/liberty/ - Liberty

With a computer printer.

Money is generally some bullshit that works primarily at gunpoint. It has essentially no place in a nontotalitarian system.

>the money supply

You mean "fiat currency", as in "currency backed by literally nothing except the current perception of a particular organization's economic pull"?

You don't. You destroy that system, and implement one that is based on something real.

>>90055

Let's abolish fiat. What comes next?

>>90062

Cryptocurrency. At least it's founded on scarcity and processing power, rather than hopes, dreams, and globalist influence.

>>90064

>Cryptocurrency

The problem with fiat is the instability and crypto is even worse, mongoloid

>>90062

Precious metals

>>90074

Daily reminder that all modern cryptocurrencies are fiat and prone to devaluate mining as time passes. Bitcoin halving - http://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/ .

>>90088

By investing

>>90076

>all modern cryptocurrencies are fiat

That's not what that word means.

>>90090

That's exactly what the word means. They are a separate commodity that is not backed up by any good. Dollar could do that to if it required you to jump 3 times before printing and giving one for you.

>>90092

Jesus, what a retard. I wish there was a separate internet for you brainlets and fourteen year olds.

>>90091

>have someone make something

>they produce a finished product of higher value than the raw materials

>fixed amount of currency in circulation

>selling the product at a higher cost takes currency out of the system rather than putting currency in

>currency horded over time and becomes increasingly rare

>smaller and smaller amounts in circulation over time to be spent on goods and services

>logic of requiring wages and prices to go down over time because the currency becomes more and more valuable and there's less and less to be spent

>investment is fucked as there will be less currency available in the future not an equivalent amount or more

>currency will be replaced by another currency with lower value for general usage if no law is mandating it necessary for taxation activities

>ends up as a commodity

>>90064

How do you procure said processing power in the first place?

>>90093

You can start arguing any time.

>>90053

Why would you want to grow the money supply at all? The fact that it allows money to be created out of thin air is half the problem with central banking.

>>90062

Whatever the market decides. Gold and silver are the old favorites, and in recent years crypto has been getting popular, although it's not quite at the level of currency (yet). Chances are there won't be any one commodity backing all currency, but several competing ones that become more or less universally accepted.

>>90074

Fiat has more than its share of problems and definitely the worst alternative, but instability isn't really one of them–the price of the dollar doesn't fluctuate wildly from one day to the next. Crypto's volatility was a problem in the past, but that was due more because of retarded speculators treating it as an investment rather than a currency. Bitcoin's innate scarcity (something most other crypto doesn't have) acts as a pretty good counter to volatile speculation, and since that big correction we've seen the price become a lot more stable. Crypto still has a way to go before it's a true currency but it's far from nonviable.

>>90076

>>90092

The other guy is right, you're not using fiat correctly–fiat literally means "by government decree", so crypto isn't fiat. Your assertion that bitcoin will be devalued as time passes is categorically wrong as well. There will only ever be 21 million bitcoins in circulation no matter what, a number that's hardcoded into the blockchain. This scarcity means that far from being less valuable over time, bitcoin will probably see a very slight rise in value as time passes.

>They are a separate commodity that is not backed up by any good.

What does this even mean? How are other commodities "backed up by goods"? Is gold "backed up by any good?" If so, what is it?

>>90096

Ok, and if the currency is gold, what are you going to back it with? Do you even know why anything has to be backed by anything in the first place? So that there will be a scarcity of the currency, so that money that circulates in the market will be a fixed number that doesn't change, not an infinite magical resource that the government can tap into whenever its in debt. You can back your currency with bitcoins, just like you would with gold or anything else that is scarce.

Being the illiterate /pol/boy that you are, you're probably mixing up the word "fiat" (the only word you know in economics besides "usury") and using it to refer to volatility, thinking that just because prices for shitcoins change all the time, they somehow have to be "backed" by something to become stable.

>>90097

Ok, so you cannot have private fiat currency then?

>Your assertion that bitcoin will be devalued as time passes is categorically wrong as well.

It's supply is going to reduce along with the amount of work required to acquire it, so you can get one only by trading. I'm unsure if it's price will drop because of that, as well as if there's going to be any miners to keep it alive, but these things are already happening.

>There will only ever be 21 million bitcoins in circulation no matter what, a number that's hardcoded into the blockchain

Approximately 1/3 of all bitcoins are already lost. Forever.

>>90101

>along with the amount of work required to acquire it

It's the other way round, more work will be needed, it's already unprofitable today without specialized equipment.

