[Chugalug] More on Bitcoin:

Tyler Mittan flashbatmanquestion at gmail.com
Thu Aug 22 23:43:47 UTC 2013

Austrians argue that models can't take into account human action. That was
a very Austrian thing of you to say. They only believe that models can take
you so far. For instance, they think general equilibrium model is only
slightly helpful, but is taken way too far into economics now. And like I
said, Selgin and White are both not Austrians. In fact, Selgin argues
frequently with the Mises Institute (he even wrote a book explaining Mises'
methodology and why he thinks it's false). That being said, I think he is
at least sympathetic towards it. Oh, free banking is also advocated by
Milton Friedman's son: David Friedman whom teaches economics (although he
got his PhD in Physics). He just debated an Austrian (Bob Murphy.. It's a
pretty snarky debate on YouTube) on methodology. Anyway, more related,
everything you just said doesn't really address what I was saying:

Money doesn't have to be physical. Even during the times before the Fed or
the bank of the Unites States when gold was currency, it was most often
transfers of bank tickets instead of the actual gold itself. And
subjectivism is true like the Austrians said, and has been adopted by all
major economic theorists, thus bitcoin could be money. There are
roadblocks, without a doubt, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be if the
government stepped out of the way. And again, we don't want to replace the
dollar. If we allowed for competing currencies, I think in the very long
term, dollars would phase out if the Fed did not change its monetary
On Aug 22, 2013 7:34 PM, "Stephen Kraus" <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> *shrugs* Econ majors, at lest the majority of the few I know, think the
> Austrian School of thought is hilariously bad because, despite the nobel
> prize winning professors among the group, none of their systems properly
> function in reality because they fail to take into account human nature in
> the economic theory.
> But that is beyond me, its why I had to ask them anyways, being a physics
> major leaves me a little unprepared on economic theory.
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Aaron Welch <n2nightfall at gmail.com>wrote:
>> How many of them have jobs?  What gives them the right to laugh?  They
>> have failed to enlighten someone willing to learn.  That is just sad.
>> -AW
>> On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> No, I must not Chad, because all the Economics majors are over here
>> rolling on the ground and laughing.
>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Chad Smith <chad78 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Um I am NOT talking about some sort of "let them eat cake" thing.  I am
>>> talkng about Rich People being Personally Responsible for the results of
>>> their "Corporation's! Actions.   You really really don't get this
>>> On Aug 22, 2013 4:56 PM, "Stephen Kraus" <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I'd like to point out your whole argument about corporations is
>>>> INCREDIBLY silly Chad.
>>>> Mainly because it assumes, based of your argument, that the only way to
>>>> not have corporations is to live in a society of anarchy, because the
>>>> instant a government is formed, WOAH LOOKOUT! Here comes corporations!
>>>> The BP Oil spill? That was a corporation that failed to heed
>>>> regulations on equipment inspections and safety. Are you kidding me with
>>>> that argument?
>>>> Also, the Romans realized, even way back then, that 'Personal
>>>> Responsibility' is utter bullshit, and issues a grain stipend to the
>>>> general public, because a starving, underpaid, overworked public means one
>>>> thing: civil wars and rebellion.
>>>> I mean, what you just wrote up is literally what got King Louis of
>>>> France beheaded.
>>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Chad Smith <chad78 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You are mission the point.  A corporation is an invention of the
>>>>> government, not of the free market.  Yes, in a free market people can work
>>>>> together.  But in a truly free market, they couldn't hide behind some "I
>>>>> didn't do that, the corporation did that!" bs.  A human being built the car
>>>>> that had glue under the gas pedal.  A human being designed it that way.  A
>>>>> human being safety inspected it (alledgely) and a human being sold it.
>>>>>  Those human beings should be held responsible for the results of their
>>>>> actions.  Not hide behind some fictional "Entity" called a corporation.
>>>>> The BP oil spill?  That was a human who did that.  A human being is
>>>>> resposible for that - NOT a "Corporation".  Corporations are a fiction that
>>>>> we all (or most of us) just willingly accept as truth.
>>>>> If there was a Free Market - along with Personal Responsibility (the
>>>>> other side of the "Yes, Mr. Obama, I really DID 'build that'." coin) - then
>>>>> you wouldn't need government interference.  Standard laws that apply to any
>>>>> human being (don't kill, don't steal, don't harm, etc.) would still be
>>>>> around and enforcable.  In fact, they'd be far more enforcable than they
>>>>> are today, because - as the law currently recognizes it - so much harm is
>>>>> done by "Corporations" who cannot be jailed, or killed, or punished in any
>>>>> way other than fines.
>>>>> *- Chad W. Smith*
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> Chad:
>>>>>> 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> wrote:
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> credit.
>>>>>>> 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 competitor.
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/**mailman/listinfo/chugalug<http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>>>>>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>>>>>>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>>>>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>>>>>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>>>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>>>>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>>>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chugalug mailing list
>>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chugalug mailing list
>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chugalug mailing list
>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
> _______________________________________________
> Chugalug mailing list
> Chugalug at chugalug.org
> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chugalug.org/pipermail/chugalug/attachments/20130822/c1633954/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Chugalug mailing list