Idaho
blah blah blah
He's a loon who is plugging bitcoin because he has a big stash of coins. The links to Russia are significant too.
Bitcoin discussion and news
- Thread starter camouflage
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Given that you didn't understand the allusion or the point i was making and mistook a shrug of the shoulders for a sneer then you're on very soft ground for wagging your finger at people for not understanding things.
Ah yes, good old technological determinism free of politics or social relations, freeing us by its own internal laws! Back to the 1950s when technology was on the way to save us all. That worked out great.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Technological determinism? Where's that from? Kropotkin's 23rd treatise to the 2nd international?
Yeah the technology of the 50s has been a disaster. All that medicine, agricultural improvements, the transistor, etc, etc. They have all reduced life expectancy and kept us half starved and in one room slums.
Nothing is free of politics and social relations. However you and your ilk attempt to remain aloof from technology (all the while posting on the Internet from your phones) because it would mean admitting you don't understand something important. An admission devastating to your egos.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Re deflationary currency: as for myself I keep hearing economists whine about deflationary spirals, I don't get what the big deal is provided you stick to what I consider an essential rule of bitcoin... borrow and trade in fiat, save and trade in bitcoin. Or to put another way, never borrow bitcoins, ever.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Have to agree with apron here, placing technology at the forefront of thinking has always struck me as something of a schoolboy error. Power-drills and soldering irons are fair enough, but the heart of the matter is in the essence of the design, in the priorities served.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
And he moans about sneering. Seriously. You've had a good little series of sneers here, you've had your fun. You've not said anything, but you've had a sneer and that's the key thing. Yet again one of your pointless attacks has misfired.
For everyone else, i was asked by Mr flage what i "reckon regarding deflationary currency by the way, bitcoinland is full of people who think the gold standard was the dogs bollocks and hate fiat." following two brief posts from me mentioning speculation. I answered in a short allusive way that i didn't reckon anything about it at all. At which point idaho jumped in with his attack. I'm not going to reply to any more of them as its not really the topic of the thread so apols to you for giving him his opening and taking it off topic.
Idaho
blah blah blah
The wheel, fire, agriculture, society, computers, medicine. These are technologies that have have been at the forefront of change for humanity. Are you really saying these are a distraction from the real business of theoretical discussion?
Amongst his best work imo
I prefer the early EPs.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
The wheel yes, but to roll what to where for whom? Fire yes, but to burn what for what end, agriculture yes, the organization of the community to produce what foods in what manner to feed whom and provide surplus to do what with... etc We can carry on like this, even with medicine. It's not that there's this cool new black box that does stuff, that's just the start of the conversation, what really matters is what is done with the box, what priorities are served, what ends, in what context. Not assessing any of the underlying form is like being color-blind or autistic.
Idaho
blah blah blah
They were full of that beautiful contradiction of hope and angst. When he signed to a major it all went downhill.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Any technology is immediately placed into the service of the existing powers. I completely agree. But some technologies disrupt these relationships, or create new masters and servants. It's an interplay between the tech and the social or class relations.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Precisely agree. But knowing this you can't say "technology is the answer" because you know perfectly well that "technology is a question", a question among other questions.
Bitcoin is definitely disruptive, fo sho.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Ok if we accept technology can be a factor in social change, then let's engage with it and try and work out how we can adapt it for our ends.
Bitcoin has *some* good features for a future communist society, for example. It could create a shared money supply between communities that was managed collectively but not controlled by any one central authority. There are a number of issues why this iteration wouldn't work, of course. But ffs, let's critique from a position of knowledge.
Bitcoin has *some* good features for a future communist society, for example. It could create a shared money supply between communities that was managed collectively but not controlled by any one central authority. There are a number of issues why this iteration wouldn't work, of course. But ffs, let's critique from a position of knowledge.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Ok, well something else about deflationary currency I'd like to discuss... it does not lend itself to the concept of infinite capitalism, we live in a finite world, and yet I'm hearing economists snarl and stomp that deflation forces people to carefully consider what they should buy, whether they need to consume another 12 pack of plastic things today if this time next year they could buy ten packs for the same money, as if this aspect of deflationary currency is so intrinsically bad and wrong. Then out of the other side of their faces these same homo fuckwits (homo as in homo-economicus) will say "yeah sure, we need to consider the environment or whatever". Ridiculous. The only thing bad about deflation is if you are foolish enough to borrow deflationary money, and there's simply no need for anybody to go ahead and do a crazy thing like that.
