ounce of gold in the 1960's, you can see that you get more with that ounce of gold today on average then you did back then.
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to fall into the second camp myself. I also use the gold example as well, and for the same reasons. But her's the kicker...
On a macro scale, I think things keep the intrinsic value that we as humans assign to it, just the number changes with whatever currency / money we're using. That's why the richest people are in basic human necessities like real estate and oil. We value those things as long as we value living comfortably. This is the part that never changes, we compare stuff to one another and get a sense of what's important... which is the basis of supply and demand. Anyway, so the currency changes and nothing else. Take gold, and let's go back a few thousand years, an ounce of gold then got you a hot meal and a nice garment. An ounce of a gold right now is $1,320 USD an ounce. Most nice suits are at least $1k and a nice meal is going to be anywhere from $100-$200 for the family.
Thousands of years later it's still almost the same. But this is on a large big picture scale. Like with quantum physics, things are quite the opposite on the micro scale. On a micro scale (days, years, decades) gold fluctuates or so it seems because our base point of reference is the dollar. It's the most liquid. It's where our minds our on a day-to-day basis and it's just how we look at the economy... through the eyes of the dollar. Gold will go up and down, up and down, up and down, etc. This is why some people are against investing in gold. If you buy gold and it goes down in price, then boom it's a bad. Which it's not bad to invest in... it's just a long term instrument.
It's the same thing with inflation or devaluation. In the short term inflation is good. We get more stuff for "less". So you're absolutely correct. I mean Japan is doing that right now with quantitative easing, and on purpose to save their economy. We mitigate debt too, double bonus. And in fact, right now, with the situation we're in... I think devaluation is the only thing we have going for us to save the country's economy before eventually dropping the dollar like a bad habit. But this is only because we repeated the same mistakes throughout history... again.
The catch is, devaluing is akin to declaring bankruptcy. In the short term it's great... what a relief it is. In the long term it's gonna hurt. People's savings will be wiped out since it's now worthless. 100 years ago, you could buy a Coke for a nickel. Now the same coke is going to cost you a $1 or $1.50. In fact, the whole reason the Fed exists is to try and control this rate of decline (they do more damage than good IMO though but that's a different story). Greed and fear (the driving emotions behind supply and demand) and lack of big picture type education has brought us to this point.
So, if we can prevent hyperinflation then I agree with you. I don't see any other way out of this mess. But it's not an ideal solution, it's a band-aid because we screwed up. In the long term though, it's just another nail in the coffin for the dollar as we know it today.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Now, on to the future. Paper currency will die in developed countries. Over the past 100 years humanity has had a digital revolution. That's going nowhere. As population keeps on increasing but land and resources don't, we'll have to find a way to stop using paper for this. And we have it... digital crypto-currencies.
First of course all trends indicate that the population of the world will level off and reach sustainability levels this century.
Second there is no problem in terms of resources for creating currencies. Not to mention even that at least for the US currency paper isn't used, but even if it is producing paper for currencies would be a minor blimp in terms of total paper demand.
Fourth there is a difference between digital economic transactions and crypto currencies as the currently exist. Current crypto currencies have basically the same problems that currencies owned by banks (which is not what happens now) which used to happen. And they are obviously too volatile to be allowed to support the world economy much less a nations economy. Might be a viable solution for those country that cannot manage to stabilize their own currency but that is it.
So although one might suppose that electronic transactions might become the only norm, they will still be based on a 'currency' that the government, not a market (or worse markets) owns and maintains.
|
|
|
|
|
1) In regards to your first point. I did hear about that. I tend not to guess when a trend will end however since nobody can predict the future... no matter what people say. I do know at some point it'll have to taper off though. The question is when.
2) In regards to your second point. The first part of it, I'll admit it's a loooooong way away, but out of 4 trillion trees on the planet we go through 15 billion a year right now. This will only increase if we have more people. And the entire world knows we're getting away from paper at some point. Which is my point. But yeah, the demand isn't high right now as in this second. But I'm talking big picture stuff here. I thought it was evident in my posts, but I guess not when on CP. The second part of it is simply restating what I said already. So, thanks. 
3) I'm fully aware of the difference. And I'm not going to elaborate on volatility again. If things change the volatility will change. Volatility is a sign of where it's at right now, not where it's going. And there are key fundamental economical reasons it's the way it is that will change in the future. But I digress and have no desire to get into this... again... on CP... again... with the usual peeps that argue... again.
4) To the fourth point, that's what I've been saying all along. Try again bro.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
