Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

What if there was Zero debt?

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 25 Oct 2017, 12:57:58

In rural New England we often refer to the "Home place" meaning the house ,barns and other out buildings and all the land attached to it. Going across America today on the interstate system you can often get to the end of the exit ramp and see gas stations and fast food restaurants in the exact same order as the last ten exits you came off of. Hence the term Generica. Not an improvement over older small town main streets with stores on the street level and offices and residential apartments above and a factory a couple of blocks back next to the rail line.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby evilgenius » Thu 26 Oct 2017, 09:38:01

vtsnowedin wrote:
kanon wrote: I would give one warning to those who care to listen. The FED has periodically inflated and deflated the money supply according to the best advantage of the banking cartel and the oligarch class of the time. The housing bubble and 2008 crash, followed by the QE issuance of money to their cronies are the latest example. Merely by withholding loans at a critical time, the banking cartel can crash the economy with a sudden deflation. As the 0.01% acquire vast wealth and power, when will it be to their advantage to deflate the system? My last comment on this thread.
The housing bubble was caused by the passage of the Community reinvestment act where the Dems secured the Black vote by letting them buy houses they couldn't afford. The realtors and bankers took advantage of course and actually stripped a lot of poor people of whatever savings they had.

Yeah, and I'm sure Greenspan refusing to raise rates, so that he could 'stay' out of the whole issue of Bush's re-election, had nothing to do with it. They had a nice little thing going, where they could off-shore the money that would have otherwise gone to compete for workers, suppressing wages and, therefore, inflation. At the same time, the country was hoodwinked into believing that homes are assets, allowing corresponding investment of belief. The mandate to fight inflation was their overriding concern. They simply chose to do that in a manner that favored their own biased version of who is important in society, not realizing that the will to power is an equal opportunity lever. That lever functions best when operating with real assets, such as going concerns, in an environment where people make enough relative to the money supply so that those going concerns can expect their custom. They didn't stop to think about how the money supply, being based upon debt, will shrink when debt becomes unsubstantiated. I'm sure they thought they could keep workers borrowing, and that the candy man they had created would come up with the marginal payments. The statistics concerning how many men of working age were involved in housing were probably something Greenspan and his ilk used to delude themselves. If the government had not stepped in to save the banks it would have been every bit as bad as the 30's. Imagine suddenly having to make do with whatever cash you had in your pocket at the time, for pretty much however many months until society got a handle on the changes. A jar of change would have been equal to a king's ransom. Now that is a reset.
User avatar
evilgenius
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 27 Oct 2017, 14:32:32

A way out of the Debt based system.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp ... p12202.pdf

I will summarize here four basic points about the equity/sovereign based plan:
First, preventing banks from creating their own funds during credit booms, and then destroying these funds during subsequent contractions, would allow for a much better control of credit cycles, which were perceived to be the major source of business cycle fluctuations.

Second, 100% reserve backing would completely eliminate bank runs.

Third, allowing the government to issue money directly at zero interest, rather than borrowing that same money from banks at interest, would lead to a reduction in the interest burden on government finances and to a dramatic reduction of (net) government debt, given that irredeemable government-issued money represents equity in the commonwealth rather than debt.

Fourth, given that money creation would no longer require the simultaneous creation of mostly private debts on bank balance sheets, the economy could see a dramatic reduction not only of government debt but also of private debt levels
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby kanon » Sun 29 Oct 2017, 11:49:31

OK, one more post here. The link to the paper cited by onlooker is wp/12/202.pdf - The Chicago Plan Revisited. As I understand it, this is very similar to the NEED Act proposal of the American Monetary Institute and discussed at http://greensformonetaryreform.org/ (no surprise that an anti-establishment party is the only one discussing the issue).

Thanks to onlooker for adding this reference to the discussion. IMHO, the monetary system can be understood and analyzed by ordinary people when they understand the basic points and requirements of a monetary system. Unfortunately this information is not available in any popular media or from market or financial commentary. I think this article opens the door to understanding these concepts.

