Lexicus
Deity
I mean, you're just Dunning-Krugering here because you clearly don't know what economics is at all, so...cool?
What are your thoughts on BitCoin?
- Thread starter aimeeandbeatles
- Start date
I mean, you're just Dunning-Krugering here because you clearly don't know what economics is at all, so...cool?
Cheetah
Deity
Oh, they do. Or they will, when the need "suddenly" occurs. If it has value, we are all rather adamant that our states should protect it for us.
If someone hacks a phone and steal a wallet password, you can be sure the owner will demand that the state intervene to help them.
I want to distinguish between 'market value' and 'social value' with regards to Bitcoin being assisted by being protected by developed nations. First off, to my eyes, the social value of bitcoin shines most in regions that don't have proper courts and governments. So, on that front, it derives very little benefit from bitcoin being popular in the Western world. I guess our buyin decreases volatility, but {waves vaguely at how complicated this is, because having Bitcoin be cheaper would slow its damage to the poorest in the planet}.
Market value though, is very much parasitical. (I agree with your "it seems as parasitical as other contracts", I only call it parasitical because (a) I am attacking the idea that transactions don't owe tax and (b) too many buyers are actually gleeful at it going up while also being anti-government.). There are a number of very large investors in bitcoin, where they've sunk in a great deal of capital hoping to profit.. And a ridiculous number of buyers wouldn't buy if they found out that after they click 'send' on their money, they couldn't sue if they were defrauded. All of these groups are sources of very large amounts of Lex monetae that are supporting the current market price of bitcoin.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I mean, I would assume a lot of billionaires get pretty hip to economics for the reasons a) they tend to be pretty damn smart and b) they are playing on such a big level that, say, thinking in a Keynesian (put it out to get it back) way is viably profit maximizing.
Narz
keeping it real
Given a choice between looking cool knowing my economy theory on an Internet forum and being a billionaire I'd take the later.
Understanding without achievement... what's the point?
Understanding without achievement... what's the point?
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
The aggregate consequence of lots of people understanding.
“There is no alternative but to building, society by society, a critical mass of informed citizenry.”
Paul Collier, to the Royal Society, 2010
Paul Collier, to the Royal Society, 2010
Moriarte
Immortal
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,690
You decide what’s cool for you and what isn’t. I don’t have time to help you there. It is my weighed opinion that mentioned personas, among other things, have firm grasp of economics. You can keep running in circles calling me far right, dunning-krugering and economics-illiterate, you can even demand to show Gates’s economics diploma/academic work or whatever else. I am just not interested, as there is nothing left to discuss beyond stating yours and mine opinions on the matter.
Calling each other names looks damn stupid and isn’t worthy of this forum.
Do try to get over yourself on this one so we can move forward and discuss crypto. Thanks.
Narz
keeping it real
Yeah, but then no one will buy coca-cola, use mac or windows and 90% of government officials will be out of a job. That's a nice thought but very fanciful
It was his talk at the RSA years ago, regarding his book the Plundered Planet. That line really stuck with me about what the problem was and what we had to do.
https://archive.org/details/Paul_Collier_-_The_Plundered_Planet
No one would be unemployed. We would just be doing different things.
https://archive.org/details/Paul_Collier_-_The_Plundered_Planet
No one would be unemployed. We would just be doing different things.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
They have billionaires who "understand tech" as the rule for understanding econ. They have Krugman as not understanding econ when he in fact understands econ and has a good predictive track record as economists go.
Then they have Soros as "unclear" for understanding econ when Soros made his money trading on macroeconomics (rather than firms' products).
Cutlass posted the chart because it was made by a fanboy and was pretty funny.
Moriarte
Immortal
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,690
Thought fortune-tellers are supposed to do predictions. As for the broken clock, it tells the right time right once in a while. So, some of it is bullfeathers. No denying! It’s just that the irony of the initial response to the “table” was a tad excessive imho, hence the response.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I am curious what the irony is of the strong response to that table.
I'm not. I think this is a complete diversion
Mise
isle of lucy
Again I should reiterate that I agree wholeheartedly with every other part of what El Mac posted. I'm just nitpicking really, because it's the internet and that's what we do!
I guess my point is that I'm a little bit wary about denying people access to justice. The institutions that "underwrite" the value of Bitcoin are the same as the institutions that underwrite basically everything else in society. These institutions are designed to underwrite everything, prejudicing nothing, because that's the way liberal democracy works. The law protects everyone, equally, and so pointing out that it also protects Bitcoin users is entirely redundant. Why point it out? What is your point? Do we want to deny them access to justice? You view it as parasitical. Fine. Let's say I agree. So what? Are we to deny access to justice to everyone we deem parasitical?
