That's fractional reserve banking and it's a type of fiat currency--a method by which you issue new currency into the money supply. It's no different than paper dollars, and that practice would make bitcoin cease to be bitcoin, in effect.
Yes. That was indeed my point. Except it's definitely not "fiat currency", by definition. The same thing would happen, and did happen, with gold-based currency.
In the case of Bitcoin specifically, you can't loan out and spend an additional bitcoin because you can only move the bitcoins you have. Every spending of a Bitcoin isn't the spending of a Bitcoin; it's the spending of a specific Bitcoin or fraction thereof.
You do realize that if you put $200 in a savings account, then later withdraw that $200, the bills won't have the same serial numbers?
When someone comes to get their Bitcoin, there has to be a Bitcoin physically available for them: you can only loan out what's on hand.
That's a nice thought, but it's not how savings accounts work. In the US, the bank can loan out 100% of what you deposit (yes, we're technically a zero-reserve banking system). Checking accounts have a reserve requirement, but it's only 5% IIRC. In practice banks keep enough cash around for statistically likely withdrawals, and enough liquid assets around for statistically likely transfers . If you want to withdraw and transfer all the money in your savings account, the bank can technically take 90 days to give it do you, and the only guarantee you'll get it is provided by the FDIC, not the bank. (In practice, a bank that did that would go out of business, but it's legal.)
There are 20 million BTC, of which 10 million are in savings accounts and thus are being loaned around. 20 million BTC, minus 10 million BTC idle in savings, = 10 million BTC in the money supply.
That's just not how banks work, sorry. There will be 0 idle in savings. They will loan all of it out (well, 99%).
It's like gold. You can loan paper money that says it represents gold and then do fraction on that (loan out 100 pounds of imaginary gold when you only have 50 pounds); but if you're actually giving people physical chunks of gold, you can only loan the gold physically on hand.
You can loan (almost) all the gold that was deposited, physical or otherwise. Most of which will be deposited in another bank, where again it will be loaned out. This happened historically, and the awkwardness of doing this with chunks of gold is what led to the invention of paper money, which started as notes between the bank doing the lending, and the bank getting the deposit, to be settled later.
Seems more efficient to just give that money to the public for the good of everyone.
Which you've done with all your own money, to lead by example, to be sure. There's no way you're some asshole who's only generous with other people's money, right?
This is also why public transit systems are crumbling.
The main reason public infrastructure in Cali is crumbling, despite the nations highest taxes, is pension costs. Infrastructure is a small cost by comparison. There are a couple ofcounties in Cali where pension costs are more than 100% of the budget. The cities tend not to be quite so strained, but pension costs are still typically more than half the budget.
Personally, I think sacrificing infrastructure because the public sector union negotiators were sharks is a bad plan, so I voted with my feet years ago.
Easier for the government to imprison anyone they didn't like, to be sure. Intent is subjective. Common law, based on precedent and the text of the law first, limits the ability of the government to just decide the law means whatever it needs to mean to imprison you.
That being said, intent does certainly matter: judges to try to interpret ambiguity based on the legislative intent - however, that intent must be discerned from what is written in the law, as that's the only objective basis.
Anyway, Apple isn't trying to avoid the intent of the law, they're just negotiating a price.
The streets would only be compatible with Apple branded vehicles and shoes.
You'd only be able to use the streets if you had gone to the Apple schools. And you'd have to do it again every few years, when they changed th connectors.
It's a damn god thing Apple isn't on the coast - they'd remove all the ports!
ny kind of lying is wrong. I don't care if it is an ant, if you are making things up to save on taxes it's wrong.
I respect the fact you pay extra taxes; means less to pay for the rest of us.
But this is a negotiation over assessed value of property. I guess you've never had your house assessed out of the blue for far more than it's worth, and had to challenge it to get it back to something reasonable? Obviously, Apple doesn't expect the $200 to fly, it's just their response to what they see as an equally outrageous opening position by the government. Negotiations will proceed from there. Wish I had lawyers to play that game for me.
I don't see an objective difference. You do know there are papers published in string theory journals full of philosophical rambling and not an equation to be seen? "Mathematically sound and objectively consistent with all observations" is not sufficient to be science, let alone good science (nor is it, strictly speaking, necessary). Making specific, falsifiable, predictions about observations, however, is necessary, and string theory never delivered. What a tremendous waste of genius.
