Right, because in a roundabout way the gas could "power that EV" at least in part. We are coming up with quick examples to prove the point, indeed. Clarity remains important, though, so thank you.
Some people value the gasoline, but not everyone. The price is an expression of how it is valued by some, but not by everyone. Bitcoin is valued by some, but not everyone, and it has a price. That doesn’t change the fact that some people value it at zero, just like not everyone has a use for gasoline.
If Bitcoin were valued by most people, it would then become the price. Unit of account. It wouldn’t have a price itself anymore.
If Bitcoin were valued by most people, it would then become the price. Unit of account. It wouldn’t have a price itself anymore.
The seller agrees because the $200 can make him buy other goods. In the present. As a instrument of intermediation. Or in the future as a wealth storage+instrument of intermediation. The 200$ bills by themselves are worthless. What you can buy with them is what counts. The 200$ bill are a unit of value. Which is then used to buy other goods.
The 200$ bills are an instrument. And they can be used as an instrument for present transactions. Or future transactions (store of wealth). In itself the bills are worthless. It´s the function which is given to them.
If the seller doesn´t believe the 200$ bills will allow him to buy goods in the present. Or in the future. He will simply not accept them.
I think and maybe ´m wrong Scorpion is talking about the classic concept of money as a veil. Which taught money had no value besides being an instrument of intermediation of goods. (Jean-Baptiste Say).
"Les produits s'échangent contre des produits », la monnaie « n'est qu'un voile », qu'un instrument pour faciliter les échanges, pour éviter le troc. Cette loi implique un équilibre global entre l'offre et la demande. Il ne peut donc y avoir de surproduction."
For classics money doesn´t affect anything. It´s neutral. It´s just a veil.
Modern economists dropped this concept. And the most known was Keynes. Who said money wasn´t just an exchange medium. It´s a store of value.
The problem with direct exchange of goods between producers has always been the equivalence of goods. Goods might not have the same equivalence. You want to trade a cow for shoes. And therefore you need money to cover the differences between the value of goods. Money was created to serve as an instrument of intermediation to facilitate the exchange of goods. Due to the nature of labour division.
Money was therefore for classics an instrument which is used to acquire goods and services. Modern economists completed the definition.
Money is defined by it´s functions:
i) instrument of exchanges of goods
ii) Measurement instrument of goods values (price). Unit of value
iii) Value storage reserve.
Because the modern economists believed that money would be hoarded. Some like Silvio Gesell (before Keynes) argued money should have an expiration date. Cause the hoarding was a negative outcome for economy and society as a whole. Since it paralyzed the circulation of money. And he put it into practice. The negative rate theory is a metastasis of his dumb theories.
But expiration will most certainly exist in CBDC.
The use of gold as money is based in it´s intrinsic value. Rarity and demand. It´s value is based also in primitive superstitions which gave value to it. It´s ingrained in the human psyche that gold has value.
For Aristotles wealth is not possession of something. But it´s actual use:
"Wealth consists in abundance of money, ownership of land and properties, and further of movables, cattle, and slaves, remarkable for number, size, and beauty, if they are all secure, liberal, and useful. Property that is productive is more useful, but that which has enjoyment for its object is more liberal. By productive I mean that which is a source of income, by enjoyable that which offers no advantage beyond the use of it—at least, none worth mentioning. Security may be defined as possession of property in such places and on such conditions that the use of it is in our own hands; and ownership as the right of alienation or not, by which I mean giving the property away or selling it. In a word, being wealthy consists rather in use than in possession; for the actualization4 and use of such things is wealth."
My 0.00000001 BTC to conversation.
Last edited:
Money is not worthless, or you wouldn‘t trade a lawnmower for it. Money gives you optionality on the future purchase of something that you need. That has value. Money is just another good, but with a broad market. Money is a good, just like gold, oil, corn, or labor. The only difference is the number of people who desire money is greater than for other goods. Money isn’t a unit of value any more than a cow is a unit of value, they are both goods that have a market. There is no fundamental difference, only a difference of market size.
