Is he right? Is Marx's theory of value really this flawed?

Of course he sucks the troops' dicks.
at least he isn't ableist

why are these people like this?

because a communist community could start trading for digital currency and start capitalism again. It is simpler to make a digital currency (it takes 5 minutes tops) than to create a federal reserve

Because reading books requires some effort whereas regurgitating propaganda from the internet requires much less.

>Kek these kankerflikkers don’t get it yet. Tulip bulbs have actually ended commodity-money communism as even a conceptual ideology. The reality is tulip bulbs prove Marx’s theory of value is inherently flawed, and shows that even if the “proletariat” seize the means of production they would need to basically ban backyars and flower pots outright in order to prevent people from creating a shadow tulip bulb and reinstating capitalism
And then, now in 2018, imagine failing to see that the non-legal status of cryptocurrencies (unrecognised by any modern bourgeois State as legal tender) obtain their value through an approximation of the average amount of time it takes to (re)create it in isolation of the process of actually exchanging them, valued then by all manners of general principles found back in Marx's view of what determines their value.

people don't pay each other in tulips retard.

I hope for your sanity and sense of reality you never open up a history book.

Please oh please never open a history book.

...

No it isn't, it takes massive amounts of electricity and processors.

So, basically what you're saying is that its another "Holla Forums tries to BTFO leftism but doesnt prove anything" episode? Ok.

it'll never end

This is a dense post, but
loool

Only two Holla Forumstards? Pretty brave.

capintalism is just when u have money :DDDD money haves value because it's money ok :DDDD also when u trade things it's capitalism ok :DDDDDDD i give you a shoe and you give me a bread and we are capitalints, capitalism has existed forever since cavemens XXXDDDDDDD praise free market and invisible hand (god) ok

when you're so retarded that you actually think creating a commodity to restore capitalism in a society that already abolished commodity production will somehow work

nice projection, but the effete, never-worked-a-day-in-my-life, i-support-Brown-shits-i-dont-have-to-live-next-to tend to be coming from posh backgrounds.
just happen most of you believe are despised because you had it easy.
you're believing wrong, you're hated because you're pieces of shit.
hell, this is nothing new, your commies used to fight over themselves to attract blue-collars back in the 60's, got told we liked the material comfort provided by capitalism over the starvation and tales of commies.
Then you got asshurt, and started that cultural marxist shit to try to tear down what worked nice, since unlike your failure of a system, it just doesn't crumble on its own due to being unnatural.

i'm not surprised, it's a masculine activity, and a lefty wouldn't ever be caught doing anything remotely non-faggy.

meanwhile in reality, you cunts like to larp proletariat but never worked a single day in your life.
campus leftism is cancerous garbage and doesn't survive in the real world.

therealmovement.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/reply-to-lk-how-labor-theory-of-value-destroys-fiat-money/

Why the fuck do morons even bother bringing up communism if they don't know what it is?

(You)

"The old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity!" t. Lenin

spooky!

Meh. I'll bite.

Yeah like most of the modern right

The country was literally falling apart in the 60's and just barely avoided a huge leftwing uprising under a massive coalition including the black panthers, young patriots, and young lords. All of which were overwhelmingly working class and in the case of the young patriots white working class.
Are you actually retarded? This doesn't make sense according to the standard cultural Marxism meme

Based

Now get the fuck off ayncrap

People wouldn't need to reinstate currency because Socialism would be supplying goods and services already.

Yo, can we create digital labour vouchers and call them gil so I can have a dope ass Final Fantasy reality where we destroyed ancap theory?

...

could you explain for me why its not? or at least link the page of marx where he debunks it/commodity currency?

Not him but Bitcoin is a deflationary currency that actively punishes you for using as an actual currency and actively encourages sitting on your saved stash. Basically you'd have to be a moron to actually use Bitcoin as a currency rather than a commodity itself.

im not very clear on how the argument is presented: according to marx do we even have legitimate money in our society since the gold standard was dropped? Since money has to be a commodity, but fiat money isnt money, its simply a token of money thats used as a currency. But what is the money in our modern society since the gold standard was dropped?

sry meant for

What is conceptual ideology?

thats because its limited to 21,000,000 coins right?

ccn.com/debunking-deflationary-bitcoin-argument/

im really new to this whole thing so sry if im being stupid.

really makes you think

So this is the power of bitcoin shills?

No not really the 21,000,000 cap just means that it has a set amount of scarcity making it more like a gold backed currency. The reason you get punished for spending bitcoin is the simple fact that it's a speculative market in itself. Spending a bitcoin to buy something one day could cost you thousands of dollars in earnings from holding the next. You're actively losing money with every transaction you make using the damn things and due to others slowly collecting and holding coins as long as possible the currency slowly accumulates to a very small pool of hoarders who can then control the value of the coins at will.

Is he implying that being anprim will make you rich?

no one even uses bitcoin as money, people only buy it in the hopes it will increase in value so they can sell it in the future.
Bitcoin is just the stock market for greasy silicon valley nerds. Check any pro-bitcoin website or forum and all they ever talk about is how much you can make in USD if you buy now and sell later.

no, he is simply stating that controlling yourself is better than behaving like an over-consumerist drone.
spend, spend, spend, so that 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧we🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 may own your ass through debt.
but hey, leftists can't into self-restraint.

partially correct.
it's like any non-massively consumed ressource based econ, it's only worth what a small group of people agree (ie; not as terrible as fiat, but just as bad as gold).

muh lifestylism

everytime

It's probably worse than a gold-backed currency when it comes to scarcity. You can always mine for new gold, in fact, 50% of the gold supply is based on what has been mined since 1950. Golden inflation isn't even that rare, especially when major discoveries and improvements of technique came along.

Who even knows how much gold is contained on Earth? its more like oil in the sense that the question isn't whether its there but whether it makes economic sense to extract it. With bitcoin you will always only have a set limit of it.

Not spending money makes you a soulless cuck.
Read Marx
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/power.htm

You're right but I mean the general idea of a currency being tied to a scarce resource is similiar and not very new.

you don't need to spend 300$ a month in coffee or dining out.
learn to cook ffs, or keep eating industrial shit, look all kinds of weird, wonky and soyish.
nah, just let's do nothing and keep being little bitches wanking it to niggercuck shit.

accumulating ressource make you capable of spending it on IMPORTANT things rather than frivolous shit like a nigger.

You don't really have to spend money to consume. Especially in today's world where communism is practiced via torrenting. Spending money where an alternative exists doesn't really make sense.

...

It's not a Holla Forums post until the topic black guys in porn and effeminate white boys comes up.

thats not my critique of your argument though. im saying just telling people what they shouldve done doesnt actually solve anything in the real world. its a feelgood tactic rightwingers use to try and swerve out of trying to improving society by any metric, and instead just choose to do nothing. especially considering you dont take the time to ponder why these people spend the money that they do, or why things happen the way they happen. Saying what you shouldve done doesnt change the fact that now we have a society of these people that youre forced to live with. does this make sense? its just not a solution that works.
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

you're correct, some liberal could potentially be considered decent.
leftism however, is invariably filth.

well, I have to be adaptated to what talks to the audience.
you know that if you weren't so much into that, you'd be gaining traction instead of being looked down as a bunch of snivelling cowardly shits.

but hey, keep wanking, keep eating shit, keep overspending in technobobble garbage.
seems legit like a good plan.

it's not feel good right wingers, it's litterally what I do.
do you think I shit money or get gibs coming from the sky?
no, I got to sort these things.
And actually it would improove society quite sensibly to not have idiots taking loans after loans for senseless shit, while your suggestion not only serve Nothing, but in fact does the exact opposite by first, ruining you, and two, strenghten the coin-clippers.
The reason these people spend hundreds of bucks on coffee is because they're retarded hipsters, hundred of bucks on the latest iteration of fancied technogarbage is because they're obsessed with "impressing" their lefty "friends", etc.
no sense of agency, no sense of self-control, an horizon of the future than doesn't go past the part that would require any kind of actual effort.
pure show, because they're narcissists.