>>90097

>How are other commodities "backed up by goods"?

I meant that gold is a good in itself, while any commodity that does not represent any actual resources, services or other things with value independent of its relation to a certain niche market are less effective and reliable. You could probably sell titanium on Alpha Centauri if you can find anyone to be able to do any trade with, but good luck trading a Canadian dollar anywhere outside of Canada.

Cryptos are useful, but they are not in a good state for anything other tan petty financial machinations today.

>>90054

>an IOU token is totalitarian

LOL

>>90103

What if you can't get any gold to pay for something?

>>90095

This is why most libertarian reasoning is just fart-smelling.

>>90101

>Ok, so you cannot have private fiat currency then?

No. Glad we cleared that up.

>It's supply is going to reduce along with the amount of work required to acquire it, so you can get one only by trading. I'm unsure if it's price will drop because of that, as well as if there's going to be any miners to keep it alive, but these things are already happening.

You're contradicting yourself. If supply is going to be reduced, the price will go up, not down, because you've got less supply but the same amount of demand. And the work required to acquire it (I assume you mean mining) is also getting more expensive, not less expensive.

>>90104

Okay, so why isn't Bitcoin a "good in itself?" Bitcoins are a commodity, albeit a virtual one, and the value of BTC comes from the trading network created by it–it makes transactions easier therefore it is valuable. It's the same reason Mastercard and Paypal have non-zero stock prices.

>You could probably sell titanium on Alpha Centauri if you can find anyone to be able to do any trade with, but good luck trading a Canadian dollar anywhere outside of Canada.

Yeah, and if I brought a lump of gold to a starving man on a desert island he'd probably value it a lot less than a potato. But that doesn't make gold useless.

>>90110

If there's a fixed amount of currency, is it not a zero sum game?

>>90094

Here's what actually happens.

>have someone make something

>they produce a finished product of higher value than the raw materials

>fixed amount of currency in circulation

>selling the product at a higher cost takes currency out of the system rather than putting currency in

>currency horded over time and becomes increasingly rare

>smaller and smaller amounts in circulation over time to be spent on goods and services

>Eventually it becomes more convenient to just use another currency

>Another currency comes along

>Horders are forced to sell or see dwindling returns as their currency reserves plummet in price

>Either they lose everything or the system stabilizes

>All is well in the world because we're not limited to using one currency like some statist shithole

Even if it becomes a commodity, is that really a bad thing? Gold and silver are commodity currencies and they do just fine.

>>90109

>No. Glad we cleared that up.

Ok then, how do you call a currency that is not tied to any existing market good. I'd like to know the name of the thing, if it's not fiat.

>If supply is going to be reduced, the price will go up,

I did not state that price will go down, as in

>I'm unsure if it's price will drop

>work required to acquire it (I assume you mean mining) is also getting more expensive, not less expensive

I corrected myself here >>90102

>why isn't Bitcoin a "good in itself?"

It does not represent any existing things in any market's demand, it is above them.

>it makes transactions easier therefore it is valuable

So could do a commodity based currency. Probably a lot better than this weird abomination.

>Yeah, and if I brought a lump of gold to a starving man on a desert island he'd probably value it a lot less than a potato. But that doesn't make gold useless.

Gold would be less useful but bitcoin would not be useful at all, still.

I dunno how to specifically reply but some anon in here said not every crypto was bitcoin then gave an example of litecoin being a stable alternative to bitcoin. Its open knowledge that charlie lee created lite coin. By copying and pasting bitcoin code.

He also wormed his way onto coinbase and sold his litecoins.

Scam

>>90124

>Ok then, how do you call a currency that is not tied to any existing market good. I'd like to know the name of the thing, if it's not fiat.

In that case, that currency is the market good. This includes Bitcoin, which is a market good. It may be a market good that you personally think is useless, it may be a market good that you personally wouldn't pay for, but it still is a market good.

>It does not represent any existing things in any market's demand, it is above them

Again, BTC is the thing in demand. There exists a commodity market for bitcoin.

>So could do a commodity based currency. Probably a lot better than this weird abomination.

Yeah, but the fact that commodity money can do something doesn't discount the fact that crypto can do this too. Whether it's better or not is a matter of preference and opinion. I'm actually a fan of gold over crypto myself, but I can recognize that crypto has certain features (namely the blockchain and its self-regulating recordkeeping) that might make it more desirable to certain people.

>Gold would be less useful but bitcoin would not be useful at all, still.

I think you missed the point I was making. Whether or not you consider something "useful" doesn't change the fact that these things have value. There's no such thing as "use-value" in the market–people value things because of their own subjective preferences, not because of any kind of use value. Let's take gold, for instance. Where's the use value in gold? It's shiny, and that's fucking it. It's shiny and stays shiny for a long time. Modern chemicals let us make things similarly shiny to gold with greater durability, and for a lot cheaper too, yet gold is still heavily in demand. Why? Because people subjectively value gold for almost arbitrary reasons, and so the price remains high. Or consider how in demand Top40 pop music is despite how derivative and objectively shite the vast majority of titles are–even though it makes no sense, people value this drivel and are willing to pay money for it for their own arcane reasons, and so it remains valuable.

>>90128

>In that case, that currency is the market good.

Yes, but isn't there a difference between it an a currency that is tightly connected to a market good and relies on natural scarcity and not an artificial one?

>Whether it's better or not is a matter of preference and opinion

Well, yes, even fiat has somewhat worked for a while now. It would be left behind if proper currencies were present, though.

> I can recognize that crypto has certain features (namely the blockchain and its self-regulating recordkeeping) that might make it more desirable to certain people.

It definitely is more useful to people who act more in digital space, as the currency itself is digital. I just wanted to point out that it is nowhere near perfect or a good example. I once created a thread here about making a cryptocurrency reliant on a good that all digital operations require, computational power, namely. We've actually got halfway there: you need it to get currency but there is no way back and the power and work is essentially wasted.

>There's no such thing as "use-value"

I completely agree and never implied the opposite.

>>90129

Fucks up in what way? If they monopolize a currency, you will not be able to use a better one. Since the currency is monopolized, they can exploit the people who use it however they want, because they don't have to compete with better currencies (except maybe international ones, but politicians couldn't give a fuck about that).

>>90131

>Yes, but isn't there a difference between it an a currency that is tightly connected to a market good and relies on natural scarcity and not an artificial one?

Not that I can see, but that's because I'm not sure how Bitcoin's scarcity is artificial. In a lot of ways BTC is actually more scarce than gold is, because we're constantly mining for gold and slowly increasing the supply, whereas BTC is hard, hard capped at 21 million. It's not a matter of going into a computer and changing a parameter, this limited is hard-coded into the blockchain at a very fundamental level. At best, all you can do is fork the software and make a clone currency with a higher/lower cap, but it would be completely separate from the original Bitcoin and not affect the supply of original Bitcoin in any way.

>>90133

>how Bitcoin's scarcity is artificial

It's hard capped at 21 million so it cannot be discovered or created beyond that. Aside from problem of unrecoverable losses it does not adapt to changes of the market, unlike a natural resource would. It also allows for someone with large supply of bitcoins to affect bitcoin market. It's voting system is also an issue as it uses democracy for decision making, with obvious problems.

>At best, all you can do is fork the software and make a clone currency with a higher/lower cap, but it would be completely separate from the original Bitcoin and not affect the supply of original Bitcoin in any way.

I do not like the idea of a throwaway currency very much. I'd rather have something reliable and long lasting and not requiring a restart every few years, either because of it reaching limits, reducing in numbers, becoming unstable because of major shareholders' games with it or decisions about its development.

>>90134

I searched and seem to not be able to find anything about voting in bitcoin itself, i guess i have mistaken it with something else.

>>90132

Since they monopolize one currency that the central bank controls and government is bad at judging the direction of markets, it can't keep the currency at a constant value and just inflates it forever?

>>90137

Look you wanted the Mexicans to go back to Mexico but you won't fix Mexico. You want me to leave this board but you wont let me fuck with animals. You are not very innovative or intelligent.

>>90202

The government ideally tries to grow the economy doesn't it? And it establishes a national currency to make trade easier within its borders, and it manages the amount and the value of that currency through loans by the central bank and the interest rate for said loans. Within the country's borders for the purposes of taxation you're only supposed to use the national currency. However governments are bad at keeping track of markets and end up in situations with too little or too much money in circulation, and individuals and businesses can't use alternative currencies to compensate for these problems worsening the country's economic performance.

And the solution for this would either be a decentralized banking system that would be more efficient but would need to be in a structure that people trust to secure their money (like in the past based on gold) or allowing the use of different sovereign currencies like during the first few decades of American history, but that probably won't happen due to complications of exchange rates and tax collection.