Off-Topic discussion about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.

NeuM

@richardyot said:

@NeuM said:

@espiegel123 said:

@dendy said:

know but once you're spending large amounts of money on tiny portions of something (which it's already getting to at the last peak) then suddenly other investments start looking more interesting.

It depends for who... when in 1933 US government brutally robbed own citisens of all gold, price of troy ounce was $20. Today ? $1800. Makes it leass interesring investment ? Nope.

For big hedge funds it just starts to be really interesting when market cap grows into something like few trillions - bigger market cap will bring automatically smaller volatility.

There was no government theft of gold in 1933 in the U.S.

Using the phrase "brutally robbed" is factually incorrect.

• The U.S. government robbed no one. In 1933, the U.S. government purchased all private reserves of gold at the market rate. Private ownership of gold was limited by executive order in 1933 in order to ensure that the Federal Reserve had an adequate gold supply (as required by the law of the time since the dollar was a gold-backed currency at that time). The government purchased the gold at the then-market price of $20 per ounce (that number is meaningless without adjusting for inflation). Adjusted for inflation that 1933 $20 is the equivalent of about $560 in 2021 dollars. The current price of gold is less than 4 times that. Compared to the stock market that is a pretty poor return on investment.
• Since May 1933, the Down Jones Industrial Average stock market index has (using inflation adjusted values) has gone up by a factor of slightly more than 18....compared to gold whose value has not even quadrupled.

So, yes, gold was a poor investment compared to simply investing in one of the industry-standard stock market indexes.

One might question whether the forced sale was really necessary, but no theft occurred. Money invested in non-speculative stocks in 1933 has increased in value far more than money invested in gold.

Haha. I don’t care what language anyone uses to try to wallpaper over the fact that the government at that time confiscated gold and made it illegal to own.

Buying something at market rate is not the same as "robbed" (which was the emotive term dendy used).

Yes it was a forced purchase, but that's because one of the big drawbacks of the Gold Standard is that the central bank can physically run out of gold (which was also a danger in 1971 and one of the reasons Bretton Woods unravelled). The forced purchase was necessary to maintain the dollar-gold peg in the midst of the Great Depression.

Article I, section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution states “Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.”

Never has there been a constitutional power to issue fiat currency. The reason the Federal Reserve was formed was to do an end run around the constitutional prohibition that the US government use only gold or silver coins as currency.

NeuM

@richardyot said:

@NeuM said:

@espiegel123 said:

@NeuM said:

@espiegel123 said:

@dendy said:

know but once you're spending large amounts of money on tiny portions of something (which it's already getting to at the last peak) then suddenly other investments start looking more interesting.

It depends for who... when in 1933 US government brutally robbed own citisens of all gold, price of troy ounce was $20. Today ? $1800. Makes it leass interesring investment ? Nope.

For big hedge funds it just starts to be really interesting when market cap grows into something like few trillions - bigger market cap will bring automatically smaller volatility.

There was no government theft of gold in 1933 in the U.S.

Using the phrase "brutally robbed" is factually incorrect.

• The U.S. government robbed no one. In 1933, the U.S. government purchased all private reserves of gold at the market rate. Private ownership of gold was limited by executive order in 1933 in order to ensure that the Federal Reserve had an adequate gold supply (as required by the law of the time since the dollar was a gold-backed currency at that time). The government purchased the gold at the then-market price of $20 per ounce (that number is meaningless without adjusting for inflation). Adjusted for inflation that 1933 $20 is the equivalent of about $560 in 2021 dollars. The current price of gold is less than 4 times that. Compared to the stock market that is a pretty poor return on investment.
• Since May 1933, the Down Jones Industrial Average stock market index has (using inflation adjusted values) has gone up by a factor of slightly more than 18....compared to gold whose value has not even quadrupled.

So, yes, gold was a poor investment compared to simply investing in one of the industry-standard stock market indexes.

One might question whether the forced sale was really necessary, but no theft occurred. Money invested in non-speculative stocks in 1933 has increased in value far more than money invested in gold.

Haha. I don’t care what language anyone uses to try to wallpaper over the fact that the government at that time confiscated gold and made it illegal to own.

The government purchased the gold.

The US government confiscated the gold. It was a clear constitutional violation of individual property rights.

In times of emergency individual rights are often deemed less important than trying to safeguard the nation. The same could be said of the draft in times of war.

I understand that you have an absolutist position on this, but reality is seldom black and white. Ugly compromises are part and parcel of life, doubly so when you are in the midst of a crisis.

IMO, the government should’ve been disbanded at that time and a new one should’ve been formed to replace it. But then, that action also underscores that the Constitution cannot defend itself from a government which fails to follow it.