No, it isn’t. Where is gold’s “intrinsic value” to the man on the desert island? It has no intrinsic value. It only has subjective value. The value is in the network of individuals that accept gold, not the gold itself.
There is absolutely nothing magical about gold and the psyche of man. It has a sum of properties that led individuals to conclude that other individuals would desire it and that it would last long enough to trade for something else. Other things have been used in the exact same manner throughout history. Bitcoin has the same properties, but superior ones. More people every year decide that other people will desire this thing, and thus a new money is born. It might take 50 years, it might take 500, but we are witnessing the monetezation of a new money.
TLDR: money is a good, with the broadest market appeal of all competing goods.
Last edited:
The 200$ bill. Have the value of two pieces of paper with drawings made in them. Probably 50 cents. Maybe not even that.
You are living in an era of Cartalism. Not metallism. Money value is decided by the government. It´s not a commodity (unless you consider the paper) and it´s not backed by any commodity either.
"By Theoretical Metallism we denote the theory that it is logically essential for money to consist of, or to be ‘covered’ by, some commodity so that the logical source of the exchange value or purchasing power of money is the exchange value or purchasing power of that commodity, considered independently of its monetary role.
History of economic analysis principle any commodity can be chosen to serve as money. But the term Commodity Theory of money has also another meaning. This is why, availing ourselves of the fact that in modern times only gold and silver have been normally chosen for that role, we prefer the term Metallism, though it is not strictly correct. It is also true that the‘standard’ chosen may consist of more than one commodity:
By Practical Metallism we shall denote sponsorship of a principle of monetary policy, namely, the principle that themonetary unit ‘should’ be kept firmly linked to, and freely interchangeable with, a givenquantity of some commodity.
Theoretical and Practical Cartalism may best be defined by the corresponding negatives. Thus, we shall speak of theoretical cartalism wherever we find denial of the proposition that it is logically essential for money to consist of, say, gold, or to be promptly convertible into gold; of practical cartalism wherever we find sponsorship of the principle of policy that the value of the monetary unit ‘should’ not be tied to the value of any particular commodity."
Joseph A. Schumpeter - History of Economic Analysis
Gold has been venerated since ancient times. For many reasons. One of them it´s immunity to corrosion. Just by googling "gold veneration". A lot of results show up.
Bitcoin if it worked as a medium of exchange. And since it´s not tied to any commodity. Would be some form of private Cartalism without government intervention.
Think of the basic or first principles - few do. Intrinsic value is short for people saying "this will improve my life". The greater it improves your life, the greater the opinion of a person to think or suggest that it is this magical "intrinsic value". For example, and people don't think in this manner because they take it for granted, the building block of improving your life is actually living in the first place. Thus, if anything has "intrinsic value" it will be that which perishes (generally, not always as we will see in a second) that is also desired. But all of these things are also based on energy. Food or water is the ultimate in intrinsic value, since it is required to have life and then follow up with energy to create an even better one, but mostly both of those are in abundance, so they are taken for granted. When you get encapsulations of energy that don't perish, and/or have better or more characteristics than similar things (gold) you have ... BTC. That's why it will displace all other things as money.
It's just early so the old thinkers can't imagine that the world they grew up in will be different. Happens all the time, but is usually beyond a lifetime. No, you're not that important big picture (as you think). Yes, the other people telling you these things are more imaginative and aren't restricted by stodginess, ego, or any other constraint. That's the irony - those of us that see BTC for what is is actually have less ego. We can see beyond ourselves and the time we are in, whereas the deniers have this emotional reaction that they don't want to admit the realities that go on in the universe, namely change.