Sociology is not inherently subjective, either. Just because the current state of the field is dismal, doesn't mean it can't be done with scientific rigor. There are statistically valid measures in the soft sciences, and correct techniques to validate those measures and any asserted predictive power they may have. People choose not to insist on that rigor, since, after all, it would mean more work a fewer papers published. Plus they tend to be kinda dumb.
You can have deflation problems with fiat currencies too, of course, as Japan well knows.
Yes, and you create loose monetary policy and take other action to drive up wages and create inflation as a response.
Japan tried that for 10 years without success. Theory falsified, hard. You can't push on a rope. It's now well understood that monetary policy can curtail an economy, but can't stimulate one (beyond the cessation of any restriction).
There are, for example, twenty million bitcoins in the world.
Sure thing. Lets say 10 million are in savings accounts. Then loaned out as mortgages. Now there are 30 million BTC in the money supply. But of course those home builders spend that money building houses, so now the banks have more to loan, which they do. The money supply will grow to maybe 10x the number of BTC created through the algorithm.
Do you understand that the number of $20 bills printed has little to do with the money supply? Do you understand the difference between the M1 and the M2? Fractional reserve banking ring a bell? I blame the schools.
A credit crunch. The money supply effectively sank. Inflation has been kind of stagnant since.
Sure, a credit crunch. But no deflation - deflation is worse. Inflation has been stagnant since because the economy was at the worst point since the 30s. As the economic recovery continues, we'll see inflation that's more historically normal, I expect.
I can also throw a pumpkin over a 1 story house, walk on water and hit a golf ball over a half mile (all of those are super easy by the way, but I wonder if anyone from MIT can figure them out with just common sense).
And you have a giant orange Cheeto standing there cheering them on saying they should be doing even more illegal and draconian shit as long as they're actively harassing anybody who isn't white, because he doesn't care about the rule of law or defending the Constitution
The US Constitution protects the rights of US Citizens. Trump seems concerned about non-citizens. As much as globalists wish there were no such distinction, the distinction remains.
Deflation, due to having not physically enough money to go around to compensate all the labor.
OK, but don't confuse that with the problems with specie-based currency where lack of physical coins causes a crisis (separate from value of those coins). You can have deflation problems with fiat currencies too, of course, as Japan well knows.
If your mortgage was in BTC, you'd owe 10 BTC but this year there are 1BTC per person, next year there are 0.95BTC per person, the year after 0.9BTC, and so forth.
Sure, except for one key thing: if there actually were savings accounts and mortgages in BTC, there would be inflation as the money supply grew directly with the value of said mortgages. It's a self-solving problem. Doesn't matter how many BTC there are in the blockchain, any more than it matters how many $20 bills there are.
Alternately, everybody could rent. Everybody could save and buy a house in cash, too, which means the number of BTC moving around would shrink dramatically
Money velocity is, I think, higher if you pay rent to a gut who pays a mortgage than if you just pay a mortgage. Anyhow, a monthly payment is a monthly payment, as far as "the number of BTC moving around".
There was not a deflation problem in 2008, there was a problem with bad loans, and "creative" finance instruments backed by bad loans. But bubbles will suck regardless of the currency.
Oh, we divided the currency, so your $10,000/year is now $8,000/year.
I don't follow. Are you talking about inflation, and purchasing power? Hypothetical reduction in salary due to deflation? Deflation sucks for debtors, to be sure. However, if we had savings accounts and mortgages in BTC, we'd also have inflation as the money supply increased.
The US spends about $10000 per person (about $27000 per taxpayer) on our safety nets. That's a pretty big net. (That includes $1.1T on Medicare, $980B on Social Security, $300B on income security programs ("welfare" etc), and $550B on Medicaid. )
Young people are perhaps overreacting to the negative realities of capitalism.
Young people are not "overreacting", they've simply been brainwashed. They aren't idiots, at least not moreso than young people in any age, they're forming reasonable opinion based on what the schools teach these days (which is pure propaganda).
China manipulates all of the isms masterfully
Did I mention pure propaganda? China's economy is quite bad, despite building endless seas of condos that no one lives in. They have a burgeoning tech sector, to be sure, but rural poverty remains the norm and manufacturing is shrinking as US manufacturing returns (to robots) in the US. You do know the trains didn't actually run on time under fascism, right?
Communism killed over 160 million people in the 20th century.
Capitalism may have killed a few hundred milli-Hitlers along the way, and that's regrettable, but Communism is up over 20 Hitlers. (And like the tesla or the henry, whenever you're dealing in whole multiples of these units, be terrified.)
Wow, MightyMartian said something insightful, though I suspect by accident.
The right term for identity politics and redistributive economics is "Post-Modernism". Post-Modernism, however, is just the modern face on Communism. It used to be about Marxist ideas and turning people against one another along class lines. It's not about that any more. Now it's still about redistributive economics, but no one cares about class warfare any more, so now it's about urning people against one another along identity politics lines.
Same totalitarian goal, same "useful idiots", but definitely not Marxism. Frankly, I think Marx is the only person who would be more appalled than Jesus about what's been done in his name. We don't need to pile anything more on him.
Wait, so you're defending the right of a huge corporation to refuse service to anyone it dislikes? I think not. Seems to me you're saying "protected classes should include only people politically aligned with me".
Be honest here. There was a recent story about a black woman being chased out of a restaurant by a bunch of white guys in hoods. Your reaction to that will depend on what her politics were, and theirs. Don't deny it - I know your posting history.
Alex Jones is sued regularly. That's appropriate - and he doesn't always lose. (Don't tell his fans, but he sometimes uses the defense pioneered by the Weekly World News: "our content is so absurd no reasonable person could believe it").
De-platforming him is not appropriate. The right answer to speech you disagree with is more speech. The Stalin-esque unpersoning of him -- de-platforming him from everwhere all on the same day -- was even less appropriate. He was just the test; never doubt it. He won't be the last, and the excuses will get weaker over time.
"When they came for Alex Jones, I didn't speak out, because I didn't care if the government was putting chemicals in the water to turn our frogs gay."
Slashdot Mirror
That's fractional reserve banking and it's a type of fiat currency--a method by which you issue new currency into the money supply. It's no different than paper dollars, and that practice would make bitcoin cease to be bitcoin, in effect.
Yes. That was indeed my point. Except it's definitely not "fiat currency", by definition. The same thing would happen, and did happen, with gold-based currency.
In the case of Bitcoin specifically, you can't loan out and spend an additional bitcoin because you can only move the bitcoins you have. Every spending of a Bitcoin isn't the spending of a Bitcoin; it's the spending of a specific Bitcoin or fraction thereof.
You do realize that if you put $200 in a savings account, then later withdraw that $200, the bills won't have the same serial numbers?
When someone comes to get their Bitcoin, there has to be a Bitcoin physically available for them: you can only loan out what's on hand.
That's a nice thought, but it's not how savings accounts work. In the US, the bank can loan out 100% of what you deposit (yes, we're technically a zero-reserve banking system). Checking accounts have a reserve requirement, but it's only 5% IIRC. In practice banks keep enough cash around for statistically likely withdrawals, and enough liquid assets around for statistically likely transfers . If you want to withdraw and transfer all the money in your savings account, the bank can technically take 90 days to give it do you, and the only guarantee you'll get it is provided by the FDIC, not the bank. (In practice, a bank that did that would go out of business, but it's legal.)
There are 20 million BTC, of which 10 million are in savings accounts and thus are being loaned around. 20 million BTC, minus 10 million BTC idle in savings, = 10 million BTC in the money supply.
That's just not how banks work, sorry. There will be 0 idle in savings. They will loan all of it out (well, 99%).
It's like gold. You can loan paper money that says it represents gold and then do fraction on that (loan out 100 pounds of imaginary gold when you only have 50 pounds); but if you're actually giving people physical chunks of gold, you can only loan the gold physically on hand.
You can loan (almost) all the gold that was deposited, physical or otherwise. Most of which will be deposited in another bank, where again it will be loaned out. This happened historically, and the awkwardness of doing this with chunks of gold is what led to the invention of paper money, which started as notes between the bank doing the lending, and the bank getting the deposit, to be settled later.
Seems more efficient to just give that money to the public for the good of everyone.
Which you've done with all your own money, to lead by example, to be sure. There's no way you're some asshole who's only generous with other people's money, right?
This is also why public transit systems are crumbling.
The main reason public infrastructure in Cali is crumbling, despite the nations highest taxes, is pension costs. Infrastructure is a small cost by comparison. There are a couple ofcounties in Cali where pension costs are more than 100% of the budget. The cities tend not to be quite so strained, but pension costs are still typically more than half the budget.
Personally, I think sacrificing infrastructure because the public sector union negotiators were sharks is a bad plan, so I voted with my feet years ago.
