Central Banks don’t issue money, they issue currency. Money has intrinsic commodity value such as gold or silver coins. Central Bank currency does not have intrinsic commodity value which is what makes it more subject to inflation by virtue that a central bank can devalue it by creating more currency. Central banks can also ruin the value of their currency by defaulting and thereby lowering demand for it, since central banks do not control the demand of commodities they could not do this with say gold or silver.
You say that Crypto does not have value, this is both technically untrue and somewhat irrelevant. First both money and currency do have some intrinsic value as a medium of exchange commensurate with their actual use. I would also point out that just because something has only use value as a medium of exchange it does not mean it is bad at storing value. Until recently Gold had little use value other than as a store of value, just like bitcoin today, yet it is quite literally the universally accepted “gold standard” of value.
Value is derived from supply * Demand. So long as Bitcoins supply is limited like gold, and so long as people demand its use as a medium of exchange as gold then it has the potential to function as a store of value as gold does in our economy.
Correct, central banks have no such mandate to protect the value of their currency, in fact most explicitly devalue their currencies in support of their individual agendas which are generally about promoting the economic welfare of those who create them. The US Federal Reserve is one of the only central banks that actually maintains its currency with a minimal inflation rate which is one of the reasons why it is the reserve currency of the world and there are basically no other currencies capable of replacing it.
They still issue money. Which has exactly the same value as the bank-emitted money. A small part is directly added to the economy, most of it is attributed as a loan to banks reserves.
When client CA from bank BA orders its bank to send V money to client CB of bank BB , what is actually done is, CA’s account is removed V, BA’s account is added V ; and the same time CB’s account is added V and BB’s account is removed V ; and later there is a transfer of V central value from CA to CB.
The inflation of central banks money is literally the inflation of commercial banks money.
That’s also a wrong exposure of the issue.
The issue is that cryptocurrencies don’t add anything to the world. You remove all the cryptos, you lose nothing but save energy and prevent criminals from accessing a way to easily wash their dirty money.
This does not mean that cryptocurrencies should be removed. It means, their net value is negative, and any investment based on them is a ponzi since you can’t make money from something consuming more value than it creates.
This in turn means that the financial asset that backs the technology up is unstable and as such, the currency is too volatile to be used. Because cryptos don’t have an intrinsic value. Their only value is speculation.
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation of 2 percent over the longer run, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, is most consistent with the Federal Reserve’s mandate for maximum employment and price stability.
So I think you were missing the point of what I said. The Fiat currency the Fed issues is not money, because it does not have objective value as a commodity. Money is both currency and commodity giving it objective value that cannot be manipulated by central banks, this is why the gold standard was abandoned. Now true not all economists bother to make this distinction and it isn’t relevant in most cases. However it is relevant here, since the argument is being made that bitcoin doesn’t have value. I am pointing out that Bitcoin has the same value potential as fiat currency does, which is the same intrinsic value as a medium of exchange that both currency and money possess.
First off the criminal argument is one based on ignorance, you presume that only immoral criminals have a desire to use crypto, without any regard or consideration that maybe somewhere in the world people might have a legitimate moral reason to have the ability to make payments on a black market. Do you think it is a coincidence that China, a notoriously totalitarian state which freezes people out of the economy based on their “social credit score”, also had some of the largest amounts of crypto mining? Might people all over the world have a valid reason to escape the observation of totalitarian governments?
Also by your definition storing gold in a vault is also “a ponzi” since it does not actually create value either, yet it does consume value in its storage and security as it does nothing but sit in a vault.
Value derives from supply * Demand, whether that demand is the result of speculation, use as a commodity, use as a medium of exchange, or any other reason doesn’t matter it still confers value. Bitcoin shares the same derivation of value as a medium of exchange that both fiat currency and money possess. To state that Bitcoin or any other demanded crypto used for exchange lacks value is economically illiterate, and frankly can be ignored.
Right there, in the very quote you used. The Federal Reserve’s mandate is not maintaining the value of the USD, it is to maintain employment and prices.
Now before I continue I must admit that I did forget that the UK has had a long history of maintaining the pound for the sake of maintaining the pound because of their long and rather unique history of empire. I am also sure that there are a couple of other exceptions out there I am not aware of, these are however exceptions for particularly unique circumstances. I would point out however that even a 2% inflation rate is still devaluing the currency it is just in a managed way. The UK has also historically devalued the pound when necessary because even for the UK stable currency is not the end goal of monetary policy.
Now back to the Fed.
It does not in fact have a mandate to preserve the value of the USD. Not only is its intentional debasing of the currency in service of its actual mandate, meaning it is a means to an end not the desired result itself, the 2% target policy was implemented in 2012, 100 years after the Fed’s creation. The fed has had multiple monetary policies over the years because changing conditions mean changing policies. USD inflation has changed dramatically over the years both intentionally and unintentionally, the Fed has attempted to manipulate the economy to fulfill its mandate, which even the Fed itself has stated is not controlling inflation. In the past the Fed has allowed high inflation, in the future they may as well if the Fed deems it necessary to fulfill there actual purpose. Just because they made a policy in 2012 does not mean it will always be so.
You are totally right. If you tell me to invest in an activity that only stores gold, and promise me benefits (financial investment), then by definition this investment is a ponzi the moment I get benefits.
Market value is defined as the meeting between offer and demand.
That’s only market value. Any scam investment can have a market value >0 . Does not mean it has any economical value. Market does not reflect economical value, even though it’s their goal. There is a gap between theory and reality.
When the demand is only speculation, that is when the economical value is negative, it means the underlying investment is a scam.
So no, BTC has no value to start with.
Now you’re saying that being a ponzi does not matter.
Yes it does.
prices = value of the USD. So yes, that is their mandate.
No, it means it is their mandate. Not that it will be. Present, not future.
I would say that in accordance with Article 127(1) and Article 282(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the primary objective of the ESCB shall be to maintain price stability.
You guys should start the “Dudebro’s Financial Investment Agency”. Then have it livestreamed and you’ll make enough money from the show alone to pay all the fines of your ‘interpretation of the law and economics’.
Also, the one saying “Euro lost 40% of its value over 26 years”.
It means an inflation of ( 100/(100-40) )^(1/26) = 1.0198 per year so +1.98% . While 2% is literally their goal.
And then he claims “they don’t do a particularly well job so far”. Makes me wonder if his maths or logic is flawed. I guess both.
There is value in not requiring 3rd party approval for a transaction, and there is value in a ledger that can never be changed. Both of these aspects of finance are still very new in the world which is what makes them valuable, maybe not to you , maybe not Aedaxus, but some people. this is a point you need to accept.
There is no value when your solution creates more issues than it solves.
Also the transactions in the ledger can be mutated. Or forged.
Being new is not a plus. It means you lack knowledge on your own limits.
What you value is not the current state but a chimera. You ignore the defects and consider your appreciation of the theory as being a synonym for economical value. Wake up. There is no room for reality in your dreams.
As the other guy said, It’s not like we all live in the same country, I’m in the UK, so my perspective is going to be much different than other people in the world, what I think has value may have no value in another country.
If you don’t have privacy concerns or you have no use for a means of payment that doesn’t require 3rd parties of course something that helps with that has no value to you.
This is new, I’ve not read about this, care to explain?
Oh Right, I think Karak explained this (Bitcoin Forking) extensively in 2 threads now, can you recall what he said? I did actually take the time to look into what Karak said and found it to be factual.
You mean the guy who wrote a few posts ago that 2% inflation is a proof stability is not enforced while it is literally written that 2% is the target inflation ? That’s not my definition of “factual”.
Let’s assume a target inflation of 2%. It means prices should rise by 2% over a year, so multiplied by 1.02 . Therefore, if you have money to buy 100 items at first, after a year you can buy 100/1.02 .
After 26 years you can buy 100/1.02^26 = 59.76 items with the money you kept. Which is a loss of value of your money by -40.24% over this period.
THAT is my definition of factual.
What I presume she is talking about is also called a reorg, that’s when simultaneously more than one valid blocks are found. When this happens, then you basically have two valid tips of the blockchain with possibly two differed kind of histories (different transactions, different ordering).
This is expected, it’s in fact how the consensus algorithm works. Because it is actually pretty common that two miners find a valid block within a short time of each other. The situation usually resolves itself once the next block is found, because now one chain is longer than the other, and that becomes the canonical chain.
However, there is obviously still the possibility that by pure chance, two miners will simultaneously find yet another block on top of bot tips, and so on. It just becomes increasingly less probable (not impossible) with every block.
Because of this, you have to wait some amount of confirmations, usually 6, to basically be 99.99999…% sure this transaction is in the blockchain.
So the history can change within a certain timeframe, which is well understood and expected.
But nothing about this allows the forging of transactions.
Ok, lol. You do know that I keep an eye on the price, because when it changes, your narrative does too.
The price of the highly volatile gambling asset compared to 1 year ago : 29.959,80USD [+9.262,90] (44,76%). 59.44% below the all time high of $68,789.63 only two years ago. You keep comparing it with real money, lol.
BTC is also being politicized so now people will buy thinking they will get rich because their politicians promise a bright future of crypto. Let’s see how that will pan out…
