5 ms·

Absolutely. We shouldn't listen to anyone with a checks notes understanding of economics when determining whether this economic implement has economic value. [

Absolutely. We shouldn't listen to anyone with a checks notes understanding of economics when determining whether this economic implement has economic value. [edit] I'm sure they're just waiting for their fiat shill check form Soros. [edit] Just a quick side-note: you do know that "fiat banks" (a hilarious term btw) don't care what you keep in them right? BNY Mellon and Fidelity are more than happy to custody your future of finance for you so it doesn't get lost in a boating accident. These people are far less zealous than you seem to imply. How about we avoid ad hominems?

orwin 4y ago
>[edit] I'm sure they're just waiting for their fiat shill check form Soros. Is it irony right? Because your second edit seems more serious and end with 'How about we avoid ad hominems?' Irony is hard on the internet.
CyberDildonics 4y ago
All they did was quote her and say it was ironic since fiat currencies are also not backed by hard assets. I think you are having an over reaction and hallucinating things to be upset about.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  Not being backed by 'hard assets' is not the same thing as being backed by 'nothing.' Generally this belies a serious lack of understanding of where money comes from and where it derives its value. If I go to the bank, and borrow money for a house in the form of a mortgage, then new money is created. An obligation to repay that money is also created. That obligation to repay is collateralized by my house. In this case, the new money that was created was in fact backed by hard assets. More generally the value of money is derived from an obligation to repay the debt that created it, and the legal system and framework which enforces it.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      I know that's in reference to the UK, and I don't know how their bailout system worked, but I know how the US one worked. These loans were repaid in full and generated a $110B profit for the US government. [1] [edit] Note also that the US bailouts weren't monetary policy, but fiscal policy. They were administered by Treasury, not by the Federal Reserve. Now do the Wormhole bailout by Jump lol. [1] https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
      - latchkey 4y ago
        That is the message encoded in the first bitcoin block.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    That's a loan being back by a hard asset, not the actual currency. If you have a stack of 100 dollar bills, where do you take them? What debt are you repaying or what can you exchange them for? I think you are diverting from having such a hyperbolic reaction to someone else's comment. They pointed something out and you launched into some sort of conspiracy nonsense that they didn't say.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Sorry but I know based on our previous interactions you've no interest in engaging in good faith so I'm going to leave this conversation here. You're welcome to DYOR on how the monetary system works.
      - CyberDildonics 4y ago
        Seems like projection when you can always just confront what I'm saying. I didn't write much, but you are just avoiding it and restating part of what you said before. Also do you realize you are accusing people of "bad faith" when you replied to someone and said "I'm sure they're just waiting for their fiat shill check form Soros.".
- agentultra 4y ago
  What's ironic? The collapse of the Bretton-Woods system and the gold standard are well documented and it has been widely recognized as a good thing by everyone except for gold-bug cryptocurrency enthusiasts. For reasons they continue to assert that a currency must be backed by a "hard asset", ie: gold. All I think it demonstrates is how little these advocates seem to understand economics and banking.
mypastself 4y ago
I believe that that’s an inaccurate and uncharitable characterization of the comment you’re responding to. If the linked article contained anything other than a brief offhand remark by Lagarde (as quoted by the OP), it would be reasonable to address her argument in greater depth. As it is, the sole reason this is even being discussed is due to the authority she wields. It is therefore reasonable to address that authority instead. The OP posits that a person whose authority is potentially threatened by a technology might not necessarily be an impartial judge of said technology. You might agree or disagree, but you’re not really responding to the argument. And you’re the only one bringing up conspiracy theories.

orwin 4y ago

>[edit] I'm sure they're just waiting for their fiat shill check form Soros. Is it irony right? Because your second edit seems more serious and end with 'How about we avoid ad hominems?' Irony is hard on the internet.

CyberDildonics 4y ago

All they did was quote her and say it was ironic since fiat currencies are also not backed by hard assets. I think you are having an over reaction and hallucinating things to be upset about.

arcticbull 4y ago
Not being backed by 'hard assets' is not the same thing as being backed by 'nothing.' Generally this belies a serious lack of understanding of where money comes from and where it derives its value. If I go to the bank, and borrow money for a house in the form of a mortgage, then new money is created. An obligation to repay that money is also created. That obligation to repay is collateralized by my house. In this case, the new money that was created was in fact backed by hard assets. More generally the value of money is derived from an obligation to repay the debt that created it, and the legal system and framework which enforces it.
- latchkey 4y ago
  “The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.”
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    I know that's in reference to the UK, and I don't know how their bailout system worked, but I know how the US one worked. These loans were repaid in full and generated a $110B profit for the US government. [1] [edit] Note also that the US bailouts weren't monetary policy, but fiscal policy. They were administered by Treasury, not by the Federal Reserve. Now do the Wormhole bailout by Jump lol. [1] https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/ https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/
    - latchkey 4y ago
      That is the message encoded in the first bitcoin block.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  That's a loan being back by a hard asset, not the actual currency. If you have a stack of 100 dollar bills, where do you take them? What debt are you repaying or what can you exchange them for? I think you are diverting from having such a hyperbolic reaction to someone else's comment. They pointed something out and you launched into some sort of conspiracy nonsense that they didn't say.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Sorry but I know based on our previous interactions you've no interest in engaging in good faith so I'm going to leave this conversation here. You're welcome to DYOR on how the monetary system works.
    - CyberDildonics 4y ago
      Seems like projection when you can always just confront what I'm saying. I didn't write much, but you are just avoiding it and restating part of what you said before. Also do you realize you are accusing people of "bad faith" when you replied to someone and said "I'm sure they're just waiting for their fiat shill check form Soros.".
agentultra 4y ago
What's ironic? The collapse of the Bretton-Woods system and the gold standard are well documented and it has been widely recognized as a good thing by everyone except for gold-bug cryptocurrency enthusiasts. For reasons they continue to assert that a currency must be backed by a "hard asset", ie: gold. All I think it demonstrates is how little these advocates seem to understand economics and banking.

mypastself 4y ago

I believe that that’s an inaccurate and uncharitable characterization of the comment you’re responding to. If the linked article contained anything other than a brief offhand remark by Lagarde (as quoted by the OP), it would be reasonable to address her argument in greater depth. As it is, the sole reason this is even being discussed is due to the authority she wields. It is therefore reasonable to address that authority instead. The OP posits that a person whose authority is potentially threatened by a technology might not necessarily be an impartial judge of said technology. You might agree or disagree, but you’re not really responding to the argument. And you’re the only one bringing up conspiracy theories.