subject:"Re\: How the banks are stealing our wealth"

On 18 December 2013 00:34, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> > And the policy is generally adjusted to try produce small, but positive
> > inflation.  This is because deflation is considered unstable.  Inflation
> is
> > stable and encourages investment because just holding money loses value.
>
> Yup, it's the current dogma. Infinite growth. I would argue that if
> you want to cut CO2 emissions, this would be a good place to start.
>

Yes, I have been saying that for a while, too. The trouble is, as people
tend to point out, how do you achieve it? Americans in particular are
terrified that it will lead to Socialism, whatever that would mean in
practice (What they're actually sacred of of course is Totalitarianism, not
realising they already have it in all but name, though controlled by
corporations and suchlike rather than the government).

Any ideas how to achieve a sustainable economy?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-17 Thread meekerdb

On 12/17/2013 11:15 AM, LizR wrote:
On 18 December 2013 00:34, Telmo Menezes > wrote:

> And the policy is generally adjusted to try produce small, but positive
> inflation. This is because deflation is considered unstable. Inflation
is
> stable and encourages investment because just holding money loses value.

Yup, it's the current dogma. Infinite growth. I would argue that if
you want to cut CO2 emissions, this would be a good place to start.

Yes, I have been saying that for a while, too. The trouble is, as people tend to point
out, how do you achieve it? Americans in particular are terrified that it will lead to
Socialism, whatever that would mean in practice (What they're actually sacred of of
course is Totalitarianism, not realising they already have it in all but name, though
controlled by corporations and suchlike rather than the government).

Any ideas how to achieve a sustainable economy?

The first step has to be to stop population growth. That's pretty much happened in all
the OECD nations, except the U.S. and it would be the case there too except for
immigration from the south. How to stop population growth: *educate women* so they can
lead meaningful lives aside from bearing children and provide readily available birth
control; and get rid of Catholicism, Mormonism, and any other religion preaches against
birth control.

Brent
"The raging monster upon the land is population growth. In its presence, sustainability is
but a fragile theoretical construct. To say, as many do, that the difficulties of nations
are not due to people but to poor ideology and land-use management is sophistic."

--- E.O. Wilson

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 18 December 2013 12:23, meekerdb  wrote:

>
> The first step has to be to stop population growth.  That's pretty much
> happened in all the OECD nations, except the U.S. and it would be the case
> there too except for immigration from the south.  How to stop population
> growth: *educate women* so they can lead meaningful lives aside from
> bearing children and provide readily available birth control; and get rid
> of Catholicism, Mormonism, and any other religion preaches against birth
> control.
>
> That is exactly how to stop population growth. Wherever women are given
equal rights the birth rate drops dramatically (if they are forced to
choose between children and a career, it drops precipitously - the places
that get the balance right allow you to do both).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-17 Thread meekerdb


On 12/17/2013 3:40 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 December 2013 12:23, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> 
wrote:



The first step has to be to stop population growth. That's pretty much 
happened in
all the OECD nations, except the U.S. and it would be the case there too 
except for
immigration from the south.  How to stop population growth: *educate women* 
so they
can lead meaningful lives aside from bearing children and provide readily 
available
birth control; and get rid of Catholicism, Mormonism, and any other religion
preaches against birth control.

That is exactly how to stop population growth. Wherever women are given equal rights the 
birth rate drops dramatically (if they are forced to choose between children and a 
career, it drops precipitously - the places that get the balance right allow you to do 
both).


I think it takes education too.  There's a high birthrate among teenage latina girls in CA 
and I think it's just because culturally motherhood is the only adult endeavor that's 
presented to them.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 18 December 2013 13:00, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/17/2013 3:40 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 18 December 2013 12:23, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>
>>   The first step has to be to stop population growth.  That's pretty
>> much happened in all the OECD nations, except the U.S. and it would be the
>> case there too except for immigration from the south.  How to stop
>> population growth: *educate women* so they can lead meaningful lives aside
>> from bearing children and provide readily available birth control; and get
>> rid of Catholicism, Mormonism, and any other religion preaches against
>> birth control.
>>
>>  That is exactly how to stop population growth. Wherever women are given
> equal rights the birth rate drops dramatically (if they are forced to
> choose between children and a career, it drops precipitously - the places
> that get the balance right allow you to do both).
>
>
> I think it takes education too.  There's a high birthrate among teenage
> latina girls in CA and I think it's just because culturally motherhood is
> the only adult endeavor that's presented to them.
>
> "Equal rights" includes education, of course.

The problem with this solution is that it requires that there are other
prospects available, not just to women but to everyone. If you are a
subsistence farmer it apparently seems like a good idea to have plenty of
children to help with the farm. This would require at the very least that
the principle of fair trade be extended to the third world unilaterally.
Unfortunately apart from a few greenies like myself, not everyone is
willing or able to take the hit to their income this would entail. Hence it
looks like carrying this programme out for real would involve that we do
something about the whole capitalist ethos generally. I am precising here
due to lack of time but I hope the point is taken...  Ultimately you can
get a sustainable world by educating women and bringing the third world up
to something like a decent standard of living. Unfortunately this would
negatively impact the lifestyles of the rich, so we're probably doomed.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-17 Thread meekerdb

On 12/17/2013 7:32 PM, LizR wrote:
On 18 December 2013 13:00, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:

On 12/17/2013 3:40 PM, LizR wrote:

On 18 December 2013 12:23, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

The first step has to be to stop population growth. That's pretty much
happened in all the OECD nations, except the U.S. and it would be the
case
there too except for immigration from the south. How to stop population
growth: *educate women* so they can lead meaningful lives aside from
bearing
children and provide readily available birth control; and get rid of
Catholicism, Mormonism, and any other religion preaches against birth
control.

That is exactly how to stop population growth. Wherever women are given
equal
rights the birth rate drops dramatically (if they are forced to choose
between
children and a career, it drops precipitously - the places that get the
balance
right allow you to do both).

I think it takes education too. There's a high birthrate among teenage
latina girls
in CA and I think it's just because culturally motherhood is the only adult
endeavor
that's presented to them.

"Equal rights" includes education, of course.

Those latinas have equal rights and the same access to education - but they don't take
advantage of the opportunity. I'm saying it's necessary that women be educated; not just
that they have a right to it. I think WW2 did a lot for population control in the U.S.
simply because so many women were placed in "men's" jobs during the war. My mother, born
1914, didn't want to be a farm wife and she felt her only choices were nurse and
schoolteacher. She became a teacher and started in a two-room country school when she was
19. My daughters are a physicist, an industrial safety statistician, and a water quality
monitor.

The problem with this solution is that it requires that there are other prospects
available, not just to women but to everyone. If you are a subsistence farmer it
apparently seems like a good idea to have plenty of children to help with the farm.

I don't think this is true. It's the "subsistence" part, the prospect that many of their
children may not live to adulthood, that causes them to want many children - not the
"farmer" part. It's been observed in all parts of the world that, on average, if parents
are sure their children will live to make them grandparents then they will be content with
two.

This would require at the very least that the principle of fair trade be extended to the
third world unilaterally.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fair trade". Right now a Trans-Pacific Trade Pact is being
negotitated with the objective of removing all trade barriers between the members (which
will likely include New Zealand). But the Greenies around here are fighting it because it
contains provisions that would allow corporations to sue to overturn national laws in a
special TTP court. Corporations want this provision in order to attack environmental
restrictions.

Unfortunately apart from a few greenies like myself, not everyone is willing or able to
take the hit to their income this would entail. Hence it looks like carrying this
programme out for real would involve that we do something about the whole capitalist
ethos generally. I am precising here due to lack of time but I hope the point is
taken... Ultimately you can get a sustainable world by educating women and bringing the
third world up to something like a decent standard of living. Unfortunately this would
negatively impact the lifestyles of the rich, so we're probably doomed.

I really don't think it would. In fact it would make almost everyone's lifestyle better -
IF the number of people isn't too great a load on the environment.

Brent

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 18 December 2013 16:51, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/17/2013 7:32 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 18 December 2013 13:00, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 12/17/2013 3:40 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>  On 18 December 2013 12:23, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>   The first step has to be to stop population growth.  That's pretty
>>> much happened in all the OECD nations, except the U.S. and it would be the
>>> case there too except for immigration from the south.  How to stop
>>> population growth: *educate women* so they can lead meaningful lives aside
>>> from bearing children and provide readily available birth control; and get
>>> rid of Catholicism, Mormonism, and any other religion preaches against
>>> birth control.
>>>
>>>  That is exactly how to stop population growth. Wherever women are
>> given equal rights the birth rate drops dramatically (if they are forced to
>> choose between children and a career, it drops precipitously - the places
>> that get the balance right allow you to do both).
>>
>>
>>  I think it takes education too.  There's a high birthrate among teenage
>> latina girls in CA and I think it's just because culturally motherhood is
>> the only adult endeavor that's presented to them.
>>
>>  "Equal rights" includes education, of course.
>
>
> Those latinas have equal rights and the same access to education - but
> they don't take advantage of the opportunity.  I'm saying it's necessary
> that women be educated; not just that they have a right to it.  I think WW2
> did a lot for population control in the U.S. simply because so many women
> were placed in "men's" jobs during the war.  My mother, born 1914, didn't
> want to be a farm wife and she felt her only choices were nurse and
> schoolteacher. She became a teacher and started in a two-room country
> school when she was 19.  My daughters are a physicist, an industrial safety
> statistician, and a water quality monitor.
>
> OK, I can see that I have to spell out what I'm saying. I tried to
shorthand it as "equal rights" (and "fair trade") which taken broadly comes
to what you're saying, but if you're going to insist on nitpicking each
detail, I guess I can't post in haste and expect to be understood. So due
to time constraints I will ignore the rest of what youv'e said here until
later, much as I would like to respond to it, and answer this one point.

Yes, obviously a "right" to education, if interpretted narrowly enough,
isn't going to be any help. My kids would probably spend most of their time
not being educated if that was an option, which would be a terrible waste
of potential. So yes, I was actually talking about the whole shebang,
education, rights, opportunities, respect, fairness, and not being treated
like an idiot.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-17 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/12/17 Telmo Menezes 
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>> > On 12/16/2013 12:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 12/15/2013 4:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruno Marchal 
>> >>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>  On 14 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LizR wrote:
>> 
>>  I haven't had a chance to watch it, but I do know that banks are
>>  stealing
>>  our wealth - as indeed are rich people generally, since "wealth
>>  breeds
>>  more
>>  wealth" and that more wealth has to be extracted from you and me.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Money and richness is not a problem. It is the blood of the social