The critical feature of our theoretical model is that it exhibits the key function of banks in modern economies, which is not their largely incidental function as financial intermediaries between depositors and borrowers, but rather their central function as creators and destroyers of money.4 A realistic model needs to reflect the fact that under the present system banks do not have to wait for depositors to appear and make funds available before they can on-lend, or intermediate, those funds. Rather, they create their own funds, deposits, in the act of lending. This fact can be verified in the description of the money creation system in many central bank statements 5 , and it is obvious to anybody who has ever lent money and created the resulting book entries.6 In other words, bank liabilities are not macroeconomic savings, even though at the microeconomic level they can appear as such. Savings are a state variable, so that by relying entirely on intermediating slow-moving savings, banks would be unable to engineer the rapid lending booms and busts that are frequently observed in practice. Rather, bank liabilities are money that can be created and destroyed at a moment’s notice. The critical importance of this fact appears to have been lost in much of the modern macroeconomics literature on banking, with the exception of Werner (2005), and the partial exception of Christiano et al. (2011).
* * * *
It should be mentioned that both private and government-issued monies are fiat monies, because the acceptability of bank deposits for commercial and official transactions has had to first be decreed by law. As we will argue in section II, virtually all monies throughout history, including precious metals, have derived most or all of their value from government fiat rather than from their intrinsic value.
* * * *
[There is] plenty of evidence that these credit systems, and the much later money systems, had their origins in the needs of the state (Ridgeway (1892)), of religious/temple institutions (Einzig (1966), Laum (1924)) and of social ceremony (Quiggin (1949)), and not in the needs of private trading relationships.
* * * *
Many historians (Del Mar (1895)) have partly attributed the eventual collapse of the Roman republic to the emergence of a plutocracy that accumulated immense private wealth at the expense of the general citizenry.

I also want to comment on evilgenious concept of "will to power." It could mean the intense and relentless drive of a few to dominate society through control of money, but I think this is an instinctive drive to improve social status, which is exploited in consumerism and certainly is facilitated by debt. People believe they can borrow to obtain higher social status, whether a bigger house, car, or a business venture/speculation. The constraint of lack of money is a significant frustration for the "will to power," and the boom phase of the credit cycle makes it seem that private debt-money satisfies this desire. But, of course, the bust part of the credit cycle brings it all back to reality.
kanon
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 08:04:07

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 29 Oct 2017, 17:47:43

kanon wrote:I also want to comment on evilgenious concept of "will to power." It could mean the intense and relentless drive of a few to dominate society through control of money, but I think this is an instinctive drive to improve social status, which is exploited in consumerism and certainly is facilitated by debt. People believe they can borrow to obtain higher social status, whether a bigger house, car, or a business venture/speculation. The constraint of lack of money is a significant frustration for the "will to power," and the boom phase of the credit cycle makes it seem that private debt-money satisfies this desire. But, of course, the bust part of the credit cycle brings it all back to reality.

You speak of a boom and bust phase of the credit cycle but in fact people take on debt, be it house ,car student loan, or other debt every year as their own circumstances warrant so that the average house mortgage is fifteen years old and worth somewhat less then half of the house's present value and the car loan is two and a half years old and the average car could be sold or traded in for the balance due. People pay off debt every year. It is when the majority, for whatever reason, can't pay their debts on the due date that financial crises occur.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 29 Oct 2017, 18:08:33

I think taking a macro view, the planet as a whole has a serious problem with overextended debt loads if this is to be believed
Worldwide debt more than triple economic output as central bank shift looms

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-glob ... SKBN1CU1V9
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 29 Oct 2017, 21:20:25

onlooker wrote:I think taking a macro view, the planet as a whole has a serious problem with overextended debt loads if this is to be believed
Worldwide debt more than triple economic output as central bank shift looms

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-glob ... SKBN1CU1V9

Again you are looking at total debt against one years economic output. Not all debts come due a year from today. Most debts are written to be paid off during the useful live of the object of the loan with a residual salvage value left over as an error buffer.
Being three years behind is not a good thing and certainly worse then only being one year behind but the limits are not set in stone and we will probably muddle through.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby radon1 » Mon 30 Oct 2017, 05:09:14

kanon wrote:OK, one more post here. The link to the paper cited by

Good post overall.

virtually all monies throughout history, including precious metals, have derived most or all of their value from government fiat rather than from their intrinsic value.
* * * *
[There is] plenty of evidence that these credit systems, and the much later money systems, had their origins in the needs of the state
This.


this is an instinctive drive to improve social status
And this.
radon1
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1953
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013, 05:09:44

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 30 Oct 2017, 12:50:10

“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby efarmer » Mon 30 Oct 2017, 13:05:26

There is zero debt right now if the folks who create, manage, and guard the illusion of fiat money
go naughty, and the chain of confidence breaks. The ability of some neato substance or intrinsic
value like "the full faith and integrity of the so and so government and people" gets compromised
then the liquidity of paper it backs up, as being just as good as some valuable substance falls on it's ass
because gravity is more reliable than money and always will be.

Zero debt is therefore equal to zero confidence. You can't eat gold, I suppose one could
eat paper money, but finding it of little nutritional value, they would crap out a fortune
on paper and still be hungry.

I would like to buy gravity futures and hedge with sunshine investments, but I can't find
any brokers with game, so I think I will make a sandwich and go back to work so I stay
ahead on paper.
User avatar
efarmer
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1996
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 03:00:00

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 30 Oct 2017, 13:24:08

The bottom line is you ca not do Capitalism as we have known it in the modern age, in a world of contracting economies and resource shortages. So the equity/sovereign based plan I linked to is a good start to putting the brakes on our increasingly fantasy based monetary/debt greedy capitalism system
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby kanon » Wed 01 Nov 2017, 09:54:06

efarmer wrote:There is zero debt right now if the folks who create, manage, and guard the illusion of fiat money
go naughty, and the chain of confidence breaks. The ability of some neato substance or intrinsic
value like "the full faith and integrity of the so and so government and people" gets compromised
then the liquidity of paper it backs up, as being just as good as some valuable substance falls on it's ass
because gravity is more reliable than money and always will be.

Zero debt is therefore equal to zero confidence. You can't eat gold, I suppose one could
eat paper money, but finding it of little nutritional value, they would crap out a fortune
on paper and still be hungry.

I would like to buy gravity futures and hedge with sunshine investments, but I can't find
any brokers with game, so I think I will make a sandwich and go back to work so I stay
ahead on paper.

The concept that there must be some "backing" to the money system is a fallacy in many ways. I suppose "full faith and credit" is a type of backing. The decree of the "sovereign" (legal tender laws) is usually sufficient backing for money, since no one wants to be stuck with tokens that are not approved. It is also a fallacy to confuse debt and money. As long as there is human society there will be some form of debt, even if it is as simple as borrowing a cup of sugar from your neighbor. The debts can form into an extensive web of inter-dependency and become a major part of the social system. It has been the case that money has been issued in the form of a note or indenture, with the idea that the note would be used as a token for exchange and never actually be paid. The French assignat system comes to mind (and the current FRN). I think the assignat system failed because it was confused from the beginning and the revolutionary government did not have the power to control it or to prevent counterfeiting. Precious metal money is often used when the "sovereign" control has less scope than the commerce. So the gold standard was used to settle international payments or precious metal coins were used to trade between merchants of different kingdoms, or when it was not clear who actually was the sovereign.

I just want to say that the idea that "zero debt equals zero confidence" goes more to the condition of society than to the money system.

I agree with onlooker that the FED system of debt-money does not work in a world of contracting economies and resource shortages. The FED system requires "growth" meaning increased new debt so the old debt can be paid. Additionally, the new debt has to be for something the banks will monetize, i.e. the type of activity that maintains their position. A reformed money system would have to have the ability to contract/deflate without causing an economic or social crisis. I suppose we could have another concept for money systems -- the money system should reflect the conditions and serve the needs of the society in which it is used.

This leads to the implication that the money system will have to reinforce the position of the sovereign. If the money system leads to undermining the sovereign's position, perhaps by being dysfunctional or by support of rivals to the sovereign, then that money system will inevitably fail.
kanon
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 08:04:07

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby evilgenius » Wed 01 Nov 2017, 12:06:09

kanon wrote: the FED system of debt-money does not work in a world of contracting economies and resource shortages. The FED system requires "growth" meaning increased new debt so the old debt can be paid.


That's not correct. You talk about fiat money as if it cannot be responsive to the will of the people. You suggest that the fiat system all by itself is to blame, and not the way that it has gotten out of control under its current management. It's true that there has been an unhinging which requires a sort of whoring by the Fed and the layer of money lenders that seek to procure and sustain US dominance via economic means, but the root substance that gives them the ability to pull that off is not the issue.

The greatest problem the US faces domestically is probably the artificially low wage structure that the Fed has been able to engender under the guise of fighting inflation. They've been able to use the tax dodging investments overseas (which are great for creating a means of international exchange through various instruments, but also can serve as a place to park money which could compete for workers) to keep wages lower in the US than is healthy. Prudent borrowers are, thus, disenfranchised.

Your criticism is better placed at the next layer above, and not the banks, which encourages profligate borrowing in order to fund international dominance. That's the sort of funding that takes on the inherent risk you are suggesting ought to suffer a solution. It can invite a calamity. It relies too much upon a mix of both private and corporate debt for its safety. And it makes assumptions about the quality of that debt which it ought not to. It doesn't suffer from exposure to a counter example of prudent debt successfully at work in society at any large scale.

It's largely about how they entice foreign investment. Once they've got whoever is in a thin layer of power in foreign countries invested there is no escape for those people. Mostly the power of the money at work is enough (look at all the crises that serve nothing so much as to serve the status quo), but the US military stands ready to both enforce the order (keep that layer thin), or to replace the people who chaff under its bonds. The political system aims, in its pernicious ignorance, to keep the people from realizing what is going on. And people wonder why all of the US attempts to instill democracy in foreign countries fail.
User avatar
evilgenius
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2234
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Stopped at the border.

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby kanon » Thu 02 Nov 2017, 11:07:05

evilgenius wrote:That's not correct. You talk about fiat money as if it cannot be responsive to the will of the people. You suggest that the fiat system all by itself is to blame, and not the way that it has gotten out of control under its current management. It's true that there has been an unhinging which requires a sort of whoring by the Fed and the layer of money lenders that seek to procure and sustain US dominance via economic means, but the root substance that gives them the ability to pull that off is not the issue.

The greatest problem the US faces domestically is probably the artificially low wage structure that the Fed has been able to engender under the guise of fighting inflation. * * *

Your criticism is better placed at the next layer above, and not the banks, which encourages profligate borrowing in order to fund international dominance. * * *

The Federal Reserve Monetary (FED) system has evolved into a system where bank credit is the source of +95% of the money. The money is issued by funding loans, so it is kind of a truism that one must be borrowing for something which the banks approve of to get money. But I think we agree more than it might seem.

I want to stress that the FED system is only one form of a fiat money system. The U.S. briefly had the greenback, which was a fiat paper money directly issued by the government. I earlier said that the nature of the monetary system is the fundamental political issue and your post really highlights that. I am certain that a fiat monetary system could be "responsive to the will of the people," but whether it will serve the people or serve a ruling class is a political issue and the people have been on the losing side for quite a while. The problems you refer to as "an unhinging" reflects the money system serving the ruling class.