I don't think a deflationary currency should replace fiat entirely, I reckon the two are complementary, and add greater scope for maneuver etc, but it's a bit rich to hear all these people dismissing the idea of money that challenges the expansionary consumerist way of doing things we've had recently as if for that reason the idea simply shouldn't fly. I do think we need fiat anyway, regardless of the shitty way it might be generated today, I don't think credit should be scarce, credit should be as abundant as the ability of people to make promises to each other. That's got nothing to do with a coin that owes nobody nothing, needs to know nobodies name or address or history. Coins are for one thing, credit is for another.
To be fair now, bitcoin's hardly a ringing endorsement of collective management as compared to central authority from what I've seen. What with all the bubbles and scamming and so on - why it's almost as if financial trading and currency speculation requires a strong regulatory framework and sovereign decision making bodies to prevent it the market constantly fluctuating and to stop people trying to engage in criminal or fraudulent activity through it.
I suppose you could find some sort of de facto decision making body that everyone could contribute to financially (as a percentage of their earnings perhaps) that could enforce some basic standards to prevent the constant bubbles and runs and crashes that seem to typify bitcoin. I mean any future communist society would struggle to trade normally if the currency used to do so was subject to constant speculation by people with their own set of interests.
It's all very interesting from an academic point of view, but y'know you could say the same about the in-world currencies of Eve Online or World of Warcraft - after all you can exchange them for real-world money too. I don't have much faith in it as an alternative to money we already have. It's an interesting experiment I suppose. And Max Keiser is pretty much a snake-oil salesman.
Also - isn't having a currency that's inherently deflationary pretty dumb in real world economics? I suppose bitcoin is something that's designed to always be valued alongside real-world money therefore it's not so much of an issue, and because the value of this currency is so apparently volatile anyway this aspect is probably not getting the attention it ought to, but if the everyday money we use had similar constraints then it would cause loads of trouble. I'd like to know more on this coz i'm fairly new to the economics of this bitcoin stuff.
As for the wider point about techonology, that really deserves a thread of it's own. But surely you can't call fire a technology! It's an exothermic reaction!
Idaho
blah blah blah
A deflationary currency is good for the working class if (big if) you can negotiate fixed rate work contracts. No more wage freezes or sub inflation "raises". It would be harder for an elite to syphon off the surplus by not passing on the profit.
Bitcoin is new, and a first born infant to incompetent patents. It's design doesn't inhibit speculation. A future design or implementation could discourage it or make it pointless/difficult.
Re. fire - in itself isn't a technology. But it becomes one when you apply it.
Bitcoin is new, and a first born infant to incompetent patents. It's design doesn't inhibit speculation. A future design or implementation could discourage it or make it pointless/difficult.
Re. fire - in itself isn't a technology. But it becomes one when you apply it.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Like radioactivity.
Tbf, the volatility of bitcoin is characteristic of it's early stages, the infrastructure and institutions are still growing, and it's still rushing to reach capitalization required so it has a tendency to bubble-up. This latest collapse seems to have been caused by the fact that there's only one major exchange at this point. Give it ten years and it could be a lot less volatile, these are the crazy wild early days of a new frontier.
Yeah it's a really big if. Why would you be able to negotiate fixed rate contracts in a deflationary economy? That's like saying inflation is great, as long as you can negotiate above inflation pay increases. In both cases the benefit to the working classes would come as a result of increased bargaining power, something which historically hasn't happened very often during deflationary cycles. Labour is a commodity too and if commodities are coming down in price then so must wages.
Anyway doesn't deflation primarily benefit savers and those with cash assetts, rather than those with no fixed assetts who have to sell their labour on the market, as the value of the money (or the amount of value you can exchange for the money) will increase over time. So if deflation is 10% per annum, and I had £100 lying around under the mattress, i'd be able to buy 10% more shit with it in a year's time than I would if I spent it straight away? Doesn't that create a pretty powerful incentive not to invest, and isn't it one of the features of most depressions from the long depression onwards? Isn't it something we're nearly in danger of at the moment, with near 0% interest, nearly 0% growth and investors hanging onto hundreds of billions because they see little incentive to invest it?
Then you've got the fact that even though money is becoming worth less over time, demand will steadily increase as the population grows? There's loads of issues here that I'd like to go into but I don't really feel like I know enough about the whole bitcoin to know if these thoughts are applicable.
Well y'see this is where my interest in it lies. I'm sure some people will have fun riding the bubbles and milking some cash out of the lolibertarians who get swept up in the hype, but I can't see this kind of model being much use in the real world. I doubt we'll see staples or barrels of oil getting traded in bitcoin anytime soon.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Any currency needs stability. But buying a new currency is a punt. Unless there is a reason to buy it, it will immediately fail. Right now the two reasons are speculation and transacting in the black market. Neither lend an air of stability. Will stability come in time? We don't know. It's an experiment.
