joustmaster
offcumdun
I bet you ten bitcoins, that it will
Bitcoin discussion and news
- Thread starter camouflage
- Start date
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Dunno. Bitcoin's the only one I've looked at.
Idaho
blah blah blah
It solves the problem of Internet compatible cash. Single use, anonymous, non reversible payment.
The idea that if there is no central authority, rich people will control it is pretty baffling from a Marxist perspective. Rich people will control central authorities...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
One of the biggest myths put about concerning 'free' markets is that they provide maximum benefit if left alone by regulators acting on the collective behalf. They don't. If left alone, markets for essential goods produce conditions of permanent scarcity - because this maximises profits for those who own the means of production – and the sum of the actions by those in control of resources will produce those conditions of scarcity.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Of course. But how do bitcoins address any of that? Pointing out the need for auditing of a currency isn't an ideological position. It's a practical one. A self-governing system or system whose governance will be controlled by people who are unaccountable? It's not a self-governing system - that's Libertard fantasy too.
Idaho
blah blah blah
I've not seen any evidence of anything that can address that other than charity and kindness. And even these, on an institutional scale, can be self defeating.
Education, community, respect, liberty, fairness. I don't know how to achieve these. I have yet to see someone who I trust has the answer.
Education, community, respect, liberty, fairness. I don't know how to achieve these. I have yet to see someone who I trust has the answer.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Aye, injustices of wealth and poverty and power... if you're looking to the nature of any form of money to address these problems, you're looking in the wrong place.
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
Agreed that an "apolitical" money, in the sense of one in which the state is not involved, is not possible under modern capitalism, but neither is this what Varoufakis advocates:
This is flawed as it assumes that capitalism (the money-wages-profitrs system) could be made to work for the people. Anyway, what would a "democratically controlled Central Bank" look like?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
An odd first line. You say that
a) you agree with Varoufakis that apolitical money is not possible but
b) what he advocates is not apolitical either.
Of course it's not, it's not supposed to be - that's the entire point of it.
The second part: You would need to ask Varoufakis (or someone who argues the same as him) what a "democratically controlled Central Bank"wold look like, i'm not advocating one, nor do i subscribe to the myth of the democratisation of the economy. However, i do think that it's perfectly possible to imagine forms of organisation rather than current ones and that they may well be based on popular participation and oversight.
a) you agree with Varoufakis that apolitical money is not possible but
b) what he advocates is not apolitical either.
Of course it's not, it's not supposed to be - that's the entire point of it.
The second part: You would need to ask Varoufakis (or someone who argues the same as him) what a "democratically controlled Central Bank"wold look like, i'm not advocating one, nor do i subscribe to the myth of the democratisation of the economy. However, i do think that it's perfectly possible to imagine forms of organisation rather than current ones and that they may well be based on popular participation and oversight.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm not sure that it does assume that. I think it's possible to imagine a system with money that is controlled by a central bank but that is not capitalism.
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
Sorry, it was a grammatical mistake on my part. The "this" was supposed to refer to Varoufakis's statement that followed about a "democratically controlled Central bank" and so say that this was "impossible" (not "apolitical"). Glad to see you agree.
Idaho
blah blah blah
You can imagine, but can you outline any practical examples?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Practical examples of what? My imagination? Of people organising things on a participatory/oversight basis? Of course i can give you some. Can you not think of any? Really?
And of what relevance is this exactly?
And of what relevance is this exactly?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I wasn't being defensive, and i said no such thing.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I don't want to give examples of something that you misread me as saying, no. If you hadn't misread what i'd said you'd be able now to push me to do what you ask, yet you're not. I'll let you get back to your passive aggressive technolatry.
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
Actually tbf that's not what Butchers said. He just spoke of organising on a participatory/oversight basis in general and not of organising the money supply on this basis. I don't think it could be. Which is why I'm interested in what lbjesus has in mind when he wrote:
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Bizarre. And very very silly.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Nothing particularly grand.
But if you had, for instance, a mixed economy in which all essential services and natural monopolies are collectively owned but that allows a degree of private business, and with the money needed to start that private business coming only from collectively owned banks and going only to businesses that are incorporated as worker-owned, you then have a situation where nobody is only stuck in the position of selling their labour as a commodity. There may still be capitalist forms, such as lending money at interest, but they will not be in the service of capital. On top of that, you of course need systems of accountability that can ensure democratic control, and ensure that the right things are done to meet collective as well as private needs.
I don't see capitalist relations as an all or nothing thing, either. You can move away from capitalist relations in certain areas even where they persist in others, but the mere existence of the alternative itself changes capitalist relations. I'd give housing as an example here. A prerequisite for the destructive housing bubble was the manipulation of supply and demand that came with the removal of social housing as a realistic option for most people. Taking away the public sector gives the private sector far greater scope to exploit.
It saddens me a bit to hear Victorian attitudes such as the one expressed above that see charity and kindness as the only possible ways to ameliorate the situation. You don't have to destroy capitalism to make things better. You can give it little punches that will make a difference. Every dent helps.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I think you need to read and understand what i said in order for you to offer this challenge - you've had your misreading pointed out by me and others now, a number of times. You're demanding that i give you an example of something that i have not talked about and don't believe could exist. This is silly. Stop being silly.
Jean-Luc
Well-Known Member
Actually, this would be quite a "grand" change for capitalism. It would require a change in company law to make all businesses "worker-owned" or at least to require non-worker-owned businesses to be entirely self-financing. This would bring about a slowdown in growth and provoke a huge economic crisis. Any government which tried this economic policy would soon be voted out of office. In any event, the mutual and state banks you envisage would still expect to get back with interest the money they loaned to worker-owned businesses, which in turn would have to try to make enough profit to be in a position to do this and so put the same sort of pressures on their members to work hard(er) as happens today in private and government-owned businesses. So there'd still be a profit-driven economy, i.e capitalism (even though a capitalism that wouldn't work properly).
Reformers of capitalism have been trying this for well over a hundred years and what's the situation now? They are having to struggle to try to stop the dents they thought they had secured from being ironed out.The fact is that no monkeying about with banks and money can make capitalism work other than as a profit system in the interest of the tiny minority who live off profits. Funny money schemes such as bitcoin, LETS and local currencies can only ever be marginal to state supplied and managed currencies and so can have no influence on the basic way the profit system works.
bi0boy
Power User
Idaho
blah blah blah
The thing with bitcoin is that it's always bouncing around. If you picked the brief two day peak and the brief two day low, then you might get a figure of 50%, but it will be fairly arbitrary.
SR was back yesterday, and most of the downward pressure was today. Also there are other online btc markets. More likely explanation is that it's a banking holiday in Japan and so there is a reduced flow of new money into mtgox.
SR was back yesterday, and most of the downward pressure was today. Also there are other online btc markets. More likely explanation is that it's a banking holiday in Japan and so there is a reduced flow of new money into mtgox.
Similar threads