Finally your link is based on what lefties can still delude themselves with.
The point is, that importing 3rd world head-choppers doesn't make for a very smart move.

Lmao yeah Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and Barrack Obama are A'okay but Che guevara, George Orwell, and Albert Einstein? Filth

youtube.com/watch?v=0eYWn8-VgzU

Really makes you think

first

secondly Che was coming from upper class, Einstein was a thievering Fraud, and Orwell ended describing systems you took as leftist manuals.

from having large herds of this lot, I can confirm.
Hardly surprising, considering that on top of all of what was mentionned earlier, they're also massively into all kinds of substance abuse.

yeah, instead of doing nothing, getting gibs and starving your entire population anyway.

...

*litte dicked right-boi detected*
You know what else the right-wing and bodybuilder demographics have in common? They’re both often filled with guys grossly overcompensating….

So you purchase your food with bitcoin then?

you didnt understand my argument at all did you? read it again and really think.

okay? but not everyone is doing it and just saying their woes would vanish if they behaved like you is a feelgood statement since that might not actually be true.

what suggestion did i pose? i dont remember actually giving a solution, only criticizing yours.

yes but why are they all these things? see for someone who rees about cultural marxism you really fail to see the biggest thing adorno tried to study: the effects of this consumerist culture under capitalism and how it changes people.

anyway, all you do is tell people to behave exactly like you behave, which has failed. this ideal that youre trying to put on others isnt working and it will never work. im not going against the idea that you shouldnt spend money on things you cant afford, but you need to understand why people do this, not just tell them not to. im certain that they know they shouldnt but why they keep doing it is important to understand. and i think its a little more complex than "dee stoobed lefties :DD"

gets me thinking T B H

i agree with you, do you not understand this? im saying that we need to analyze why these things happen the way they do and apply some effective change, not just tell them to be "smarter with their money lol."

The dude literally lived in the jungle for the majority of his adult life
Uhh
Have you even read homage to Catalonia?

wasnt this thread about bitcoin? stop getting derailed leftypol, this isnt pol.

Kek these fags don't get it yet. Fiat has actually ended communism as a conceptional ideology. The reality is paper money proves Marx's theory of value is inherently flawed, and shows that even if the "Proletariat" seize the means of production they would need to basically ban the printing press outright in order to prevent people creating a shadow currency and reinstating capitalism.

- - - - - - - - -

Kek these fags don't get it yet. endogenous money has actually ended communism as a conceptional ideology. The reality is private bank credit created ex-nihilo proves Marx's theory of value is inherently flawed, and shows that even if the "Proletariat" seize the means of production they would need to basically ban computers outright in order to prevent people creating a shadow currency and reinstating capitalism.

I buy my groceries with it and all my products basically, thru Amazon, via an exchange market @ www.purse.io. I also bought all the parts for my server with bitcoin, straight thru www.newegg.com. People want them, are willing to trade fiat and products for them, therefore they have real value.

exchange value = use value, the post.

Hmmm let's see…

val·ue
ˈvalyoo/Submit
noun
1.
the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
"your support is of great value"
synonyms: worth, usefulness, advantage, benefit, gain, profit, good, help, merit, helpfulness, avail; More

You know your theoretical economic system is awesome when it tumbles in front of a dictionary.

I don't think you get it…

...

Value is not the same as exchange-value or use-value. You should probably read some economic theory before trying to about it.

you are embarrassing yourself.

he is a complete idiot, bitcoin is actually based on marx' and ricardo's theory of value. that was one of the core ideas behind it and that's why i was excited about in 2009 and started mining. and it worked *exactly* like expected - until the damn "financial market" chimed in and started to issue futures and derivates on bitcoin, which, of course, changed the modus operandi, because bitcoin acts now like any other commodity that is subject to futures and derivates.

meanwhile liberturds don't even have a theory of value.

i hate right-wing pseudo-economists and liberturdians so god damn much. they don't understand their whole fucking shitty system at all, yet they feel the urge to defend it against any criticism, by means of throwing bullshit. it's like they are all born with negative Autism Level. i fucking HATE them.

Hmm I keep being told I'm an effete brainwashed student who's never ever worked but then when I tell 'em I've never been to university in my life and worked since I was 15 I'm just a dumb jealous poorfag who can't git good.

Really made me think.

"hurr if only poor people were walking around naked and barefoot with no transportation and no way for their boss to get in touch with them they wouldn't be poor"

it proves the chapter marx wrote with regards to gold standard based money is outdated, nothing more. If there's still a statistical correlation between integrated labor content and price, the LTV still holds.
What exactly is the difference between bitcoin and someone creating an alternative paper currency? I don't see how either break communism as an idea. The proletariat controlling the means of production means controlling the physical assets, land,
buildings, actually physical things. Saying, even if you take away the capitalist's factories, theyll 'save' their money by converting it into bitcoin is laughable, you might as well say i turned my money into world of warcraft gold 'commies btfo'. If the state owns all physical assets, your virtual currency which is illegal btw, will always be relegated to a black market several orders of magnitude smaller than the planned socialist economy, used for buying and selling drugs, weapons, illicit porn, and other illegal substances. Bitcoin is fucking useless, its a virtual value can only be converted into real money if you find someone to buy it, and good luck with that. All of these things are true of cryptocurrencies already in our current system and would be even more true under socialism. I really don't give a fuck if the former rich buy loads of internet meth using bitcoin from some guy making it in his basement after the revolution. If the guy ever shows up to a warehouse or anywhere else to turn it into a full scale business the security guards and cops will simply arrest him for profiteering and doing capitalist pig shit, the bitcoin won't make socialism impossible any more than an underground economy made the soviet union impossible.

I just love lolberts, you guys don't even fucking know what economic system you're defending. Just give up anything involving ecomics or politics dude and go back to playing video games for at least until you're 18.

that was my point.

It breaks communism as an idea because communists want to establish a central bank and cryptocurrency circumvents that.

THE BANK OF ISRAEL IS ACTUALLY EXISTING SOCIALISM
MADE BY AES GANG

pretty sure under communism there wouldnt even be a bank to begin with central or otherwise.

Whence does Bitcoin derive its value? From nought but the quantity of money, the only socially acceptable form of exchange value, that can be traded for it. Bitcoin is nothing more than the ideal representation of money; Bitcoins are not universally alienable, they are nothing more than a simple commodity, taking its position with all others opposite the universal equivalent, the sole socially recognised representative of exchange value and the only universally alienable commodity. One only buys bitcoin as the ideal representation of money, or Value, in the hopes that in the future it can be traded for more concrete money than it was purchased for. In the metamorphosis M-C-M', the purchase of Bitcoin represents nought more than the step M-C.

To expand on what your wrote as regards Fiat money; as Value is a purely social substance, it does not necessarily require anything more than the substratum of social recognition on which to be represented. That is; one could arbitrarily decree that a certain, otherwise worthless, token is worth a set amount of value precisely because value exists in nothing but the social relation between producer and buyer.

tl;dr: I have a petit-bourgeois mate of mine that got into bitcoin, has like doubled his investment: but has no fucking way of cashing out because it is so underused and you can't just convert it to regular currency with any ease. I told him to get the fuck out before the crash, I hope he did, he is a decent bloke.

Doesn't Marx talk about fictious capital in volume 3 of capital? Isn't that exactly what bitcoin is?

Computers are NOT humans. They cannot preform human labor.

m8…. Word can have more than one different meanings

If we would stop being over-consumerist drones (we could all live like Ted Kaczynski did in Montana after all), the world economy would collapse. Businesses would find themselves with huge stocks of unsold goods, paid employees who produce no value whatsoever, etc. Capitalism needs over-consumption to function, and to fuel over-consumption it needs to commodify everything it can.

In the words of Francisco d'Anconia, "Words have particular meanings."

If you have a dictionary definition from legitimate source, I'd be patient enough to read it. Otherwise, you are redefining words for the purposes of a theory which apparently requires the strangulation of semantics, such that your lexicon and mine are entirely incompatible. If your special definition of "value" does not actually mean "value" then you have no business responding to the original concept with your lexeme in such a way as to imply that we are talking about the same thing (as was the original mention of value, if you are following this thread). To do so is deceitful at best, and to do so unwittingly, implies you require basic reeducation.

No it's not like any resource based econ because it's not a resource, it's a dead-end product of electricity and computation. It literally has no other use than as a currency, and 99% of its users only hoard it in the hopes that they can trade it for a different currency later on. Gold does have use outside of hoarding, it is a very soft metal that can be smithed without much heat, it easily alloys with other metals, and its great conductor. Even the entire world economy and governments collapsed tomorrow there'd still be uses for gold while bitcoin would lose 100% of its value overnight. Hell even tulips look pretty and smell nice, you can trade them for emotional leverage (to a girlfriend/wife). Bitcoins have no value outside of an investment gold-rush that will come crashing down when the next depression hits.

I would like to add, that adding adjectives in front of a word, does not change its definition, but only its context.

TIL air port = "a town or city with a harbour or access to navigable water where ships load or unload."
has to be ships.

What if I accumulate money through work and then just shoplift what I want anyway?

excuse me
if we're talking about a philosopher's ideas it only makes sense that we use their definitions for words. don't throw a shitfest over this basic a semantics

China banned bitcoin for a reason.

air·port
ˈerˌpôrt/Submit
noun
a complex of runways and buildings for the takeoff, landing, and maintenance of civil aircraft, with facilities for passengers.
synonyms: airfield, landing strip, airstrip, air terminal
"directions to the airport"

It's a compound noun. Is English your first language, my friend? If not, I could understand your error.

And what gives a philosopher the right to redefine commonly understood words? Should not their concepts be explained using the existing semantics? I could understand the creation of a new word as a label: a shorthand denoting a longer string of words. But to redefine basic words for the purpose of theory is to engender deliberate confusion, and should be a red flag to the discerning reader.

For any rightists in this thread that unironically believe communism supports banks and finance capital, you ought to read this.

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
Forgot to post it, whoops

Fuck me dude
Linked here:

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation
Stop acting as if Marx was the only person to ever use an existing word to refer to a philosophical concept and that this somehow BTFOs him as a theorist.

...

dude it's simple
dictionary definitions are NOT meant to be used for serious scientific, philosophical or sociological analysis, but rather for common parlance
marx uses his own definitions not to be an asshole obscurantist, but because it actually makes it easier to read and understand his work by not being constrained by the words and definitions available in the dictionary. do you think he would explain what these things mean if he just wanted to seem like a smart guy by spouting hard words noone understands?

using a shit dictionary use google's first result under "define:airport" or i'll make you EAT your inferior version.

this is a stupid tangent because marx isn't redefining value to begin with, he's qualifying it.
a block of gold has absolutely zero nutritional value, and if you don't like that i'll use a block of gold to crack your pedantic fucking skull.

Semantic obfuscation for the purpose of being clear… this is what you have deluded yourself into believing? There is no clarity gained, and you will not find scientists or mathematicians reusing terms for anything other than metaphors and analogies. Wholesale redefinition of BASIC terms is not a common practice in hard science.

I would also accept Merriam-Webster, Oxford, or another commonly accepted source for definitions of words.

I used the word value in the most widest context, and I was bludgeoned with Marxist doublespeak about various types of value being mutually exclusive, which is impossible because I was using the broadest definition. Any other definition of context-free "value" is a redefinition of a charlatan.(Now you're bludgeoned with a ban.)

Words, are not medical or scientific definitions. They are vocabulary of a language. How hard is this to understand.

So let's create new words for those concepts; this way, no terms have to be redefined. "Labour" is now "floop" and "value" is now "doggle". Do you have a specific criticism of the labour theory of value - sorry, the floop theory of doggle - or are you just going to shitfling over vocabulary as a screen for having no argument?

but jimmy, this is the part of the sentence where you make the argument!

guys I dont know why you're mad at him, he basically admitted that he can't understand Marx and the only way he can actually argue against him is through "he's hard to understand"

here's a thought, why don't you actually read marx before you try to debate him? If you can only criticize his writing being hard to understand then we, and many other sources, can help you.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition

But words have definitions, and those definitions are composed of words. To prevent an infinite recursion of definitions, words have particular meanings.

But do the definitions behind your labels really merit the creation of new words? If the threshold were so low, new words would proliferate faster than people could learn them. I reckon no, they do not. Your concepts could be explained using the existing language, and if your new words are merited, they will be adopted. This is the very reason crank theorists invent new words to begin with: to hijack the existing language. Observe how my proper use of "value" was immediately criticized for not conforming to the new definition. It's a not-so-subtle swap of context intended to be deceitful.

Gentlemen, it seems my efforts here are neither appreciated now allowed. I hope some lurker out there on the fence, not too far consumed by your linguistically mangling philosophies, was turned away back to sensibility in the course of our exchange. Good day.

Why do you continually say that this is all crank theory if you have done nothing to engage the substance of it. You have wasted a lot of posts just arguing for the sanctity of dictionary definitions like they alone hold what is acceptable or not.

*tips fedora*

the vast majority of other philosophers, because they've done the same thing

For the same reason I discard a mathematical proof which makes an error in the first equation.

Ok I'm out. I accept the will of the moderation to keep this a safe space for wrong ideas.

it would be infinitely harder to explain marx's ideas using existing language, so this is why he uses common everyday words to explain himself; since their meanings are pretty similar, and he can then get people to understand what he is talking about.
marx gave these words different definitions so he could better express himself with words others understood. It wouldn't be difficult to understand if you did any kind of reading on your own since marx explains it pretty well.
doesnt change the fact that you came to this thread a retard, got called out for being a retard, and are now running away with your tail between your legs like a retard.
but they are, user, its called slang. People are using words in a different manner than they used it even 10 years ago. Most people if they're not in on the slang don't understand it either, but people can still communicate. It's called the evolution of language.

except you didn't make an effort to understand it, that's not the same thing as it making an error. YOU haven't proven Marx was wrong, only that you can't understand him or have bothered to read him in any sense. Because if you did read him, you'd understand that Marx makes it quite clear what "value" means and you wouldn't have a sperg out.