It's just early so the old thinkers can't imagine that the world they grew up in will be different. Happens all the time, but is usually beyond a lifetime. No, you're not that important big picture (as you think). Yes, the other people telling you these things are more imaginative and aren't restricted by stodginess, ego, or any other constraint. That's the irony - those of us that see BTC for what is is actually have less ego. We can see beyond ourselves and the time we are in, whereas the deniers have this emotional reaction that they don't want to admit the realities that go on in the universe, namely change.
Government does not give money (currency) any value. It has only as much value as individuals decide it has to them. Like apples, shoes, or Lambos, or any other market good.
I realize that this is a paradigm shift from (Keynesian) economics textbooks, but let me re-iterate it: money is a good just like clothes, cars, or food. The difference is it is a good that has the greatest chance of being accepted in trade. There is no fundamental difference otherwise.
Why, do you suppose, is this logically essential? Explain to me why money logically needs to be an abstract representation of some other good?
which is why people spent time collecting it. Like sea shells, rai stones or beads, they all have unique properties that people collect because some other person might also desire it. Gold had the same path as every other proto-money.
There was no Eureka! moment when man all of a sudden “invented” money. It was simply a single good that gained market dominance to be more trade- able than everything else. Be that cattle, salt, rai stones, wampum, or gold.
Being “usable for something else” like jewelry was not a prerequisite. Do you think the Yappese people sat around admiring the beauty of the 20 ton rai stones? They had absolutely no other use case than as money. Yes, Bitcoin can’t be melted down to give you a gangsta grill, in case it loses monetary premium, but neither could rai stones. This is the point that gold bugs and commodity money proponents miss. Things don’t become money because they are useful as commodities, they become money, in part, because they are less useful for anything except as money.
It doesn’t?
It is its own commodity! Why would you represent one commodity with another commodity? It only obscures the true market value of both. Let the free market (individuals) decide what each are worth, not the King.
Last edited:
You cannot define money through it substance. Because economic reality is too complex. Only though it´s functions. But generally with exceptions money was a commodity which was generally accepted as an instrument of intermediation in the exchange of goods or services.
The concept of money as a commodity is exactly Keynesian.
It´s not a difference. It´s what was money. Money is not traded. You don´t trade money for money. You trade money for goods.
You just said it was a commodity above?
Gold has distinct properties and value.
Money was a commodity which was accepted as an exchange instrument.
Not yet. It´s too slow and costly. Bitcoin is used as a store of value.
When the EV runs out of electricity it will be a gasoline powered generator which will bring it back to life.
Encapsulations of energy who don´t perish? This by itself doesn´t make bitcoin money. For it to be money it will need to be generally accepted by the population as a instrument of mediation. For this to happen. People will have to feel safe to change and hold even for a while bitcoin.
And as it is now. Btc isn´t accepted as a general instrument of mediation. And it´s price. Is therefore speculative.
But it might be in the future. And this is the gamble people who invest in BTC. I don´t have enough technical skills to know if this can happen. But I doubt any investor understands the technical aspect of every asset they are investing. This is nonsense.
Bitcoin is the continuation of the scam started by the government going full circle. Not a commodity. Not representing a commodity. And also not government backed. Theres not even illusion of backing. People now believe money has backing on a tangible commodity because the government pretends it to be. But with btc you will trade goods and service for an absolutely worthless instrument with zero value. Its like the bank telling people to their faces their deposits will be loaned. And the money isnt there. So this opens the door to all types of distortion.
The actual performance regarding BTC is a negative. Not a positive.
Someone bet against Herbalife and lost. So.
Last edited:
This is incontrovertible. As such, it flabbergasts me that it doesn't immediately convince you. That shows me that anyone who doesn't accept it, and draw the appropriate inferences and conclusions, is not thinking, he is stuck to a conclusion and/or emotion.
Commodities have some aspects, at times, that make them "good money". BTC wasn't arbitrarily assigned a status as a commodity, by the way.
Here you show hope for at least considering something.
Here you then immediately dash the hope (it was the next sentence), which is comical. Do you not see this?
