TakeYouToTasker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) I guess it's a perception that you think a currency that is backed by a shiny piece of rock is better than full faith & credit of an entity that produces $15 trillion of goods & services and has the best global military force to protect its assets. Why is that shiny rock more valuable than another shiny rock? First of all, I don't believe in the Gold Standard. I'm a proponent of a list of competing currencies backed by whatever commodities, or faith guarentees the offerer and subsequent users see fit. The reason being: the United States, powerful as it is, does not own or produce the lion's share of those $15T of goods and services, it's private citizens do. Though through monopoly, and force, the United States treats those assets as if it does own them. As to the shiney rock? I have no idea why, as humans have evolved over thousands of years, why we continue to value gold more than other rocks. But the truth is, we have. If you don't, feel free to round up all of the shiney rocks in your household which society has considered valuable for thousands of years, and trade them for an equal weight of beach sand. There's nothing stopping you. It's circumvented the central banking system in the same manner that a Pikachoo card circumvented the banking system. Did you know there's a Pokemon Bank? There is, and it is a valid place to store and exchange a currency that is not a dollar. Stock exchanges trade assets that are not official currencies. People barter for goods & services without any monetary exchange. Congratulations to bitcoin for discovering West India. Again, myopic. Bitcoin is currently used to circumvent capital controls, charted inflation, and international sanctions; and as reported by the Financial Times, has already emerged as a legitimate alternative currency in Argentina. US and other governments will treat bitcoin for what it is - a value transfer mechanism. They will monitor its movements and will tax people on the difference in the exchange. It will be another asset that will/is being traded. They can't afford to, because as major online retailers all fall in line, and begin to accept it as currency (with Overstock on board, Amazon and the others will all have to fall in line, or lose major market share), the US Treasury will lose out on huge streams of revenue. Would you rather pay income tax rates of 10% and 15%, or pay 0% on long-term capital gains? 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35% income tax or 15% on long-term capital gains? 39.6% in income tax or 20% on long-term capital gains? As more and more transactions are conducted in bitcoins, it just doesn't make sense for the Treasury Department to default to the lower rate as these transactions become increasingly common, which they will, given retail trends. But it does have a lot going for it for facilitating broad digital transactions that can be instantly verified. That's where all the serious money is going into bitcoin. Not some paranoids who fear of the dollar getting obliterated. It's already moved well beyond this sphere. BTW, you still haven't answered on exactly who fears bitcoin enough to have its creator killed. I couldn't say; though if one of the global power players wanted to destabilize the currency, that would certainly be a viable option. Edited March 6, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 First of all, I don't believe in the Gold Standard. I'm a proponent of a list of competing currencies backed by whatever commodities, or faith guarentees the offerer and subsequent users see fit. The reason being: the United States, powerful as it is, does not own or produce the lion's share of those $15T of goods and services, it's private citizens do. Though through monopoly, and force, the United States treats those assets as if it does own them. As to the shiney rock? I have no idea why, as humans have evolved over thousands of years, why we continue to value gold more than other rocks. But the truth is, we have. If you don't, feel free to round up all of the shiney rocks in your household which society has considered valuable for thousands of years, and trade them for an equal weight of beach sand. There's nothing stopping you. Again, myopic. Bitcoin is currently used to circumvent capital controls, charted inflation, and international sanctions; and as reported by the Financial Times, has already emerged as a legitimate alternative currency in Argentina. They can't afford to, because as major online retailers all fall in line, and begin to accept it as currency (with Overstock on board, Amazon and the others will all have to fall in line, or lose major market share), the US Treasury will lose out on huge streams of revenue. Would you rather pay income tax rates of 10% and 15%, or pay 0% on long-term capital gains? 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35% income tax or 15% on long-term capital gains? 39.6% in income tax or 20% on long-term capital gains? As more and more transactions are conducted in bitcoins, it just doesn't make sense for the Treasury Department to default to the lower rate as these transactions become increasingly common, which they will, given retail trends. It's already moved well beyond this sphere. I couldn't say; though if one of the global power players wanted to destabilize the currency, that would certainly be a viable option. Do you not see the irony in your support of the bitcoin as a legitimate payment mechanism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Do you not see the irony in your support of the bitcoin as a legitimate payment mechanism? Given that I support a competing, and theoricly unlimited, basket of currencies; all backed by whatever the issuer decides, no. None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Given that I support a competing, and theoricly unlimited, basket of currencies; all backed by whatever the issuer decides, no. None. Must be nice to live a theoretical life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckinny Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I saw one of the bitcoin CEO's offed himself...that cant be good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Must be nice to live a theoretical life. Says the man who believes government monopoly to be the most effective and efficient way to do business? Go, Go, Status Quo!!!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Says the man who believes government monopoly to be the most effective and efficient way to do business? Go, Go, Status Quo!!!? Yup, that's exactly what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Yup, that's exactly what I said. Must be nice to live in an immediate revisionist world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Must be nice to live in an immediate revisionist world. Show me where I said what you claim I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Show me where I said what you claim I said. I think any reasonable person can directly infer that, given your open disdain for evolving currencies. If not, state your actual position, accounting for your prior criticisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I think any reasonable person can directly infer that, given your open disdain for evolving currencies. If not, state your actual position, accounting for your prior criticisms. So you infer that by me saying that all emerging currencies should be subject to the same laws and regulations of existing currencies, asset classes, monies, tradeable goods and funds flows, is tantamount to arguing for a government monopoly? M'kay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Yes, and it's almost unbelievable to me that you don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I am a libertarian, so laws don't apply to me. Sums it up, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I am a libertarian, so laws don't apply to me. Sums it up, right? You're like a bad cartoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 So you infer that by me saying that all emerging currencies should be subject to the same laws and regulations of existing currencies, asset classes, monies, tradeable goods and funds flows, is tantamount to arguing for a government monopoly? M'kay. I stopped following after no one responded to my Goldfinger joke, so I'm not caught up. So correct me if I'm wrong, but... ...doesn't the above just mean that "emerging currencies" aren't currencies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I stopped following after no one responded to my Goldfinger joke, so I'm not caught up. So correct me if I'm wrong, but... ...doesn't the above just mean that "emerging currencies" aren't currencies? They are currencies, but will never gain the stature that their fanboys want them to, because they don't want the grown up responsibilities that grown up currencies have. Now excuse me, I need to make an emergency withdrawal at the Pokemon Bank. You're like a bad cartoon. Pretty familiar pattern. Once the jingoism of rote libertarian talking points wear off, retreat to ad hominem safety valve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 They are currencies, but will never gain the stature that their fanboys want them to, because they don't want the grown up responsibilities that grown up currencies have. Now excuse me, I need to make an emergency withdrawal at the Pokemon Bank. I'd have thought those grown-up responsibilities are what make currencies "currencies." Otherwise it's just an abstract unit of barter, with a value subject to nothing more than whim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I'd have thought those grown-up responsibilities are what make currencies "currencies." Otherwise it's just an abstract unit of barter, with a value subject to nothing more than whim. A currency is a form of a unit of barter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Pretty familiar pattern. Once the jingoism of rote libertarian talking points wear off, retreat to ad hominem safety valve. Actually, I'm just late to joining the party you started way up thread. Feel free to continue charging others with your own crimes, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 A currency is a form of a unit of barter. It's not an abstract unit, though. If it were, you couldn't barter with it, as you couldn't reliably assign it a value, save it, have any reliable mechanisms for exchange or clearing, etc. It's the manner of the agreements that make "currency" a concrete, usable thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts