/biz/ - Business & Finance

> what's morally stopping people from issuing their own money?

uncle sam will literally kill you if you try

>>18331310
I said morally stopping them.
Let's assume that Uncle Sam or the ECB, or the Bank of Japan, and the rest are runned by rational individuals, what's their objective motivation for them to stop those people?
Wouldn't that prove them irrational or just dangerous animals trying to enslave people for their own benefit?
So, i mean, wouldn't the very rational thing to do at that point be to declare ancapistan?
I mean, it would surely stop the immigration and war problems since the power would be in the citizen's hands, right?
And isn't Bitcoin and cryptos perfect for that?

>>18331310
that takes time and energy and there isn't a head to cut off
bitcoin has a few cost sinks built into its architecture

>>18331290
https://medium.com/@breedlove22

He has some good discussions on the abstraction of money and what makes good money.

>>18331365
>https://medium.com/@breedlove22
I ain't clicking that shit, nigga.

>>18331350
>what's their objective motivation for them to stop those people?
They will argue that the boomers who put in their time deserve their pensions
They will blame bitcoin and producers outside the system for their shortcoming and boomers will side with the jew as always

The central banks will argue your transactions are "private" and "illicit"
You're attempting to subvert their monetary policy.

Let me dig up the EU's digital currency paper and challenges they face
Their language instantly assumes they are in control of every transaction within the country and within the computer system of USD

>>18331398
of euro*

It is immoral for the government to prevent the market place deciding something has value as a currency. But they do this of coarse, because controlling the money supply = power.

> Wouldn't that prove them irrational or just dangerous animals trying to enslave people for their own benefit?
Yes. The people at the top of the pyramid need to preserve to system to preserve their wealth.

> So, i mean, wouldn't the very rational thing to do at that point be to declare ancapistan?
irrational for the people in control of the system.

> And isn't Bitcoin and cryptos perfect for that?
Yes. Bitcoin is a silent protest against the system.
https://medium.com/@nic__carter/a-most-peaceful-revolution-8b63b64c203e

>>18331290
what is greshams law

>were the people that are right always right?

>>18331350
You have a weird definition of rational.

The US state apparatus has demonstrated its willing to kill millions of people to increase and maintain its power countless times every decade since it came into existence. Read literally any non propaganda history.

The power to be the sole minter of the defacto world currency is something that provides the US state apparatus a tremendous amount of power and it will not relinquish that power without a fight.

Similarly, if that ability is seized from it, other similar entities such as the EU and Chinese state apparatus' will attempt to step into that position and be willing to commit horrible crimes against their fellow man to do so.

Hayek was not an ancap manchild, he was pro UBI and pro legit war.

>>18331439
I'm not a historian but I think things got weird in the later 1800s early 1900s

>>18331398
>They will argue that the boomers who put in their time deserve their pensions
Well, they ll get it, won't they?
As the man once said: "The United States has a printing press".
So, they ll get it. It'll be shit, ofc, but they, they ll keep their end of the bargain!
So, that makes them logical alliright.
Bitcoin is not into that shit.
Who gives a shit?
Bitcoin and Gold will just keep doing it's thing, and their amazing fiat currencies will do theirs.
Sounds fair and logical to me, right?

>Their language instantly assumes they are in control of every transaction within the country
Well, i can say that i own an ocean, but i don't.
What i do own is what i create, what i am and what is given to me, right?

>>18331426
>irrational for the people in control of the system.
I mean, why?
Control at the end of the day is an illusion.
Like money, really (what's valuable is the effort behind the object, what it can do for me, and/or what else i can get out of it when exchanged, right?).
Do you mean that it would be illogical cause they ll stop receiving free shit from milions of people?
But, again, this is illogical too, higly retarded, if they were to let people have their say and be free in Hayek's scenario, they would have more people working and being more productive, thus the number of goods in circulation will increase, so they ll be even better off.
Right?