Tell us how. Of course, it's just dependent on point of view, regardless of what you think about the BTC network, even.
We can give you thousands of reasons why the performance of BTC is good for people. I also can tell you that the scammers, shysters and abusers of the society, and many countries throughout time, hate the idea of BTC and think it is a negative. This alone should tell you all you need to know. Think of it, you're on the side of the WEF, BIS and the central bankers, something laughable for this site.
How even an easy exercise like that doesn't show you you're on the wrong side, I'll never know.
This brings me back to the Socratic rhetorical question I asked about why money needs to be backed by (gold, whatever).
The only reason money needs to be backed by something is to limit its supply. There is a physical constraint on how much gold can be mined, therefore it constrains the ability to create more gold backed money. (In theory)
There is a physical and programmed limit on how much Bitcoin can exist. Therefore backing it with something else is pointless. Backing fiat money with gold requires trust. Bitcoin requires no backing, and therefore does not require trust, just like physical gold. You either have it or you don’t. A gold IOU is not gold.
Bitcoin is already scarce, and does not need anything else but itself to prove its scarcity.
And this proves the whole shebang.
We've given a masterclass here for those who desire all the virtues that we are promoting. The best part about it is that they will increase their net worth by understanding these ideas and rightly acting!
Well done, chance vought.
No. I´m considering that this madness might have a small chance of succeeding. In a different version.
You don´t understand. People believe cash or digits on the computer screen equates to something with value. We are not on the shells age. The common person on the street believes the bill they have on their wallet is backed by something tangible and valuable. Just like they believe their money is safe in the bank. The government keeps this fiction knowing the masses are dumb about money. People still believe there´s somebody at the helm of this sinking ship.
My hope is not dashed. I think that if bitcoin succeeds. It means the demoralization and travesty of society have reached such a degrading level that people have basically given up on having something valuable to use as a instrument of trade for they´re services or goods. This would have to be imposed. Never voluntary. Imposed in a sense it´s unnatural. It goes against what a healthy society is. And human nature. It´s a theory which isn´t based in human nature.
People wouldnt´t need to be fooled anymore. Because they accept whatever is set on their table. It might be there´s no more goods and services to be traded. And everything comes from the government.
Money would lose its connection to reality. And therefore can be manipulated at will. Digitally it will be much easier to add functions.
I don´t have a definitive opinion. Some friend of mine told me to invest in ripple some years ago. Never did it. It´s too complicated.
Here you are deluded. And it´s this type of sentences which take away at least partially your credibility. Even though you are also clearly a very smart dude. Maybe too smart. Germans would say you are wearing pink lens glasses. It´s the opposite of what you are saying. BTC is totally associated with bad stuff. Silk road money laundering etc. And I have no doubts whoever thinks they can fool the government will get caught. At this day and age. You can´t fuck with the gov. Only if it´s really small values.
I´ve been more times right than wrong. Wrote in RVF back in 2010 I think. That people should invest in southern europe real estate. After some years people posted there how on earth did I knew why to invest. One guy wrote "this guy killed it".
I´m not saying not to invest in bitcoin. You can make money selling kicks in the ass. But I see it as a real high risk gamble. Not like you are saying. It´s almost casino.
The risk is much more brutal than you make it sound to be. It´s not stocks real estate or bonds. I believe it´s like a pink stock with opaque info. And the technical jargon is to fool the stupid.
BTC is not a medium of exchange. Because it´s too slow. And costly. I wasted 2h watching a documentary about it.
Also the way you speak about how it´s a sure thing. That´s not right. For so many reasons. Nobody in the investment business speaks like that. Past performance doesnt correlate, etc etc.
People who speak like you do. Need to have insider info. But you´re not the sushi guy are you?
What it feels like is you are fishing for new buyers. Suckers. But I dont think it´s your case. You truly believe in this shit.
