which is the whole point about there being a ceiling on the number of bitcoin being in circulation

I don’t see why this would solve any kind of problem – it’s surely going to go the other way. If there’s a limited supply then the currency will end up becoming massively strong – so one bitcoin owned now could buy a car in 10 years time. How’s that fair or sane?

It solves the problems that have neccesitated a mechanism for changing the supply of currency within an economy

Can you expand on this please?

At the moment we have an economic system where the money supply can be arbritrarily increased on the whims of the government. Interest is used to ensure those people that have savings can keep up with inflation by adding to their savings as a proportion of what they have saved.

The problem is that the interest rates are set by the government and the capacity to inflate the currency is also held by the government. As is happening at the moment, they can bring the interest rates down to virtually nothing to disincentivise people to save, but eventually they will have to increase it to try and reign in inflation, disincentivising spending.

This balancing act is always doomed to failure because without debt there is no money. If society were to pay all of its debts, all of the money would go back to the central banks. the problem is that we can never give all of the money back to the central banks because we cannot increase the supply and there is always the interest on the original loan to pay back. More money is owed to the central banks than exists in the entire economy.

The only way that we can keep abreast of the ever burgeoning debt we owe to the central banks is to create growth in the economy by pulling in money from abroad. If we fail to grow, all of a sudden things start looking very shaky and nations like Greece and Ireland start to drop like flies. This is important to note – if we stop growth, even if we just stand still, we will be forced to default on our debts to the central banks.

This is all of course very simplistic and I am an armchair economist at best but it makes sense in my mind and I am open to debating this, though possibly in another thread.

I believe Bitcoin is a better system than this for the following reasons:

Currency supply is predictable and finite. We live on a finite planet whose resources can be broken down into a finite number of the smallest denominator (though nanotech means those bits are getting smaller all the time). If there are enough units of a single currency to cover even the smallest denomination of resources on the planet then why would we need to create more?

The barriers to transmission of Bitcoins are minimal. Yes, you need access to the internet but that is it. Other than that you don’t even need an email account.

Your wealth cannot be controlled by any outside party, nor can it be removed from you without your consent. Coercive governments may not be a large problem here in the UK but if you were to ask the people of Zimbabwe if that was a tangible benefit I am sure they would be quite enthusiastic.

so one bitcoin owned now could buy a car in 10 years time. How’s that fair or sane?

It is fair because the people who invest in the currency early are the ones who will make it work. A single bitcoin may well be able to buy a car in ten years but that will be the result of enough people storing them for long enough so as to provide a solid base against which the value of the currency can be measured.

Apple shares used to cost nothing but you could now buy a car for only a couple of dozen of them. This is not unfair, it is just that those with the foresight to purchase them provided stability and funds to Apple which in turn allowed them to flourish. It is perfectly sane that as more people adopt a currency, those who invested heavily in it at the start are should benefit.

If in ten years you need some groceries, only have a bitcoin grocer and some fiat currency from your own country, you can exchange them at the going rate, pick up a handful of nanobitcoins and go to the shop. Just beacaue one of the large investors from 10 years ago happens to have a lot of bitcoins does not mean that your gorceries are more expensive, it just means that there are some people out there who have a lot more cash than you because of their prudent investments at the start.

Also worth bearing in mind, in the world as it stands today, the top 10% of the population have over half the wealth in may countries. I would be most surprised if the Bitcoin ratio was any worse.

The problem is that the interest rates are set by the government and the capacity to inflate the currency is also held by the government.

I don’t see why it’s a problem. Their goal is to keep the economy growing, but not too quickly. Why? Cos that results in the best situation for US normal folk, and then we vote them back in. There’s no ulterior dark motive behind interest rates and QE, imo. Oh and btw it’s the BoE and the Fed in the US, not governments.

It is fair because the people who invest in the currency early are the ones who will make it work. A single bitcoin may well be able to buy a car in ten years but that will be the result of enough people storing them for long enough so as to provide a solid base against which the value of the currency can be measured

Right. So then bitcoins are an investment opportunity, with risks, not a currency as such. That’s a totally different ballgame. If the goal of the bitcoin system is to eliminate bank and government control of currency then it has to be used as common currency – we’d have to pay our mortgages in it, be paid in it and so on. For that to be workable it NEEDS to be a stable currency not volatile like stocks and shares.

If early adopters can make themselves very rich by buying it up when it’s cheap, then it’s no different to land rushes in the USA is it? A few people grab all the good stuff and leave the poor folk scrabbling around for crumbs. How’s that any good?

Your wealth cannot be controlled by any outside party, nor can it be removed from you without your consent

I most definitely disagree. If the value crashes, your wealth’s gone. Nothing you can do about it. It’s at the mercy of the wider market just like any other currency, but WITHOUT anyone trying to stabilise it like normal currencies.

Wont work for me for two reasons:

Its a solution to a non existant problem.

Currencies develop from an initial point where they are convertible (underpinned by tangible value) only when they have mass acceptance does the need for the underlying value fall away. Bitcoin has no underlying value so could fall flat at any point.

I still might buy some though – as a speculator 🙂

Their goal is to keep the economy growing, but not too quickly. Why? Cos that results in the best situation for US normal folk, and then we vote them back in. There’s no ulterior dark motive behind interest rates and QE, imo.

They have to keep the economy growing or it collapses. I guess I am just a little more suspicious of government than you, I personally do not believe a great deal of what they say or the way they do things. There are countless of cases of human rights being abused and governments covering them up to protect their buddies in big business. Monsanto make terminator plants that do not reseed for sale into the third world to ensure their continued usage, oil companies destroy rural land and governments prosecute (and sometimes kill) the people who protest, we are currently in two wars at the behest of big oil, the WTO ensure that we can continue to exploit third world citizens without the same legal protection as we afford our own people, Arms dealers get taken on tours of warzones by our own prime minister.

I am not surprised you don’t get bitcoin if all of these things and thousands of others seem to have escaped you as well.

Right. So then bitcoins are an investment opportunity, with risks, not a currency as such.

All currencies are both. You can speculate ono currencies or you can use them to buy cheese. This is as I have conceded a very volatile one at the moment and the only way we can combat that is to get loads of people using it as a currency as well as a vehicle for speculation. These two things are at odds with each other but I do not see why that should be a show stopper, it isn’t elsewhere. Bitcoin businesses are springing up like mushrooms at the moment so I can only see it getting better.

There are loads of hurdles to this, I do accept that, but I also believe they will be overcome.

For that to be workable it NEEDS to be a stable currency not volatile like stocks and shares.

Look at any graph of GBP or USD charting the buying power of a single unit since 1914 and you will see that our currencies are far from stable. Consistently declining, yes, but not stable.

I still might buy some though – as a speculator

Spend a few whilst you are at it though! I have found it is a very useful way of contributing a few quid to open source projects without the need for putting in cc details etc.

I guess I am just a little more suspicious of government than you

And I suspect that is the core of the issue.

I don’t believe govts are scheming to screw us over. People complain about govts making money through taxation, but they seem oblivious to the fact that they don’t KEEP that money, they spend it back on us. Of course, many politicians are involved in big business and backed by it, so they have an incentive to keep big business happy. But for every business that is in bed with the govt, there are 100 that aren’t. And we all work for them anyway, or if we don’t we are paid by people who are.

It’s a lot more inter-linked than people seem to realise.. Something my Dad once said started me thinking about it. Someone was complaining about the amount of money wasted on the Moon programme in the 60s. My Dad pointed out that the money didn’t disappear. It was paid to businesses, most of which were US based AFAIK.

You can speculate ono currencies or you can use them to buy cheese

Yep, and there are rules and regulations for speculating on normal currencies, I think. To help keep them stable.

Every man in the pub is complaining about how there wasn’t enough regulation which caused this financial crisis. And this system is meant to be better because there is NO regulation…? Still deeply sceptical.

The only scenario that I can see is that some will get rich, and many will lose out a bit. So business as usual 🙂

Monetarism is a tendency in economic thought that emphasizes the role of governments in controlling the amount of money in circulation – Wikipedia, line number 1 in the article about monetarism.

Yes, I thought that might be where you got it from. What that says to me is that you didn’t actually read and understand the article, and that why you missed where the emphasis in that sentence was.

That’s why you said this:

If by monetarism you mean the neccesity of the involvement of a government then yes, I agree

But the emphasis in the sentence wasn’t the bit about governments (in italics), it was the bit about controlling money supply (in bold). Monetarists believe growth of the money supply and inflation are two sides of the same coin (as it were), and that inflation is an erosion of value. “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon” – Milton Friedman. This is why bitcoinists believe that the (supposed) cap on bitcoin supply growth is so important and why they describe it as a deflationary currency.

If you don’t get the relationship between bitcoin’s structure and monetarism and don’t understand what monetarism is, then maybe you should do a bit more reading before becoming such an advocate.

And frankly – without wanting to be horrible – part of the problem with bitcoin fanbois is that they’re prone to going on C&P odysseys without really understanding what they’re saying.

Someone was complaining about the amount of money wasted on the Moon programme in the 60s. My Dad pointed out that the money didn’t disappear. It was paid to businesses, most of which were US based AFAIK.

Is that an anecdote about the futility of Keynesian Demand Management or the strength of the Military-Industrial Complex?

It’s an anecdote about looking beyond simple headlines like ‘This cost X amount’ and having a bit of a think about economics.

Although – why would it be the futility of Keynsian demand management? Was it not a success on that count?

I don’t believe govts are scheming to screw us over.

I believe that the governments have to look like they are not trying to screw us over whilst coercively taking our money and representing the interests of the rich and powerful. As Frank Zappa once said, Government is just the entrtainment division of Big Business.

The corporate takeover of humanity is all but complete.

Ressurected from one of ernie’s postings some time ago…

“As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them. Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum”
– Anthony Wedgwood Benn

Every man in the pub is complaining about how there wasn’t enough regulation which caused this financial crisis. And this system is meant to be better because there is NO regulation…?

Oooh, this is one of my favourites…

The problem with the credit crunch was only partially related to how it happened in the first place, were those banks that should have failed actually allowed to fail then we would have a much stronger banking system now, rather than the same old suits doing the same things again. anyway, far too big a subject to cover in this thread, but I would argue that the government were at least as culpable for the failings of the banking system.

The problems arose in the US because the Fed were making credit far too easy to obtain and guess what? The fed is a private company working with the explicit mandate of act of congress passed in 1913.

Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws

Rothschild, Banker.

I believe that the governments have to look like they are not trying to screw us over whilst coercively taking our money and representing the interests of the rich and powerful

No. Two things. 1) if we don’t have money in our pockets then we’re dissatisfied. No amount of spin will help that. 2) if big business does well then we can all benefit – that money does not disappear.

I would argue that the government were at least as culpable for the failings of the banking system

Yes, partly because they got the regulation wrong. Removing regulation altogether is not going to be any better!

The fed is a private company

And?

If you don’t get the relationship between bitcoin’s structure and monetarism and don’t understand what monetarism is, then maybe you should do a bit more reading before becoming such an advocate.

If you read the OP, I came here looking for a good debate on the matter and I am pleased that you have bought it.

The thing about monetarism and hence my initial emphasis on the wiki quote is that it relies on central regulation of the money supply. I have included my emphasis in bold so there can be no confusion. Money supply is a complex business to manage and can easily be used against the users who are legally required to use that money. I for one have very little faith in our government to look out for my interests.

If indeed there was a free market on currencies and we were allowed to use whichever currency we thought served us best the government wouldn’t have a hope in hell. At the first sign of quantative easing people would jump ship because it is an inherently unsustainable way to run an economy.

The fed is a private company

And?

It is not accountable to the people, only to it’s shareholders.

I for one have very little faith in our government to look out for my interests

Hmm, so you’re advocating no-one at all looking out for them instead?

If indeed there was a free market on currencies and we were allowed to use whichever currency we thought served us best the government wouldn’t have a hope in hell. At the first sign of quantative easing

There wouldn’t be any if this were the case!

There wouldn’t be any if this were the case!

Probably true.

I have to do some work now but it has been a pleasure discussing the issue with the folk here. I for one hope that Bitcoin does take off, for the twofold reasons that I might make a few quid but also because I think that we all need to have a fundamental re-evaluation of our relationship with the state, with money as tool and not as a method for managing us and with each other.

Reciprocal thanks also, for not dragging this into another slanging match as usually happens 🙂

Personally, I think we need govt involvement in economics. Otherwise (as we saw in the past) greed goes mental and screws the weak. I’d rather we were all in this together than trampling each other down to get ahead.

The thing about monetarism and hence my initial emphasis on the wiki quote is that it relies on central regulation of the money supply.

No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter who regulates money supply – it only matters whether money supply grows or not. You still haven’t got it. If Bitcoin were state-sponsored with the same (supposed) structural limits on money supply growth it would (if monetarism is to be believed) arrive at the same deflationary outcome.

You still don’t really understand this shit, do you?

Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws
Rothschild, Banker.

