9 ms·

Gold and Bitcoin might not be flexible enough, but you could consider them to be more just. When somebody can determine the value of money for everyone else, th

Gold and Bitcoin might not be flexible enough, but you could consider them to be more just. When somebody can determine the value of money for everyone else, then that leaves the door open for corruption. It can erode people's faith in money. Fiat money requires that people have faith in the money for it to be worth much. Look at currencies from poor countries with rampant corruption. You can frequently pay in dollars/euros for goods and services, because people trust those currencies above the local one.

abernard1 6y ago
> Gold and Bitcoin might not be flexible enough I won't agree or disagree with this as it pertains to today. That said, I would like to point out that the American industrial revolution happened during a period without central banks and their "flexibility." That particular economic revolution makes anything in the 20th century or beyond look quaint in comparison. >4% a year real GDP growth for a century, CPI deflation. A dollar in 1900 bought more than it did in 1800.
- africanboy 6y ago
  The institutional arrangements of the American System were initially formulated by first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who proposed the creation of a government-sponsored bank and increased tariffs to encourage industrial development https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_Sta... Jefferson did not change Hamilton's basic policies. As president in 1811 Madison let the bank charter expire, but the War of 1812 proved the need for a national bank and Madison reversed positions. The Second Bank of the United States was established in 1816, with a 20-year charter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_St...
  - abernard1 6y ago
    > with a 20-year charter. ...which expired. And then we had the greatest boom in global history. I'm aware of the intermittent nature of the banks (as well as all the central banks that failed under the Articles of Confederation). The point is we had a situation where the money supply was basically fixed under a very imperfect gold standard. People say "deflation is bad", but can't explain basically a century under the most amazing economic growth of history.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  >the American industrial revolution happened during a period without central banks and their "flexibility. Before the great depression and the federal reserve, weren't there financial crises/panics over and over? I'm not real familiar with 19th century history, but obviously there was a reason we set up all those institutions and laws in the 30s, because the way things worked had become untenable. Edit: "Between 1863 and 1913, eight banking panics occurred in the money center of Manhattan. The panics in 1884, 1890, 1899, 1901, and 1908 were confined to New York and nearby cities and states. The panics in 1873, 1893, and 1907 spread throughout the nation. Regional panics also struck the midwestern states of Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in 1896; the mid-Atlantic states of Pennsylvania and Maryland in 1903; and Chicago in 1905." https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/banking-panics-of-the-gilded-age https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/banking-panics-...
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    "The Panic of 1873 was blamed for setting off the economic depression that lasted from 1873 to 1879. This period was called the Great Depression, until the even greater depression of 1893 received that label, which it held until the even greater contraction in the 1930s -- now known as the Great Depression."
  - abernard1 6y ago
    > Before the great depression and the federal reserve, weren't there financial crises/panics over and over? They were tiny, and they were mild by comparison. Even with the Fed, not exercising "flexibility" has been a better option. In 1920, the Dow dropped 47%, deflation hit with prices dropping 20%, wholesale prices dropped 37%, and unemployment went over 10%. Neither the Federal Reserve nor the federal government did anything. You have never heard of this intense deflationary depression because it didn't last for 11 years. It lasted for 18 months. Edit: > but obviously there was a reason we set up all those institutions and laws in the 30s, because the way things worked had become untenable. There does not. Poorly run institutions are a staple of the Modern Era. The reason the Fed was set up was because it aligned with the philosophy of central control within the progressive movement. Until Wilson, no presidency had ever been called an "administration." (For an unbelievably sad look at that former president, look at his favorite book called Philip Dru: Administrator.)