*fedoring tipping intensifies*

Let's see. "Use value" and "exchange value" are combinations of existing words with specific definitions qualified by Marx; with e.g. "use value" being - as you put it - "shorthand denoting a longer string of words" denoting how useful a given commodity is - "this coat will keep me warm" - and "exchange value" being shorthand for "the quantity of a given commodity that is equal in terms of labour to the quantity of another commodity", e.g. 20 Lenins = 1 Communism 20 yards of linen = 1 coat. The concept *is* explained using existing language - "use value", "exchange value" etc. are simply "shorthand" names given to that concept.

You come to a leftist board - populated by Marxists in large part, and even the anarchists tend to read Marx - and complain when posters use Marxist terminology. Tell me, I have a cabinet in my bedroom and there's also a cabinet in parliament - which one of those is the REAL cabinet, huh?

I have no argument and I must run away.

You could also say that Fiat money disproves the law of labor-value, because its cost of production need not determine its value, but Marxians have no trouble explaining Fiat currencies because they do not fall into the illusion that Fiat monies are inconvertable, and similarly have no trouble explaining Bitcoin as a form of fiat money(if it can be considered a currency, which I dont think it can. Bitcoin is an economically insignificant one because it is essentially useless as a medium of the circulation of commodities for technical reasons. Its volatility makes it useless as a medium of pricing. )

If we say that Bitcoin is an asset or commodity, and not money, it becomes even easier to work with because it does have a socially nessecary labor time, (in mining) and it is one that is designed to be deflationary(matching observed price trends in general). It has not yet been investigated empircally whether the price of bitcoin has been diverging from its socially necessary labor time or not.

Damn…… I hope you like being rich because you just btfo'd linguistics and 800 years of English legal philosophy with the power of 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧reason🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

(you)
That isn't actually what the study showed at all. All it demonstrated is that more muscular men are more likely to act in their economic self interest. Strong, poor men are more likely to support redistributive policies while strong, rich rich men are more likely to be against them.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1798773&buffer_share=e3039
read the actual article next time instead of your tabloids, brainlet

Look up the phrase "term of art" in your dictionary, buddy.

I like how the Holla Forumsbabby seems to think that subsistence is the same as giving everyone what they need, in the sense of all of one's material desires being fulfilled. subsistence is generally understood to mean you're surviving to reproduce your own existence. what a fucking retard.

never mind that he never makes an actual argument that is backed up by anything concrete. I hope the header to the top left was satirical and added by someone from Holla Forums, otherwise this is even sadder.

why are people this fucking retarded allowed to exist at all, let alone on this board. unironically kill yourself you tryhard.

So he's saying that the existence of a would be black market disproves everything Marxist ever?
That doesn't make any fucking sense.

This is a comically infantile understanding of capitalism.

...

...

words don't have meanings they have uses brainlet

Socially necessary labor time wouldn't include the mining except for the negligible amount that goes into setting it up & maintaining the equipment. Also because of investments having the tendency of flowing to the most profitable sectors prices don't actually fluctuate around SNLT, but around prices of production. It is probably more like that bitcoins are siphoning from the "real" economy.
Not saying you argument is wrong, I'm mostly just nitpicking.

tbh thanks for posting this because for a moment there I unironically believed /biz/

He's not even hard to understand though; he defines his terms from the start, not to mention the conception of "Value" that Marx uses was already developed by those economists who came before him.

If he wants to blame anyone, he should blame Smith and Ricardo.

and the labor necessary to build the mining machine, the labor to make all the parts in the mining machine and so on. then the labor involved in creating the electricity the mining machine runs on, extracting raw materials to make this energy, etc.

Jokes on you for tethering yourself to a word that is widely associated with liberalism. I really don't get why you people keep doing this.

First off, Bitcoin's only utility is in speculation, it's rarely used as money, except for illicit services. Now in a socialist economy with labour vouchers, obviously they are assigned a certain number that can only be used by you, and you can't exchange them with others. Obviously shops could only take labour vouchers, any other transaction would be part of the underground economy and therefore illegal, it would be exposed pretty easily by auditing. So from this, bitcoin would have no utility in this economy, you can't use it to buy things, and you can't exchange bitcoin for labour vouchers either. Now maybe it could allow for illicit services like prostitution and the drug trade to come back, since labour vouchers effectively would eliminate this (aren't trade-able). However bitcoin would only be able to buy other illicit services, and a prostitute isn't going to be able to live on drugs and CP.

So call marxist "value" flinkerdorb. Doesn't matter what you call it you haven't disproved it at all.

Most of the SNLT would be in the form of electricity used to produce them at this point.

Stopped reading right there.

Bitcoin isn't deflationary though. It's infinitely divisable so it will always be able to meet whatever trading volume is demanded of it. To me its the best of both worlds. A currency that constantly appreciates in value while it's supply expands.

if you keep subdividing it, it's still deflationary. you aren't increasing supply, you're just jumping down in units.
if i hold 1BTC and we go from a world where 1BTC = 1 bar of chocolate to one where 1BTC = a new truck, the money supply hasn't increased - and i'm no worse off - just because chocolate is now 0.0001 BTC. Hoarding is still rewarded.

No this is wrong. Nominally no the amount of bitcoin is fixed but the amount of discrete bitcoin units can infinitely expand. And that's exactly what has happened. People are trading 1/10000 units of bit coin and even lower.
This also rewards savers, which is good because it rewards savers and investors instead of debtors like inflation does.

Bitcoin cannot even handle around as many transactions per second as are made on amazon

Come on its a total ad hoc system, and what your talking about is a technical limitation, not an architectural one.

We have a name for that, it's called fucking deflation.
It's also the porkiest thinking on earth - who has the most money to save and invest? HOLY SHIT! it's the people who've already got money! who gets into debt? holy shit! it's the people who need money but don't have it!

incidental tangential point: is the austrian thinking not built on the (false) idea that saving is good because banks lend out saved money, meaning it isn't actually being "hoarded", but being lent to people who'll put it to productive use and yield a return for the person who saved it?
because that doesn't remotely apply to bitcoin, which is simply hoarded. having money in your wallet is akin to having money stuffed under the bed.

When you go into debt the asset belongs to porky until you pay it off, in addition to paying interest.
Also bitcoin is debt free money, only like .0001 (and that's not an exaggerated) of our money is debt free money.
You guys just completely misconstrue what bitcoin is to furfill this childish need for validation.

I'm not an Austrian but I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Australians don't want the money supply to expand like kensyans do, maybe I'm wrong.

Quit being rude! Yes I understand bitcoin isn't labor vouchers sheesh. If the rate of appreciation is higher then the interest rate on a bitcoin loan then your winning. Point is moot since most loans are ARMs anyway.

you get the use value of the asset.
inflation decreases the amount you're repaying to banker porky, hence why inflation is the primary concern of our bank-dictated economic policy - not unemployment.
there is little merit to debt free money. debt free money translates to even more stringent requirements for money to be a constraint on real economic output. people are unemployed, resources go unused, but there just isn't enough money…

proper democratic control over credit creation would resolve this problem. leaving it to an algorithm is no smarter than leaving it to gold speculators.

that's why austrians have their weird theory of banking, though, because if it was true then Keynesians would be wrong to say that by encouraging people to transfer their savings to consumption-spending, they'd boost economic activity.

i'll quit being rude when people quit advocating deflation and reifying processes outside democratic control.

In practice you're perpetually renting it, barely anyone ever pays off their mortgage or car note.
No wrong, debt free money would have a much higher monetary mulitpiler then debt money would because it will circulate perpetually. We went away from gold backed money so that state could pay for the Vietnam war with inflation. Inflation hurts workers, the only reason it didn't during the 60s and 70s is because of strong unions chasing inflation with wage increases.
Its infinitely dividable so it's not deflationary in the traditional sense. Bitcoin will never "run out" leaving poor people with no way of getting bitcoin since it can just be split into smaller denominations and that denomination becomes the baseline for prices.

Look up the difference between exchange and use value before making embarrassing posts please

they still get a car they couldn't otherwise afford
money multiplier is a meme, banks create new money from nothing.
The USA went away from gold backed money because the US dollar was devaluing relative to other currencies (which is not the same thing as inflation, although inflation can prompt devaluation), not so they could inflate away debt. The tragedy of Breton woods was breaking up currency pegging in general, not the gold element in particular which was always voodoo.
even in the Thatcher era in Britain where union leaders were garotted on top of Westminster prices and wages kept parity.
deflation yields unemployment - and guess what wage the unemployed get paid? inb4 "fixed cash terms state benefits would go up!", this is remarkably dubious if the state has to run a balanced budget or pay debts like any mortgage-taker because they've outsourced control of currency to a completely independent third party, in this case an algorithm that can't even be bribed.
bizarre definition of "traditional" deflation
again yielding a massive payoff for hoarders, a remarkably undesirable thing.

Wrong, debt money is deflationary and debt free money is inflationary.
Debt money has to be paid back, sooner or later it will disappear from the money supply. Porky knows this which is why the only 2 presidents to print debt free money were both kiled.
For all it's short comimgs, people speculating and hoarding it, bitcoin is still debt free money. That alone is enough to have propelled it to the Trillion dollar trading cap its at now having started from literally nothing.

by which point it will long have been replaced by new money. there's a reason we haven't seen the reappearance of deflation for any meaningful period.
name them because i can't tell if you're referring to literally just printing money and using it (a policy with uses tbh, and inflationary) or making some bizarre argument about the federal reserve.

Deflation yields debt because of the way loans are structured. When money becomes more valuable it gets harder to earn, so the value of loan you have to pay back goes up in real terms. That's not deflations fault. That deflation sprial is also due to debt money. We are in a slow motion deflation spiral RIGHT NOW. The Fed is lending money out at near zero percent interest and the inflation rate WILL NOT BUDGE. Your fiat debt money is deflationary, not bitcoin.
Black Wall Street would like to have a word with you.

WE ALMOST HAVE DEFLATION RIGHT NOW. By your own bankrupt economic theory the Fed lending out money nearly for free should be leading to crazy inflation. BUT IT HASN'T FOR NEARLY A DECADE.

Kennedy and Lincoln, yes printing money is debt free money. Mining bitcoin is debt free, you own it forever, there's no bitcoin fed you need to pay back with intrerest.

New money that ALSO needs to be paid back with interest. You can't keep robbing peter to pay Paul, the musical chairs stop and that point is right now. We don't have any inflation and the fed is already lending money out for free almost. If the inflation rate goes down anymore we will have to go to negative interest rates, literally paying banks to borrow money. How is fiat debt money not deflationary?

absolutely risible and empirically false. US inflation is around the standard 2% target.
furthermore even if we were in 10% deflation right now, bitcoin's rise in value would make it look like a 0% blip.
i'm not taking any calls.

no we don't
No, by my economic theory the fed is stupidly trying to flood the system with central bank money when the problem is that banks aren't lending to producers. The fed is running the causation backwards. The Fed can offer banks all the money in the world and it means nothing if they're not lending. It's not allowed to offer the money directly to borrowers. That's why we need democratic control over credit creation.

THAT said, the Bank of England is basically giving the UK treasury free money by buying UK treasury bonds on the private market (for spook reasons it's not allowed to buy them directly) then holding them until maturity.

This yank paranoia about the fed and central banking in general is weird as hell
The Bank of England is directly owned by the UK treasury as a public institution. If the BoE holds UK debts, it gives the repayments straight back to the treasury.
Bitcoin isn't analogous to printing money anyway - it's analogous to a gold standard, where the quantity of money is ultimately tied to an arbitrary process (mining) and fixed. (no, infinite re-denomination doesn't count - you can theoretically carve gold down to atoms.)

stupid analogy when populations cycle.
why would anyone play musical chairs when there's a robber about? (don't mix metaphors, also the chairs don't stop - the players stop.)
i am enjoying this. The problem with monetary policy since the 1990s has been worrying too much about inflation, not too little.
always nice to end on an easy one: because we're not undergoing deflation and haven't done so for any sustained period, your premise is false.
Funny how we've gone from "Deflation is good" to "Actually bitcoin is inflationary and fiat is deflationary!" though.

At no point on that graph does it go over 2%. Also the fed is lending at near zero percent, funny how you left that out, not to mention how much the money supply has expanded since 2008.
The Fed has pulled out all the stops, we have 4% unemployment but yet no inflation!
That 2% target is bougus, the fed desperately wants inflation to be higher so they can raise rates and get away from the zero wall. 2℅ is the goal only because anything else is unrealistic.

Black Wall Street proves the monetary multiplier is not only real but one of the greastest engines of growth. Money stays in circulation locally indefinitely instead of going back to the fed.

Only to someone that's ignorant of the fact that all of our money is debt. And that the Fed centrally controls the creation of all debt.

Okay I did do that, bitcoin is hard to explain in your paradigm. Bitcoin goes up so it's deflationary, but it's supply never goes down because its infinitely dividable even when hoarded. And since its debt free in remains in circulation indefinitely, which isn't inflationary but has the benefits of inflation, putting money in many peoples hands creating economic output.

You are borrowing money to pay for money you borrowed in the past all while incurring interest on everything. Why do you think we have economic cycles in the first place, and why porky willingly gave the power of credit creation to a center state authority in the first place.

youtube.com/watch?v=0cNwaA5sNr8

Note also that at no point does it go below 0%. Say "I was wrong"
because it means nothing
because central bank money is engine oil, not petrol. You can flood the system with as much of it as you like and the car isn't going to move unless private banks make loans.
i'm not a monetarist.
We have ~2% inflation, within the bounds of the banks target. Stop lying and admit you were wrong.
The 2% target isn't something that sprung up after the crisis, it was their target before the crisis as well.
If you're thinking of physical cash it's basically completely irrelevant, the vast majority of money is electronic.

No it doesn't, private banks control the creation of credit.
bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf

The supply of gold never goes down because we can cut 1 big gold bar into two little ones.

For businesses, there is no issue here. When you pull the chairs out from under everyone, that's when bullshit starts. (This was done in the 1980s to empower the financial sector [HAET inflation] at the expense of the productive sector [don't really care] / control inflation by increasing unemployment.)
Animal Spirits. Minsky cycles. Abrupt policy changes. Over-accumulation of capital. Take your pick, just don't use whatever stupid Austrian explanation you're inevitably going to give me.

In conclusion: Democratic control over credit creation NOT algorithmic slavery.

This is spectacular and I feel enriched just knowing that it exists.
Also I'd love to see someone actually try to buy petrol from a store with one of those blocks.

It's analogous to neither and both but at different times.
Right now the bitcoin supply is expanding, so it's like printing money right now. But yes it has a finite limit on how many bitcoins can be mined, when that happens it will be more like gold. It will actually be better than gold since there will never be surprise discoveries of bitcoin.

gold can be mined, you know.

I'm not wrong, the Fed had to lend money for free, pull unemployment down to 4% and expand the money supply by a shit ton to SUSTAIN less than 2% inflation!
If unemployment goes up and demand falls and inflation slips what are they gonna do then? Hmmmm start paying people to borrow money? Sounds deflationary to me.

Where do private banks get their money? Depositors? Is your knowledge of banking informed by the movie "It's A Wonderful Life"? Banks do need depositors, its impossible to cause a bank run with the fed.

the fed can pay banks to hold the world GDP in central bank cash and it means nothing if they don't lend money out, it's irrelevant because the private banks control the actual supply of credit.
can't fathom why. Deflation is a sustained decrease in the general price level that effectively pays people to hold money, not paying people to borrow money. In the 1970s, lots of people were effectively paid to have borrowed once inflation shot up - but the flation in stagflation wasn't deflation.
In real terms governments at present can be paid in real terms to borrow money. (Borrowing at a 1% interest rate in a 2% inflation environment.) Nothing deflationary about it.

bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
lending creates deposits.

That's due to politics, the fed is beholden to porky who hates inflation because it debases his holding. The Fed could easily shift gears and work on lowering the unemployment rate more by say attaching strings to their loans like requiring 15 dollar minimum wage for investments using their money.
Credit Unions also prove the monetary multiplier is real. Credit unions keep money circulated locally and improve economies where they are located. Regular interstate banks do not.

Who is the lender of last resort?

Banks don't need depositors. Investment banks don't have depositors. You can start a bank with no depositors by borrowing from the fed.

You have inadvertently shown yet another reason why bitcoin is winning.
Your talking about a liquidity trap. Bitcoin doesn't suffer from a liquidity trap because by its decentralized nature it has liberalized access to currency.
Access to currency is supper calcified, bitcoin is super liberalized in comparison.
And regular currency is calcified because its all debt. Giving out money is risky because you need it paid back, because you yourself borrowed it.
Lending doesn't crest depositors long term. 99.999℅ of all money is debt. It must be destroyed by being paid off sooner or later, bitcoin never needs to be paid back.

have my doubts you read the whle thing before replying.
fed money isn't being lent out.
central bank.
anyway, if you want further consideration on how the central bank doesn't control credit creation consider the high inflation in the UK prior to the 1973 oil crisis - caused by the Conservative government deregulating bank lending, which immediately caused them to lend for consumption and boost spending power. When the crisis hit inflation exploded to remarkable levels, despite the bank's attempts to control it, because private banks - not the central bank - are the key actor.

this post just reads like a string of buzzwords.
i get it, you like your tulips.

Do you guys even listen to yourselfs?

i get it, you like your tulips
No I don't, I just understand monopolies. Regular banks have been trading near frictionless cash between each other since the 70s. They could have offered an all digital cash alternative like bitcoin decades ago. They didn't because they dont give a fuck, and now bitcoin, which inadvertently rolled in several superior elements, first and foremost being debt free, to cash, is seriously threatening to take banking away from bankers.

Yes, money is debt, but the governments of the world, particularly the US government, tend to favor banking policies designed to create inflation.

What does that mean? That means in real terms the US government pays back its debt with money that is worth much less then what it borrowed. The US also tends to prefer a pay-as-you-go approach where it racks up debt and pays the minimum balance,much like an indebted soccer mom, but unlike the soccer mom the treasury posses the power to devalue the currency it pays with. They've known for a long time that this works better then trying to raise the funds all lump sum or issuing debt free currency. Only Lincoln ever got around to issuing debt free fiat currency and the effect was major inflation but once the war was over the US made the greenback convertible into gold effectively putting it on the gold standard.

BITCOIN DOESN'T HAVE TO LENT OUT TO BE INTRODUCED TO THE MONEY SUPPLY.
Simple enough for you?

fuck off.

the labor theory of value isnt even defended by modern leftists anymore.

Neither does fiat money, at least not in a way where the debts matter. Burger's can't even do central banking properly.

obviously you have never read the communist manifesto.

Please reread the planks.

...

Wrong. Nice try, I guess.

it's called a debit card

fair enough but you make far too much of it.
to reiterate, the bank of England buys UK treasury bonds, which in all practical terms is the government spending money into existence by lending money to itself.

youtube.com/watch?v=fMjGxg4Dq34

...

No, wrong, the fed primary concerns itself with inflation. And governments have been pushing for austerity. The days of Keynes are long gone.
That's a good thing, hidding gov spending through deficit spending EMPOWERS porky who buy all the bonds. That empowerment is why the gov is broke and your seeing all these public private partnerships now.

Yes it does, where do you think money comes from? Our economy is with trillions, you really think the treasury has printed trillions of dollars?

The central banks certainly could do that. They are constrained by ideology and do not do so.

YOU NEED A BANK ACCOUNT TO HAVE A DEBT CARD.
Damn, do you even know what cash is?

No they don't, all of our money in on computer in debt ledgers.

I am describing what is possible not what happens in reality.

...

the govt can't go broke unless it borrows in foreign currencies.
public-private partnerships arose (in a non-materialist sense) because politicians are stupid and have stupid beliefs, believing that
1. the govt has hard spending constraints in monetary terms rather than material terms
2. the govt can't run things efficiently but the private sector can, so the private sector can be leveraged to social ends via partnerships to do things more efficiently
3. it lets them feel clever for finding a solution that is "neither left (socdem have the state do it) nor right (fuck the poor no public services)"

you need a bitcoin wallet to have bitcoin. so what?
if you're going to mention the physical toy versions, don't, they're even more irrelevant to the supply of bitcoin than physical cash is to the supply of money.

I meant the days of Keynes policies are gone. And they ain't never coming back.
Okay, how? Point is moot regardless, no gov or central bank is persuing Keynesian policies anyway. You got austerity so bad in Greece hookers are sleeping with Johns for sandwiches.

You don't need credit to open a bitcoin wallet. Anymore then you need credit to wear pants with pockets to hold your cash. And the person your trading with doesn't need credit either.

...

walk me through the relevance of this point.

It can go broke if it never borrows from itself and never prints debt free money or taxes rich people.
They arose because govs won't tax porky and won't print debt free money.

My only choice was to get wrecked by western union with wire transfer fees. The majority of the world is unbanked. Also being unbanked and paying in cash means no taxes. That will be critical as the state shoulders proles with more and more of the tax burden.

this amounts to "it can go broke if it decides to go broke"
except the part where there's essentially no distinction between borrowing from yourself and "printing debt free money." unless you're fetishising paper currency for no reason.

furthermore even in terms of issuing bonds to the private market, most developed governments could be borrowing far more than they are now if they wanted to. The market is ready and waiting for them. (hence negative real interest rates.)

Bitcoin has transaction fees too.
Wrong. You'll pay consumption taxes (the most regressive of all) on goods purchases.

Have fun in private prison.

t. nerd that's never bought anything on the black market.

don't forget the obvious point that paying people to take criminals creates financial demand for criminals.

Have fun in private prison.

They are a fraction of what western union charges. And again bitcoin does not require having credit or a bank account.

This is why no one ever offers to remodel your kitchen for half price, you're a narc.

Ugh that's my point. The gov SHOULD be printing debt free money and borrowing from itself to expand the money supply instead of relying on central banks. Bitcoin in a round about way is doing it for them.
Honestly if you knew how boinked the banking system is right now you'd get down on your hands and knees to kiss bitcoins feet. Bitcoin is a major reason why porky hasn't tried a reverse bailout.
They did a limited reverse bailout in Italy so its not alex Jones shit.

You undermine criminals by liberalizing power not by giving more power to the state that has enough power to stop criminals right now. The USSR had barely any organized crime.

You need credit to get either.

Wrong. 3,06x10²¹ atoms of gold in every chocolate piece, 1,53x10²³ atoms in the whole card.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro's_law

How would you know though?

And they're paid on every transaction.
Feels great spending $5 to pay someone $1
This still seems like an irrelevant point to the vast majority of people in the developed world.

whoa there king lear

The Bank of England are the good guys here, they're literally owned by the treasury. They are the mechanism by which the government borrows from itself. (And the Fed has monetized US debt as well, incidentally.)
the explanation for this should be good
Doubtful. Centralized, Democratic control is my primary concern and it is impossible with bitcoin.
the explanation for this should be good

in the video he says the bar is 50 grams.

whoa there king lear
If you evaded taxes and were cool with plumbers and carpenters you could own nice stuff to. You probably would bore them with nerd shit.
The majority of people in developed countries live like they are in 3rd world countries, being able to evade taxes and do under the table work can mean the difference between eating and not eating.
Capital flight to Bitcoin. They are struggling with this in Japan and China now.
Which would you prefer: having your life savings forceable placed in an illiquid CD. Or have at least some liquidity with Bitcoin, albeit very risky. You gotta eat and pay rent, and thst CD won't mature for 2 years.

Capital flight to Bitcoin is why they haven't tried to do a reverse bailout. Not only would it not work, it would lay bare the impotency of state capital. Yeah the state has armies, but they can't be everywhere at once if their was a panicked flight to Bitcoin due to a 2008 like need for a bail in.

can i take this as an admission you don't understand banking?
i'll take the real money, to go.

can't fathom how capital flight to bitcoin would work
you would either be transferring real money to another holder in the domestic economy, or you'd be engaging in a conventional foreign purchase that could be prevented by capital controls imposed on the state's money, just as if someone tried to flee into any other commodity like gold.

If its in a bank account it will be seized, if you carry it physically that's more risky then Bitcoin.
you would either be transferring real money to another holder
Yes, would would do so at a profit.
Capital controls don't work well on Bitcoin. Japan and China are just moving toward regulating it a little, but not imposing capital controls.
You can put Bitcoin in cold storage, so it can be smuggled easily. Depending on how much money you have it may be the only way to move it during a bail in.

Bitcoin doesn't go through any bank accounts, so it can't be stopped by traditional capital controls. The state could ban Bitcoin, and most corps would probably abide by it, but it would create a strong black market.
The alternative would be to live like a Greek person and get small daily allowances of your own money, never knowing when or of the next allowance will come.
Most non state cucked people would choose Bitcoin in that situation

the more I dwell on it the more I fail to understand why this doesn't all hold true if you swap all mentions of "bitcoin" for "gold"
this sounds like something that would only appeal to people with lots of money. "you should thank bitcoin for letting kulaks stop you taking their wealth" isn't a very tempting argument.

to get bitcoin you've gotta give up state money though, which can be stopped by capital controls. Hope you're happy only buying Bitcoin from Greeks.
yet the greek economy doesn't run on bitcoin. (and is itself an example of why you don't let someone else run monetary policy, which bitcoin effectively outsources to a computer algorithm.)

in any case this is a bizarre hypothetical.

Wew this fucking meme. You realize the "planks" were just transitional demands for the Revolutions of 1848, right? The mild socdem reforms were not a description of communism, but a set of demands by for defeated German governments.

I wouldn’t describe the abolition of all inheritance as exactly “mild” user…

The same reason people use cash instead of gold. It's liquid, easily dividable and portable. And you can't wire gold. And most people can't validate gold.
petite bourgeoisie will have their money seized first
Well sure a lot of it would, but not all of it. The main point is is that there's some place outside the banking system for it to go to at all is the problem. If Bitcoin didn't exist your money would be like a cornered rat, and they'd scoop up 99℅ of peoples money because they would try to move it.
With bitcoin they'd try, and that would be a huge mess, so big it could repudiate the ability of the state to impose a bail in, then the real rioting would start. Not only that it would totally legitimatize Bitcoin in the public's eye which right now its only seen as a science experiment.

*they wouldn't try to move it

That happened in what 2010? Bitcoin was still young and its market cap tiny. Bitcoin is way more established now. You notice the EU hasn't tried to pull that shit on another country though since huh?

When your goal is the abolition of all private property, yes it's very mild, dearest user who clearly hasn't read the Manifesto beyond the planks meme.

In fact, it's common sense within your typical liberal meritocratic ideology. If you're attempting to construct some Social Darwinist state that attempts to separate the wheat from the chaff through market competition between atomized individuals, it only makes sense to not let some individuals get a head start from the dumb luck of whose loins they sprouted from.

Now, I realize that the sham ideology of neoliberalism whose only ideological consistency is its service to the rich would denounce the abolition of inheritance because it's stops the bourgeoisie from becoming the insular hereditary gentry they so want to be, but I think it's important to remember that at the time this would have been a reform that even liberals would have supported, much less socdems.

All of this presupposes an economic crisis on a level so paranoid I'm not sure how I fell into discussing it.
I'd also be willing to wager the NSA could probably figure out who's doing what with bitcoin if they really wanted to. Funny, it says here you've got no income and no friends, but you own a truck that wasn't in your driveway a week ago…

January
January 4 – The tallest man-made structure to date, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, is officially opened.[2][3][4]
January 8 – The Togo national football team is involved in an attack in Cabinda Province, Angola, and as a result withdraws from the Africa Cup of Nations. The attack was perpetrated by the FLEC, their first since the Angolan Civil War.[5]
January 12 – A 7.0-magnitude earthquake occurs in Haiti, devastating the nation's capital, Port-au-Prince. With a confirmed death toll over 316,000,[6][7][8] it is the tenth deadliest on record.
January 15
The longest annular solar eclipse of the 3rd millennium occurs.[citation needed]
The Chadian Civil War (2005–10) officially ends.[citation needed]
January 25 – Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409 crashes into the Mediterranean shortly after take-off from Beirut–Rafic Hariri International Airport, killing all 90 people on board.

February

February 3 – The sculpture L'Homme qui marche I by Alberto Giacometti sells in London for £65 million (US$103.7 million), setting a new world record for a work of art sold at auction.[9][10]
February 12–28 – The 2010 Winter Olympics are held in Vancouver and Whistler, Canada.
February 18 – The President of Niger, Mamadou Tandja, is overthrown after a group of soldiers storms the presidential palace[11] and form a ruling junta, the Supreme Council for the Restoration of Democracy headed by chef d'escadron Salou Djibo.[12]
February 27 – An 8.8-magnitude earthquake occurs in Chile, triggering a tsunami over the Pacific and killing at least 525.[13] The earthquake is one of the largest in recorded history.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

you notice there haven't been US troops committed to new battlefields since 2010?
bitcoin is wonderful, it not only means i can get paid for hoarding money but it also stops imperialist conflict!

Holy shit, talk about not knowing basic economics.
Completely ignorant what deflation actually is: an increase in the amount of real goods you can buy with your currency.
And this amount has grown exponentially even if it is volatile.
Magic thinking, the use-value of bitcoin is going down with every new coin that is mined, because transaction fees keep climbing, the network becomes slower and less places actually accept bitcoin as payment.

I genuinely feel like that comment docked a few points off my autism level.

No, and I'm not even a Marxist.

Fed is lending at 1.5℅, are you saying there's no way there can be an economic downturn? With only 1.5% from the zero wall what can the fes do except lend at negative interest rates. You really think negative interest rates wouldn't destroy market confidence? This isn't paranoid in the least.
1 encryption works, and the NSA is still bound by the laws of physics, they can't be everywhere at once, even if they do know who the customers in a bitcoin black market they can't do anything about it if the amount of people exceeds heir ability of the state to enforce capital controls.

How dare those poor people feel so entitled to enjoy luxuries such as coffee, clothes and shoes.

Why even fucking work in this guy's vision if only to merely prolong your existence to just work?

or y'know, engage in quantitative easing and use fiscal policy. ZIRP isn't that scary.
negative real interest rates? no.
that's what paranoid people say. it's absolutely paranoid to presuppose some kind of massive collapse instead of just steady state boredom a-la Japan.

But then you basically have to presuppose societal collapse to break fiat money in a first world economy.

Motherfucker, what did you say? WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU SAY YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

You've said some top level retarded fucking shit in this gay ass thread but, my man- WHAT THE FUCK. Seriously, you are actually delusional to the greatest extent. You wish you had Einstein's brains because not only did he know how to do math (while you are unable to integrate the fucking exponential function, being the mentally defiecent sperglord that you are), he was an excellent human being, far ahead of his time.

As an actual physicist I have this to say: You dont even deserve the bullet, you jealous slimeball, you deserve to rot while happy, generous people prosper.

Listen to this motherfucker, as if the whole of the physics community wouldn't suck the dick of the person who proved Einstein was a fraud, you fucking idiot. Have you even read a single physics paper? Let alone one of Einstein's, who consistently, over a 10 year period produced work that shook our understanding of the universe to the fucking core. The dude started quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity and proved the existence of atoms IN A SINGLE FUCKING YEAR AGED 25. BUT NO YOU ARE SMARTER AND HE'S A FRAUD LEL. You delusional, clueless retard. Fuck you, fuck your uneducated kind, I wish the worst upon you even though you're just a troll.

If anyone responds to this motherfuckers posts after this, you are equally mentally retarded, what the fuck.

All irony aside, people like this need to be sent to re-education/labour camps.

Lmao dude, the vast majority of great Western philosophers have used existing words in a non-standard way to illustrate their theories.

Plato -"The Good"

Nietzsche -"Ressentiment"

Heidegger/Sartre-"Being"

Read a fucking book.

I'm triggered

Now you're either being purposely obtuse or your hardcore ignorant. Not sure if your just larping as a rose but not even your fellow socdem Keynesians agree that ZIRP and negative interest rates aren't scary.
Where is the money going to come from when all money is debt to begin with. People like Paul Krugman are VERY concerned with the flaccid inflation rate for the last 10 years and have been anti austerity since then.
Okay you tell me what you think would happen if millions of depositors had their savings forceably turned into CD and had allowances granted to them by banks a la Greece? I need a laugh.
Unless you think there's going to be a 2008 TARP like bail out a bail in is the only option.
No one, not even neo liberals think they can get away with a TARP bailout again politically.

...

paul krugman is a coward and probably neoliberal
bernie sanders and modern monetary theory NOT hillary clinton and constraints on government spending :DDDD
we've been over this, the central bank creates money to buy treasury bonds, which translates into government debt, then the government repays the debt, which goes to the central bank, which is owned by the government, which means the money goes straight back to the treasury, which means the overall debt level doesn't rise and shit still gets done.
give me one good reason this would happen to a country that controls her own currency and i might humour you. (i won't, we're moving from the point where this is gut-wrenchingly funny to the point where it's become trench warfare except instead of being shelled i'm having old shoes inconveniently appear in my trench every so often.)

Steve Keen thinks you can have a modern debtor's jubilee and he could beat you up.

Are you flipping kidding me, they’re chomping at the bit to get rid of Medicare and you think this Old Testament debt jubilee will happen?! At least my bail in theory is documented to have already happened in Italy.
He’s a socdem like you.
The government does not do this, the deficit exploded 3 fold under Obama and set to go even higher under Trump
It does not create money it creates debt, the federal reserve rate cannot print or create money. Only the treasury can.
Bonds are debt
Because it doesn’t control its own currency. Who paid the TARP bail out? Was it the treasury? Hmmmm

How is Paul Kurgman not a Keynesian?

Have we just witnesses the birth of a new Holla Forums copypasta?

Or alternatively, reanimated-corpse-god Makhno rides up with his laser tachanka and teleports them to the moon gulags

I hope so.

Marx isn't even using new words. He even complains about this constant equivocation on "usefulness" or subjective value and "value" as he uses it in Notes on Wagner. The way he uses "value" is the way value was used in classical political economy to refer to the power of a good to command a price on the market. Why it could do this and how it came to be were the questions that were then answered.

ISLM isn't Keynes, the theory was created even before Keynes published his big book. There's a letter by the guy who made ISLM who admits this.

Samuelson and co. are all still neoclassicals.

r8

linkara will you shut the fuck up

Linkara is a neo liberal. And you’re just butt mad that I proved bitcoin is not deflationary because can grasp algebra and know WHY hoarding causes deflation and didn’t just rote memorize that it does.

kid, real talk, how old are you?

Holy shit, can I have a visual représentation?

crypto exists as an alternative to existing reserve currencies, but it cannot exist on its own.

This is why it swings often from a being a complete gimmick to a growing large speculative bubble. In theory one could not use just bitcoin, because bitcoin needs a set exchange value rate, and this has been the case for all currency since the days of the Sumerians. (i.e. currency was backed by corn, gold, silver etc.)

Bitcoin is what happens when the standard rates are no longer backed by anything, in a sense it is a huge speculative market not very different from the real-estate bubble of 2008, but because of the blockchain it cannot crash and burn on its own. Once the bubble deflates the currency becomes worthless, and people move to the next Tulips. On its own bitcoin is not a game changer on how currencies or markets work.

Socdem, I am commending your sheer tenacity throughout this thread arguing with an imbecile. You will get double portions in the gulag.

No because in a post-scarcity context nobody will feel the need for a market system of any kind

Anyone who says we can't have unity with succdems needs to be forcibly unified with them in the gulag.

...

LTV doesn't apply to speculative assets.
/thread

Hence the gulaging.
:^)

More like

how do you know the last panel isn't the door of a boat with ghosts outside it?

Sounds pretty spooky.

Soc Dem is a cradle to the grave system after all…

The economy runs on consumption you twat. If everyone consumed less and spent less there would be less income. On the macro scale spending is income.