IMHO, a key point is controlling the issuance of money. Whoever gets the money first will have an economic and political advantage because they have the money. So the ruling class will want to control who can get money and for what purpose. Today, the ruling class is centered around the banking cartel because banks control money issuance. For example, there has been a lot of talk about "helicopter money" or money issued directly to the public. The idea also appears as a universal basic income. This would give the economic advantage to the public which is why it is always presented in terms of undesirable welfare, dependency, and rampant inflation. However, the social security program, which is direct money issuance to some of the public, is omitted from the helicopter money propaganda. The question of "how will we pay for it" is a real propaganda gem.

The idea of increasing wage income is also a means of distributing more money to the employed public. Wages have been suppressed, as you describe, while money issued to the ruling class has increased. The corporate agenda is funded and the public agenda is not funded. Hence, the all-powerful corporate and security state and the declining middle class and growing poverty.

I do not believe that bank loan officers are nefarious conspirators, but they are following the rules of a rigged game. The money system has not "gotten out of control under its current management." The money system is being controlled for the advantage of the ruling class, which includes the current management. There are major problems with excessive debt, but that is inherent in the design of the FED system. It appears that as long as the federal debt can be increased and QE money can be kept out of circulation, the debt problem can be managed.

There is also the idea that a market economy will evolve into oligarchy unless there is significant money redistribution Is Capitalism Dead or Merely Dying?. So ideas like supply-side economics and tax cuts for the rich will inevitably favor a ruling elite.

This is why I think this is such an important topic. IMHO, if we want to change current trends then people will have to educate themselves to learn the basics of money systems and require the government to create a beneficial system. If the money system is to be responsive to the will of the people, then the people will have to understand what they want.
kanon
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 08:04:07

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 02 Nov 2017, 18:53:38

IMHO, a key point is controlling the issuance of money. Whoever gets the money first will have an economic and political advantage because they have the money. Yes, what Kanon stated here is absolutely true. In fact a famous quote attributed to a Rothschild intimated that he cared not who makes the laws of a country if he could control the money supply. The problem as I see it is a basic one of hoarding. Money is an instrument by which wealth can be accumulated and hoarded. So, we must absolutely begin to get away from money as we understand it in the modern age. A big part of that is Debt. So, this plan that I refered to ie the Chicago plan is actually originally linked by Dave a moderator who has stopped posting. But I am sure it is easy to search for all the data on this plan or similar ones. Fractional reserve banking and compound interest must be done away with as they bestow too much power to any entity which lends money. Fiat money certainly has been introduced throughout time under different guises. But the noteworthy aspect of it is that it is usually a power reserved to the Authorities or Government. What we have now is a rather perverted system of the Federal Reserve being a defacto private corporation or Bank. This is led to utter corruption on the part of the Banking industry and should be abolished immediately if possible. Only a Government responsive to the will of the people should have the authority to issue any type of currency and/or have some agreed upon unit of exchange as you are seeing now with Cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin on the Internet. But I suspect as we slide down our lofty perch on the downside of limits of growth, all these elements will coalesce in the need for effective and expedient commerce and trade.
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 02 Nov 2017, 19:03:04

onlooker wrote: The problem as I see it is a basic one of hoarding. Money is an instrument by which wealth can be accumulated and hoarded. So, we must absolutely begin to get away from money as we understand it in the modern age.

You are absolutely out to lunch. 8O :lol:
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 02 Nov 2017, 19:24:07

So, I take it V, that you will find it acceptable as we slide down into further economic ruin and more and more people become destitute that just a few lucky ones will live in opulence. Or is it that you are just forecasting for the foreseeable future rosy skies.? Or do you think we can just continue lending and accumulating Debt forever? Tell me who is out to lunch or who may not ponder these question of the human condition as it relates to millions or billions. Oh I get it, you think President Reagan and trickly down economics will be working just fine into the future hahaha
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7953
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 02 Nov 2017, 21:44:30

onlooker wrote:So, I take it V, that you will find it acceptable as we slide down into further economic ruin and more and more people become destitute that just a few lucky ones will live in opulence. Or is it that you are just forecasting for the foreseeable future rosy skies.? Or do you think we can just continue lending and accumulating Debt forever? Tell me who is out to lunch or who may not ponder these question of the human condition as it relates to millions or billions. Oh I get it, you think President Reagan and trickly down economics will be working just fine into the future hahaha

The National debt is indeed dangerous and the house of cards they have built with the QE's would give pause to anybody with the ability to add and subtract but the idea that we need to or even can get rid of money or that that would do any good is ridiculous.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby careinke » Thu 02 Nov 2017, 23:05:38

Nice thread, I enjoyed reading it.