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > I would like to point out that the American industrial revolution happened during a period without central banks and their "flexibility." The Second Industrial Revolution (which wasn’t specifically American, though America participated) did not occur before central banking existed in areas overlapping those where it happened, though it was neither universal nor associated with either the economic policy mandates of modern central banks or the key tools modern central banks use. But that started changing not too far into the Second Industrial Revolution, in part because of the Long Depression which it led head-first into.
  - abernard1 6y ago
    The division between the Industrial Revolution and the Second Industrial Revolution is a silly one in my opinion. The late 19th century is what I'm referring to, and it's the one with the most substantial economic growth. We had 70+ years with no central bank whatsoever (and over 120 with a weakened bank on the gold standard). From that point until 1913, we saw the telegraph, telephones, railroads, mass industrial manufacturing, electricity, radio, airplanes, and cars. Most of these innovations were adopted most aggressively in the U.S., despite not all being invented in the U.S.. Even with railroad booms and busts and routine recessions, nothing remotely close to the Great Depression happened. Once again, there was 4% compounded growth a year for a century, and without the advantage of "leapfrogging" legacy technology.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > The division between the Industrial Revolution and the Second Industrial Revolution is a silly one in my opinion. The late 19th century is what I'm referring to, and it's the one with the most substantial economic growth. The late 19th Century one was the Second Industrial Revolution, which led directly and fairly immediately into the late 19th Century Long Depression; the First Industrial Revolution was late 18th to early 19th Century (usually timed from about 1760), and since you are clearly specifically talking about the Second and not the First, it's odd that you say that you find the distinction silly. > We had 70+ years with no central bank whatsoever 1870 (the generally accepted date for the start of the Second Industrial Revolution) to 1913 is only 43 years, and about half of those were the Long Depression.
UncleMeat 6y ago
> but you could consider them to be more just The mining curve obviously makes BTC not just, as it enormously promotes early adopters. BTC has made a lot of people tremendously wealthy by doing nothing other than early adopting BTC. This is even worse than capitalism, IMO. Wealth isn't tied to productivity in general , but a very very specifically time boxed productivity that doesn't lead to any improvement in the state of the world except that BTC is promoted. If you live in a democracy, you've got some say in the financial policy and the nature of the financial system. With BTC, it is controlled 100% by the core devs and the miners. Mining is "democratic" in the sense that anybody can do it but it takes money to mine. This is worse than what we see in many democratic nations where wealth creates political power. At least I have a tiny amount of political power rather than literally zero.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  >The mining curve obviously makes BTC not just, as it enormously promotes early adopters. You know the rules beforehand though. Nobody comes in later and changes them, whereas with fiat money this happens all the time. >If you live in a democracy, you've got some say in the financial policy and the nature of the financial system. With BTC, it is controlled 100% by the core devs and the miners. Mining is "democratic" in the sense that anybody can do it but it takes money to mine. This is worse than what we see in many democratic nations where wealth creates political power. At least I have a tiny amount of political power rather than literally zero. But it's not literally zero. The same political power that you have over your country's government is the same political power you would have (or perhaps slightly less) over BTC or some equivalent. The government can always regulate something like BTC. It would make the situation more like fiat money, but the possibility is there.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    The rules being unchanged don't make something just. If BTC had granted 99% of all coins ever to be mined to Satoshi would that be just?

abernard1 6y ago

> Gold and Bitcoin might not be flexible enough I won't agree or disagree with this as it pertains to today. That said, I would like to point out that the American industrial revolution happened during a period without central banks and their "flexibility." That particular economic revolution makes anything in the 20th century or beyond look quaint in comparison. >4% a year real GDP growth for a century, CPI deflation. A dollar in 1900 bought more than it did in 1800.

africanboy 6y ago
The institutional arrangements of the American System were initially formulated by first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who proposed the creation of a government-sponsored bank and increased tariffs to encourage industrial development https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_Sta... Jefferson did not change Hamilton's basic policies. As president in 1811 Madison let the bank charter expire, but the War of 1812 proved the need for a national bank and Madison reversed positions. The Second Bank of the United States was established in 1816, with a 20-year charter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_St...
- abernard1 6y ago
  > with a 20-year charter. ...which expired. And then we had the greatest boom in global history. I'm aware of the intermittent nature of the banks (as well as all the central banks that failed under the Articles of Confederation). The point is we had a situation where the money supply was basically fixed under a very imperfect gold standard. People say "deflation is bad", but can't explain basically a century under the most amazing economic growth of history.
perl4ever 6y ago
>the American industrial revolution happened during a period without central banks and their "flexibility. Before the great depression and the federal reserve, weren't there financial crises/panics over and over? I'm not real familiar with 19th century history, but obviously there was a reason we set up all those institutions and laws in the 30s, because the way things worked had become untenable. Edit: "Between 1863 and 1913, eight banking panics occurred in the money center of Manhattan. The panics in 1884, 1890, 1899, 1901, and 1908 were confined to New York and nearby cities and states. The panics in 1873, 1893, and 1907 spread throughout the nation. Regional panics also struck the midwestern states of Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin in 1896; the mid-Atlantic states of Pennsylvania and Maryland in 1903; and Chicago in 1905." https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/banking-panics-of-the-gilded-age https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/banking-panics-...
- perl4ever 6y ago
  "The Panic of 1873 was blamed for setting off the economic depression that lasted from 1873 to 1879. This period was called the Great Depression, until the even greater depression of 1893 received that label, which it held until the even greater contraction in the 1930s -- now known as the Great Depression."
- abernard1 6y ago
  > Before the great depression and the federal reserve, weren't there financial crises/panics over and over? They were tiny, and they were mild by comparison. Even with the Fed, not exercising "flexibility" has been a better option. In 1920, the Dow dropped 47%, deflation hit with prices dropping 20%, wholesale prices dropped 37%, and unemployment went over 10%. Neither the Federal Reserve nor the federal government did anything. You have never heard of this intense deflationary depression because it didn't last for 11 years. It lasted for 18 months. Edit: > but obviously there was a reason we set up all those institutions and laws in the 30s, because the way things worked had become untenable. There does not. Poorly run institutions are a staple of the Modern Era. The reason the Fed was set up was because it aligned with the philosophy of central control within the progressive movement. Until Wilson, no presidency had ever been called an "administration." (For an unbelievably sad look at that former president, look at his favorite book called Philip Dru: Administrator.)
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I would like to point out that the American industrial revolution happened during a period without central banks and their "flexibility." The Second Industrial Revolution (which wasn’t specifically American, though America participated) did not occur before central banking existed in areas overlapping those where it happened, though it was neither universal nor associated with either the economic policy mandates of modern central banks or the key tools modern central banks use. But that started changing not too far into the Second Industrial Revolution, in part because of the Long Depression which it led head-first into.
- abernard1 6y ago
  The division between the Industrial Revolution and the Second Industrial Revolution is a silly one in my opinion. The late 19th century is what I'm referring to, and it's the one with the most substantial economic growth. We had 70+ years with no central bank whatsoever (and over 120 with a weakened bank on the gold standard). From that point until 1913, we saw the telegraph, telephones, railroads, mass industrial manufacturing, electricity, radio, airplanes, and cars. Most of these innovations were adopted most aggressively in the U.S., despite not all being invented in the U.S.. Even with railroad booms and busts and routine recessions, nothing remotely close to the Great Depression happened. Once again, there was 4% compounded growth a year for a century, and without the advantage of "leapfrogging" legacy technology.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > The division between the Industrial Revolution and the Second Industrial Revolution is a silly one in my opinion. The late 19th century is what I'm referring to, and it's the one with the most substantial economic growth. The late 19th Century one was the Second Industrial Revolution, which led directly and fairly immediately into the late 19th Century Long Depression; the First Industrial Revolution was late 18th to early 19th Century (usually timed from about 1760), and since you are clearly specifically talking about the Second and not the First, it's odd that you say that you find the distinction silly. > We had 70+ years with no central bank whatsoever 1870 (the generally accepted date for the start of the Second Industrial Revolution) to 1913 is only 43 years, and about half of those were the Long Depression.

UncleMeat 6y ago

> but you could consider them to be more just The mining curve obviously makes BTC not just, as it enormously promotes early adopters. BTC has made a lot of people tremendously wealthy by doing nothing other than early adopting BTC. This is even worse than capitalism, IMO. Wealth isn't tied to productivity in general , but a very very specifically time boxed productivity that doesn't lead to any improvement in the state of the world except that BTC is promoted. If you live in a democracy, you've got some say in the financial policy and the nature of the financial system. With BTC, it is controlled 100% by the core devs and the miners. Mining is "democratic" in the sense that anybody can do it but it takes money to mine. This is worse than what we see in many democratic nations where wealth creates political power. At least I have a tiny amount of political power rather than literally zero.

Aerroon 6y ago
>The mining curve obviously makes BTC not just, as it enormously promotes early adopters. You know the rules beforehand though. Nobody comes in later and changes them, whereas with fiat money this happens all the time. >If you live in a democracy, you've got some say in the financial policy and the nature of the financial system. With BTC, it is controlled 100% by the core devs and the miners. Mining is "democratic" in the sense that anybody can do it but it takes money to mine. This is worse than what we see in many democratic nations where wealth creates political power. At least I have a tiny amount of political power rather than literally zero. But it's not literally zero. The same political power that you have over your country's government is the same political power you would have (or perhaps slightly less) over BTC or some equivalent. The government can always regulate something like BTC. It would make the situation more like fiat money, but the possibility is there.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  The rules being unchanged don't make something just. If BTC had granted 99% of all coins ever to be mined to Satoshi would that be just?