Inflation, deflation, both...how do you see the future?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Seattle, Feb 7, 2023.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,645
    Again not to my knowledge! But I do moderate another forum, just in the interests of full disclosure.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    OK, so because you moderate another forum you're saying that you could be James? OK...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,403
    Of course it is dishonest. It is an attempt to poison the well, to argue ad hominem (along the lines of "well, you would say that because you have a vested interest..." without actually addressing the arguments raised). Dismiss the person (due to perceived vested interest) and you can dismiss the argument, right? : rolleyes:
    It's so obviously fallacious that coming from someone who tries to paint themself as a paragon of rationality it is laughably ironic. And that's before even starting on the bullying.
    But, hey, why am I talking to myself, right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Seattle likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    My favorite is still "Is morality subjective or objective?" It's subjective. "Why do you care so much about this subject?" I don't. I'm just responding to your posted question.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,645
    Nope. I am not James. I am a moderator like James, which means I have similar duties. So we are alike in that way. But "alike" does not mean "the same."

    I must say, you are working awfully hard to misunderstand what people here say.
     
  9. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,254
    If Bitcoin ever becomes the “largest currency,” I think the government would get involved. Why do you not think so, Seattle?
     
  10. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    They can't. It's decentralized. They can't "print" more of it. 22 million Bitcoin is all there will ever be.

    They'll try to get involved as in, try to regulate it, discourage it's use, maybe "outlaw" it but they can't control it or devalue it.
     
  11. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,254
    Interesting. Well, they can control people from becoming wealthy from it, by regulating it, high taxation, etc.

    I don’t know much about Bitcoin but there are a few ways to make unattractive, thereby devaluing it?
     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    Not really. If the price goes up and you have enough of it...you would be wealthy. If they taxed it higher than anything else, no one would declare it and pay it. They can't confiscate it.

    Regulating it isn't really a problem. Taxation would be not different than stocks or anything else. If you make it unattractive enough, it would just flow to countries that don't do that.

    China banned the miners so many moved here and to other places around the world. Chinese still own their Bitcoin and the miners moved so nothing changed. It's even more decentralized now.

    Most of the "regulation" that the US could do would be for other crypto, the ones that allow staking (allowing you to earn from your crypto). They can regulate the exchanges. Most of that would be for the better.

    In the long run they are better off embracing it rather than driving it to benefit some other country. The reality is that the dollar and Bitcoin will coexist. Africa will probably be the area that benefits the most from Bitcoin.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2023
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,645
    Nope, but they can make it illegal to possess or trade it - which they would do if it became a way to avoid the control of the federal reserve on the money supply.
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    Even China hasn't made it illegal to possess Bitcoin since that's not something that anyone could inforce. They "could" make operating an exchange in the U.S. illegal but you would just use an exchange that was outside the U.S.

    It's unlikely for that to happen because there will always be enough politicians who are in favor of Bitcoin (owe Bitcoin) and it would probably be unconstitutional to do so anyway.

    The dollar is likely to always be the "token" for paying debt owed to the government. It is likely that Bitcoin would be enough competition to the dollar that it reigns in the excessive money "printing" going on now.

    The reality though, IMO, is that we're already past the point where the government can ever do anything but continue to print money (quantitative easing) and eventually that will just run the whole thing into the ground.

    The goods and services inflation that we have now will come back down to 2% with the Fed being able to keep it there artificially by quantitative easing to infinity. That's really having high inflation forever but it's just "hidden" as reduced purchasing power of the dollar.

    That's what is going to make Bitcoin adoption more widespread in the U.S. as the dollar becomes more and more worthless. That's ship has already sailed. Bitcoin is also already pervasive enough that the government isn't going to be able to roll that back. Too many people already have too much and there won't be the political will to go that far.

    Goods and service inflation will eventually become deflation (years in the future) due to technology. That's why people are worried about automation replacing jobs. That's why some talk about Universal Basic Income. I don't personally think UBI will be needed but with deflation even that option would be much less costly.

