Bitcoin, and other tulips

I don’t think there’s a strong cause/effect relationship between how well banking worked with and without the gold standard. Regardless of whether a currency is or isn’t backed by gold (or any other hard commodity), how well the banking system functions depends on many other more important factors like how well the banking system is regulated, how leveraged, liquid & matched it is (this is the key element, to my mind), and so on. There have been catastrophic, system-wide banking failures throughout history, in almost every country, under pretty much all forms of money used to date.

Do i think we’d be better served by moving back to the gold standard? No, its disadvantages far outweigh its advantages in my mind. Every model of money the world has seen has advantages and disadvantages but, like democracy as a form of government, i view the current system as ‘the least worst’ form.

1 Like

Good answers, cheers.

The reason I ask in the context of this thread, is that Bitcoin essentially works off a ‘Digital gold standard’ and the way the money is created and accounted for, fractional-lending isn’t really an option. (well, it was designed that way, I’m sure there’s a work around that will be found.)

Do you think these factors work against its large-scale adoption, or is there benefit in having a global currency that works this way, working side-by-side with the current FIAT currency?

1 Like

I simply don’t know. I’m a self-confessed technological luddite so, despite having done a bit of reading on the topic, i gave up. My views generally on vanguard technologies are: 1) it’s close to impossible to reliably pick the long-term winners early on, 2) benefits typically flow over time to consumers with the spoils of the profits shared by a very small pool of entities/shareholders, and 3) exciting prospects lead to enormous pools of capital chasing the excess returns, which has the unavoidable consequence of compressing excess returns.

I understand enough to think that block chain technology is potentially quite exciting, but that’s about it. I think the widely held assumption that Bitcoin - or any other crypto currency - has a fixed supply due to some code or based on what the programmers say, is likely a faulty assumption under various scenarios, based on a few million years of history regarding how humans tend to respond to incentives.

1 Like

The fact that I suddenly find the banking system fascinating, is the final confirmation that I’m officially ‘Old’ now.

1 Like

go on, get married and divorced a couple times to really feel alive.

2 Likes

I do like the sound of that, but there needs to be only one of them and no other farkling currency. I currently pay bills in Euro, USD, UKP and Yen; does my head in. Lucky when I buy stuff from China they also use USD, but how longs that lasts is anyone’s guess.

But if you back to my new World order then I would be giving everyone homes; so those banking parasites could GAGF.

So this Fractional Reserve Banking…is it like…like…the opposite of a divorce settlement?

Total detour, but wanted a way to share an old comedy sketch from Living Colour:

So in theory

Crypto would allow you to pay all of those bills in the same currency, instantly*. No banks, no exchange rate, no fees*. From your digital wallet to theirs.

Its straight from your manifesto.

*The ‘instant’ and ‘no fees’ aspect of Bitcoin haven’t panned out so good.

Call me when it all happens and I will pay you to be my consultant.

If anyone sees any credible attempt to value a blockchain asset let us know as I would be keen to read it.
I disagree with those that think the world is a better place due to fractional reserve banking. I think you’re confusing other conditions that existed prior to FRB but which were not dependent on it.
Why should banks be allowed to lend something they don’t have and to make a significant margin on what they don’t own? FRB is wonderful if you are a banker or if you own assets leveraged to gain returns above the rate of inflation. It’s a system designed by the rich to make $b’s for the rich.
Houses are built by labour, and the supply of houses is determined by availability of labour and materials. Borrowed capital is optional to any production system, but what it does do is significantly increase the risk of collapse of that system.
Banks cannot return 100% of depositor’s funds to them. Not ever. The system will only continue to operate for as long as depositors agree to accept this reality. Those comforted by the knowledge that the government will bail out the collapse of any large financial institution should recognise that this is proof of the underlying problem. Because the government doesn’t bail out anything. Only taxpayers do which is yet another transfer from poor to rich.
Everything eventually comes to an end. FRB will too. I think the timing of the collapse (which might be a slow collapse) will occur as the global economy hits fossil fuel, pollution, critical resource depletion and global political disruption barriers.

1 Like

Bitcoin is dead long live eth

1 Like

Ether’s had a good week.
Tron hasn’t.

I’ve moved on from the Dotcom comparison.

Cryptos remind me of the cult of CrossFit, one minute your overweight and haven’t excercise in years, one week of CrossFit later and you can’t stop talking about nutrition and weight training.

Cryptos are the same. One week what’s a crypto. Days later, yeah x is doing well but I really like b it’s got good growth potential.

Not me.
I have nfi about any of it.
Fun, though.

1 Like

Yeah I think a lot of people are doing it for the fun. It’s a TAB that is on 24 hours a day.

3 Likes

Exactly!
It’s a multi where you can lose a leg on one day but get back in the next!

1 Like

Banks could only lend a certain, much more restrictive percentage of houses, not the 95% they can lend now.

@Heather_Mills

5 Likes

Only if they have the same haircut.

1 Like