Easier for the government to imprison anyone they didn't like, to be sure. Intent is subjective. Common law, based on precedent and the text of the law first, limits the ability of the government to just decide the law means whatever it needs to mean to imprison you.
That being said, intent does certainly matter: judges to try to interpret ambiguity based on the legislative intent - however, that intent must be discerned from what is written in the law, as that's the only objective basis.
Anyway, Apple isn't trying to avoid the intent of the law, they're just negotiating a price.
The streets would only be compatible with Apple branded vehicles and shoes.
You'd only be able to use the streets if you had gone to the Apple schools. And you'd have to do it again every few years, when they changed th connectors.
It's a damn god thing Apple isn't on the coast - they'd remove all the ports!
ny kind of lying is wrong. I don't care if it is an ant, if you are making things up to save on taxes it's wrong.
I respect the fact you pay extra taxes; means less to pay for the rest of us.
But this is a negotiation over assessed value of property. I guess you've never had your house assessed out of the blue for far more than it's worth, and had to challenge it to get it back to something reasonable? Obviously, Apple doesn't expect the $200 to fly, it's just their response to what they see as an equally outrageous opening position by the government. Negotiations will proceed from there. Wish I had lawyers to play that game for me.
I don't see an objective difference. You do know there are papers published in string theory journals full of philosophical rambling and not an equation to be seen? "Mathematically sound and objectively consistent with all observations" is not sufficient to be science, let alone good science (nor is it, strictly speaking, necessary). Making specific, falsifiable, predictions about observations, however, is necessary, and string theory never delivered. What a tremendous waste of genius.
Sociology is not inherently subjective, either. Just because the current state of the field is dismal, doesn't mean it can't be done with scientific rigor. There are statistically valid measures in the soft sciences, and correct techniques to validate those measures and any asserted predictive power they may have. People choose not to insist on that rigor, since, after all, it would mean more work a fewer papers published. Plus they tend to be kinda dumb.
Courthouses are the worst, IMO. There's not even a tissue of excuse for the unconstitutional search on entering a courthouse, just "we're skeert".
You can have deflation problems with fiat currencies too, of course, as Japan well knows.
Yes, and you create loose monetary policy and take other action to drive up wages and create inflation as a response.
Japan tried that for 10 years without success. Theory falsified, hard. You can't push on a rope. It's now well understood that monetary policy can curtail an economy, but can't stimulate one (beyond the cessation of any restriction).
There are, for example, twenty million bitcoins in the world.
Sure thing. Lets say 10 million are in savings accounts. Then loaned out as mortgages. Now there are 30 million BTC in the money supply. But of course those home builders spend that money building houses, so now the banks have more to loan, which they do. The money supply will grow to maybe 10x the number of BTC created through the algorithm.
Do you understand that the number of $20 bills printed has little to do with the money supply? Do you understand the difference between the M1 and the M2? Fractional reserve banking ring a bell? I blame the schools.
A credit crunch. The money supply effectively sank. Inflation has been kind of stagnant since.
Sure, a credit crunch. But no deflation - deflation is worse. Inflation has been stagnant since because the economy was at the worst point since the 30s. As the economic recovery continues, we'll see inflation that's more historically normal, I expect.
Yup, shared family phone, but my computer was gloriously mine. My Commodore 64 replaced my electric typewriter on my desk.
Oh, all 3 can be solved by adding a hill (or cliff) to the set-up, if you want to be serious about it. But punkin chunkin is way more fun.
I can also throw a pumpkin over a 1 story house, walk on water and hit a golf ball over a half mile (all of those are super easy by the way, but I wonder if anyone from MIT can figure them out with just common sense).
Trebuchet, trebuchet, and trebuchet?
And you have a giant orange Cheeto standing there cheering them on saying they should be doing even more illegal and draconian shit as long as they're actively harassing anybody who isn't white, because he doesn't care about the rule of law or defending the Constitution
The US Constitution protects the rights of US Citizens. Trump seems concerned about non-citizens. As much as globalists wish there were no such distinction, the distinction remains.
Hitler had the absolute backing of corporate capitalist and banking interests throughout the rise of his leadership
They all said so, and loudly, so it must be true!
Keep inventing reasons for unrelated genocides to be "capitalism" if it makes you happy, but you'll never match the death toll of Communism.
Deflation, due to having not physically enough money to go around to compensate all the labor.
OK, but don't confuse that with the problems with specie-based currency where lack of physical coins causes a crisis (separate from value of those coins). You can have deflation problems with fiat currencies too, of course, as Japan well knows.
If your mortgage was in BTC, you'd owe 10 BTC but this year there are 1BTC per person, next year there are 0.95BTC per person, the year after 0.9BTC, and so forth.
Sure, except for one key thing: if there actually were savings accounts and mortgages in BTC, there would be inflation as the money supply grew directly with the value of said mortgages. It's a self-solving problem. Doesn't matter how many BTC there are in the blockchain, any more than it matters how many $20 bills there are.
Alternately, everybody could rent. Everybody could save and buy a house in cash, too, which means the number of BTC moving around would shrink dramatically
Money velocity is, I think, higher if you pay rent to a gut who pays a mortgage than if you just pay a mortgage. Anyhow, a monthly payment is a monthly payment, as far as "the number of BTC moving around".
There was not a deflation problem in 2008, there was a problem with bad loans, and "creative" finance instruments backed by bad loans. But bubbles will suck regardless of the currency.
Which is a fine opinion to hold, just don't at the same time make pro-censorship arguments.
Odd that someone arguing for censorship is posting as AC. Do you or don't you want to face consequences for speech?
Oh, we divided the currency, so your $10,000/year is now $8,000/year.
I don't follow. Are you talking about inflation, and purchasing power? Hypothetical reduction in salary due to deflation? Deflation sucks for debtors, to be sure. However, if we had savings accounts and mortgages in BTC, we'd also have inflation as the money supply increased.
Man, you have to be seriously drinking th cool-aid to mod down a post for defining post-modernism.
You need a safety net.
The US spends about $10000 per person (about $27000 per taxpayer) on our safety nets. That's a pretty big net. (That includes $1.1T on Medicare, $980B on Social Security, $300B on income security programs ("welfare" etc), and $550B on Medicaid. )
Young people are perhaps overreacting to the negative realities of capitalism.
Young people are not "overreacting", they've simply been brainwashed. They aren't idiots, at least not moreso than young people in any age, they're forming reasonable opinion based on what the schools teach these days (which is pure propaganda).
China manipulates all of the isms masterfully
Did I mention pure propaganda? China's economy is quite bad, despite building endless seas of condos that no one lives in. They have a burgeoning tech sector, to be sure, but rural poverty remains the norm and manufacturing is shrinking as US manufacturing returns (to robots) in the US. You do know the trains didn't actually run on time under fascism, right?
Communism killed over 160 million people in the 20th century.
Capitalism may have killed a few hundred milli-Hitlers along the way, and that's regrettable, but Communism is up over 20 Hitlers. (And like the tesla or the henry, whenever you're dealing in whole multiples of these units, be terrified.)
Wow, MightyMartian said something insightful, though I suspect by accident.
The right term for identity politics and redistributive economics is "Post-Modernism". Post-Modernism, however, is just the modern face on Communism. It used to be about Marxist ideas and turning people against one another along class lines. It's not about that any more. Now it's still about redistributive economics, but no one cares about class warfare any more, so now it's about urning people against one another along identity politics lines.
Same totalitarian goal, same "useful idiots", but definitely not Marxism. Frankly, I think Marx is the only person who would be more appalled than Jesus about what's been done in his name. We don't need to pile anything more on him.
Wait, so you're defending the right of a huge corporation to refuse service to anyone it dislikes? I think not. Seems to me you're saying "protected classes should include only people politically aligned with me".
Be honest here. There was a recent story about a black woman being chased out of a restaurant by a bunch of white guys in hoods. Your reaction to that will depend on what her politics were, and theirs. Don't deny it - I know your posting history.
Alex Jones is sued regularly. That's appropriate - and he doesn't always lose. (Don't tell his fans, but he sometimes uses the defense pioneered by the Weekly World News: "our content is so absurd no reasonable person could believe it").
De-platforming him is not appropriate. The right answer to speech you disagree with is more speech. The Stalin-esque unpersoning of him --
de-platforming him from everwhere all on the same day -- was even less appropriate. He was just the test; never doubt it. He won't be the last, and the excuses will get weaker over time.
"When they came for Alex Jones, I didn't speak out, because I didn't care if the government was putting chemicals in the water to turn our frogs gay."
it became a way for speculators to scam cash out of those who believed it was
Speculators scam cash out of other speculators, almost entirely. It's con-men scamming con-men all the way down, like any speculative bubble.