Last edited:
No, you don't. Joe Schmoe doesn't decide on money, as you suggested after you said this. Wake up and listen to what we are saying. Joe Schmoe reacts to what the smart money decides, which will be bitcoin, due to fiat's end, which always happens. You want certainty? That's one for you, if you think I'm "too smart".
None of this makes any sense.
Wrong.
Not a point.
Which one is it?
By the way, do you know who Jason Lowery is? He wrote a book on bitcoin that you can't buy now, at least publicly. I wonder why. Hmm.
Exactly. One needs to be entirely off-grid very soon and have multiple small black market cash businesses (selling eggs at farmers markets and/or antiques/collectibles at flea markets, etc.). Money as we currently know it may one day tank in all forms (BTC included) and only those who own land and tools (guns, trucks, tractors, airplanes, boats, generators, backhoes, chainsaws, etc.) and have developed the necessary skill sets to maintain their land and tools will truly be free of The Matrix. The best insurance hedge against inflation and increasingly dysfunctional societies and governments is to completely separate yourself from them and their monetary instruments. This includes BTC.
Yes, BTC is a gambling cult based on nothing but the adrenaline rush of getting something for nothing.
Which he is because every pyramid-type scheme relies on the elderly and the uninformed to come in late to The Game so that they can be left holding the bag while the early adopters skate off to Eastern Europe with their unearned millions. Recently I saw an old woman who could barely walk feeding hundred-dollar-bills into a bitcoin machine at a Circle K convenience store and all I saw in my minds eye were these BTC Bros grinning from ear to ear as they digitally fleeced her retirement account. Sad.
JayR
Heritage
How recently? If it was 12 months ago, granny's up about 100%.
Thought experiment: Imagine you owned every share of stock in the world. In that case, you would own and control the entire productive economy of the globe. Your wealth would be almost incalculable. Or imagine you owned every piece of real estate and all productive farmland. Again, you would be rich beyond imagination as you acted as the entire world's landlord and food supplier. Or even imagine if you owned every ounce of gold and silver and every productive precious metals mine in the world. Anyone who wanted to obtain them would have to buy from you. Once more, your wealth would be obscene.
Now imagine if you personally held all 21 million Bitcoin for yourself. Would the entire world be economically beholden to you due to your incontrovertible and overwhelming mastery of the blockchain? Would your vast Bitcoin wealth become the basis for global finance and function as the world reserve currency? Would all of humanity recognize Bitcoin as the most valuable asset in the world, willingly bend the knee and resign themselves to techno-feudal serfdom under your heel?
In the latter example, the obvious answer is a resounding no. They would simply shrug their shoulders and laugh, or maybe congratulate you on your achievement, then they would get on with their lives and use something else for money.
This is the difference between owning a real asset (whose value is incontrovertible) and owning Bitcoin (which has no actual value whatsoever).
Now imagine if you personally held all 21 million Bitcoin for yourself. Would the entire world be economically beholden to you due to your incontrovertible and overwhelming mastery of the blockchain? Would your vast Bitcoin wealth become the basis for global finance and function as the world reserve currency? Would all of humanity recognize Bitcoin as the most valuable asset in the world, willingly bend the knee and resign themselves to techno-feudal serfdom under your heel?
In the latter example, the obvious answer is a resounding no. They would simply shrug their shoulders and laugh, or maybe congratulate you on your achievement, then they would get on with their lives and use something else for money.
This is the difference between owning a real asset (whose value is incontrovertible) and owning Bitcoin (which has no actual value whatsoever).
Productive assets are great. Now imagine buying eggs from your neighbor using your 620 acres of farmland. Do you write up a contract to sell him 3 square feet? What if he doesn't want farmland, or lives 50 miles away and can't use it? Money serves a purpose, I know it doesn't seem that way because no one wants to hold our currently bad money, but good money, that maintains value, is the ultimate call option on the future.
Conflating Bitcoin and Fiat currency is where most people get confused, because holding anything but a minimum amount of slave money just makes you more poor. Bitcoin does not suffer this problem.