    Quantitative easing can't stop however but people can start to hold more and more Bitcoin. That may also start to put some pressure on the government to be more fiscally responsible but I personally think the debt is too great to ever reverse that.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2023
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,645
    I think they haven't made it illegal because it is almost irrelevant in terms of its effect on the money supply. If that changed, their approach would change.
    US Constitution, Article 1 Section 10: "No State shall . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts . . " (Bills of Credit are effectively fiat currency, and Bitcoin can be described that way.)
    Executive Order 6102 was an order “forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States.” It was not invalidated by the Supreme Court.

    Those provide, respectively, a justification for forbidding alternative currencies and a precedent that they can be confiscated.
    I agree that it seems that way. But peope have been predicting that since 1913 or so, and most people were certain that the debt we incurred during World War II would ruin the US economy. It hasn't happened yet. I have a strong revulsion towards the idea that we can just print our way out of any deficit, but so far it has been successful. That does not mean it will always be successful, but it also means that the odds that it will suddenly "run into the ground" are low.
    I agree. But as I said, that will continue only until Bitcoin starts to influence the economy significantly. Then politicians will want control of it, and as mentioned they have all the tools needed to do that.
     
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,874
    As I said, IMO, it's likely that the dollar will be the "token" for payment of debt to the U.S. government. Bitcoin will be, IMO, adopted more and more as a storage of value in the U.S. and a store of value and as "internet" money for for transactions in less developed countries.

    I don't think anything will "suddenly" run into the ground either. If I had to guess, Bitcoin will be worth 10x more in 10 years and there will be much more mass adoption at that point. If I also had to guess, it won't be banned in the U.S. and the dollar will still be the currency of the U.S.

    There are plenty of constitutional arguments for Bitcoin, free speech, protection of property rights, among others (interstate commerce).
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2023
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Seattle:
    Whether you own Bitcoin or work for Bitcoin or are paid to promote Bitcoin became relevant the moment you started spruiking the merits of Bitcoin at every opportunity. Before that, it probably didn't matter much.

    As a general principle of journalistic integrity, reporters who are seen to be promoting a product are ethically obliged to disclose their own interests in promoting the product. This is so that viewers are aware of the reporter's potential conflict of interest. Specifically, in promoting the product, the reporter might be more interested in securing his own personal gain, rather than giving a neutral perspective and reporting "just the facts".

    Now, you will no doubt complain that you're not a journalist and that as a guy posting on an internet forum you have feel you have no use for journalistic ethics. Your opinions are your own, naturally.

    As an adminstrator of the platform on which you are publishing, I am in a somewhat different position to you. When it comes to our members advertising or promoting products on sciforums, I think that a certain level of transparency is desirable, and I am willing to pursue that on behalf of our membership.

    In fact, as a general principle, we discourage unpaid advertising on sciforums. (See, for example, our rules on spamming.) Advertising disguised as editorial commentary is still advertising. At the very least, vested interests should be clearly flagged when you are attempting to advertise.

    Thank you for finally declaring your vested interest. Now our membership is empowered to take your promotion of Bitcoin with a large grain of salt, understanding that by advancing the cause of Bitcoin you are also potentially increasing the value of your own "investment".

    Our members will decide for themselves to what extent your promotion of Bitcoin is unbiased and to what extent it might be motivated by vested interest. What is clear is that it is always better for our members to be aware of your vested interests than to be kept in the dark about them, although obviously your vested interest looks different from your end.
    The obvious question arises, then, as to why you felt it necessary or desirable once again to promote the virtues of Bitcoin, in a thread where you say that such promotion is irrelevant.

    Our members will draw their own conclusions, again.
    You failing to declare your vested interest in Bitcoin, while promoting it, it a dishonest approach.

    Fortunately, you have now declared your vested interest.

