There are histories where people would trade as a currency oyster shells, salt, wood coins, cacao beans, and more!
Yes, I talk about these societies in my report. It's not exactly what you think it is. All of those things have actual value, as in, they can all be used in production for their respective societies (except the wood coins, and that only worked because it was mandated for taxes, and then the king died, and then it failed immediately).
People put their faith in these currencies because they saw them as valuable
Wrong, they were already valuable. Have you ever eaten food without salt? Like, ALL food without salt? Salt is very valuable. Same with all the rest. They were all used in production, that was their value. Look deeper and you will find that every single currency ever used was either used because it was useful in production, or it was mandated by law (because it was totally worthless).
gold or precious metals didn't just magically become valuable
They were valuable to the Aztecs too, that's why they hung them in their home, and made head dresses out of them, and other adornments, etc. They weren't as valuable as they were to the Spanish, but they still had productive value. They also weren't "as valuable" because the supply/demand curve was different for the different societies. That's not strange at all. They still had value though, just a different S/D curve.
PMs have that value because they are unique elements, that have properties that no other elements, or combination of elements, on the periodic table have. They are a unique resource that is otherwise irreplaceable for their intrinsic functionality.
As people found more oyster shells, the currency devalued and people moved to something else.
This is a supply demand curve problem, not a problem with them using shells as a currency (which they used for adornment, and building homes, etc.). The value was less because the demand decreased. This happens. It can't happen with gold and silver, but that is because it is a limited resource. Yes, you can find some in asteroids, but getting it up and down the gravity well is not all that easy, and there is still a limited amount in asteroids. That's irrelevant though. It doesn't matter how much there is, as long as there aren't so many of that resource that it is basically limitless for its production uses, i.e. as long as the S/D curve doesn't separate (blow up).
There's no better example than Roman Emperor Nero of Rome who wasted too much of Rome's money and started trying to make counterfeit Roman silver and gold coins by adding cheaper metals in the coins to pay off the debt.
That's not what happened, or at least that's not why the economy failed. The economy failed because the Cabal bought up all the land over time, and then sold all the land off at once, taking all of the money out of circulation and held on to it. This scarcity of currency (because there was no other reasonable path for barter) destroyed the ability for Rome to do business. It was the hording of money that caused Rome to fall. Again, a failure of the S/D curve.
The fall of Rome was intentional and planned by the Cabal.
This is why I have proposed, and will continue to propose that the only solution to a truly free market is one that has multiple asset backed cryptos.
However, you can't shave pieces of gold for buying groceries, breaking up that gold coin into fractions of value is difficult.
And this is also why I keep saying we need asset backed cryptos. I think we are mostly on the same page, but I insist that assets, real assets, that can be used to do work, are essential. The types of cryptos we have now are fine, if they are tied to real assets. Then we can go around and trade them to our hearts content. When we want the real thing, we go to the "Silver store" and trade in our crypto for the real silver it is tied to.
I have to admit this is a little confusing because I am having a conversation with multiple people in this thread. i don't know if you have seen my proposals for how to create a free market. The path is to put all stocks on crypto. Put all PMs on crypto and build the infrastructure for exchange between real and crypto. Any cryptos whos value is actually tied to the real work they can provide (as you have suggested) is also welcome. In fact I insist that ANYTHING that can be used for actual production, and reasonably be put on crypto, MUST be put on crypto for any free market to work. We must have real barter; that is the only way.
I know you won't agree and I'll probably get downvoted for my wine comment but it just seems so obvious to me right now, I feel like I could almost write a book on it.
Just because I am offering arguments that don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't appreciate the conversation. And I never downvote people, especially not just for disagreeing with me. I think I've actually upvoted all of your "disagreements." I could never downvote someone for offering a reasonable argument against what I am saying. Debate is the only path to the Truth.
I really like the idea of asset backed cryptos the only problem I can think of is how you can do this in a way where you don't need to trust the people that are in charge of making sure the crypto is backed by an asset. Possibly some kind of open-sourced...bank? Storage Unit? Someone has to physically hold what is backing up this crypto asset and that leads to controlling the asset and corrupting the cryptocurrency.
I will look at your other posts and see if you've answered my question elsewhere.
I don't know if you've heard of algorithmic stablecoins? They are tied to the real time price data of assets like Gold, USD, global shrimp price, etc. Though this seems to fall in the same problem in that you could have more of this stablecoin than there is of the asset and can't back it up physically.
Just because I am offering arguments that don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't appreciate the conversation. And I never downvote people, especially not just for disagreeing with me. I think I've actually upvoted all of your "disagreements." I could never downvote someone for offering a reasonable argument against what I am saying. Debate is the only path to the Truth.
I couldn't agree more. I've really enjoyed our conversation so far, thank you.
I really like the idea of asset backed cryptos the only problem I can think of is how you can do this in a way where you don't need to trust the people that are in charge of making sure the crypto is backed by an asset.
I agree that this is problematic. I haven't spent enough time on this to come up with a solid solution, but once I present my report I intend to spend my time working on this very issue.
Possibly some kind of open-sourced...bank?
This was kinda my idea, but I'm not sure. I'm thinking a free market might provide a solution, but it would require some infrastructure, which is problematic. My current plan is to present a solution scheme to the problem and encourage debate to come to a better solution. I have a fair following on reddit. Once I present my report I think I can get some good debate going.
