[Chugalug] More on Bitcoin:
ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 22 21:27:04 UTC 2013
Well you are right about one thing at least: Money's intrensic value is not
a physical item, its set by consumer and producer demand.
Which is ironically why Bitcoin will never be a MAJOR currency or a
replacement for the Dollar.
I never said it couldn't be a currency, see my previous reference to
trading sea shells for cash and giving them a value, technically that makes
them a currency, but the value of my sea shell currency is still hard set
on how many USD I can get for the value of my sea shell, which might
fluctuate depending on how many sea shells I have.
Its therefore a currency. Not a good one, but a currency.
They WERE a corporation. Competing in a market. By driving every other
competitor out of the market via either hostile buyouts or threats.
In a free market, as you suggest, who is to tell these guys that they
cannot do such thing? How do we keep a large, extremely profitable business
from simply destroying all other businesses that compete with them? We
can't regulate them, that would defeat the whole point of a free market.
Innovation? They could just steal an innovative idea. See Thomas Edison for
a good example of a man who basically bought peoples ideas, paid them
nearly nothing for them, claimed them as his own, and then drove them out
of the market.
There is no such thing as a free market, its like saying having a game of
chess, but everything is fair game.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Tyler Mittan <flashbatmanquestion at gmail.com
> There has a lot been said since I last checked so I haven't been keeping
> up, but I do think that this nonsense about REAL, PHYSICAL things is
> nonsense. Money is not all real, physical things.. Not unless you think a
> credit card swipe is somehow valuable. All credit is a transfer of, not
> funds, but credit it. It's really just a mark in a ledger. It is only when
> the bank goes to the other bank that it is fulfilled. It's virtually a
> It strikes me as odd for someone who is so anti-gold standard to make
> claims like this which are so pro-gold standard it hurts.
> Second, value is subjective (you can think Menger and the Austrians who
> found this concept in which all modern day economics is built on except
> socialists). NOTHING IS INTRINSICALLY VALUABLE. It seems like this is
> something we all agree on. Given that money is not necessarily a physical
> thing, and that value is subjective, we can see how bitcoin could be
> considered money if valued by enough people.
> Now that we've established that, we should look at why bitcoin is not
> widely accepted which I mentioned before:
> 1. People don't know about it. Economists and computer geeks, but if you
> were to ask the average, say, psychology student whom has not interest in
> politics whatsoever (and there are plenty) or virtually anyone else, they
> most likely wouldn't know about it.. this begs the question: even if they
> did know about it, would they want it?
> 2. They might. The underlying point of me posting this was to show that
> competing currencies could be a thing. They could be a thing that work very
> well (as they have historically.. look up Richard Timberlake, Lawrence
> White, and George Selgin). We can't say for sure if bitcoins would be a
> very valuable thing, but we do know that it's getting very popular.. this
> begs the question, if it's so popular, why aren't businesses buying it?
> 3. This can be answered mostly by the fact that the legality of it is iffy
> at best. It can also be answered that people trust the backing of a
> government (whom obviously have a pretty poor track record, but people
> don't know better).
> So, there's no reason to think that bitcoins can't be money. I am not
> saying they are widely accepted. I am not saying if they were legal that
> they even would be widely accepted. I am saying that competing currencies
> can, and should, be a thing to keep the dollar honest.
> On Aug 22, 2013 5:05 PM, "Stephen Kraus" <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> John...that is called the exchange rate. It really doesn't make bitcoins
>> any more legitimate as a REPLACEMENT for the USD or as even a strong
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:53 PM, John Aldrich <jmaldrich at yahoo.com>wrote:
>>> Quoting Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com>:
>>> Its funny that, Aaron a good comparison.
>>>> Because if I sell something on Ebay, I set a price in USD.
>>>> And if paypal doesn't give my bank my USD, I get cross
>>>> Yes, that's true, Stephen... but if someone in, say, Germany, wants to
>>> buy what you're selling, they will pay you via PayPal in DeutschMarks,
>>> which Paypal will CONVERT to $USD. Or if you want to buy something for your
>>> VW from someone in Germa ny, they are likely selling in DM, and you will
>>> pay in $USD, but THEY will receive DM from PayPal. Similarly, in theory,
>>> PayPal could start accepting Bitcoins and then convert them to $USD or
>>> whatever currency, or just bank them like you do with your local currency.
>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>> Chugalug mailing list
>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
> Chugalug mailing list
> Chugalug at chugalug.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Chugalug