but because without injections into the system it would fail because some of it is constantly being taken out in interest.
The fact someone else is issuing currency backed by your productivity and charging interest on that - this is what makes it slavery. That doesn't mean currency backed by productivity is slavery. We can explore this further.
If I asked you to give a loaf of bread and in return I would fix your computer - thats barter.
If I gave you a piece of paper that said "I will fix your computer" and you gave be the loaf of bread, and 2 days later you gave me back the piece of paper and asked me to fix the computer, which I did - thats still barter.
There is no slavery here. I am bartering the resource I control (my productivity) for my own gains.
Janet Yellen is not bartering my productivity to do female studies in Pakistan and forcing me to pay interest on that. That is the difference between the two systems.
There is a downfall you can argue about my proposal. What if I went and issued a million people and accumulated million loafs of bread, and obviously never fixed event he fraction of their computers? Well the answer is, as I start flooding the market with my currency, its value drops and I would be lucky to get a crumb of bread after issuing, say, a 1000 pieces of paper. So the market will make sure to keep you honest.
The real problem with this system is, whenever you accept someone's currency you have to be able to write it off just in case that person, say, dies, gets disabled, goes to prison etc. That is why, instead of individuals issuing currency it has to be at community level, but there is a lot to be discussed there and risks acknowledged.
No system is risk free.
Lets take the idea of "asset backed currency". Lets say we issue currency based on gold and silver. What happens if:
A deposit of 1000 times the entire gold int he world is discovered?
Population grows so fast and the gold and silver supplies cannot keep up?
I would actually argue that "asset backed" only works if you have faith that the whole world will value those assets the same way for a long time. Its not a zero faith system.
No matter how you cut it, you have to trust something. By issuing currencies at community level (or individual level if it can be managed) and making it asset + productivity backed, you are spreading the risk of this "trust" over a large area. The entire civilisation has to collapse for this system to fail.
The fact someone else is issuing currency backed by your productivity and charging interest on that - this is what makes it slavery.
I disagree. Value based on future labor is slavery. It forces you to do the work. You have no choice. If you want your currency to keep having value, you have to keep doing the work. If you stop doing the work, the currency loses all value. Thus, you have no choice, thus you are enslaved to the currency, and those who create it.
If I asked you to give a loaf of bread and in return I would fix your computer - thats barter.
This is not a currency. This is a barter exchange.
If I gave you a piece of paper that said "I will fix your computer" and you gave be the loaf of bread, and 2 days later you gave me back the piece of paper and asked me to fix the computer, which I did - thats still barter.
Still not a currency, but it is an indenture, by definition. I'm not saying its never a good idea to do this, but there is the possibility of fuckery there because this type of system creates leverage. A system based on leverage is guaranteed to lead to slavery. Indeed if you look at the history (which I will show) it is exactly these type of deals that have led to the downfall of our society. A "deal with the devil."
Janet Yellen is not bartering my productivity to do female studies in Pakistan and forcing me to pay interest on that. That is the difference between the two systems.
There are a Great deal more differences than that.
That is why, instead of individuals issuing currency it has to be at community level,
When I finish my report, and show you the history, what I am saying will be made perfectly clear. This is slavery, no if's, and's or but's about it. Fuckery is inherent in this type of system. Even if it can be done without fuckery, it is ripe for abuse.
No system is risk free.
Agreed, but some are inherently greater risk than others. The system you describe has always led to slavery. I honestly don't think it can possibly end in any other way. So for fucks sake, why would we try again?
To me this is like all those people that say Communism is great, and the only reason it sucked before is because they were just doing it wrong.
A deposit of 1000 times the entire gold int he world is discovered?
Inflation happens and the market adjusts. Savings are harmed, and that sucks, but the market stabilizes, and it doesn't even take all that long.
Population grows so fast and the gold and silver supplies cannot keep up?
I suggest we may have bigger problems then. However, assuming something ridiculous like this doesn't happen, the market adjusts. Deflation, inflation, are all perfectly fine things. They don't really matter. It's the speed at which they happen that can cause problems (and the reasons that they happen obviously). The market adjusts. In a system that I describe, the market isn't even harmed for a day, since there are a ridiculous number of barterable materials on hand.
No matter how you cut it, you have to trust something.
Not in a system set up for barter as I have described, where anything that can be backed by crypto in a reasonable way, is backed by crypto.
The entire civilisation has to collapse for this system to fail.
Still not a currency, but it is an indenture, by definition.
What I am getting from you regarding productivity is that if I want to eat the fruits of my labour then I have to work, and thats slavery. Hmm .. how is that any different in any crypto based system? I have to work to earn the crypto (backed by assets) to by the bread. If I want to eat bread I have to work - and thats still indenture by your definition.
When I finish my report, and show you the history, what I am saying will be made perfectly clear. This is slavery, no if's, and's or but's about it. Fuckery is inherent in this type of system. Even if it can be done without fuckery, it is ripe for abuse.
Absolutely interested in your report - please tag me when you are done.
The system you describe has always led to slavery.
The system I described has never been tried in practise because we did not have the ability for individuals to issue their own currency. Again, if you disagree and believe it has been implemented in the past, would be great if you can include in your history report. I have a strong feeling we are talking about different things.
Inflation happens and the market adjusts. Savings are harmed, and that sucks, but the market stabilizes, and it doesn't even take all that long.
Not true, the people who control the new deposit will essentially steal wealth from everyone else. Exactly like when Fed prints more money. The only way to stop this is if the gold is distributed to everyone at the same ratio as their holding. Easier said than done.
But my broader point is that what you think has "value" is just a perception, and so something being backed by an asset does not magically make it a "proper crypto"
I suggest we may have bigger problems then. However, assuming something ridiculous like this doesn't happen, the market adjusts. Deflation, inflation, are all perfectly fine things.
Actually this is not ridiculous at all. The population growth in last 100 years has been orders of magnitude increase. Newer generations will be vastly at a disadvantage compared to older generation as assets get scarce and get deflated. However, when you issue currency based on your own productivity this never happens.
Again, the point I am making is that gold/silver etc do not by themselves have any inherent value nor are they correlated with what the currency represents. Currency is a barter of items/services necessary. So currency should represent the ability to created these items or provide these services.
Its not. Almost every industry requires upfront investment to setup everything before you can start producing. We are considering the simplest case of an individual but it applies to every level. Without being able to have funds upfront, you wont be able to achieve beyond the barest survival level production.
What I am getting from you regarding productivity is that if I want to eat the fruits of my labour then I have to work, and thats slavery.
That is not what I'm saying at all. First, there is a difference between labor, and future labor. Debt based economies are a fraud. We think that is the way, because that is the way it has always been. That is NOT the way it has always been, that is the design of the banker system. That is how we came to be where we are today. This debt, this future labor is called leverage. That's what it's actually called in banking accounting. It's called leverage for the exact same reason that it's called leverage in blackmail, because it can be used against a person.
The system I described has never been tried in practise because we did not have the ability for individuals to issue their own currency.
There is nothing special about your system. Sure, it's different because its "local," but it has been done many times before. This is the "deal with the devil" I was talking about. Any time you take out a loan, this is exactly what you are doing. You are issuing your own currency. You are indebting yourself to someone else (in this case the actual Devil, AKA the Cabal, but who it is is mostly irrelevant) and this debt is carried forward into your future. The entire time you are under leverage until the debt is gone. But its a currency, always based on your future labor, so you are never out from under the leverage.
And if you are somehow out from under the leverage, then the currency ceases to have value.
But my broader point is that what you think has "value" is just a perception, and so something being backed by an asset does not magically make it a "proper crypto"
What I think has value has nothing to do with my perception. On the contrary, what i think has value is only that which can be used to do work. That is not a perception, that is the law of the universe (if there is such a thing). That is not future work. It is not something that has to be fulfilled. It can be used to do work right now. If I have a bar of silver, I can use it to make an electric engine right now. Sure, I have to process it, but that's splitting hairs. It's value is in the present, not the future. I don't have to go into debt to give it value. It already has it.
Again, the point I am making is that gold/silver etc do not by themselves have any inherent value
I will never understand how anyone can say this.
value: worth in usefulness or utility
Both gold and silver have right now worth in usefulness and utility. They have it every moment of every day, and they always will (unless we become a super advanced society, then we will have to come up with something else, like energy as a medium of exchange).
Anyone who says that gold and silver don't have inherent value has never bought a wedding ring, or used an electronic device, or studied physics, or done chemistry, etc.
Okay I can summarize all the things we can agree to disagree on.
Firstly, there is a HUGE difference between me promising my labour for my own benefit and someone else promising my labour for someone else's benefit. That difference is the difference between slavery and personal responsibility.
Secondly, there has never been a system where an individual can issue their own currency backed by their own labour. All the systems we have is where the bankers issue debt in our name for their benefit and charge us interest. So we have never seen this proposal in action. Again we can agree to disagree since you dont believe there is a difference.
Third, you see any loans as evil. Personal loans are personal responsibilities. If you take a loan you cannot pay, then you will suffer. That doesn't make the loans evil, it only makes the person taking irresponsible loans, irresponsible.
If I have a bar of silver, I can use it to make an electric engine right now. Sure, I have to process it, but that's splitting hairs
Thats splitting a big hair. If I have a bar of silver, its valueis what others believe its value is. I cannot make an electric engine right now nor would I want to create an electric engine, since what I want is a loaf of bread. Unless a silver bar can automatically transmogrify into a loaf of bread, its value is perceived value.
Again, I am all for asset backed currencies at a global level, and asset+productivity backed currencies at a local level. They both have their place. However, just because something is asset backed it does not magically give them a value. There are huge limitations of asset backed currencies and everyone should be aware of them even as they use them.
These are all the things we agree to disagree on. I will leave you with one last thought experiment.
If I just came travelling into a city and I am hungry need a loaf of bread but I have nothing to barter for it, however I am a skilled worker and I can get to work right after I am full and I have had rest - should I barter the clothes I am wearing to get the bread? Or should I promise to do work tomorrow and get the bread now.
Think about it, its actually much deeper than it seems.
The fact someone else is issuing currency backed by your productivity and charging interest on that - this is what makes it slavery. That doesn't mean currency backed by productivity is slavery. We can explore this further.
If I asked you to give a loaf of bread and in return I would fix your computer - thats barter.
If I gave you a piece of paper that said "I will fix your computer" and you gave be the loaf of bread, and 2 days later you gave me back the piece of paper and asked me to fix the computer, which I did - thats still barter.
There is no slavery here. I am bartering the resource I control (my productivity) for my own gains.
Janet Yellen is not bartering my productivity to do female studies in Pakistan and forcing me to pay interest on that. That is the difference between the two systems.
There is a downfall you can argue about my proposal. What if I went and issued a million people and accumulated million loafs of bread, and obviously never fixed event he fraction of their computers? Well the answer is, as I start flooding the market with my currency, its value drops and I would be lucky to get a crumb of bread after issuing, say, a 1000 pieces of paper. So the market will make sure to keep you honest.
The real problem with this system is, whenever you accept someone's currency you have to be able to write it off just in case that person, say, dies, gets disabled, goes to prison etc. That is why, instead of individuals issuing currency it has to be at community level, but there is a lot to be discussed there and risks acknowledged.
No system is risk free.
Lets take the idea of "asset backed currency". Lets say we issue currency based on gold and silver. What happens if:
A deposit of 1000 times the entire gold int he world is discovered?
Population grows so fast and the gold and silver supplies cannot keep up?
I would actually argue that "asset backed" only works if you have faith that the whole world will value those assets the same way for a long time. Its not a zero faith system.
No matter how you cut it, you have to trust something. By issuing currencies at community level (or individual level if it can be managed) and making it asset + productivity backed, you are spreading the risk of this "trust" over a large area. The entire civilisation has to collapse for this system to fail.
I disagree. Value based on future labor is slavery. It forces you to do the work. You have no choice. If you want your currency to keep having value, you have to keep doing the work. If you stop doing the work, the currency loses all value. Thus, you have no choice, thus you are enslaved to the currency, and those who create it.
This is not a currency. This is a barter exchange.
Still not a currency, but it is an indenture, by definition. I'm not saying its never a good idea to do this, but there is the possibility of fuckery there because this type of system creates leverage. A system based on leverage is guaranteed to lead to slavery. Indeed if you look at the history (which I will show) it is exactly these type of deals that have led to the downfall of our society. A "deal with the devil."
There are a Great deal more differences than that.
When I finish my report, and show you the history, what I am saying will be made perfectly clear. This is slavery, no if's, and's or but's about it. Fuckery is inherent in this type of system. Even if it can be done without fuckery, it is ripe for abuse.
Agreed, but some are inherently greater risk than others. The system you describe has always led to slavery. I honestly don't think it can possibly end in any other way. So for fucks sake, why would we try again?
To me this is like all those people that say Communism is great, and the only reason it sucked before is because they were just doing it wrong.
Inflation happens and the market adjusts. Savings are harmed, and that sucks, but the market stabilizes, and it doesn't even take all that long.
I suggest we may have bigger problems then. However, assuming something ridiculous like this doesn't happen, the market adjusts. Deflation, inflation, are all perfectly fine things. They don't really matter. It's the speed at which they happen that can cause problems (and the reasons that they happen obviously). The market adjusts. In a system that I describe, the market isn't even harmed for a day, since there are a ridiculous number of barterable materials on hand.
Not in a system set up for barter as I have described, where anything that can be backed by crypto in a reasonable way, is backed by crypto.
Same with my suggestion, no slavery necessary.
