Originally Posted by bae
Yes, dollar cost averaging in over a five year time horizon would yield comparable returns to that of other similar speculative ventures. This is why it would be only part of a diversified portfolio.Looks like by "investing in bitcoin" you mean simply purchasing bitcoin?
The ecosystem can't survive forever with the amount of tampering-for-profit that's going on. One by one the strands of the life web are being broken as we dam, strip mine, frack, burn fossil fuels, monocrop, create dioxin and myriad other "interferences" with the delicate cycles that support life on earth. If we go beyond a certain point of degradation, WE, as living animals, cannot survive; the health of the planet is what allows us to exist at all. 'The planet's need' is to have its living infrastructure left intact, and we seem perilously close to dismantling it.
The greater the financial entity, the greater its ability to tamper with that infrastructure in the name of profit. Poison a lake? Oh well the fine's only 10 million dollars, pay it, Jeeves. Smaller economic entities don't have the luxury of such devastation. While the whole "for profit" concept is a problem for the planet in the end, it is at least diluted when the power base is divided.
As far as predatory, I'm using the word to mean competitive in a way that shuts out smaller entities which might be less damaging. I see a firm connection between Big and Broken, and if a currency backed by real assets can in some way reallocate wealth across a broader base without simply taking from the rich and giving to the poor, well good deal.
And I'll say it again, what -if anything- this has to do with bitcoin is admittedly vague in my mind.
Hmm, so if we were using bitcoins, the fine's only 32,000 bitcoins, pay it, Jeeves.
Not sure that would solve a lot. Maybe you shoud use Lira, at least then it would be 16 billion. Maybe that sounds more detering.
Bitcoin doesn't single handedly stop the greed that causes humans to destroy the environment but it introduces a currency that can displace a system that encourages it.
A business, for example, like fracking is highly leveraged. Other industries that are less so still get their start up capital mainly from loans. Without loan contracts many damaging businesses wouldn't get started or continue. Bitcoin doesn't prohibit loans, however it does prohibit the creation of money out of thin air, which is what the current system does for every loan made in the system.
The unbridled money expansion over the last hundred years is a major contributing factor of unbridled consumption ergo environmental degradation.
For those that find this incredulous, you may try googleing fractional reserve lending, as well as doing the other suggested reading in this thread. Fractional (another kind of fracking) reserve lending is allowable by LAW....again, look it up. Don't take my word for it. It is there.
Deep down everyone knows that this banking system doesn't lend money it has because there has NEVER been a bank that refuses to lend money to a qualified borrower for lack of current available funds.
It's not unlike the typical wealthy man who convinces himself his young mistress or call girl is really in love with him. It's a seductive and/or comfortable little fantasy but that's all it is.
How does bitcoin distinguish between damaging businesses you want to repress and helpful businesses you want to promote?
Your best argument for bitcoin is that it will depress the economy?
I'm doing a deal this week to sell an early childhood education facility its campus, at long last, so it can stop paying rent to its evil capitalist landlord (me). Part of the deal involves a...loan.
I guess Bitcoin Society would be better served if I bulldozed the place and started a pig farm.
It will stunt some sectors and stimulate it in others. For example, there are literally billions of people who'll experience booming economic growth because their economic potential has been under utilized due to political and financial corruption (homegrown and imported) especially in third world countries. Bitcoin's velocity and accessibility will be very valuable features in those areas as its acceptance grows.
The international remittance market is where this is already occurring. Big predatory companies like Western Union are seeing increasing amounts of market share disappear while those in third world countries are starting to get ALL of the wealth that is being earned by their family members abroad.
In the U.S., where vast wealth is made available to large corporations who have track records of stripping the earth of resources, there would no longer be loan creation from the top down, which is how it is made available now (e.g. from a Central bank to Citi to Shell), and no/less political cover via lobbyists who influence laws favoring such. This would create a level playing field for the competition: companies that offer sustainable energy and use renewable resources.
In Germany, and in other European countries, sustainable energy is flourishing. Oil companies here have a tight hold on policy and monopolize energy. In fact, they have so much control even before lower gas prices, shale and fracking companies were already losing money, i.e. for every dollar made on oil extraction, they spent 1.30, unsustainable financially and environmentally. But, they've been able to continue with financing through junk bonds, and heavy profiteering especially when oil was above $100 a barrel.
The above assumes a world that is ultimately dominated by a cyrptocurrency very similar to Bitcoin, only with some advances in accessibility. How we get there will be interesting to say the least.
There are others that could more cohesively make the case than I, but I understand enough to know that the root problem that Bitcoin can address is the debt based money system (the primary root problem which can't be addressed by any currency or technology is the love of money which is what created the current system).
So, long term, Bitcoin has the potential to even out some or all of the imbalances in the world economy because it is not debt based or centralized. It is money/value by agreement to use math that is open source.
There's an old expression that says there's nothing new under the sun, which may be true even for Bitcoin/cryptocurrencies but I don't see any precedent for it, not on a global scale anyway.
Feel free to ignore this part of his post.
I think the point Xmas was trying to make is that with a more stable amount of currency there is not money being over-created and sloshing around the economy being maki vested in bad investments. Good investments like a school buying their formerly rented property will always find money available to be borrowed for such purpose (assuming, of course, that the school does actually have a reasonable likelihood of being able to repay the loan.). When unlimited quantities of money can be created, as with fractional reserve banking, malinvestment bubbles, like the recent real estate bubble and subsequent crash, are inevitable.
There is a substantial difference between loans in which valid consideration is exchanged and loans in which money itself is created.
Here's your education if you can stand it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIxhsF6JLEA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3_Q1SiRN-A
What is the "correct" amount of currency to be in the economy?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote