Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Bitcoin to be accepted at Bobby Dodd
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bruce Wayne" data-source="post: 84697" data-attributes="member: 231"><p>What DTGT wrote has a lot of unspoken premises so don't worry too much Vamos. Man I wish this thread never existed as I don't want to get sucked into debating economic theory, so I will lodge some criticisms and retire.</p><p></p><p>"I guess saying all fiat money will fail is like saying the earth will eventually be consumed by the sun. It is a meaningless statement."</p><p>This first claim that is rhetoric without an argument. For that matter, "the earth will eventually fall into the sun" is also not a meaningless statement. It may not cause concern in the short-run because it assumes catastrophe to be far into the future, but it is meaningful. So your implication is that (presumably the dollar) will only fail way off in the distant future, so don't worry, be happy! Since it is true that every paper currency (not in use) through human history has "failed" the statement is far from meaningless. But what does the statement mean? Is it like saying "everyone who ever ate a carrot has died or will one day die"? To get the meaning one has to determine what "failure" is with regard to money which means you have to take a stand on what the <em>nature </em>of money is. So the real point of the statement is that fiat currency has no way to maintain a value, i.e., it "fails" to be real money. Failure is thus based on not doing what money is supposed to do, which is maintain a value so as to allow for the non-barter exchange of goods/services<em>.</em></p><p></p><p>"Bitcoin is not an answer; it is inherently deflationary."</p><p>Whether Bitcoins are "an answer" is irrelevant to the reason given for it to not be one since the complaint is that it is "inherently deflationary." This claim has the implied premise lurking that being "deflationary" is a "bad" thing for money and that "inflation" is a good thing. Such a claim is counter-intuitive. However, it is this definition of money that is behind his first statements addressed above. His warrant for this claim seems to be:</p><p></p><p>"The group of stuff to buy will outpace the currency; less money chasing stuff, less cash for everyone to spend."</p><p></p><p>If the "stuff to buy" grows in volume then the real purchasing power of any one unit of "real money" increases in value, ceteris paribus, since of course there has to be demand for the "stuff." If there is not real demand for the increasing "stuff" then the stuff will simply become cheaper or not get produced as fast. So either purchasing power of money increases OR prices decrease (basically the same thing actually). I have a hard time seeing the problem with the scenario. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>To the extent that he is pointing to a real problem ("stuff" on the one side "outpacing currency" on the other) it is a matter of the use of a currency which cannot maintain its value, i.e., that <em>fails </em>as real money. Therefore, this entire line of reasoning fails to step back from a <em>presumption </em>of the superiority of fiat currency in order to determine if it in fact is superior, or even if it is "money" at all.</p><p></p><p>Ok it is game week and I have to seriously be writing today anyway. DTGT, you are welcome to reply to my criticisms but I <em>have </em>to not revisit this thread until at least 2 weeks from now.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce Wayne, post: 84697, member: 231"] What DTGT wrote has a lot of unspoken premises so don't worry too much Vamos. Man I wish this thread never existed as I don't want to get sucked into debating economic theory, so I will lodge some criticisms and retire. "I guess saying all fiat money will fail is like saying the earth will eventually be consumed by the sun. It is a meaningless statement." This first claim that is rhetoric without an argument. For that matter, "the earth will eventually fall into the sun" is also not a meaningless statement. It may not cause concern in the short-run because it assumes catastrophe to be far into the future, but it is meaningful. So your implication is that (presumably the dollar) will only fail way off in the distant future, so don't worry, be happy! Since it is true that every paper currency (not in use) through human history has "failed" the statement is far from meaningless. But what does the statement mean? Is it like saying "everyone who ever ate a carrot has died or will one day die"? To get the meaning one has to determine what "failure" is with regard to money which means you have to take a stand on what the [I]nature [/I]of money is. So the real point of the statement is that fiat currency has no way to maintain a value, i.e., it "fails" to be real money. Failure is thus based on not doing what money is supposed to do, which is maintain a value so as to allow for the non-barter exchange of goods/services[I].[/I] "Bitcoin is not an answer; it is inherently deflationary." Whether Bitcoins are "an answer" is irrelevant to the reason given for it to not be one since the complaint is that it is "inherently deflationary." This claim has the implied premise lurking that being "deflationary" is a "bad" thing for money and that "inflation" is a good thing. Such a claim is counter-intuitive. However, it is this definition of money that is behind his first statements addressed above. His warrant for this claim seems to be: "The group of stuff to buy will outpace the currency; less money chasing stuff, less cash for everyone to spend." If the "stuff to buy" grows in volume then the real purchasing power of any one unit of "real money" increases in value, ceteris paribus, since of course there has to be demand for the "stuff." If there is not real demand for the increasing "stuff" then the stuff will simply become cheaper or not get produced as fast. So either purchasing power of money increases OR prices decrease (basically the same thing actually). I have a hard time seeing the problem with the scenario. :) To the extent that he is pointing to a real problem ("stuff" on the one side "outpacing currency" on the other) it is a matter of the use of a currency which cannot maintain its value, i.e., that [I]fails [/I]as real money. Therefore, this entire line of reasoning fails to step back from a [I]presumption [/I]of the superiority of fiat currency in order to determine if it in fact is superior, or even if it is "money" at all. Ok it is game week and I have to seriously be writing today anyway. DTGT, you are welcome to reply to my criticisms but I [I]have [/I]to not revisit this thread until at least 2 weeks from now. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the last name of the current Head Football Coach?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Bitcoin to be accepted at Bobby Dodd
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top