Makes sense. I'm not too bothered by (b); there are lots of hypocrites in the world. Re (a), the law in this country requires them to pay tax on capital gains. However, I don't think paying taxes on X is a prerequisite for recourse to the courts to enforce contracts for X. There are many contracts that involve consideration that carry no tax whatsoever; these contracts are still enforceable. More generally, I don't think that only people who pay taxes should be allowed access to justice; we shouldn't deny access to justice to people who don't pay taxes. The two things just aren't linked, and I don't see it as parasitical. It seems like contract law would be used in precisely the manner it is designed to be used.
I guess my point is that I'm a little bit wary about denying people access to justice. The institutions that "underwrite" the value of Bitcoin are the same as the institutions that underwrite basically everything else in society. These institutions are designed to underwrite everything, prejudicing nothing, because that's the way liberal democracy works. The law protects everyone, equally, and so pointing out that it also protects Bitcoin users is entirely redundant. Why point it out? What is your point? Do we want to deny them access to justice? You view it as parasitical. Fine. Let's say I agree. So what? Are we to deny access to justice to everyone we deem parasitical?
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
I'm sure that's true, but that's a very different argument from the argument that business success is its own evidence that someone understands economics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction#Prediction_in_science
I really do appreciate the endorsement, it really helps clarify my thinking.
There's another thesis post knocking around in my head, where we misunderstand* who pays taxes in our society. Now, I think that taxes pay for our justice, and I think it's grand that we're rich enough to provide courts even in ways that don't only protect wealth. Please remember, I think of our society as an inherited wealth, and taxes benefit the shareholders (the citizens). In all practical terms, we can only afford to fund a certain amount of courts/justice, and we kinda do have to be somewhat prudent with it. Not for moral reasons, merely because of scarcity. Bitcoin is one of those areas where the costs of enforcement can spiral out of control. Only contracts of certain size will end up being enforceable, and the rest of us will have to pound sand if we get screwed.
Keep in mind, I am only calling it parasitical because it's a net negative-externality product. And because I am a jerk. But let's distinguish. I don't know how to legally separate it, but I would prefer to be complaining that we are protecting Bitcoin contracts, not the users. Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag. If, at the very beginning of the phenomenon, we'd passed a simple law "Bitcoin may not access the courts", easypeasy and nipped in the bud.
There are an incredible number of contracts that the courts will not enforce. "Vote for me, and I will release my tax returns" being a notable example of one. "If you can get that pingpong into that beer cup, I will eat my hat". We choose to not enforce them because the cost of enforcement is a totally impractical use of our limited resource. But to shoot straight towards parasitism, "Are we to deny access to justice to everyone we deem parasitical?", there are an incredible number of contracts that we will not enforce because we deem them parasitical. I cannot sue you for duping me on our cocaine contract. I cannot sue you for failing to hand me £20k in (undeclared) cash (as promised) when you get off the plane when you come to visit. I cannot even sue a rub-and-tug for failing to deliver as promised. And that's not even parasitical on first-order analysis! Like the rub-and-tug, we don't have to criminalize the contract. We just have to say that we won't enforce it.
Mise
isle of lucy
I disagree fundamentally here, but I'm not sure it's essential to what you're saying. No law protects contracts. The law protects people from violation of contracts by other people. This is pretty fundamental in my view. But again, I don't think it's essential to your argument. I think it's a rhetorical point: you would rather be arguing that we're merely removing protection from an unfeeling inanimate abstract concept, rather than removing the fundamental right of a real living breathing human to seek justice.
But courts would enforce those contract if they met the criteria of enforceability. Those contracts are unenforceable for predictable reasons. Put another way, the reason why they are unenforceable is not because we have made a law that says "contracts involving cocaine are unenforceable". They fall under general criteria for enforceability. If we want to make BTC contracts unenforceable, you can't just say "we're not enforcing those".
If BTC is parasitical then we can make it illegal and it will be as unenforceable as cocaine contracts. But what we mean by "parasitical" cannot simply be "it uses the court system". Because everything uses the court system. It must be parasitical in its own right.
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
what a surreal post. really goes to show you how people are wired completely differently. kafka would have still been one of the greatest writers on the face of the earth if max brod never published his works. van gogh is still an incredibly gifted painter, even though he never got the recognition he deserved in his lifetime. obscurity is nothing inherently negative. what's the point in achieving? do you want to boast, flaunt? for me, the point in achieving is not the end goal, but rather the strive in itself, the path that gets me there. understanding for the sake of understanding is something I can understand. achieving for the sake of achieving is.. pityful, at least in my opinion.
For me, all the point of any wealth I achieve after $6 million would be because I could try to improve things as I see possibilities.