>>18331290
It's like with the orks of 40k, they all agree red makes thing go faster so it does

>>18331439
>other similar entities such as the EU and Chinese state apparatus' will attempt to step into that position and be willing to commit horrible crimes against their fellow man to do so
How would that make the rational thing to do different?
It would be applied to China, the USA, etc, etc, right?
I mean, at the end of the day, those institutions can't even maintain the social unity of the comunity..

>>18331443
Don't matter what he was pro for, man.
What matter is that the dude predicted private forms of money that institutions would have to compete with.
That is basically what the ancaps say, or close to it, no?

>>18331290
Hayek wasn't ancap, moron. Rothbard was the first "ancap".

>>18331525
yeah that's correct on the first point

Money is an illusion, these people don't operate on purchasing things that's below them
They are changing demographics of races, cultures, religions, to make the world as they see fit.

Money is only one tool in the cycle, like laws, or media

When your cycle is subverted someone else's vision of reality is being fulfilled
When your culture completes its cycle you can achieve things

>>18331560
>What matter is that the dude predicted private forms of money that institutions would have to compete with.
>That is basically what the ancaps say, or close to it, no?
Ancaps want no government/state, Hayek was statist.

>>18331525
it is illogical because if you own something you would not want to give it away for free. simple as that.

>>18331525
>what it can do for me, and/or what else i can get out of it when exchanged
read @breedlove22
he explains this in detail

money is an efficiency tool
we can't find the perfect barter as everything is subjective so we need to agree on a currency price that's objective

>>18331477
>things got weird
You can say that again

get rid of the petrodollar incel

>>18331560
He wasn't the only one to predict that, Milton Friedman and Lord Rees-Mogg both predicted it.

>>18331682
>as everything is subjective so we need to agree on a currency price that's objective
Doesn't bitcoin fix that tho?
Isn't it the bridge between an objective barter piece AND prices subjectivity?

>>18331831
Lmao faggot, i have seen more pussy that you ll ever dream off.
That's why i'm stupid tho, i guess.

>>18331875
Do you have some sauce for me?

>>18331992
A global consensus in the digital age is powerful
I think it fixes the problem of restrictive financial tools and a lot of other things
with this global consensus in real time different markets will emerge because we've never been able to organize the world this precisely

Yeah and people always have to come to a middle ground
it's just using bitcoin is easiest on the internet with each jurisdiction having a bank and different rules

someone posted this in another thread it's great

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCbTRjGJI2Y&feature=youtu.be

>>18332058
Oh, hey, it's Kaiser.
I wonder if he was here back in the day when there were discussions about what gold as money really is, and about 999.9, or if he is from dudes who got this shit before us.
KAISER, IF YOU ARE LURKING: DON'T TAKE OFF THAT GOD DAMN BITCOIN PIN.

>>18331290
>Cause, i mean, if money is not real, it's an abstraction, what's morally stopping people from issuing their own money?
>Maybe i'm too much of a brainlet, but i don't get it.
>Can any fag here help me out?
>Let's have a fun discussion.

An Interview with F. A. Hayek (1984)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-k_Fc63tZI&ab_channel=LibertyInOurTime
Hayek talks about how he thinks a return to the gold standard is impossible.

What helped me understand money on the next level was Nick Szabo's paper shelling out, the video below reads the paper and provides images to match what the paper is talking about.

Shelling Out: The Origins of Money (FULL VIDEO)
https://youtu.be/gOLsPR36miI

You can issue your own money fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States#1837%E2%80%931862:_%22Free_Banking%22_Era
this has already happened in the so called "Free Banking Era"

But if you issue your own money who will accept it?
It really depends on the size of the network or people who accept your money on whether your money will have value or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law

>>18331560
Nothing lasts forever broheim.
A sovereign state with 10 generations of prosperity is a pretty decent outcome

>>18332120
Kaiser is a crazy fuck with occasional flashes of insight