Runtime: 6min.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
Collapse
X
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
Debt porn -- it's fear mongering intended to grease the way toward austerity (aka debt peonage.)
The Modern Money Theorists (see iTulip thread A Kindergarten Guide to Modern Monetary Theory (Days 1-3)) understand better the way our monetary system actually works. But the currently predominant understanding is way too ingrained in almost everyone's thinking, and is now being used, as in the above CBS Evening News report, to grease the skids to austerity.Most folks are good; a few aren't.
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View PostDebt porn -- it's fear mongering intended to grease the way toward austerity (aka debt peonage.)
I like the fact that it shows that one administration after the next, debt and deficits were an issue to be tackled, but only grew higher and higher.
Lastly, note how the clip demonstrates the military as "discretionary" spending while Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid is not discretionary (@ about 1:20). That is quite a statement for a MSM channel.
Comment
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
Originally posted by LargoWinch View PostI somewhat agree TPC, it was on CBS after all.
I like the fact that it shows that one administration after the next, debt and deficits were an issue to be tackled, but only grew higher and higher.
Lastly, note how the clip demonstrates the military as "discretionary" spending while Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid is not discretionary (@ about 1:20). That is quite a statement for a MSM channel.
But we're being setup up for 30 years of austerity, aka debt peonage, just as those in Iceland, Greece, and Ireland have been recently.
We must not let the Banksters get that saddle on us. Restructure that debt. The guys that sold it to us set us up, just as they did so many other countries large and small and so many other mortgage holders. They must take some of the hair cut.Most folks are good; a few aren't.
Comment
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
We must not let the Banksters get that saddle on us. Restructure that debt. The guys that sold it to us set us up, just as they did so many other countries large and small and so many other mortgage holders. They must take some of the hair cut.
I however think that in order to restructure the debt we need a functioning political system, which is not the case at the present. Furthermore, fixing the political system would require nothing short of a miracle, take a lot of time and would distract efforts to tackle the real issue: debt peonage.
Therefore, one of the easiest way to prevent debt peonage is instead to "starve the beast" via repudiation of fiat currencies in order to regain freedom. Such action if taken by the masses, is tantamount to debt restructuring and does not involve fixing the political system in order to achieve said goal.
Comment
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
Originally posted by LargoWinch View PostI however think that in order to restructure the debt we need a functioning political system, which is not the case at the present. ...
Therefore, one of the easiest way to prevent debt peonage is instead to "starve the beast" via repudiation of fiat currencies in order to regain freedom.
If a sufficient number of ordinary but informed people really refuse to stand for debt peonage, then "our" government cannot enforce it. We don't have to replace the politicians with ones of economic competence and moral integrity (that would be neigh impossible anytime soon, as you note.) If by our word and deed, enough of us are clear that debt peonage is intolerable, then the politicos lack the power to put that saddle on us and keep it there.Most folks are good; a few aren't.
Comment
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View PostStefan Molyneux, in a speech at Libertopia 2010, has an interesting take on what we can and should do. He's a philosopher, not an economist, so not surprisingly his thoughts turn to the deeds and words that we individually can do, to counteract the ostracism of those thinking too far outside the box.
If a sufficient number of ordinary but informed people really refuse to stand for debt peonage, then "our" government cannot enforce it. We don't have to replace the politicians with ones of economic competence and moral integrity (that would be neigh impossible anytime soon, as you note.) If by our word and deed, enough of us are clear that debt peonage is intolerable, then the politicos lack the power to put that saddle on us and keep it there.
Great guy. I quite enjoy his work.
I still think that one of the more concrete and simple act for citizen in order to ultimately achieve Stefan's ideals is to cut the governments' balls via fiat repudiation.
Some more of his recent work:
Comment
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
This may be one way to do it - "Bitcoin - Open Source Virtual Currency Project that Could Become the Gold Standard of Digital Currency"
Bitcoin is an open source peer-to-peer digital currency project. Peer-to-peer (P2P) in this context means that there is no central authority to issue new money or keep track of transactions. Instead, these tasks are managed collectively by the nodes of the network. This is one important open source project that holds a lot promises for the future.
Bitcoin P2P Virtual Currency - Key Advantages
- Bitcoins can be sent easily through the Internet, without having to trust middlemen.
- Transactions are designed to be irreversible.
- Be safe from instability caused by fractional reserve banking and central banks. Limited inflation of the Bitcoin system’s money supply is distributed evenly by CPU power across the network, not monopolized by banks.
- Users hold the crypto keys to their own money and transaction is done directly with each other, with the help of the network to check for double-spending. Need of a middleman for digital money transaction is essentially negated.
Comment
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
Originally posted by Rajiv View PostThis may be one way to do it - "Bitcoin - Open Source Virtual Currency Project that Could Become the Gold Standard of Digital Currency"
However I suspect that there might be a way to resolve these problems. Consider the Netsukuku scheme, discussed in an earlier thread involving the proposed dot-p2p DNS system in response to threats to the Internet from the government, in "response" to Wikileaks, taking out DNS names of "bad" web sites. The underlying self-maintaining distributed highly scalable name resolution scheme used in Netsukuku might suggest a way to resolve these Bitcoin problems.
I need to examine this further, and perhaps propose something to the Bitcoin developers. I'm feeling the urge to conceive, design and code ... I've been able to resist that urge in recent years, except for minor items. It's not yet clear if I will be able to resist the calling once again.
In any case, thank-you very much, Rajiv, for an interesting provocation. It's the best Christmas present I've received in quite a while.Most folks are good; a few aren't.
Comment
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
I have been busy the last day, since you posted this, investigating Bitcoin. It has some problems with scaling to millions or billions of users, and it has some related problems providing rapid (one or two second) response to a request to spend a bitcoin, while still ensuring that the same coin is not spent twice, roughly at the same time, from perhaps distant locations.
Nyet.
Money can be a store of wealth (think gold) or a medium of exchange (think Dollar.)
Bitcoin is confused as to its nature. The designer specified the mathematics so that there will only be a finite (some millions, if I recall) of bitcoins. Once the initial computations are done, over the period of a decade or two, then the actual quantity of bitcoins will decline gradually over time, as they are irretrievably lost due to the ordinary accidents. The apparent intent was to make them "valuable". Relatively simple products of computer computation would seem to be "worthless" unless a story and some history shows otherwise. The key developer, Satoshi Nakamoto, seems to be a bit of a control freak. We do not to this day even know if he is a single individual, man or woman, or a group. His code is difficult for others to understand, he refuses to allow internal comments, and he is strongly opposed to any alternative implementations. So far, there is not even a decent set of RFC's explaining the network protocols involved.
The "value" of bitcoins comes from their "scarcity."
That's the key, both to the interest in them so far, and to their ultimate failure (in my prediction.)
The money that is used for exchange (Dollars) works best if it gradually decays in value over longer time frames, has stable value in shorter time frames (determined by the "price" of what trades in that currency, not by the "supply" of the currency itself), and is available in abundance. The gradual decay over longer time frames seems to make the value of other assets increase (as measured in the nominal units of that currency!) This creates a steady pressure to both acquire that money (so as to buy and sell other valuables and essentials), and to spend that money (on something that will gain value, not lose it, over time.)
A scare item of increasing nominal value is hoarded, not spent. That is exactly what is happening in the bitcoin community. Most bitcoins were earned early on, when the CPU cycle cost to make one was cheap (by design.) Bitcoins are now hoarded, while their holders brag of their wealth. A few bitcoins trade at increasing Dollar prices, making the apparent "fair market value" of a large hoard of bitcoins to be grand and increasing. Not surprisingly, this excites the current holders of bitcoins.
So, bitcoins are neither fish nor fowl. They are not, and more importantly, will not become a significant medium of exchange because they will always be in a very strictly limited, absolutely capped, short supply; what's worse, a gradually declining supply in the longer term. But they are not a long term store of wealth either, for they are just bits known to a few, and have no chance of competing with gold or other long standing hoards of wealth for long term security. Even if they had existed since ancient Babylon, they still could not compete with gold, for the simple reason of having quite unsuitable physical properties.
The response from the Bitcoin Developers to the problem of the long term capped scarcity of bitcoins is interesting. They explain that bitcoins can be subdivided to quite fine sub-units, such as millionth's or billionth's. This is true. Bitcoins are 64 bit quantities, which presents the ultimate constraint on the total quantity of bitcoins, as measured in their smallest discernible unit. However the impact of this is telling. Over time, if bitcoins succeed and achieve their grand vision, a bitcoin that is worth perhaps $0.25 today could become worth a few thousand or millions of $US, and a small item cost a thousandth or a millionth of a bitcoin. This is absolutely unacceptable for a trading currency, in my view. It leads to hoarding rather than to an increasing pace of economic activity.
I am no longer interested in bitcoins. As currently constituted, they will not work. Nor is the development community so constituted that one can substantially influence the core design concepts.
As the fox said of the grape that was too high to reach: "I didn't want that grape anyway. It was sour."Last edited by ThePythonicCow; December 31, 2010, 09:32 PM.Most folks are good; a few aren't.
Comment
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View PostI spent some time looking at bitcoin.
Nyet.
Money can be a store of wealth (think gold) or a medium of exchange (think Dollar.)
Bitcoin is confused as to its nature.
Here was a round table discussion with Randy Wray and Warren Mosler
This economist round table challenges the prevailing thought on the U.S. economy, National Debt, Trade deficits, and Government spending. The panel includes Mike Norman, L. Randall Wray, and Warren Mosler. They propose such ideas as a payroll tax holiday, tax cuts for businesses, capital infusions to the states, major government investment in infrastructure, and eight dollar per hour federal jobs program for anybody who wants to work.
Comment
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
Cow,
The great thing about private currencies is anyone can go out and design their own. I am sure you can find other developers, and many can be had on the cheap. Perhaps you can devise a scheme yourself? It'd be great if there were dozens of competing open source digital currencies out there....
Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View PostI spent some time looking at bitcoin.
Nyet.
Money can be a store of wealth (think gold) or a medium of exchange (think Dollar.)
Bitcoin is confused as to its nature. The designer specified the mathematics so that there will only be a finite (some millions, if I recall) of bitcoins. Once the initial computations are done, over the period of a decade or two, then the actual quantity of bitcoins will decline gradually over time, as they are irretrievably lost due to the ordinary accidents. The apparent intent was to make them "valuable". Relatively simple products of computer computation would seem to be "worthless" unless a story and some history shows otherwise. The key developer, Satoshi Nakamoto, seems to be a bit of a control freak. We do not to this day even know if he is a single individual, man or woman, or a group. His code is difficult for others to understand, he refuses to allow internal comments, and he is strongly opposed to any alternative implementations. So far, there is not even a decent set of RFC's explaining the network protocols involved.
The "value" of bitcoins comes from their "scarcity."
That's the key, both to the interest in them so far, and to their ultimate failure (in my prediction.)
The money that is used for exchange (Dollars) works best if it gradually decays in value over longer time frames, has stable value in shorter time frames (determined by the "price" of what trades in that currency, not by the "supply" of the currency itself), and is available in abundance. The gradual decay over longer time frames seems to make the value of other assets increase (as measured in the nominal units of that currency!) This creates a steady pressure to both acquire that money (so as to buy and sell other valuables and essentials), and to spend that money (on something that will gain value, not lose it, over time.)
A scare item of increasing nominal value is hoarded, not spent. That is exactly what is happening in the bitcoin community. Most bitcoins were earned early on, when the CPU cycle cost to make one was cheap (by design.) Bitcoins are now hoarded, while their holders brag of their wealth. A few bitcoins trade at increasing Dollar prices, making the apparent "fair market value" of a large hoard of bitcoins to be grand and increasing. Not surprisingly, this excites the current holders of bitcoins.
So, bitcoins are neither fish nor fowl. They are not, and more importantly, will not become a significant medium of exchange because they will always be in a very strictly limited, absolutely capped, short supply; what's worse, a gradually declining supply in the longer term. But they are not a long term store of wealth either, for they are just bits known to a few, and have no chance of competing with gold or other long standing hoards of wealth for long term security. Even if they had existed since ancient Babylon, they still could not compete with gold, for the simple reason of having quite unsuitable physical properties.
The response from the Bitcoin Developers to the problem of the long term capped scarcity of bitcoins is interesting. They explain that bitcoins can be subdivided to quite fine sub-units, such as millionth's or billionth's. This is true. Bitcoins are 64 bit quantities, which presents the ultimate constraint on the total quantity of bitcoins, as measured in their smallest discernible unit. However the impact of this is telling. Over time, if bitcoins succeed and achieve their grand vision, a bitcoin that is worth perhaps $0.25 today could become worth a few thousand or millions of $US, and a small item cost a thousandth or a millionth of a bitcoin. This is absolutely unacceptable for a trading currency, in my view. It leads to hoarding rather than to an increasing pace of economic activity.
I am no longer interested in bitcoins. As currently constituted, they will not work. Nor is the development community so constituted that one can substantially influence the core design concepts.
As the fox said of the grape that was too high to reach: "I didn't want that grape anyway. It was sour."
Comment
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
Originally posted by SamAdams View PostCow,
The great thing about private currencies is anyone can go out and design their own. I am sure you can find other developers, and many can be had on the cheap. Perhaps you can devise a scheme yourself? It'd be great if there were dozens of competing open source digital currencies out there....
I do not understand the forces that are determining humanity's destiny. I have ideas, but those ideas shift with the blowing sands. I am far from sufficient understanding to guide such a project to success, from its conception and design onward.Most folks are good; a few aren't.
Comment
-
Re: U.S. Deficit and the Debt - CBS News - Dec. 3, 2010 (6min.)
Originally posted by Rajiv View PostThis may be one way to do it - "Bitcoin - Open Source Virtual Currency Project that Could Become the Gold Standard of Digital Currency"
Bitcoin has done alot better than anything else lately. I believe it is the mid 30's now.
Bitcoin's Meteoric Rise in Value: 583900% per Year
What's that crazy chart that looks like the foot of a hockey stick about?
As you can see from this chart...
One Bitcoin was trading for about $0.06 around October 7, 2011. And now.... one Bitcoin is selling for about $20.00 as of June 7, 2011. If our math is correct, that's about a 33,332% Gain in only 8 months.... and, if extrapolated out... at that rate of growth... over the course of one year... That would be an annual return on investment of 583900%. (source)**
Comment
Comment