Though this seems to fall in the same problem in that you could have more of this stablecoin than there is of the asset and can't back it up physically
This is something that must be avoided at all costs. There can be no good economy (no fuckery) if this is possible.
This was kinda my idea, but I'm not sure. I'm thinking a free market might provide a solution, but it would require some infrastructure, which is problematic. My current plan is to present a solution scheme to the problem and encourage debate to come to a better solution.
Possibly the infrastructure could by a DAO and the DAO would be owned by a different cryptocurrency. Profits would be the least concern of this cryptocurrency and it would be more about decentralization of the crypto. This way users of the open source bank could vote on what should/shouldn't be changed and people running the infrastructure would be constantly cycled through. People have to take responsibility if they want to have nice things.
Yes, I talk about these societies in my report. It's not exactly what you think it is. All of those things have actual value, as in, they can all be used in production for their respective societies (except the wood coins, and that only worked because it was mandated for taxes, and then the king died, and then it failed immediately).
Wrong, they were already valuable. Have you ever eaten food without salt? Like, ALL food without salt? Salt is very valuable. Same with all the rest. They were all used in production, that was their value. Look deeper and you will find that every single currency ever used was either used because it was useful in production, or it was mandated by law (because it was totally worthless).
They were valuable to the Aztecs too, that's why they hung them in their home, and made head dresses out of them, and other adornments, etc. They weren't as valuable as they were to the Spanish, but they still had productive value. They also weren't "as valuable" because the supply/demand curve was different for the different societies. That's not strange at all. They still had value though, just a different S/D curve.
PMs have that value because they are unique elements, that have properties that no other elements, or combination of elements, on the periodic table have. They are a unique resource that is otherwise irreplaceable for their intrinsic functionality.
This is a supply demand curve problem, not a problem with them using shells as a currency (which they used for adornment, and building homes, etc.). The value was less because the demand decreased. This happens. It can't happen with gold and silver, but that is because it is a limited resource. Yes, you can find some in asteroids, but getting it up and down the gravity well is not all that easy, and there is still a limited amount in asteroids. That's irrelevant though. It doesn't matter how much there is, as long as there aren't so many of that resource that it is basically limitless for its production uses, i.e. as long as the S/D curve doesn't separate (blow up).
That's not what happened, or at least that's not why the economy failed. The economy failed because the Cabal bought up all the land over time, and then sold all the land off at once, taking all of the money out of circulation and held on to it. This scarcity of currency (because there was no other reasonable path for barter) destroyed the ability for Rome to do business. It was the hording of money that caused Rome to fall. Again, a failure of the S/D curve.
The fall of Rome was intentional and planned by the Cabal.
This is why I have proposed, and will continue to propose that the only solution to a truly free market is one that has multiple asset backed cryptos.
And this is also why I keep saying we need asset backed cryptos. I think we are mostly on the same page, but I insist that assets, real assets, that can be used to do work, are essential. The types of cryptos we have now are fine, if they are tied to real assets. Then we can go around and trade them to our hearts content. When we want the real thing, we go to the "Silver store" and trade in our crypto for the real silver it is tied to.
I have to admit this is a little confusing because I am having a conversation with multiple people in this thread. i don't know if you have seen my proposals for how to create a free market. The path is to put all stocks on crypto. Put all PMs on crypto and build the infrastructure for exchange between real and crypto. Any cryptos whos value is actually tied to the real work they can provide (as you have suggested) is also welcome. In fact I insist that ANYTHING that can be used for actual production, and reasonably be put on crypto, MUST be put on crypto for any free market to work. We must have real barter; that is the only way.
Just because I am offering arguments that don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't appreciate the conversation. And I never downvote people, especially not just for disagreeing with me. I think I've actually upvoted all of your "disagreements." I could never downvote someone for offering a reasonable argument against what I am saying. Debate is the only path to the Truth.
I really like the idea of asset backed cryptos the only problem I can think of is how you can do this in a way where you don't need to trust the people that are in charge of making sure the crypto is backed by an asset. Possibly some kind of open-sourced...bank? Storage Unit? Someone has to physically hold what is backing up this crypto asset and that leads to controlling the asset and corrupting the cryptocurrency.
I will look at your other posts and see if you've answered my question elsewhere.
I don't know if you've heard of algorithmic stablecoins? They are tied to the real time price data of assets like Gold, USD, global shrimp price, etc. Though this seems to fall in the same problem in that you could have more of this stablecoin than there is of the asset and can't back it up physically.
I couldn't agree more. I've really enjoyed our conversation so far, thank you.
I agree that this is problematic. I haven't spent enough time on this to come up with a solid solution, but once I present my report I intend to spend my time working on this very issue.
This was kinda my idea, but I'm not sure. I'm thinking a free market might provide a solution, but it would require some infrastructure, which is problematic. My current plan is to present a solution scheme to the problem and encourage debate to come to a better solution. I have a fair following on reddit. Once I present my report I think I can get some good debate going.
This is something that must be avoided at all costs. There can be no good economy (no fuckery) if this is possible.
Possibly the infrastructure could by a DAO and the DAO would be owned by a different cryptocurrency. Profits would be the least concern of this cryptocurrency and it would be more about decentralization of the crypto. This way users of the open source bank could vote on what should/shouldn't be changed and people running the infrastructure would be constantly cycled through. People have to take responsibility if they want to have nice things.