- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Winklevoss Twins Plan First Fund For Bitcoins
Posted on 7/8/13 at 8:53 am to BennyAndTheInkJets
Posted on 7/8/13 at 8:53 am to BennyAndTheInkJets
quote:
1. How will this be any different than what we currently have?
2. How is it any better than what we currently have?
It's very different in that it's not controlled by a central authority and its supply is limited. I know you don't see any significance to that, but a lot of people do. Not only that, but it also offers many end-user benefits that legacy currencies do not, such as being able to store it safely without needing to use a bank, being able to send it or receive it instantly at all hours of the day on any day of the year without needing to go through a third party - which is important because that means it is censorship resistant in that banks or processing companies can't exclude certain customers of their choosing (and yes, that does happen frequently). It can be sent across political borders with ease. An individual can also travel globally with large amounts of bitcoins without any governments being able to stop it. Transaction fees are extremely low if they exist at all.
All of these are SIGNIFICANT benefits over the legacy currency system. I've mentioned them a million times in these threads but most of y'all refuse to even acknowledge those as benefits. There's nothing I can really do for you if you refuse to see the writing on the wall.
It's like someone arguing that a circuit switched system is better than a packet switched system. Which brings me to my next point: I don't have a response to most of the mumbo-jumbo you posted above. You come at this from the perspective of a banker vested in the existing system. You are clearly more educated on the existing system than I am and you are better versed in its apologetics.
Couple other points I wanted to address:
I dislike how you always try to separate the Federal Reserve system from the politicians. Any time you acknowledge something negative about the system, you always then blame the politicians. You can't separate them. They are all a part of the same system. You're essentially arguing that the central banks would be damn near perfect if not for meddling politicians. As you stated on another issue, "it comes down to appicational (sic) reality." The reality of the application of central banks is that they are integrated into the political system.
Also, I don't care if that's what Benny meant when he made that statement. He may have, although he was agreeing with Milton Friedman, and I guarantee Friedman's argument wasn't that the Federal Reserve didn't do enough....so I don't really know where you are coming from on this. However, even if Benny did mean it in the way that you say, it doesn't mean he's right.
You seem unwilling to acknowledge any criticisms of central banking.
This post was edited on 7/8/13 at 8:57 am
3
Posted on 7/8/13 at 8:57 am to WikiTiger
quote:
appicational (sic)
Now who is the spelling nazi, hypocrite?
Posted on 7/8/13 at 9:10 am to WikiTiger
quote:
it also offers many end-user benefits that legacy currencies do not, such as
quote:Existing currencies can be stored safely without using a bank.
being able to store it safely without needing to use a bank,
quote:This is a faux argument and is just plain silly. I seriously doubt anyone on this board has ever needed to do that and if they did, using a third party is a measure of insurance, not an inconvenience.
being able to send it or receive it instantly at all hours of the day on any day of the year without needing to go through a third party
In addition, I have worked in countries where the internet is not routinely available and/or the electricity only works a few hours each day, if at all that day. Tell me how convenient your BTC is when you can't access the internet or the cell towers are not working because the power is off to them. You need to get out into the real world more....
quote:
because that means it is censorship resistant in that banks or processing companies can't exclude certain customers of their choosing (and yes, that does happen frequently).
Such as when an illegal transaction is attempted, Mr. Drug Dealer?
quote:So can dollars. I take dollars with me across borders all the time. No issues, no red tape. Plus, I take a $25,000 credit line on my credit card with me around the world all the time. Safe, secure, instantaneous access to a payment system. You're being silly again.
It can be sent across political borders with ease
quote:I've taken $9,000 cash with me across borders. No issues, no problems. Who needs more than that, Mr. Drug Dealer?
An individual can also travel globally with large amounts of bitcoins without any governments being able to stop it.
quote:There are zero transaction fees with credit cards for the purchaser. In fact, I get paid cash back for using my credit card. If I use btc to buy something, will the seller give me some of my cash back?
Transaction fees are extremely low if they exist at all.
quote:Could it be because the "reasons" you give are stupid and aren't benefits to the average person or those benefits can be enjoyed using existing currencies? Hmmmm????
. I've mentioned them a million times in these threads but most of y'all refuse to even acknowledge those as benefits.
You can keep repeating your fake "reasons" but any intelligent person knows you're wrong.
This post was edited on 7/8/13 at 9:17 am
Posted on 7/8/13 at 9:26 am to WikiTiger
I guess I just did a bad job at explaining when you post this:
and this:
When the bolded is very similar to our current system in application. At this point I'll just accept that I did a poor job of communicating my point.
The thing is I know what you're talking about, I have a self-taught background of coding myself. I see your point but I would argue that our current monetary system isn't exactly a cicruit switched system. Regardless I don't want to stray off topic here.
They absolutely are seperate and they have to be, the worst central bank we ever had was the Miller and Burns central bank in the 70's. I do know the true criticisms of central banks. Central banking isn't perfect, nothing is perfect. Everything has flaws, there is no silver bullet. The real criticisms of central banks are that they are often too early or too late (2000, 2004, 2007), they sometimes are politically influenced (the entire 1970's), and politicians feel like they give them a blank check (the past 60 years). If you want to make the arguement that the sheer existence of a central bank connects them to politicians for this reason I'll give you that, I always give that point and I have to Doc several times, because it's true. It's unfortunate but it's true. However, my belief in central banks isn't due to my existence as a "banker vested in the existing system". I come at this as a student of history knowing the alternative of no central bank versus that of one with a central bank.
Since central banks came in the picture, economies have run smoother, recessions are less often and shorter, living conditions have increased, the innovative spirit has increased due to access of funding, and technology has sky-rocketed due to the increase in the innovative spirit. I know you'll argue against some of that and that central banks had nothing to do with any of it, but I'm not arguing they were the main reason. I'm arguing that they were a contributing factor rather than a deterring one. No central bank leads to lower availability of credit, without credit many ideas become lost on the wayside. It's not that central banks are some sort of mystical beacons of awesomeness, its just that solution A is better than solution B.
quote:
don't have a response to most of the mumbo-jumbo you posted above.
and this:
quote:
It's very different in that it's not controlled by a central authority and its supply is limited. I know you don't see any significance to that, but a lot of people do. Not only that, but it also offers many end-user benefits that legacy currencies do not, such as being able to store it safely without needing to use a bank, being able to send it or receive it instantly at all hours of the day on any day of the year without needing to go through a third party - which is important because that means it is censorship resistant in that banks or processing companies can't exclude certain customers of their choosing (and yes, that does happen frequently). It can be sent across political borders with ease. An individual can also travel globally with large amounts of bitcoins without any governments being able to stop it. Transaction fees are extremely low if they exist at all.
When the bolded is very similar to our current system in application. At this point I'll just accept that I did a poor job of communicating my point.
quote:
It's like someone arguing that a circuit switched system is better than a packet switched system.
The thing is I know what you're talking about, I have a self-taught background of coding myself. I see your point but I would argue that our current monetary system isn't exactly a cicruit switched system. Regardless I don't want to stray off topic here.
quote:
I dislike how you always try to separate the Federal Reserve system from the politicians. Any time you acknowledge something negative about the system, you always then blame the politicians. You can't separate them.
They absolutely are seperate and they have to be, the worst central bank we ever had was the Miller and Burns central bank in the 70's. I do know the true criticisms of central banks. Central banking isn't perfect, nothing is perfect. Everything has flaws, there is no silver bullet. The real criticisms of central banks are that they are often too early or too late (2000, 2004, 2007), they sometimes are politically influenced (the entire 1970's), and politicians feel like they give them a blank check (the past 60 years). If you want to make the arguement that the sheer existence of a central bank connects them to politicians for this reason I'll give you that, I always give that point and I have to Doc several times, because it's true. It's unfortunate but it's true. However, my belief in central banks isn't due to my existence as a "banker vested in the existing system". I come at this as a student of history knowing the alternative of no central bank versus that of one with a central bank.
Since central banks came in the picture, economies have run smoother, recessions are less often and shorter, living conditions have increased, the innovative spirit has increased due to access of funding, and technology has sky-rocketed due to the increase in the innovative spirit. I know you'll argue against some of that and that central banks had nothing to do with any of it, but I'm not arguing they were the main reason. I'm arguing that they were a contributing factor rather than a deterring one. No central bank leads to lower availability of credit, without credit many ideas become lost on the wayside. It's not that central banks are some sort of mystical beacons of awesomeness, its just that solution A is better than solution B.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News