Not entirely. Money candidates develop an exchange ratio on their own due to the demand of those goods on a market. BTC’s develop an exchange ratio based off the exchange ratio of an established dollar. What your doigng is.
Goods → Dollars → BTC’s
What you need is
Goods → BTC’s
Also, can you not agree that a currency candidate that is more widely accepted would not necessarily develop a more comprehensive historical set of exchange ratio’s from which to build prices with? As opposed to a currency candidate who’s exchange ratio’s are taken directly from another currency, and who’s employment is not widely accepted so that it’s ratio history is very small or even non-existent?
Ignoring it’s functionality as “food” what utility does rice offer? Ignoring it’s functionality as “money” what utility does the USD offer? It’s functionality is that of a medium of exchange. To me, a medium of exchange is very important just as food is very important. If you ignore the fact that food is food then it suddenly becomes unimportant.
I don’t think anyone is expecting BitCoin to instantly become the top currency overnight and inpact 3rd world countries and impoverished families. It will start with geeks and then, if it grows big enough, might spread to things like drugs, guns, etc. (where anonymity is very important). After that it might spread to the internet crowd such as eBay and Amazon. This won’t all happen overnight and it may not happen at all but the point is that just because an impoverished family in a third world country doesn’t use it doesn’t mean it isn’t money. There are still people in the world that don’t use money at all (though they are very rare these days), does that mean that money doesn’t exist?
The USD was money (unless you don’t define it as such, in which case let me know) back during the great depression in the US and people would rather have fire wood than money. In fact, some burned money as a means of staying warm. Does this mean that the USD wasn’t money because people didn’t desire it when they were starving and freezing to death?
Right now the capital required for BitCoins is a bit high but it is trivial to setup a payment system like Visa or MasterCard that would allow people to have, manage, buy and sell with BitCoins using nothing more than a card that is given to them in exchange for using a particular service.
Speculated future value. I can buy more with BitCoins on the internet right now than I can with a gold coin (on the internet). I make almost all of my purchases online so for me BitCoins are more useful than physical gold coins or bars.
Please define money then. You previously stated that it is “the most marketable good”. By that definition there can be only one money at a time. Do you agree with this statement? If not, how can two things be “most”?
I wasn’t really expecting lazy economists to understand. Learn and practice cryptology, computer science and other real sciences as much as you mentally masturbate to the thought of gold bars at Fort Knox and eventually even you can understand.
Again we come back to the EUR. By your definition the EUR cannot be money since it started with Goods → other currency → EUR. It is now Goods → EUR but that is not how it started, therefore the EUR cannot be money (by your above definition).
Everything has to start somewhere. BitCoin currently does not have a large ratio history. This does not mean it can never have a large ratio history. Your argument suggests that once there is a popular currency it is impossible for any currency to overtake it’s popularity because the popular one will always have a larger history and therefore the smaller one can never gain a large history. This is obviously not the case because currencies come and go all the time.
How do you define “readily” in your statement then? Obviously during the inception of a new currency I won’t be able to purchase everything in existance on day-one. Chances are it will start in a particular market, depending on the particulars of the currency, and eventually work it’s way into all markets. Or are you suggesting that a currency is only real if the first market it is accepted in is a grocery store market (staples) meaning the only people in a position to create a currency are grocery store owners?
I think, perhaps, you have given him too much credit; and Micah is polite to a fault, continuing to attempt to debate a pretender as a peer. I don’t believe that he really has any insights to contribute; and therefore, there is little knowledge to be gained from listening to him.
I can’t really take any of these folks seriously because instead of intelligently discussing the topic, all they offer is continuous circular trolling. I don’t know how you can continuously keep discussing the topic. It’s almost as if you’re discussing intelligently in order to bait the trolls into trolling you. It’s as if you’re some kind of cannibal troll, haha! But seriously, keep it up as long as you’re enjoying yourself, it is entertaining to read.
Haha! Wasn’t paying attention and misread your post as if you were Micah. Carry on!
Edit: I’ve been reading by email and I have not been paying attention to who is who because I wasn’t expecting to discuss, but y’all sucked me in. In any case, y’all are so polarized (myself included) that it’s really just like listening to two collective consciousnesses talk round and round in circles.
Micah I already conceded that a BTC could be made a currency, just like the EUR, if it’s currency by decree. When your plan is backed up by force and guns it’s easy to do whatever you want.
I don’t agree with the first point in that flowchart. If I can envision something that would change my mind then I would already have discussed the topic with myself. I am guessing though that the flowchart really means “are you open to having your mind changed”. I do not need to have an idea ahead of time how that would come about, I only need to be open to it occuring if/when it does.
I answered “No” and result is "This is not a discussion, I will not talk to you about this subject. I think I have already stated that I haven’t the energy to teach you all regression theorum. Furthermore it’s definately not a discussion. I don’t discuss with people that the color of the sky is blue.
I know many of you are dissapointed because you wanted to suck me into some kind of silly internet debate but I agree with the flowchart. This is not a discussion and I am not interested in discussing ludicrous things. If your interested in the topic you’ll spend more then 5 minutes searching through human action to find an answer(At least Micah did that much, thats more then almost everyone else can say here).
So no, this is not a discussion, and I thought I made t hat clear. I don’t know why Moonshadow that you persist in assuming it is a discussioN? I am not making an argument against BTC’s, I am telling you. Period. I am not going to try and teach 100-200 years worth of economics over an internet forum.
THe only person I can say with confidence who’s done the homework here is Clayton. His conclusions might even be at odds with mine but at least I know that he’s done the reading. I have to admit that I have gotten lazy with this thread but you guys are tryign to real me into a debate and I have no motivation to do so. Your all welcome to disagree with me, and Mises, and Carl Menger(I know appeals to authority suck).
But before you disagree with them at least give them the benefit of the doubt and read their arguments for yourself. Expecting me to teach it to you is just not fair.
I can honestly believe that you think that your position is self-evident.
And it seems to be more than you have done, certainly so in the last several days.
I do understand that you are ‘telling me’, and that’s probably the extent of your ability here. I don’t believe that you could teach me much about economics, regardless of the forum.
I’m read them. Admittedly, it has been some time, and memory fades. It is possible that the last time that I looked at either author’s works with intent was before you were born.
I think that I have gleaned some more insight into your position, due to your responses with Micah. I believe, that you believe that a currency can only be a medium of exchange (without the support of ‘the most vendible/marketable good’) with government force. This is a strange position for a self-described ‘capitalist anarcist’ to take. Do you really not believe in emergent order? Is a free people incapable of agreeing to a common form of economic rules in the absence of force? If so, you should consider altering your avatar.
Wouldn’t ‘trolling’ be antagonizing without cause? I would think that repeatedly refering to other list members as “intellectually lazy” would be this medium’s version of “fighting words”, particularly without support for that position. Therefore, since he initiated the force to begin with, I am justified in returning in kind, am I not? Do you intend to chastise him for his comments? I have no problem with deferring to a just & fair moderator, but you are not exactly calling for calm. So far, you seem to be ‘policing’ this thread, and we all know such responses are always simplistic and usually unjust.
And it’s really telling that no one here has resorted to true ‘flaming’ retoric. Don’t you think that you might be a bit jumpy?
In any case, y’all are so polarized (myself included) that it’s really just like listening to two collective consciousnesses talk round and round in circles.