Meh – danger sign #1 – citing apocryphal quotes from Rothschilds/Jewish bankers/lizards. 9/11 references expected in 3-2-1…

Hehe @kb 🙂

Hey kb – if you’re worried about bitcoin stability, let me hold onto all your currency – I’ll pay you a bit extra each month for the privilege.

No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter who regulates money supply – it only matters whether money supply grows or not. You still haven’t got it. If Bitcoin were state-sponsored with the same (supposed) structural limits on money supply growth it would (if monetarism is to be believed) arrive at the same deflationary outcome.

I do understand that fully. I also stated in my first riposte to you that Bitcoin is essentially an experiment in deflationary currency or did you miss that? I, as a programmer rather like the idea that a pre defined alogorithm can replace the central authority required to regulate money supply.

Get as shitty as you like, I have attacked no one and have tried to make my point as clearly as possible without resorting to the technicals, if I am failing to understand your point it is because you have not made it clear enough.

Let me spell it out: I believe it is interesting to see the behaviour of a deflationary system (and I am willing to take a punt on it working) as the inflationary ones don’t seem to be working that well, IMO of course. If that belies some deep misunderstanding I have about monetarism then I await enlightenment.

As for quoting Rothschild, it seems to be perfectly valid when talking about mistrust in banking institutions, your prejudices aside.

Bitcoin is essentially an experiment in deflationary currency…the inflationary ones don’t seem to be working that well…If that belies some deep misunderstanding I have about monetarism then I await enlightenment

1) it’s only a deflationary currency if you subscribe to a fundamentalist strain of monetarism, which is discredited (ask anyone who lived through the 1980s in the UK)

2) you’d only subscribe to monetarism if you thought inflation was such a bad thing, which it’s not

3) bitcoin would only be deflationary (under monetarist theory) if money supply were limited, which it’s not

4) the existing currencies are remarkably good at providing media of exchange and are not a worse store of exchange than a totally unproven speculative currency currently mostly held by gullible conspiracy theorist Americans

as a programmer rather like the idea

Well, this is the heart of it, isn’t it? The bitcoin dudes are programmers, not economists (or even political economists). It’s a solution waiting for a problem. It’s surfing a wave of Glenn Beck-inspired “fiat money” mentalness in the US and bleeding over into other places. But it’s all based on a false premise.

let me hold onto all your currency

You could have all my currency and still not have enough for 8 Ace…

That’s more like it, detail.

I shall do some more research before coming back at those 4 points as you advise, as I said, I am not an economist, but I can see that human intervention is largely only required in systems that haven’t been properly implemented in the first place. Again, that might be a hopelessly computer programmery thing to say but it stands in many situations outside the paradigm of computing.

The bitcoin dudes are programmers, not economists

Indeed, but I can point to a whole bunch of things that have been solved by programmers and not many that have been resolved by Economists. Maybe the economists should be a little more open to some advice? 😉

If indeed there was a free market on currencies and we were allowed to use whichever currency we thought served us best the government wouldn’t have a hope in hell.

There IS a free market of currencies in the UK. The only thing that you have to use legal tender for is payments to the government (tax, fines etc) and the discharge of debts (which you haven’t already agreed will be paid in another currency).

If you can find someone that’s willing to trade with you, you can pay in whatever currency you like. You’re aware that

– trading and professional services companies in the City quite often accept dollars and euros as payment
– Newry and other NI/Eire border towns quite often trade in both Euro and GBP

right?

Ok.. still… hmm.. so bitcoins are worth a certain amount now. As it takes off, their value increases, and the supply dwindles, so newcomers get to fight over smaller and smaller pieces of a whole, where the early adopters are automatically rewarded with great riches for having done nothing.

And this is meant to be a new way of thinking? I’m astonished anyone oculd think this situation would be fair or egalitarian. Sounds like a very clever plan to make tons of money from the early adopters I reckon.

I can see that human intervention is largely only required in systems that haven’t been properly implemented in the first place

I disagree there – intervention is needed to keep a lid on greed and exploitation.

3) bitcoin would only be deflationary (under monetarist theory) if money supply were limited, which it’s not

Bitcoin supply IS limited though…

It’s not, though – it’s divisible.

Of course, it may not matter anyway… http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/19/bitcoin_values_collapse_again/

The weak point, by the way, in the strategy of people “investing” in a rapidly-appreciating thinly-traded crypto-currency because it’s more stable than currency may be becoming clear.

Another article:

http://www.dailytech.com/Inside+the+MegaHack+of+Bitcoin+the+Full+Story/article21942.htm

That’s exactly what I was worrying about up there ^^^