It was particularly of interest to me, since I recently swallowed the red pill, about money. Specifically with crypto currencies and the block chain. I believe your arguments about who should control the money, and how it can be manipulated to achieve various outcomes, will become irrelevant. As irrelevant as people arguing how we are going to fit a million horses in NYC in 1911.

No one should control money. Just as Separation of Church and State led to greater freedoms and prosperity. The upcoming Separation of State and Currency will lead to increased monetary freedom for the entire world. Where two individuals can transact without regard to boarders, governments, banks, etc. requiring no ones approval beyond the parties involved. No one will be able to stop, divert or confiscate, transactions between consenting parties. Each individual will be their own bank with much greater security of your currency. Face it, if you trust someone else with your money, they will eventually steal it, they may even do it in such a clever way you don't even notice it (think inflation).

The original block chain currency is of course BITCOIN established January 2009. Since that time, its market cap has grown from nothing to 120 Billion today. Now, 120 Billion is a pretty large honeypot for bad guys to try and exploit (steal). As a matter of fact, it is under constant attack by some very smart people. To date BITCOIN itself has NEVER been hacked, and if you understand how BITCOIN works you will realize that trying to hack bitcoin is totally impractical. No government could afford to do it today, and even if they did it, would not net any gain. Plus, it only takes one node to completely rebuild it.

In the instances where BITCOIN have been stolen, the coins were kept in a central location, with the keys not under the owners control. Like an exchange, or bank, or trading platform which kind of defeats the purpose of a distributed currency system. I expect to see these institutions change to a distributed system in the near future.

Frankly, cryptocurrencies and the block chain are going to do to the monetary system(s), what the Internet did to information, open it up to everyone. Right now Block chain and cryptocurrency are where we were with the internet in 1989. This Pandora's box has been opened and cannot be stopped.

If you are interested in Crypto currencies (especially BITCOIN), I would suggest you start with a YouTube video called "Introduction to BITCOIN" by Andreas Antonopoulos, probably the most knowledgeable person about Bitcoin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1511&v=l1si5ZWLgy0

The lecture assumes you no nothing about bitcoin, and even if you think you know, watch the video with an open mind. The question and answer session at the end is particularly enlightening and answers some common misconceptions. I can guarantee it will be 38 minutes well spent, even if you end up totally disagreeing with him. Keep in mind the lecture was given in SEP 2016, so it is a year old. In that time the market cap has increased ten fold, so when he says twelve Billion, add two zeros.

We used to have a BOLD Prediction thread, so here is mine:

In less than five years the current monetary system will be completely disrupted. Banks, credit unions, government currencies, and most jobs involving financial middlemen, will become significantly less important than today and in some cases not even exist. Robots will have the ability to automatously control their own currency.
Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: What if there was Zero debt?

Unread postby Ibon » Fri 03 Nov 2017, 07:00:33

Just a question and I am just beginning to understand this crypto currency topic. When transactions are made through bitcoin and money is earned, how does the state get transparency in order to tax its citizens. I am asking this because isn't this a huge threat for governments because of tax evasion and wont governments at some point insist on legislating this?

I have long been a believer that paper money will disappear because goverments want full transparency of all transactions and paper money permits the informal black economy to continue that hides earnings from governments wanting to tax us to death.

So taxation and crytpo currency. What is the story here? Just curious. If this has been discussed sorry I haven't read through these threads on this topic
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 5995
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

PreviousNext

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests