Money Creation and Central Banking

[magoo]

this Bitcoin maxis are naive as hell. Theyre greed is taking away judgement. Manipulating.

I see the biggest problems are central banks. And the monopoly of financial institutions.

Its not fiat or crypto or gold. But the usurpation and oligopolies.

the too big to fail debate is gone. Why do tax payers bail out banks???? And the increasing promiscuity between private org and public money.

Its now normal that governments bail out banks. The guy paying taxes subsidizes the lavish hookers VP of banks pay for. Mismanagement is irrelevant. Mr fed will pay for your mistakes with plebeian money.

Hell its not even only banks anymore. Companies. If they want money they need environmental shit.

This is not relevant. What is relevant is gold cant travel.

Yeah man gold cant travel. Thats the problem. Not the f corruption of all financial instituions. The perversion of public money with private institutoons. No man. Gold cant travel. A f magnet will tell you if youre touching gold. Deluded naive brats.

People will corrupt anything.

Bitcoin is shit. This breakthrough mentality is retarded. The next thing next thing. What about if we fix instead of creating more shit in sand castles.

Its just fucking stupid. All this Bitcoin retards are idiots. Paper money. Liberalization of bank creation. Competition. Thats the solution. Banks need to compete with each other. And not have cartels. Central banks are worthless. Central banks or bitcoins. I dont know whats more stupid.

Banks are great. Banks are one of the best invention of mankind. But like everything they need competition.

The concept of debanking is a result of banking concentration. Cartel.

You cant derestaurant someone. Why?

People believe fiat money has gold in it. Thats why they accept it has a exchange medium. This abstract retardness with no ground on reality. Like college brats.

Bitcoin will solve everything. Its magic. Uhhuuuuuhuuuu. Look at hit. Doing magical things.

Nerds f nerds everywhere. With their uncool nerd shit.

 

[Blade Runner]

Bitcoin cannot simultaneously function as an asset and a currency

I stepped away, so I've got some straightening out to do. Here's another one I've addressed 10x, the "currency" thing people bring up so commonly (which BTC is not). It is a commodity, if you had to label it one thing (legally it is too, currently), but it is money and a commodity like gold is. It's just better due to the global aspect of it in the digital information age. Portability is superior, and it doesn't require trust/permission, that is centralization. Of course it's faster, too.

I asked you a very simple question that you chose to ignore, so I will assume that you actually are in favor of bringing about some sort of neo-feudal economic system where Bitcoin lords rule over a world of impoverished serfs.

I've answered it ten times. Everyone has, and always had, the chance to be part of the BTC network. Not everyone had a chance to be part of the fake money network that fiat created, in the same way as all participants, nor will they ever. But it's going to zero, something I think you also know, but don't ever talk about. I wonder why?

The fact that fiat is created out of thin air is a feature and not a bug.

There we have it. So choice.

The decentralized nature of the network plays no role whatsoever, all that would matter is the size of the Bitcoin stash.

You don't understand BTC. Yes, I'll keep saying it.

Get this through your head: no one on this forum is so stupid that they cannot comprehend what you're saying, they simply disagree with you or do not find your arguments compelling.

Disagreeing with someone about something that one person has to work for, but another can create out of thin air, is lacking in many, many ways. I'll let the other readers decide - I've noticed some already have.

Funny gag, but not indicative of reality.

Schiff knew that it was gold or not? You're not completing the thought, which I've noticed is quite common around here.

This is an excellent point that ive not seen addressed by the "crypto nerds".

I got one of them there fancy graduate degrees in business from one of the better schools in the country after my undergrad. I took a lot of finance classes and I still don't understand the way to value Bitcoin... Specifically because there isn't a unform way to value it.

I didn't see you tell us what the point was, and why it was excellent.

Hell...A simple Certificate of Analysis, or a 3rd party test with a sample would easily disprove or prove the veracity of the gold (or oil or silver or sea shells or whatever)

Ahh, more centralization. What could go wrong?

How do you prove something is or isn't bit coin except for the value in your wallet.

Satoshi said something I don't write much on here, but after the same except point or question countless times, I might resort to "If you don't get it ... "

I understand the above about debt money being destroyed when the loan is repaid and I agree with the definitions you gave.

What about when it's not repaid?

My question is: Why should the investors of The Fed (or any other private central bank) benefit from the interest paid to them from the creation of money when there is no inherent connection between their creation of that money and the value they receive in return through interest gathering, ie. usury.

Inquiring minds want to know.

so why a middle man?

Sniff test not passed.

Why can't the US Federal Govt simply create the money by themselves?

It can. The Constitution says it can, of course.

and doesn't offer any national sovereignty over the monetary system.

That of course can be a good thing - yes, it "depends".

The problem with the monetary system is not that the currency is created out of thin air (though it could if the amounts printed exceed GDP growth leading to inflation), it is the fact that the Fed private cartel prints money out of thin air then loans it at an interest to the state (taxpayer). That is a racket that has been going on since Jekyll Island.

Both/and. Your first sentence is incorrect, of course. It enables the second's shenanigans in a "on steroids" like fashion.

You do realize that we are in a post industrial financialized economy and the majority of debt being incurred is non productive.

"That's a feature," AS.

Saying fiat is superior to gold because people are using fiat today instead of gold is like saying "see everybody in the room drinks Coke instead of Pepsi because Coke is superior to Pepsi." Meanwhile you have guns pointed at peoples heads and you are telling them if they drink Pepsi you will pull the trigger. Of course they are all going to drink Coke.

Coercion is the best medicine.

this Bitcoin maxis are naive as hell. Theyre greed is taking away judgement. Manipulating.

What's your basis for this claim? The Fed is the greed monger, the manipulator.

I see the biggest problems are central banks. And the monopoly of financial institutions.

Wow ... BTC supporters are "naive" but they seem to talk about the Fed a lot. Like you here. Maybe you can square that.

Ever notice who hates BTC the most? Amazingly, those groups. I wonder why ...

back to the drawing board

 

[Get2choppaaa]

Schiff knew that it was gold or not? You're not completing the thought, which I've noticed is quite common around here.

He didn't have to know in that moment he would just have to confirm it if he was so inclined and could then attribute the value based on purity and weight .

Seems incredibly straight forward to me and didn't even have to use my MBA skills for that one....but hey.... I did eat crayons in the Marine Corps.

I didn't see you tell us what the point was, and why it was excellent.

Where @scorpion said:

"The fact that fiat is created out of thin air is a feature and not a bug. It's the entire reason that fiat actually works as a currency and Bitcoin completely fails. Fiat being created out of a thin air (or more accurately, being loaned into existence and destroyed by repayment, aka by productive economic activity) is what allows for the money supply to expand and contract to suit the needs of the economy."

That's a great point and it's great because you're basically promoting us trading one finite storage of value, which will be governmentally controlled for another infinite storage of value (government controlled) but in both cases you're not going to get around centralization and control.

If the government wants to shut down all Bitcoin they can. There are enought digital tools in DARPA to do it.

The only reason it exists currently is because they all allow it. With the intent of mirror it into a cbdc.

Ahh, more centralization. What could go wrong?

In what way is this centralization.

Do you mean to use that word or a different word?

A certificate of analysis from a sample is a chemical confirmation. There is a universal truth here that establishes a "thing" as a "thing"

From there you can value it's worth based on confirming it's indeed the thing it's claimed to be.

Boom argument defeated.

Thanks for playing.

Satoshi said something I don't write much on here, but after the same except point or question countless times, I might resort to "If you don't get it ... "

It's not that I haven't had many folks who are well versed explain this to me...

But unlike the rest of all industry and valuation there is no agreed upon standard for valuation of crypto.

Thats a fact.

 

[Blade Runner]

but in both cases you're not going to get around centralization and control.

Says who? I don't think you understand these terms, seriously.

If the government wants to shut down all Bitcoin they can.

The God State Complex returns.

The only reason it exists currently is because they all allow it. With the intent of mirror it into a cbdc.

A cbdc doesn't have the same characteristics, thus it's a nonsensical comparison (you make all the mistakes the older people do, that's three and counting)

A certificate of analysis from a sample is a chemical confirmation. There is a universal truth here that establishes a "thing" as a "thing"

You are so locked into your explanation you fail to see the definition of centralization again. Do you know what the words trustless or permission-less mean? This stuff always comes off as me being a dick but people respond to BTC's qualities acting like they don't know what the words mean or how they are different than the money they are talking about.

But unlike the rest of all industry and valuation there is no agreed upon standard for valuation of crypto.

AS explained commodities in this fashion. BTC is a commodity, it just has a limited supply (that has the best characteristics of money).

For example, oil or some other food, for multiple reasons might not be used one day, or very limited in usage. Given the market demand and supply, the valuation is determined. As I said, however, this is why there is no such thing as intrinsic value. A property is either useful or it isn't to humans - as long as it remains useful, there will be a bid.

 

[Cooper]

 

[Get2choppaaa]

Says who? I don't think you understand these terms, seriously.

Seriously I do. Centralization can occur in crypto markets ass well. While you're correct that Block chain crypto is more likely to facilitate decentralization, it's not incapable of being centralized either.

Many real world examples use said centralization.

I don't know if you understand these terms as well as you posit.

The God State Complex returns.

this is not a reputation of reality. Just a catchy statement....

A cbdc doesn't have the same characteristics, thus it's a nonsensical comparison (you make all the mistakes the older people do, that's three and counting)

You are so locked into your explanation you fail to see the definition of centralization again. Do you know what the words trustless or permission-less mean? This stuff always comes off as me being a dick but people respond to BTC's qualities acting like they don't know what the words mean or how they are different than the money they are talking about.

Yes I understand block chain, and p2p/decentralized models your talking about. As I alluded to it was indeed covered in grad school in one of my finance courses.

And yes do come off as pompous. But I'm no stranger to that phenomena

AS explained commodities in this fashion. BTC is a commodity, it just has a limited supply (that has the best characteristics of money).

For example, oil or some other food, for multiple reasons might not be used one day, or very limited in usage. Given the market demand and supply, the valuation is determined. As I said, however, this is why there is no such thing as intrinsic value. A property is either useful or it isn't to humans - as long as it remains useful, there will be a bid.

Except Bitcoin has no intrinsic value.

A simple Google search in why Bitcoin has no intrisnic value yoelds the below:

Bitcoin has no intrinsic value because it isn't backed by a physical commodity (like gold) or a government, doesn't generate cash flows (like stocks/bonds), and its value relies solely on market demand, scarcity (21 million cap), security, and its utility as a decentralized digital asset,

It's purely speculative rather than a true asset.
Its worth comes from collective belief, network effects, and its properties like censorship resistance and easy transfer, similar to how fiat currency's value comes from trust, but without tangible backing.

Arguments for lack of intrinsic value:
-No physical backing: Unlike gold (jewelry, electronics) or fiat currency (government decree), Bitcoin isn't tied to anything tangible or sovereign.
-No cash flow: It doesn't pay dividends or interest, so traditional valuation metrics don't apply.
- Purely speculative: Its price is driven by supply/demand and the "greater fool theory" .
-Scarcity: Limited supply of 21 million coins.

That said....

Hope you find your fortune in crypto or Bitcoin. Its not a dog that I hunt with, nor do the large scale institutions or anyone I know who manages large sums of money (multi family office money managers).... Maybe they dabble a little bit. But it's less than 5 percent of their investments at best and it's all on a house money basis.

I have confidence that like the vast majority of folks working in corporate America, their best avenue for wealth generation is through traditional investment portfolios (S&P/mutual funds .) and some split across stocks/bonds/REITs after they've established multiple streams of income. Ideally you have stock at your company that pays a dividend or within your investment portfolio, plus your 401k, plus your income setting and 15 to 20 percent aside after being debt free.

But none the less... Good luck.

 

[Blade Runner]

this is not a reputation of reality. Just a catchy statement....

If they can do anything they want, why does fiat always fail? It'll be another question you all will avoid, very typical around here, and why serious people can't take your points seriously. Before you get upset, realize I'm talking about this topic, certainly not suggesting you are wrong about other topics, which are not at hand here. I use the disclaimer because people forget that all the time and let emotions go unrestrained when they perceive a threat, which is generally what happens when they have bad takes.

And yes do come off as pompous.

The definition of the network is that it is decentralized. At best, you're referring to price being indirectly controlled, and that's even just temporal. You literally don't know the words you are using, but think you do because you are anti-BTC so you won't follow the arguments with precision.

It's purely speculative rather than a true asset.

Not the word speculation again, which no one knows what it really means and it literally applies to any "investment". No one buys something NOW to sell it for less later. Again, first principles.

I have confidence that like the vast majority of folks working in corporate America, their best avenue for wealth generation is through traditional investment portfolios (S&P/mutual funds .) and some split across stocks/bonds/REITs after they've established multiple streams of income. Ideally you have stock at your company that pays a dividend or within your investment portfolio, plus your 401k, plus your income setting and 15 to 20 percent aside after being debt free.

You're a consensus thinker and follower. We get it. It would make more sense if you were 70 years old plus. But there's a reason why Max Planck said "science progresses one funeral at a time."

By the way, does the internet have "intrinsic value"? Or do you guys like just associate ideas to words (like "speculation") without truly thinking about them, to make yourself feel better about the sour grapes?

 

[Judoka]

We already have a Bitcoin thread.

 

[Get2choppaaa]

You're a consensus thinker and follower. We get it. It would make more sense if you were 70 years old plus. But there's a reason why Max Planck said "science progresses one funeral at a time."

Nah... it would just make perfect sense if you understand the market and how compound interest works.

Which I do.

And since success leaves clues.... Why is this such a small small small amount of the balance sheet on any money manager at a large scale?

 

[Read_Lives_of_Saints]

Since we're in the money creation thread, let me ask why is creating money from thin air inherently immoral? I believe it is immoral if it is done in a way that unfairly advantages a small group of people, such as creating it as debt, but if the government creates it for the benefit of society as a whole, then I do not think there is anything inherently immoral about fiat, although there used to be a serious perception problem with that before the 20th century because people knew it was too much of a temptation to be able to print money at will.

Compared to a commodity, fiat does not have a built-in limitation or concreteness, so it is more abstract and more open to manipulation, but that is really just the nature of money itself. This is also true of society and its laws because they can always be subverted by (((clever))) merchants and lawyers.

For example, if gold is money or there is a gold standard, then the gold market could eventually be controlled by people who would unfairly manipulate its value, which I believe has been a past claim about the gold and silver standards.

Keeping the spirit of the law to promote good and avoid evil requires people who prioritize morals above materials and is not dependent on which particular ruleset is chosen.

 

[Shaquilleoatmeal]

The anti-fiat guys (mostly goldbugs in years past and Bitcoin maxis today) are very much like hardcore anti-gun activists. People want to ban guns because they think guns themselves are inherently dangerous and cause crime and murder, ignoring the fact that a gun is an inanimate object that can do nothing without a human operator. Similarly, fiat currency and fractional reserve banking are themselves just tools wielded by humans. They are inherently amoral constructs, and can be used wisely or abused, just like a gun, which can be used for murder, or to defend and save the life of an innocent person.

The Bitcoin maxis operate under the insane delusion that a Bitcoin monetary standard would somehow not be open to abuse by the same psychopathic elites who invariably gain power in the world. This is utterly naive on the same level as those who think that banning guns would eliminate murder.

The idea that money is created as debt seems strange until you make the connection that debt simply represents the human labor required to repay it. Further, the debt created money is destroyed when it is repaid. Fiat, in essence then, is simply currency backed by productive labor. And given that productive labor is the basis for economic growth and human prosperity (as opposed to the hoarding of gold or Bitcoin) the substantial practical benefits of fiat should be immediately clear. It is not for nothing that no country in the world today chooses to operate its economy on the gold (or Bitcoin) standard.

Alcohol is something inanimate but people want to ban alcohol. The reason for that is because of abuse.

https://www.reddit.com/r/inflation/s/JGSsSBJhTi

 

[Blade Runner]

Why is this such a small small small amount of the balance sheet on any money manager at a large scale?

Disruptive technologies act this way and by definition are not seen by most. There are hosts of technical and legal reasons, by the way, that we can get into, if you desire. One of those, as an example, is coming up Jan 1 (current banking laws about assets and investments).

Since we're in the money creation thread, let me ask why is creating money from thin air inherently immoral? I believe it is immoral if it is done in a way that unfairly advantages a small group of people, such as creating it as debt, but if the government creates it for the benefit of society as a whole, then I do not think there is anything inherently immoral about fiat, although there used to be a serious perception problem with that before the 20th century because people knew it was too much of a temptation to be able to print money at will.

You answered the question yourself here. I'll remind you as well that the Constitution never originally had "fiat" as an idea, also for a reason, it specifically mentions gold and silver. Fiat came into "existence" as a global central banking (unelected bureaucrats in the biggest of countries) scheme, which is quite revealing. "Just trust us" right?

I could still argue that creating money that isn't backed can't possibly done for "overall good" but it would still hinge on what you get at: human nature. Many people think about the government that way too: necessary evil. The deal is that we don't debate ever that it's good, because it isn't. It's just how bad is it. Any American can see over our history just how clear this lesson is. You can look at other countries' histories to see even more stark examples, in terms of the end points before change.