How does that even work? Hint: it doesn't.

Says who? You? Who are you? Why would your neo-pickety ideas be of any value? I used pickety because attaching keynes's name to what currently is promoted as the ultimate in economic theory is of such nature, in my view, is just an inappropriate superficial first glance appearance.

VOC-shares since 1608 appreciated in 130 years 8 fold, bringing prosperity to thousands and thousands of participants called shareholders. That particular freedom ended in 1770. First of, the costs of competition against the English involved in Opium-silver trade was impossible to beat. Second, the JEW practice of fractional Reserve banking.

That is why the Empire was broke in 1814. All the assets were taken in. The Silver standard absconded. The same thing happened in the US in 1871.

When you listen carefully you hear the playbook. Trinckets for real assets. I mentioned the opium silver trade. The reason for it' s lucrative nature was because in China taxes could only be paid in silver. Silver to gold ratio there was 1:5 instead of 1:15 in the West. So we have a State monopoly in China plus a state monopoly on trade by the English. First, goods went out from China, and Brit Silver came in, second phase: Opium came in, Silver went out.

Trinckets for hard assets.

Do I have to argue the case of the erosion of value? It is so easy to see. Large conflicts could only have been fought if not for the erosion of value: truth for false, right for privilege, real for fiction. And here is the kicker. This fiction, this " virtual reality" this augmentation is actually trying to sell you bull shit.

Here is virtual:

virtual (adj.) late 14c., "influencing by physical virtues or capabilities, effective with respect to inherent natural qualities," from Medieval Latin virtualis, from Latin virtus "excellence, potency, efficacy," literally "manliness, manhood" (see virtue). The meaning "being something in essence or effect, though not actually or in fact" is from mid-15c., probably via sense of "capable of producing a certain effect" (early 15c.). Computer sense of "not physically existing but made to appear by software" is attested from 1959.

Positions are inflated, money is inflated, Language is inflated, populations are inflated, self esteem is inflated. It is all artificial and without any virtue.

That is what crypto currency in essence is, unless it is pegged 1:1 to PM. This would work just like depositing PM in a bank, and taking out letters of credit, as a derivative, in several denominations.

I do agree it is quite a wonder that system lasted maybe at least 600 years or so. Why? Because the only full reserve bank during that time was the Amsterdam Exchange bank in Amsterdam.

The problem with creating your own crypto currency based on time is that eventually, most people react to pain, not smart ideas. People open themselves up to manipulation and enslavement that way. Consider the covid hoax. Your crypto currency only exchanges when you are vaxxed. (No thanks).

In Germany, from 1933 onward, such a time for money scheme was the basis on which full - employment was secured in 1937. The question is whether the people living there were actually free, or were bonded or maybe it was a mixed bag?

So, yes, I value what is real. Convenience is only a luxury, depending on circumstance.

It should then be treated as such.

Conflate crypto with bitcoin?

Excuse me, I did what? Where did I do that? You are bringing this up. I did not. As you will probably be astutely aware, the cryptoverse is rather diverse and I am talking two kinds. Those that are, and those that lack backing with PM.

Why should it be in the hands of banksters/money changers

I did not argue that point. Far from it. I think everyone should have by birth right seniority. It does not mean that everyone would mint it's own coin. Some coins are simply more appealing than others. So, over time, a certain amount of producers of coin will emerge by specialization. It also could be part of a regional pact between people to coin together under one banner. This happened quite a lot in the Republic of the 7 Provinces. Each city, each state had minting rights.

Have not met one that understands bitcoin deeply yet that's not a fan.

Nice claim, but this is a typical call to authority, and is rather destructive to your whole post.

What arguments did you actually give, as a sort of attempt at rebuttal? Call to authority x2; arguing points I did not make (red herring) x2.

How does that even work? Hint: it doesn't.

Says who? You? Who are you? Why would your neo-pickety ideas be of any value? I used pickety because attaching keynes's name to what currently is promoted as the ultimate in economic theory is of such nature, in my view, is just an inappropriate superficial first glance appearance.

VOC-shares since 1608 appreciated in 130 years 8 fold, bringing prosperity to thousands and thousands of participants called shareholders. That particular freedom ended in 1770. First of, the costs of competition against the English involved in Opium-silver trade was impossible to beat. Second, the JEW practice of fractional Reserve banking.

That is why the Empire was broke in 1814. All the assets were taken in. The Silver standard absconded. The same thing happened in the US in 1871.

When you listen carefully you hear the playbook. Trinckets for real assets. I mentioned the opium silver trade. The reason for it' s lucrative nature was because in China taxes could only be paid in silver. Silver to gold ratio there was 1:5 instead of 1:15 in the West. So we have a State monopoly in China plus a state monopoly on trade by the English. First, goods went out from China, and Brit Silver came in, second phase: Opium came in, Silver went out.

Trinckets for hard assets.

Do I have to argue the case of the erosion of value? It is so easy to see. Large conflicts could only have been fought if not for the erosion of value: truth for false, right for privilege, real for fiction. And here is the kicker. This fiction, this " virtual reality" this augmentation is actually trying to sell you bull shit.

Here is virtual:

virtual (adj.) late 14c., "influencing by physical virtues or capabilities, effective with respect to inherent natural qualities," from Medieval Latin virtualis, from Latin virtus "excellence, potency, efficacy," literally "manliness, manhood" (see virtue). The meaning "being something in essence or effect, though not actually or in fact" is from mid-15c., probably via sense of "capable of producing a certain effect" (early 15c.). Computer sense of "not physically existing but made to appear by software" is attested from 1959.

Positions are inflated, money is inflated, Language is inflated, populations are inflated, self esteem is inflated. It is all artificial and without any virtue.

That is what crypto currency in essence is, unless it is pegged 1:1 to PM. This would work just like depositing PM in a bank, and taking out a letters of credit, as a derivative, in several denominations.

I do agree it is quite a wonder that system lasted maybe at least 600 years or so. Why? Because the only full reserve bank during that time was the Amsterdam Exchange bank in Amsterdam.

The problem with creating your own crypto currency based on time is that eventually, most people react to pain, not smart ideas. People open themselves up to manipulation and enslavement that way. Consider the covid hoax. Your crypto currency only exchanges when you are vaxxed. (No thanks).

In Germany, from 1933 onward, such a time for money scheme was the basis on which full - employment was secured in 1937. The question is whether the people living there were actually free, or were bonded or maybe it was a mixed bag?

So, yes, I value what is real. Convenience is only a luxury, depending on circumstance.

It should then be treated as such.

Conflate crypto with bitcoin?

Excuse me, I did what? Where did I do that? You are bringing this up. I did not. As you will probably be astutely aware, the cryptoverse is rather diverse and I am talking two kinds. Those that are, and those that lack backing with PM.

Why should it be in the hands of banksters/money changers

I did not argue that point. Far from it. I think everyone should have by birth right seniority. It does not mean that everyone would mint it's own coin. Some coins are simply more appealing than others. So, over time, a certain amount of producers of coin will emerge by specialty. It also could be part of a region pact between people to coin together under one banner. This happened quite a lot in the Republic of the 7 Provinces. Each city, each state had minting rights.

Have not met one that understands bitcoin deeply yet that's not a fan.

Nice claim, but this is a typical call to authority, and is rather destructive to your whole post.

What arguments did you actually give, as a sort of attempt at rebuttal? Call to authority x2; arguing points I did not make (red herring) x2.

How does that even work? Hint: it doesn't.

Says who? You? Who are you? Why would your neo-pickety ideas be of any value? I used pickety because attaching keynes's name to what currently is promoted as the ultimate in economic theory is of such nature, in my view, is just an inappropriate superficial first glance appearance.

VOC-shares since 1608 appreciated in 130 years 8 fold, bringing prosperity to thousands and thousands of participants called shareholders. That particular freedom ended in 1770. First of, the costs of competition against the English involved in Opium-silver trade was impossible to beat. Second, the JEW practice of fractional Reserve banking.

That is why the Empire was broke in 1814. All the assets were taken in. The Silver standard absconded. The same thing happened in the US in 1871.

When you listen carefully you hear the playbook. Trinckets for real assets. I mentioned the opium silver trade. The reason for it' s lucrative nature was because in China taxes could only be paid in silver. Silver to gold ratio there was 1:5 instead of 1:15 in the West. So we have a State monopoly in China plus a state monopoly on trade by the English. First, goods went out from China, and Brit Silver came in, second phase: Opium came in, Silver went out.

Trinckets for hard assets.

Do I have to argue the case of the erosion of value? It is so easy to see. Large conflicts could only have been fought if not for the erosion of value: truth for false, right for privilege, real for fiction. And here is the kicker. This fiction, this " virtual reality" this augmentation is actually trying to sell you bull shit.

Here is virtual:

virtual (adj.) late 14c., "influencing by physical virtues or capabilities, effective with respect to inherent natural qualities," from Medieval Latin virtualis, from Latin virtus "excellence, potency, efficacy," literally "manliness, manhood" (see virtue). The meaning "being something in essence or effect, though not actually or in fact" is from mid-15c., probably via sense of "capable of producing a certain effect" (early 15c.). Computer sense of "not physically existing but made to appear by software" is attested from 1959.

Positions are inflated, money is inflated, Language is inflated, populations are inflated, self esteem is inflated. It is all artificial and without any virtue.

That is what crypto currency in essence is, unless it is pegged 1:1 to PM. This would work just like depositing PM in a bank, and taking out a letters of credit, as a derivative, in several denominations.

I do agree it is quite a wonder that system lasted maybe at least 600 years or so. Why? Because the only full reserve bank during that time was the Amsterdam Exchange bank in Amsterdam.

The problem with creating your own crypto currency based on time is that eventually, most people react to pain, not smart ideas. People open themselves up to manipulation and enslavement that way. Consider the covid hoax. Your crypto currency only exchanges when you are vaxxed. (No thanks).

In Germany, from 1933 onward, such a time for money scheme was the basis on which full - employment was secured in 1937. The question is whether the people living there were actually free, or were bonded or maybe it was a mixed bag?

So, yes, I value what is real. Convenience is only a luxury, depending on circumstance.

It should then be treated as such.

Conflate crypto with bitcoin? Excuse me, I did what? Where did I do that? You are bringing this up. I did not. As you will probably be astutely aware, the cryptoverse is rather diverse and I am talking two kinds. Those that are, and those that lack backing with PM.

Why should it be in the hands of banksters/money changers

I did not argue that point. Far from it. I think everyone should have by birth right seniority. It does not mean that everyone would mint it's own coin. Some coins are simply more appealing than others. So, over time, a certain amount of producers of coin will emerge by specialty. It also could be part of a region pact between people to coin together under one banner. This happened quite a lot in the Republic of the 7 Provinces. Each city, each state had minting rights.

Have not met one that understands bitcoin deeply yet that's not a fan.

Nice claim, but this is a typical call to authority, and is rather destructive to your whole post.

What arguments did you actually give, as a sort of attempt at rebuttal? Call to authority x2; arguing points I did not make (red herring) x2.