FDR was an American dictator, or the closest to a dictator the US has ever had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

richardyot

I just find the paranoid "everything is a conspiracy" narrative hard to swallow. It amazes me that so many people go along with it.

The Federal Reserve was set up because the monetary system in the US was a mess: competing currencies with different exchanges rates, wildcat banking etc... It made trade within the US messy and difficult. Standardising the currency simplified everything and was done for pragmatic reasons, not to rob the people.

richardyot

@NeuM said:
FDR was an American dictator, or the closest to a dictator the US has ever had.

And not the guy who just a few months ago was trying to overturn an election?

If FDR was a dictator, how come he kept winning elections fairly? Maybe your definition of "dictator" is politician whose views I don't agree with?

dendy

@richardyot
Buying something at market rate is not the same as "robbed" (which was the emotive term dendy used).

It's not emotional. I just call things with right name.To force people sell asset which they own as long term investment under the threat of physical liquidation (prison) is nothing other than robbery.

Oh and regarding "market rate":
Immediately following passage of the Act, the President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, changed the statutory price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35.

It was robbery. Fact.

Same like income tax is robbery. Not many people are aware it was developed as "temporary" solution by Abe Lincoln to cover expenses of Civil war in US. Now, rest is history.

I'm totally ok with taxation of consuption (VAT), because it's people's chois to buy or not to buy hinga. Especially taxation of things like cars, electonics, alcohol, tabacco. Taxation of income is robbery. Extremely unfair.

colonel_mustard

@NeuM said:
By the way, one IPO I’m eagerly looking forward to is SpaceX, whenever that happens. I think they could very easily become a multi trillion dollar company, especially once they start mining asteroids.

Huge potential there.

Supposedly NASA found an asteroid with enough gold to give everybody on the planet 93 billion dollars' worth, but it's still not enough for the US government (I joke).

richardyot

The price increase was to help maintain the dollar-to-gold peg, not to rip people off.

The emotive language just robs the discussion of nuance and rigour IMO, rather than trying to lay out of the facts it's used as a way of pushing a narrative (the state is evil and is trying to impoverish us all!)

As for taxes, it's not even worth addressing. You want to live in dystopia, good for you

dendy

The price increase was to help maintain the dollar-to-gold peg, not to rip people off.

yeah for sure. What s pity they realized it is neede only AFTER confiscating all gold, not before )

Don't wan't to sound mean, but i really hope, for all people for who freedom is highest value and importance in life, this way of marxistic thinking will never win.

The price increase was to help maintain the dollar-to-gold peg, not to rip people off.

Nope. Want to live in world of freedom. Dystopia is for me represented by world engineered by banks and politicians with socialisistic way of thinking.

NeuM

@richardyot said:

@NeuM said:
FDR was an American dictator, or the closest to a dictator the US has ever had.

And not the guy who just a few months ago was trying to overturn an election?

If FDR was a dictator, how come he kept winning elections fairly? Maybe your definition of "dictator" is politician whose views I don't agree with?

You certainly have some interesting and convoluted opinions on American politics for a non-US citizen. My only opinion on UK politics is the Brexiteers were right.

NeuM

@dendy said:

@richardyot
Buying something at market rate is not the same as "robbed" (which was the emotive term dendy used).

It's not emotional. I just call things with right name.To force people sell asset which they own as long term investment under the threat of physical liquidation (prison) is nothing other than robbery.

Oh and regarding "market rate":
Immediately following passage of the Act, the President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, changed the statutory price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce to $35.

It was robbery. Fact.

Same like income tax is robbery. Not many people are aware it was developed as "temporary" solution by Abe Lincoln to cover expenses of Civil war in US. Now, rest is history.

I'm totally ok with taxation of consuption (VAT), because it's people's chois to buy or not to buy hinga. Especially taxation of things like cars, electonics, alcohol, tabacco. Taxation of income is robbery. Extremely unfair.

Completely agree the income tax is a theft of wages. In the US, the proposed “FairTax” would be far more equitable. Because of the way taxes are structured today, nearly half the country doesn’t even pay Federal taxes. That’s destabilizing.

NeuM

@colonel_mustard said:

@NeuM said:
By the way, one IPO I’m eagerly looking forward to is SpaceX, whenever that happens. I think they could very easily become a multi trillion dollar company, especially once they start mining asteroids.

Huge potential there.

Supposedly NASA found an asteroid with enough gold to give everybody on the planet 93 billion dollars' worth, but it's still not enough for the US government (I joke).

Obviously, if that much gold was mined the price of gold would plummet because it would no longer be a scarce resource, but then again, SpaceX could keep it all for themselves to help establish their own multi-planetary gold reserves.

colonel_mustard

@NeuM said:

@colonel_mustard said:

@NeuM said:
By the way, one IPO I’m eagerly looking forward to is SpaceX, whenever that happens. I think they could very easily become a multi trillion dollar company, especially once they start mining asteroids.