    Now might be a good time to either stop the advertising or, at least, to include a disclaimer on future posts promoting Bitcoin.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Seattle:

    In response to your questions...
    I don't know about need. But I am in control, to some degree, whether you like it or not.
    1. This thread doesn't appear to be about UFOs, so I am unlikely to introduce them into the thread. In point of fact, it appears to be you who has introduced them.
    2. I don't believe I have a vested interest in UFOs. Can you explain what you're referring to? I'm happy to answer questions, if you have them.
    3. I do not have a financial interest in a weather balloon company. Well, not a direct interest, anyway. Not as far as I'm aware. Why do you ask?
    It would be relevant if you started spruiking the benefits and attractions of nuclear weapons, recommending that people invest in nuclear weapons, etc. If your words increase demand for nuclear weapons, then the price of nuclear weapons goes up and your nuclear weapons are worth more than they were before. You understand how these things work, I have no doubt.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2023
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Oh look! Sarkus has popped into a thread 5 minutes after Seattle, to try to defend him against evil James R. How rare!
    Please share your thoughts on vested interests, in light of my post explaining their relevance to Seattle. Ta.
    Is this a not-so-subtle way of you telling us that you don't actually understand what a vested interest is or why it might be relevant on a forum such as this?

    This is a strange way of going about showing your ignorance, if so. You could just ask, for instance.
     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,403
    Oh, look! James R being pathetic again! And still in the playground! How rare!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'm not defending him, as there is nothing to defend him against. Pointing out your behaviour, though.... yeah, I'm guilty of that.
    My thoughts remain as they were when first explained to you: whether or not he has a vested interest is not relevant to what he has said. He's not encouraging anyone to buy, or sell, just laying out the factual situation. There's opinion in there, naturally, but it's not an advertisement, not a fluff piece, and his views would be the same whether he held any or not. Unfortunately this red herring of "vested interest" is just you looking to dismiss what he has said without having to actually address it. Maybe you'll have the intellectual honesty to do so, one day. Who knows.
    I understand, thanks, James R, which is why I know it is irrelevant. Stick to what he has said. Argue against that. Not the person. Not whether he holds any currency or not. Not whether he works in that industry or not. You know, address the actual points he makes. The relevant stuff.

    Or maybe this is your not-so-subtle way of telling us that you don't understand what crypto is all about? It would explain why you're focussing on the person rather than their argument.
    It's a strange way to go about showing your ignorance, though. But then he has previously tried to explain it to you, so the fact it clearly still goes over your head, coupled with your desire to not be seen to be so ignorant, would explain your fallacious approach, but still does not fully explain your continued dishonesty.
    Ah, well. Ignorant and dishonest... a dangerous combination, especially in a moderator who thinks everything is about him. But I guess we are where we are.
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,403
    As a reminder... from the Logical Fallacies sticky:

    Ad hominem
    An attempt to counter a claim by attacking the person making the claim rather than the substance of the claim itself.
    ...
    "You only say the Earth is round because you have a vested interest in saying that."


    But, hey, when you're a moderator and it's easier than addressing the actual arguments of a topic you know so little about but don't want others to know, I guess it's okay, right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Sarkus:

    I only popped into this thread to comment on Seattle's promotion (for the n-th time) of Bitcoin. I'm not particularly interested in the thread topic. I have made no attempt to engage with any of the claims made about the ostensible thread topic, let alone to try to counter any of them.

    It seems you're barking up an irrelevant tree again.

    Are you going to discuss the topic with Seattle, or are you just here because you want my attention again?
     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,403
    So you're just trolling. I get it. Please don't do that in future. You have repeatedly pushed for him to answer an irrelevancy, while admitting that you aren't here to partake in the thread topic. That makes you a troll. You warn other people for that. But, double standards, I guess.
    Explaining to you (why your pushing the need to declare any vested interested is a fallacious approach) is hardly irrelevant. Unless you consider yourself such, perhaps? Or maybe you recognise that him having a vested interest is indeed irrelevant to the points he makes, in which case, yeah, pointing that out to you would be a continuation of that irrelevance, I guess.
    I do want your attention, James R, so you can become cognizant of your poor behaviour, yet again, that I am highlighting. But whether you actually pay attention or not, and whether you just carry on being the troll, and bully, that you are, well, that's up to you.

    Whether I discuss the topic any further with Seattle, or anyone else who cares to post on the actual thread topic, however, please note that I will not declare any vested interest I might or might not have. So readers, such as yourself, will unfortunately have to look at what I say and judge it on its merits, not on who said it. You know, avoiding the ad hominem fallacy that you're so keen to employ here.

    Seriously, stop displaying your ignorance, stop trolling, and stop being so dishonest. It's neither big, not clever.
     

Share This Page