Uploaded by Parcly Taxel 
512x270 PNG 54 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
!!!
Tags
+-SH safe2289039 +-SH applejack209203 +-SH derpibooru8198 +-SH g42130057 +-SH leap of faith779 +-SH my little pony: friendship is magic269744 +-SH bitcoin42 +-SH bits1393 +-SH coin1115 +-SH cryptocurrency46 +-SH exploitable meme33826 +-SH faic15291 +-SH hub logo10682 +-SH juxtaposition4973 +-SH juxtaposition win3513 +-SH meme97573 +-SH meta18911 +-SH rainbow power3306
Loading...
Loading...
if the bitcoin was accepted by the government
Oh, in that case, if the bitcoin was accepted by the government as payment of legal debt, you’d have the perfect currency.
Actually, I want a currency that cannot be quatitatively eased (read: fucks you over if you’re trying to save) more than a currency that doesn’t involve government.
You want a currency that does not involve the government. That seems to be your sticking point.
I think that is actually counter-productive for bitcoin, because without a government accepting bitcoin as payment for legal debt, like the dollar must be accepted to pay legal debt and taxes, there is no guaranteed taker of the currency and thus bitcoin isn’t real.
It is backed by it since people feel that it has value. The Macbook that I’m trying this message on has value for the same reason: people value Macbooks.
Remember, there is no such thing as intrinsic value, and without people, there is no value. The same goes for currencies, because if people don’t value it, then it doesn’t have value. The government can make all the rules it wants regarding currencies, but they cannot force value. The government saying that all $1 bills are now worth $100 does not make everyone $100 richer.
A money being backed by a government means that societal disallowed behavior using that currency can lead to arrest.
Bitcoin works in the manner described by market forces, but is not backed by it. Bitcoin is backed by the faith of bitcoin users that bitcoin has value. Without being backed by any assets, the only thing bitcoin could be backed by is force - government force.
Thus bitcoin is ultimately a real currency to the degree that governments believe it has value. Do they?
Market forces, just like every other human interaction ever
Bitcoin is backed by …?
I have a list of people I have seen be polite when conceding a point on the Internet, especially in discussions about economics or politics. It is short. I like most of those people. You are on it.
Isn’t that redundant? Neither Bitcoin nor gold has any intrinsic value
…
( 6_o)
Ok, you have me on that. I will concede that point to you.
Then I think we’re settled. If Bitcoin is valuable because people find it valuable, then many, many more people find dollars valuable, so they’re valuable, and as long as the United States is a stable nation with a professionally-managed currency system, that will remain the case. Since pretty much everyone in the world expects this will remain the case for the indefinite future, the dollar is likely to remain valuable for the indefinite future.
There are people who buy gold and other materials betting on a large fall in the dollar. Over the last century or so, those people have lost tons of money. Mainly the ones making the money have been the ones selling them the gold. (Ask yourself, if this man is selling you gold for dollars, what does he think about the value of the dollar?) We do watch TV shows where people collect gold… of course, we mainly watch those shows to mock those people.
Isn’t that redundant? Neither Bitcoin nor gold has any intrinsic value, and both are only valuable due to supply and demand via wealth-generating enterprises (neither Given current technological limitations come nowhere, thus must be produced). Their value comes from people wanting them, not because a group of people sitting in Washington, or Wellington, or London, or Pretoria, say they are.
They are individually valuable precisely because people value them. Sure, you could combine them…but I cannot wrap my head around as to why, since you seem to be implying that for bitcoins to be valuable, they have to be tied to something already considered valuable.
As I said: Bitcoins are valuable because people find them valuable; Gold is valuable because people find it valuable. Why do you need to combine two things that both are valuable in their own right in order for one of those things to acquire value that it apparantly doesn’t have…
…Nnnooo, I’m pretty sure it’s still called “strawman” when you pull an argument out of your own head and rebut it as if it were something your opponent had said. At no point did I say or even imply that bitcoin “wasn’t currency”, I just pointed out the self-evident fact that bitcoin is functionally valueless, what with the whole “not backed up by anything other than the implied honesty and trustworthiness of a bunch of objectivists, apocalypse hobbyists, and online child porn afficionados” thing. A currency is only as good as the guarantee that it can be exchanged for goods and services, and when that guarantee is not provided by an actual functioning economic entity, well… this is also “currency”:
Your Krugerand analogy, again, makes my point for me.
Isn’t that the fallacy fallacy?
I’m pretty sure that I did respond to your point that, quote:
endquote. The first video pointed out that for Money to be an excellent store of value, it ipso facto should be valuable. Nationstates come and go, or just change the money on a whim, but that just points out that if the money had no value to begin with, then how could it ever have value aside from government fiat? My old South African Rand notes are completely worthless compared to my Krugerrand coins, and even if you didn’t value a Krugerrand for being a Krugerrand, the gold it is made out of sure-as-shit does.
The second video pointed out that you don’t need a centralised source in order for there to be money, nor can a centralised source guarantee a currencies’ stability. If you live in america, I’m pretty sure you’d find that estimated 10% per annum real inflation rate pretty destabilising, especially if you’re trying to save, invest, or are on a fixed income.
Well, I certainly understand the meaning of that word for “arguing against a point your opponent didn’t actually make”.
£Ag 1914
Off the top of my head I’d say it had something to do with the whole “World War” thing having a bit of a negative impact on the stability of the UK economy, combined with the sudden interest taken in overseas economic adventure by the previously sits-at-the-financial-kiddie-table United States.
…Do you plan on backing up all of my arguments for me? I mean, if you’re going to make up arguments on my behalf and then reinforce the ones I actually did make, I might as well just sit back and let you run things all yourself.
And the British Pound Sterling was what everyone was buying before 1914. Wonder why that changed…
Sure Bitcoin is currency. I don’t think anyone denies that. Not even people who literally shout “Weimar” and “Zimbabwe” as soon as a currency discussion comes up.
What Bitcoin isn’t is remotely stable. (Just ask people who bought in, say, January 1st of this year.) Or, at the moment, able to buy me a cup of coffee.
If the free market has rendered an opinion on anything, it’s pretty much that the dollar is the best currency in the world right now. Everybody’s buying it. Maybe in a hundred years it’ll be the yuan or the euro, but I wouldn’t put money on that.
AJs coin is a bit.
Their bits always seems to be coins.
Their coins are bits.
Their bits are coins.
Nope, I’m not trying to say that Equestria uses BitCoin.
Anyway, here’s a video from Shane Killian explaining what money is
And another from Stephan Molyneux explaining why Bitcoin is a form of currency
…Or, for people who prefer common sense to Reducto Ad Absurdum, “The Dollar”, which is literally the foundation currency of the entire world’s economy.
Money kindasorta needs the stability of a nationstate to back it up if you want it to have any actual value beyond the mineral worth of whatever it’s printed on, li’l buddy. Economic mismanagement of any particular nationstate is a separate issue.
I know right. Money printed by the government is the best. Just ask the inhabitants of the Wiemar Republic or Zimbabwe…
Somehow…