Huge potential there.

Supposedly NASA found an asteroid with enough gold to give everybody on the planet 93 billion dollars' worth, but it's still not enough for the US government (I joke).

Obviously, if that much gold was mined the price of gold would plummet because it would no longer be a scarce resource, but then again, SpaceX could keep it all for themselves to help establish their own multi-planetary gold reserves.

Weyland-Yutani here we come.

richardyot

@dendy said:

The price increase was to help maintain the dollar-to-gold peg, not to rip people off.

yeah for sure. What s pity they realized it is neede only AFTER confiscating all gold, not before )

You understand that they didn't sell the gold, right? They weren't trying to make a profit.

The price change was purely to inflate the value of the dollar in relation to gold. There was no conspiracy, they were trying to maintain the dollar-to-gold peg.

NeuM

@richardyot said:
The price increase was to help maintain the dollar-to-gold peg, not to rip people off.

The emotive language just robs the discussion of nuance and rigour IMO, rather than trying to lay out of the facts it's used as a way of pushing a narrative (the state is evil and is trying to impoverish us all!)

As for taxes, it's not even worth addressing. You want to live in dystopia, good for you

There is constitutional leeway for the Federal government to lay and collect taxes. The amount of taxes is open for debate and changes with every administration. There’s no set amount.

NeuM

@colonel_mustard said:

@NeuM said:

@colonel_mustard said:

@NeuM said:
By the way, one IPO I’m eagerly looking forward to is SpaceX, whenever that happens. I think they could very easily become a multi trillion dollar company, especially once they start mining asteroids.

Huge potential there.

Supposedly NASA found an asteroid with enough gold to give everybody on the planet 93 billion dollars' worth, but it's still not enough for the US government (I joke).

Obviously, if that much gold was mined the price of gold would plummet because it would no longer be a scarce resource, but then again, SpaceX could keep it all for themselves to help establish their own multi-planetary gold reserves.

Weyland-Yutani here we come.

All SpaceX needs now is the discovery of superluminal travel.

dendy

Most sad fact is richard, the world you are protecting soo much will one day fuck you hard too .. i REALLY don't wish it to you, really honestly i wish just good things to people i respect from any reason.. in fact i'm not wishing this to anybody..

But i'm afraid one day when you realise your money in your bank are going to be taxed by negative interest, just because some politician decided country needs more money to run, or even they will face risk of expiration, just because some banker decided it's good for economy, you will remember me but it will be late.

People who are designing this system will not stop, they need to be stopped.

Of course it's different story if you're banker or politician or other person profiting from this system :-)))) But i believe you are not.

NeuM

@dendy said:
Most sad fact is richard, the world you aee protecting soo much will one day fuck you hard too .. i REALLY don't wish it to you, really honestly i wish just good things to people infespect from any reason.. in fact i'm not wishing this to anybody..

but i'm afraid one day when you realise your money in your bank are going to be taxed by negative interest, just because some politician dexidwd country needs more money to run, or even they will face risk of expiration, just because some banker decided it's good for economy, you will remember me but it will be late.

People who are designing this system will not stop, they need to be stopped.

Of course it's different story if you're banker or politician or other person profiting from this system :-)))) But i believe you are not.

The EU has already used negative interest to spur spending. Sweden was the first to enact it in 2009. No wonder people don’t trust central banking authorities.

dendy

You understand that they didn't sell the gold, right? They weren't trying to make a profit.

You understand that you really don't need sell asset to profit from it's price increase ?

The price change was purely to inflate the value of the dollar in relation to gold.

Here we are :-)

dendy

@NeuM said:

@colonel_mustard said:

@NeuM said:

@colonel_mustard said:

@NeuM said:
By the way, one IPO I’m eagerly looking forward to is SpaceX, whenever that happens. I think they could very easily become a multi trillion dollar company, especially once they start mining asteroids.

Huge potential there.

Supposedly NASA found an asteroid with enough gold to give everybody on the planet 93 billion dollars' worth, but it's still not enough for the US government (I joke).

Obviously, if that much gold was mined the price of gold would plummet because it would no longer be a scarce resource, but then again, SpaceX could keep it all for themselves to help establish their own multi-planetary gold reserves.

Weyland-Yutani here we come.

All SpaceX needs now is the discovery of superluminal travel.

Miguel Alcubierre hears you :-)))

richardyot

Negative interest rates are a dumb policy, which I don’t recall ever defending.

There’s plenty of stuff I disagree with in the current system, you have no idea. Doesn’t mean I want to burn it all down though.

richardyot

Also if the default argument is “everything I dislike is socialism” it gets kind of difficult having a sensible debate.

Maybe try a little more nuance?

NeuM

@dendy said:

@NeuM said:

@colonel_mustard said:

@NeuM said:

@colonel_mustard said:

@NeuM said:
By the way, one IPO I’m eagerly looking forward to is SpaceX, whenever that happens. I think they could very easily become a multi trillion dollar company, especially once they start mining asteroids.

Huge potential there.

Supposedly NASA found an asteroid with enough gold to give everybody on the planet 93 billion dollars' worth, but it's still not enough for the US government (I joke).

Obviously, if that much gold was mined the price of gold would plummet because it would no longer be a scarce resource, but then again, SpaceX could keep it all for themselves to help establish their own multi-planetary gold reserves.

Weyland-Yutani here we come.

All SpaceX needs now is the discovery of superluminal travel.

Miguel Alcubierre hears you :-)))

dendy

@NeuM
The EU has already used negative interest to spur spending. Sweden was the first to enact it in 2009. No wonder people don’t trust central banking authorities.

Really ?? Wow .. didn't know that.. that escalated quickly

dendy

@richardyot said:
Negative interest rates are a dumb policy, which I don’t recall ever defending.

Problem is this is one of things which are inevitable in current system. I'm pretty sure with that, you will see. Give it 2-3 years and it's here, at least in EU - thanks to Brexit you will be protected for a while probably, i guess because UK is a bit more conservative it will resits little bit longer

There’s plenty of stuff I disagree with in the current system, you have no idea. Doesn’t mean I want to burn it all down though.

I'm not saying everything is wrong. There is also good part. I still think state should take a care about law, law enforcement, about designing of law. Few more things too. On other site - both state and private sector, or in general any institutions managed by people, must lost absolute control over money. Money needs to be regime/government/law agnostic. They should serve JUST for transferring and storing monetary information, nothing else. Technical tool equally accessible to everybody (many people in current system are prevented to have access to banking system, even through it is sometimes on the edge of law).

dendy

@richardyot said:
Also if the default argument is “everything I dislike is socialism” it gets kind of difficult having a sensible debate.

Maybe try a little more nuance?

Can't help myself but basically everything i hate on current system has roots in socialism (or in more modern terms "social democracy") and/or marxism. Just today i saw one post which i can subscribe. "More Mises, less Marx" . That's it.

Yeah i'm libertarian. Personal freedom and weak state reduced just to smallest necessary form is world which would be good for me.

NeuM

@dendy said:

@richardyot said:
Also if the default argument is “everything I dislike is socialism” it gets kind of difficult having a sensible debate.

Maybe try a little more nuance?

Can't help myself but basically everything i hate on current system has roots in socialism (or in more modern terms "social democracy") and/or marxism. Just today i saw one post which i can subscribe. "More Mises, less Marx" . That's it.

Yeah i'm libertarian. Personal freedom and weak state reduced just to smallest necessary form is world which would be good for me.

👍

ExAsperis99

Do you guys hear yourselves? My God.
You guys do a better job discrediting libertarianism than I ever could. You know other people can see these responses, right?

richardyot

@dendy said:
Can't help myself but basically everything i hate on current system has roots in socialism (or in more modern terms "social democracy") and/or marxism. Just today i saw one post which i can subscribe. "More Mises, less Marx" . That's it.

Everything is extreme, everything is black and white. Mises and Marx both represent fringe ideologies that have almost zero bearing on Western democracies. Your post illustrates my point perfectly: "everything I don't like is socialism".

richardyot

@dendy said:

@richardyot said:
Negative interest rates are a dumb policy, which I don’t recall ever defending.

Problem is this is one of things which are inevitable in current system. I'm pretty sure with that, you will see. Give it 2-3 years and it's here, at least in EU - thanks to Brexit you will be protected for a while probably, i guess because UK is a bit more conservative it will resits little bit longer

There's nothing inevitable about negative interest rates. They're dumb because they're the endgame of monetary policy being used instead of fiscal policy, and monetarism has reached the end of the road as a useful way to manage the economy.

It's very likely that fiscal policy will be in the ascendance again going forward, even in the EU. Biden is leading the way, and the rest of the world will probably follow.

wim

@richardyot said:

@NeuM said:
FDR was an American dictator, or the closest to a dictator the US has ever had.

And not the guy who just a few months ago was trying to overturn an election?

But it was fine when the other side went wild trying to do it in 2000?

Elections in the US are messy. I don't like that much, but hey, it's a vast, non-totalitarian country. I prefer the chaos to most of the alternatives I can think of. It all works out in the end ... at least so far.

Not gonna debate anyone over this 'cause I just don't care enough. But that comment seem to me like a real double-standard , and coming from someone not even in the country, like it deserved at least a contextual response.