Idaho
blah blah blah
One of the interesting sides of bitcoin is the mining innovation. Controlling the initial mining might be a good way to redress the initial imbalances.
As for deflation reducing the incentive to invest.. Isn't one goal of a future communist society not want capitalist investors?
As for deflation reducing the incentive to invest.. Isn't one goal of a future communist society not want capitalist investors?
elbows
Well-Known Member
I'd never paid any attention to bitcoin at all until late last night when I decided to start learning about it. At this stage it looks like a great way to observe the ways that humans can attempt to subvert technology and manipulate markets. Any number of forces may lurk behind the various tumultuous events of this week. 'Helpful advice' is easily corrupted due to peoples own interests and holdings.
I am a great believer in the potential of technology to change the game, but people who look at it in isolation of human activities, beliefs and various power interests are suckers. And no matter which way the likes of Max Keiser choose to dress their positions up, I wouldnt trust them.
And at this stage I certainly consider that any sanity, upside and potential stability that may be present in some aspects of the bitcoin concept play second fiddle to the opportunity games that attract many players to it at this point. If I pay attention to it from now on it will be because I like to see absurdities on naked display.
I am a great believer in the potential of technology to change the game, but people who look at it in isolation of human activities, beliefs and various power interests are suckers. And no matter which way the likes of Max Keiser choose to dress their positions up, I wouldnt trust them.
And at this stage I certainly consider that any sanity, upside and potential stability that may be present in some aspects of the bitcoin concept play second fiddle to the opportunity games that attract many players to it at this point. If I pay attention to it from now on it will be because I like to see absurdities on naked display.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Communism does not mean no growth. Labour + capital = value, which is reinvested in the system fairly, rather than skimmed off and hoarded. Like you say, capitalist investors are not wanted, because the source of investment, profit, should be owned by all.
(how am I doing, butchers ?
)
elbows
Well-Known Member
I'm still at the easrly stages of learning about it but I dont quite get this point. In that the mining is already controlled by a number of factors, and I'm not sure I see it as a major cause of the instabilities.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
It's not. The mining algorithm is designed to produce coins at a constant rate, regardless of the amount of computing power dedicated to it. It can only vary slightly in the short term - for as long as it takes to compute a block, if I understand correctly.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Especially as trust is a major part of any economic system, currency, investment, savings destination, trading platform, etc. And despite a couple of trust systems being built into the bitcoin concept, its far from safe at this point, systemic weaknesses are being exploited in a manner that can utterly destroy trust rather quickly.Faith may prove very fickle in the world of bitcoin. The mining may be controlled, but there are few systems to prevent runaway panic as best I can tell.
As i understand it there's a top limit, like 21 million bitcoins, and after that 8 decimal points. Once you hit that top point and there's a finite supply of money, but with a potentially ever-increasing demand to use it, then it's going to become more and more valuable as a currency. It's not going to be able to respond very well to market conditions if it's always deflating no matter what.
Yeah amongst many others, such as, the abolition of wage slavery, the abolition of private property, the abolition of the state. In a future communist society there wouldn't even be a "working-class" as such as all property would be held in common. Let's just back away from the issue of what a future communist society might look like, because it's such a massive digression it'll totally derail the thread.
However right here, stranded as we are with some variety of capitalism for the time being, yes it would cause a problem. It would lead to a collapse in demand and mass unemployment. It'd lead to recession and stagnation. Not good things if you're working class as the last few years have shown.
I think you might need to reconsider this "deflation is good for the working-class, bitcoins are generated via an algorithm that's inherently deflationary, therefore bitcoins are the workers friend" because I'm far from being an expert but I can see some flaws there. Deflation'ss not inherently good for the working class at all, deflation can lead to a decrease in prices which might in some exceptional circumstances lead to an increase in purchasing power for working class people, but because labour is also a commodity that's traded on the market then just as prices will come down so will wages. A company that has to cut 10% of it's prices every year will have to lay people off or reduce wages wholesale to remain profitable in a deflationary economy. What matters is the share of wages being paid out as a percentage of GDP, and how that translates as purchasing power, not deflation.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
The irony of bitcoin is symptomatic of the basic libertard position. Libertards don't believe in society really, yet society is what makes 'wealth' as a concept meaningful. Libertards hate the state, yet states created the first markets, states ensure their existence still. Libertards despise the need for trust, nobody needs to trust a lump of dead yellow metal, but in business trust is in everything or costs become prohibative.
Similar threads