What I am getting from you regarding productivity is that if I want to eat the fruits of my labour then I have to work, and thats slavery. Hmm .. how is that any different in any crypto based system? I have to work to earn the crypto (backed by assets) to by the bread. If I want to eat bread I have to work - and thats still indenture by your definition.
Absolutely interested in your report - please tag me when you are done.
The system I described has never been tried in practise because we did not have the ability for individuals to issue their own currency. Again, if you disagree and believe it has been implemented in the past, would be great if you can include in your history report. I have a strong feeling we are talking about different things.
Not true, the people who control the new deposit will essentially steal wealth from everyone else. Exactly like when Fed prints more money. The only way to stop this is if the gold is distributed to everyone at the same ratio as their holding. Easier said than done.
But my broader point is that what you think has "value" is just a perception, and so something being backed by an asset does not magically make it a "proper crypto"
Actually this is not ridiculous at all. The population growth in last 100 years has been orders of magnitude increase. Newer generations will be vastly at a disadvantage compared to older generation as assets get scarce and get deflated. However, when you issue currency based on your own productivity this never happens.
Again, the point I am making is that gold/silver etc do not by themselves have any inherent value nor are they correlated with what the currency represents. Currency is a barter of items/services necessary. So currency should represent the ability to created these items or provide these services.
Yeah... payment before work sounds like communism
Its not. Almost every industry requires upfront investment to setup everything before you can start producing. We are considering the simplest case of an individual but it applies to every level. Without being able to have funds upfront, you wont be able to achieve beyond the barest survival level production.
That is not what I'm saying at all. First, there is a difference between labor, and future labor. Debt based economies are a fraud. We think that is the way, because that is the way it has always been. That is NOT the way it has always been, that is the design of the banker system. That is how we came to be where we are today. This debt, this future labor is called leverage. That's what it's actually called in banking accounting. It's called leverage for the exact same reason that it's called leverage in blackmail, because it can be used against a person.
There is nothing special about your system. Sure, it's different because its "local," but it has been done many times before. This is the "deal with the devil" I was talking about. Any time you take out a loan, this is exactly what you are doing. You are issuing your own currency. You are indebting yourself to someone else (in this case the actual Devil, AKA the Cabal, but who it is is mostly irrelevant) and this debt is carried forward into your future. The entire time you are under leverage until the debt is gone. But its a currency, always based on your future labor, so you are never out from under the leverage.
And if you are somehow out from under the leverage, then the currency ceases to have value.
What I think has value has nothing to do with my perception. On the contrary, what i think has value is only that which can be used to do work. That is not a perception, that is the law of the universe (if there is such a thing). That is not future work. It is not something that has to be fulfilled. It can be used to do work right now. If I have a bar of silver, I can use it to make an electric engine right now. Sure, I have to process it, but that's splitting hairs. It's value is in the present, not the future. I don't have to go into debt to give it value. It already has it.
I will never understand how anyone can say this.
Both gold and silver have right now worth in usefulness and utility. They have it every moment of every day, and they always will (unless we become a super advanced society, then we will have to come up with something else, like energy as a medium of exchange).
Anyone who says that gold and silver don't have inherent value has never bought a wedding ring, or used an electronic device, or studied physics, or done chemistry, etc.
Okay I can summarize all the things we can agree to disagree on.
Firstly, there is a HUGE difference between me promising my labour for my own benefit and someone else promising my labour for someone else's benefit. That difference is the difference between slavery and personal responsibility.
Secondly, there has never been a system where an individual can issue their own currency backed by their own labour. All the systems we have is where the bankers issue debt in our name for their benefit and charge us interest. So we have never seen this proposal in action. Again we can agree to disagree since you dont believe there is a difference.
Third, you see any loans as evil. Personal loans are personal responsibilities. If you take a loan you cannot pay, then you will suffer. That doesn't make the loans evil, it only makes the person taking irresponsible loans, irresponsible.
Thats splitting a big hair. If I have a bar of silver, its valueis what others believe its value is. I cannot make an electric engine right now nor would I want to create an electric engine, since what I want is a loaf of bread. Unless a silver bar can automatically transmogrify into a loaf of bread, its value is perceived value.
Again, I am all for asset backed currencies at a global level, and asset+productivity backed currencies at a local level. They both have their place. However, just because something is asset backed it does not magically give them a value. There are huge limitations of asset backed currencies and everyone should be aware of them even as they use them.
These are all the things we agree to disagree on. I will leave you with one last thought experiment.
If I just came travelling into a city and I am hungry need a loaf of bread but I have nothing to barter for it, however I am a skilled worker and I can get to work right after I am full and I have had rest - should I barter the clothes I am wearing to get the bread? Or should I promise to do work tomorrow and get the bread now.
Think about it, its actually much deeper than it seems.