>>  system.
>> 
>>  Money and richness is a problem only when it is based on lies, and
>>  when
>>  it
>>  is used to hide the lies and perpetuate them.
>> 
>>  Honest money enrich everybody. True, it is slower for poor, and
>>  quicker
>>  for the rich, but when people play the game "honestly", everyone win,
>>  and
>>  poverty regress.
>> 
>>  In a working economy, there are few poor. Presence of poverty means
>>  that
>>  there are stealers and bandits (or war or catastrophes). Accusing the
>>  system
>>  and money itself is all benefices for the bandits. It dilutes their
>>  responsibility and wrong-doing in the abstract. It helps them to feel
>>  like
>>  not guilty.
>> 
>>  As I said, criticizing the economical system is like attributing to
>>  the
>>  blood cells the responsibility of some tumor since the blood cells
>>  feeds
>>  it.
>>  It hides the real root of the problem, and focus on the wrong target.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I agree, unsurprisingly. :)
>> >>> I also agree with Liz, in that it is clear who is stealing the money.
>> >>>
>> >>> The "rich get richer" is a very fundamental phenomenon. Even if we
>> >>> remove
>> >>> money from society, it will still happen because it also applies to
>> >>> social
>> >>> interactions. The more friends and alliances you have, the more likely
>> >>> you
>> >>> are to get new ones. This is the reason why every entrepreneur seeks
>> >>> the
>> >>> allegiance of celebrities. It's a more subtle form of currency.
>> >>>
>> >>> However, we got trapped into a system that effectively amplifies "rich
>> >>> get
>> >>> richer" dynamics. This system is central banking -- since the powerful
>> >>> have
>> >>> the capacity to issue fiat money in the form of debt, two things
>> >>> happen:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It doesn't take central banking to make the rich get richer.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that is what I said. My claim is that central banking amplifies
>> >> the
>> >> effect.
>> >>
>> >>> Ever since
>> >>> civilization began the rich have been able to get richer just by
>> >>> owning
>> >>> stuff. For a couple of millenia it was owning land.  If you owned land
>> >>> then
>> >>> serfs and peasants had to pay you for working the land.  Then
>> >>> merchantilism
>> >>> added ships to what you could own.  Then industrialization added mines
>> >>> and
>> >>> oil and factories.  Banking and insurance added financial instruments
>> >>> that
>> >>> you could own.  But it's all of a piece.  If you own stuff that you
>> >>> can
>> >>> rent/lend you're rich and you can get richer.
>> >>
>> >> But central banks can print new money. This new money is lent. The
>> >> more money you have, the more new money the banking system will lend
>> >> to you. Thus the amplification. Also, the marginal value of money
>> >> decreases the more you have, so this devaluation and speculation with
>> >> new money exposes the poor to more risk, while they don't actually
>> >> have access to the investment opportunities that the rich have.
>> >
>> >
>> > You always refer to "central" banks.  But all banks always did this.
>> > The
>> > bank would take 1M$ in deposits and then make 10M$ in loans, depending
>> > on
>> > the fact that statistically only a few depositors would ask for their
>> > money
>> > at any one time.  So they collected interest on 10M$ while only having
>> > to
>> > pay interest on 1M$ (if at all).
>>
>> I agree. It is interesting to notice that it is highly illegal if a
>> private citizen does this, but it is the business model of modern
>> banks. An advantage of bitcoin is that it removes the need for the
>> bank as a storage facility.
>
>
> Bitcoin is not a solution,

Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a
society with more individual freedoms, for example.

> the first to use the system get richer as the
> system is adopted in time...

Yes they do.

> new comers don't get a share to enter, they

They can work for bitcoins in a number of ways already. The more this
is possible, the more bitcoin will have succeed

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-18 Thread spudboy100

It's not just equal rights, its the improvement in living standards that seem 
to do it (co-mingled with women's rights). I side with Matt Ridley completely, 
on this. Ridley's an author, and really accurate, I believe.

-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 18 December 2013 12:23, meekerdb  wrote:

The first step has to be to stop population growth.  That's prettymuch 
happened in all the OECD nations, except the U.S. and it wouldbe the case 
there too except for immigration from the south.  How tostop population 
growth: *educate women* so they can lead meaningfullives aside from bearing 
children and provide readily availablebirth control; and get rid of 
Catholicism, Mormonism, and any otherreligion preaches against birth 
control.

That is exactly how to stop population growth. Wherever women are given equal 
rights the birth rate drops dramatically (if they are forced to choose between 
children and a career, it drops precipitously - the places that get the balance 
right allow you to do both).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/12/18 Telmo Menezes 
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2013/12/17 Telmo Menezes 
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>> >> > On 12/16/2013 12:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb 
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 12/15/2013 4:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruno Marchal 
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>  On 14 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LizR wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>  I haven't had a chance to watch it, but I do know that banks are
>> >>  stealing
>> >>  our wealth - as indeed are rich people generally, since "wealth
>> >>  breeds
>> >>  more
>> >>  wealth" and that more wealth has to be extracted from you and me.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>  Money and richness is not a problem. It is the blood of the social
>> >>  system.
>> >> 
>> >>  Money and richness is a problem only when it is based on lies, and
>> >>  when
>> >>  it
>> >>  is used to hide the lies and perpetuate them.
>> >> 
>> >>  Honest money enrich everybody. True, it is slower for poor, and
>> >>  quicker
>> >>  for the rich, but when people play the game "honestly", everyone
>> >>  win,
>> >>  and
>> >>  poverty regress.
>> >> 
>> >>  In a working economy, there are few poor. Presence of poverty
>> >>  means
>> >>  that
>> >>  there are stealers and bandits (or war or catastrophes). Accusing
>> >>  the
>> >>  system
>> >>  and money itself is all benefices for the bandits. It dilutes
>> >>  their
>> >>  responsibility and wrong-doing in the abstract. It helps them to
>> >>  feel
>> >>  like
>> >>  not guilty.
>> >> 
>> >>  As I said, criticizing the economical system is like attributing
>> >>  to
>> >>  the
>> >>  blood cells the responsibility of some tumor since the blood cells
>> >>  feeds
>> >>  it.
>> >>  It hides the real root of the problem, and focus on the wrong
>> >>  target.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I agree, unsurprisingly. :)
>> >> >>> I also agree with Liz, in that it is clear who is stealing the
>> >> >>> money.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The "rich get richer" is a very fundamental phenomenon. Even if we
>> >> >>> remove
>> >> >>> money from society, it will still happen because it also applies to
>> >> >>> social
>> >> >>> interactions. The more friends and alliances you have, the more
>> >> >>> likely
>> >> >>> you
>> >> >>> are to get new ones. This is the reason why every entrepreneur
>> >> >>> seeks
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>> allegiance of celebrities. It's a more subtle form of currency.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> However, we got trapped into a system that effectively amplifies
>> >> >>> "rich
>> >> >>> get
>> >> >>> richer" dynamics. This system is central banking -- since the
>> >> >>> powerful
>> >> >>> have
>> >> >>> the capacity to issue fiat money in the form of debt, two things
>> >> >>> happen:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It doesn't take central banking to make the rich get richer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, that is what I said. My claim is that central banking amplifies
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> effect.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Ever since
>> >> >>> civilization began the rich have been able to get richer just by
>> >> >>> owning
>> >> >>> stuff. For a couple of millenia it was owning land.  If you owned
>> >> >>> land
>> >> >>> then
>> >> >>> serfs and peasants had to pay you for working the land.  Then
>> >> >>> merchantilism
>> >> >>> added ships to what you could own.  Then industrialization added
>> >> >>> mines
>> >> >>> and
>> >> >>> oil and factories.  Banking and insurance added financial
>> >> >>> instruments
>> >> >>> that
>> >> >>> you could own.  But it's all of a piece.  If you own stuff that you
>> >> >>> can
>> >> >>> rent/lend you're rich and you can get richer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But central banks can print new money. This new money is lent. The
>> >> >> more money you have, the more new money the banking system will lend
>> >> >> to you. Thus the amplification. Also, the marginal value of money
>> >> >> decreases the more you have, so this devaluation and speculation
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> new money exposes the poor to more risk, while they don't actually
>> >> >> have access to the investment opportunities that the rich have.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You always refer to "central" banks.  But all banks always did this.
>> >> > The
>> >> > bank would take 1M$ in deposits and then make 10M$ in loans,
>> >> > depending
>> >> > on
>> >> > the fact that statistically only a few depositors would ask for their
>> >> > money
>> >> > at any one time.  So they collected interest on 10M$ while only
>> >> > having
>> >> > to
>> >> > pay interest on 1M$ (if at all).
>> >>

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/12/18 Telmo Menezes 
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2013/12/18 Telmo Menezes 
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Quentin Anciaux 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 2013/12/17 Telmo Menezes 
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, meekerdb 
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > On 12/16/2013 12:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb 
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> On 12/15/2013 4:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruno Marchal
>> >> >> >>> 
>> >> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>  On 14 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LizR wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>  I haven't had a chance to watch it, but I do know that banks
>> >> >>  are
>> >> >>  stealing
>> >> >>  our wealth - as indeed are rich people generally, since "wealth
>> >> >>  breeds
>> >> >>  more
>> >> >>  wealth" and that more wealth has to be extracted from you and
>> >> >>  me.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>  Money and richness is not a problem. It is the blood of the
>> >> >>  social
>> >> >>  system.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>  Money and richness is a problem only when it is based on lies,
>> >> >>  and
>> >> >>  when
>> >> >>  it
>> >> >>  is used to hide the lies and perpetuate them.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>  Honest money enrich everybody. True, it is slower for poor, and
>> >> >>  quicker
>> >> >>  for the rich, but when people play the game "honestly",
>> >> >>  everyone
>> >> >>  win,
>> >> >>  and
>> >> >>  poverty regress.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>  In a working economy, there are few poor. Presence of poverty
>> >> >>  means
>> >> >>  that
>> >> >>  there are stealers and bandits (or war or catastrophes).
>> >> >>  Accusing
>> >> >>  the
>> >> >>  system
>> >> >>  and money itself is all benefices for the bandits. It dilutes
>> >> >>  their
>> >> >>  responsibility and wrong-doing in the abstract. It helps them
>> >> >>  to
>> >> >>  feel
>> >> >>  like
>> >> >>  not guilty.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>  As I said, criticizing the economical system is like
>> >> >>  attributing
>> >> >>  to
>> >> >>  the
>> >> >>  blood cells the responsibility of some tumor since the blood
>> >> >>  cells
>> >> >>  feeds
>> >> >>  it.
>> >> >>  It hides the real root of the problem, and focus on the wrong
>> >> >>  target.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I agree, unsurprisingly. :)
>> >> >> >>> I also agree with Liz, in that it is clear who is stealing the
>> >> >> >>> money.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> The "rich get richer" is a very fundamental phenomenon. Even if
>> >> >> >>> we
>> >> >> >>> remove
>> >> >> >>> money from society, it will still happen because it also applies
>> >> >> >>> to
>> >> >> >>> social
>> >> >> >>> interactions. The more friends and alliances you have, the more
>> >> >> >>> likely
>> >> >> >>> you
>> >> >> >>> are to get new ones. This is the reason why every entrepreneur
>> >> >> >>> seeks
>> >> >> >>> the
>> >> >> >>> allegiance of celebrities. It's a more subtle form of currency.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> However, we got trapped into a system that effectively amplifies
>> >> >> >>> "rich
>> >> >> >>> get
>> >> >> >>> richer" dynamics. This system is central banking -- since the
>> >> >> >>> powerful
>> >> >> >>> have
>> >> >> >>> the capacity to issue fiat money in the form of debt, two things
>> >> >> >>> happen:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> It doesn't take central banking to make the rich get richer.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Yes, that is what I said. My claim is that central banking
>> >> >> >> amplifies
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> effect.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> Ever since
>> >> >> >>> civilization began the rich have been able to get richer just by
>> >> >> >>> owning
>> >> >> >>> stuff. For a couple of millenia it was owning land.  If you
>> >> >> >>> owned
>> >> >> >>> land
>> >> >> >>> then
>> >> >> >>> serfs and peasants had to pay you for working the land.  Then
>> >> >> >>> merchantilism
>> >> >> >>> added ships to what you could own.  Then industrialization added
>> >> >> >>> mines
>> >> >> >>> and
>> >> >> >>> oil and factories.  Banking and insurance added financial
>> >> >> >>> instruments
>> >> >> >>> that
>> >> >> >>> you could own.  But it's all of a piece.  If you own stuff that
>> >> >> >>> you
>> >> >> >>> can
>> >> >> >>> rent/lend you're rich and you can get richer.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But central banks can print new money. This new money is lent.
>> >> >> >> The
>> >> >> >> more money you have, the more new money the banking system will
>> >> >> >> lend
>> >> >> >> to you. Thus the amp

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:15 PM, LizR  wrote:
> On 18 December 2013 00:34, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>>
>> > And the policy is generally adjusted to try produce small, but positive
>> > inflation.  This is because deflation is considered unstable.  Inflation
>> > is
>> > stable and encourages investment because just holding money loses value.
>>
>> Yup, it's the current dogma. Infinite growth. I would argue that if
>> you want to cut CO2 emissions, this would be a good place to start.
>
>
> Yes, I have been saying that for a while, too. The trouble is, as people
> tend to point out, how do you achieve it? Americans in particular are
> terrified that it will lead to Socialism, whatever that would mean in
> practice (What they're actually sacred of of course is Totalitarianism, not
> realising they already have it in all but name, though controlled by
> corporations and suchlike rather than the government).
>
> Any ideas how to achieve a sustainable economy?

I agree with the need to stop population growth.

I still have some hope that the Internet will change how people think.
More specifically, that it will help to dispel demons like religious
fundamentalism, patriotism and other diseases of the mind. My hopes
must have some merit, given the current frenzy to control it.

Telmo.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-18 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:


Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a
society with more individual freedoms, for example.

I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would  
achieve that ?


Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start, and its future is  
uncertain, but its value was relying on the selling of drugs and  
weapons, for which the demand is high. When politcians lies, bandits  
does the correct things, in the incorrect ways, and bitcoins naturally  
made that type of merchanding more secure. Its value beginning to fall  
due to the hardness to keep the weapons merchandising.


Banks seems to be interrelated, and the money is 60% based on lies, (I  
think currently), so any competing "free" banks can be welcome.


There is no real solution of the economic problem, except to educate  
people in arithmetic and logic so that they stop voting for bandits  
and demagog. Well, that might be to late, and we can only hope the  
bandits will manage some amnesty and stop doing their work, but for  
this we must abandon the laws which create that type of banditism first.


Bitcoins and much variants (like namecoin) will develop, and we might  
see even typed money system (money for research, monnaie for food,  
etc.).



A system that enrich its creator cannot be good.


Why?
I sort of agree with you, at some level, but the creator needs to eat  
the braid too, at least when confined in its poor terrestrial  
configuration :)


But the non-creator, or during his lack of inspiration, needs the  
braid too, and we should not forget that.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-18 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 18 Dec 2013, at 17:44, Telmo Menezes wrote:


On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 8:15 PM, LizR  wrote:
On 18 December 2013 00:34, Telmo Menezes   
wrote:


And the policy is generally adjusted to try produce small, but  
positive
inflation.  This is because deflation is considered unstable.   
Inflation

is
stable and encourages investment because just holding money loses  
value.


Yup, it's the current dogma. Infinite growth. I would argue that if
you want to cut CO2 emissions, this would be a good place to start.



Yes, I have been saying that for a while, too. The trouble is, as  
people

tend to point out, how do you achieve it? Americans in particular are
terrified that it will lead to Socialism, whatever that would mean in
practice (What they're actually sacred of of course is  
Totalitarianism, not

realising they already have it in all but name, though controlled by
corporations and suchlike rather than the government).

Any ideas how to achieve a sustainable economy?


I agree with the need to stop population growth.

I still have some hope that the Internet will change how people think.
More specifically, that it will help to dispel demons like religious
fundamentalism, patriotism and other diseases of the mind. My hopes
must have some merit, given the current frenzy to control it.



It is exactly like with the drugs. The more your will control the  
sites, the more sites will move in the underground-nets. System like  
THOR and descendants.


We (the Löbian beings) have partial control. The wanting of total  
control is catastrophe promise. More generally, hell is paved with  
good intentions.


The long run value of the bitcoin or of any coin is really in the  
quality of his investments and the trust it get from the people for a  
long time.


Bitcoin can be the embryo of future virtual states, even private  
states and even secret states, for first or second or third life/lives.


Whatever. Reality is beyond lies and fiction.

Bruno






Telmo.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an

email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a
>> society with more individual freedoms, for example.
>>
>
> I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve
> that ?
>
>
> Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start,
>

Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over
time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for
ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*...

Quentin


> and its future is uncertain, but its value was relying on the selling of
> drugs and weapons, for which the demand is high. When politcians lies,
> bandits does the correct things, in the incorrect ways, and bitcoins
> naturally made that type of merchanding more secure. Its value beginning to
> fall due to the hardness to keep the weapons merchandising.
>
> Banks seems to be interrelated, and the money is 60% based on lies, (I
> think currently), so any competing "free" banks can be welcome.
>
> There is no real solution of the economic problem, except to educate
> people in arithmetic and logic so that they stop voting for bandits and
> demagog. Well, that might be to late, and we can only hope the bandits will
> manage some amnesty and stop doing their work, but for this we must abandon
> the laws which create that type of banditism first.
>
> Bitcoins and much variants (like namecoin) will develop, and we might see
> even typed money system (money for research, monnaie for food, etc.).
>
> A system that enrich its creator cannot be good.
>
>
> Why?
> I sort of agree with you, at some level, but the creator needs to eat the
> braid too, at least when confined in its poor terrestrial configuration :)
>
> But the non-creator, or during his lack of inspiration, needs the braid
> too, and we should not forget that.
>
> Bruno
>
>  http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal 
>
>> On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>> Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a
>>> society with more individual freedoms, for example.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve
>> that ?
>>
>>
>> Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start,
>>
>
> Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over
> time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for
> ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*...
>
> I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million, and
if one is lost, why can't it be recreated?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013/12/18 LizR 

> On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
>> 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal 
>>
>>> On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>> Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a
 society with more individual freedoms, for example.

>>>
>>> I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve
>>> that ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start,
>>>
>>
>> Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over
>> time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for
>> ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*...
>>
>> I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million,
>

By design.


> and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated?
>
>
Because a bitcoin cannot be recreated as the number is fixed. So if you
lose your wallet (erase it), then the bitcoins in it are lost forever...

Also as the bitcoins are limited (and over time some are and will be lost),
they can only deflate, and as the goods and services are not limited the
same way, this encourage hoarding. I can't see a benefit in that... but the
most unfair thing is that the first 5 millions bitcoins were easy and cheap
to mine... rendering the first in the system potentially billionaires
without having created *any* wealth... it's a con currency, not a currency.
The only people who will benefit from it (if some crazy thing happen in the
world and the thing is adopted) are the early adopters. Plus the way the
blockchain work, it cannot scale well and just for that it is doubtful
bitcoin could see a large adoption.

Quentin


>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 19 December 2013 10:09, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> 2013/12/18 LizR 
>
>> On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>>
>>> 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal 
>>>
 On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a
> society with more individual freedoms, for example.
>

 I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve
 that ?


 Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start,

>>>
>>> Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over
>>> time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for
>>> ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*...
>>>
>>> I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million,
>>
>
> By design.
>
>
>> and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated?
>>
>>
> Because a bitcoin cannot be recreated as the number is fixed. So if you
> lose your wallet (erase it), then the bitcoins in it are lost forever...
>

Sorry, but that doesn't tell me why the number is fixed, and why one can't
be recreated. Preferably explain in simple terms, so an idiot like me can
grasp it.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
>
>
> 2013/12/18 LizR 
>>
>> On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>>>
>>> 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal 

 On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a
> society with more individual freedoms, for example.


 I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve
 that ?


 Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start,
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over
>>> time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for
>>> ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*...
>>>
>> I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million,
>
>
> By design.
>
>>
>> and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated?
>>
>
> Because a bitcoin cannot be recreated as the number is fixed. So if you lose
> your wallet (erase it), then the bitcoins in it are lost forever...
>
> Also as the bitcoins are limited (and over time some are and will be lost),
> they can only deflate, and as the goods and services are not limited the
> same way, this encourage hoarding. I can't see a benefit in that... but the
> most unfair thing is that the first 5 millions bitcoins were easy and cheap
> to mine... rendering the first in the system potentially billionaires
> without having created *any* wealth... it's a con currency, not a currency.
> The only people who will benefit from it (if some crazy thing happen in the
> world and the thing is adopted) are the early adopters.

> Plus the way the
> blockchain work, it cannot scale well and just for that it is doubtful
> bitcoin could see a large adoption.

This is often repeated but not true. The blockchain can be truncated
and old transaction discarded. The solution is described in the
original paper, section 7:
http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Telmo.

>
> Quentin
>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> Batty/Rutger Hauer)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

Le 18 déc. 2013 22:31, "LizR"  a écrit :
>
> On 19 December 2013 10:09, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>>
>> 2013/12/18 LizR 
>>>
>>> On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal 
>
> On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>> Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a
>>> society with more individual freedoms, for example.
>>
>>
>> I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would
achieve that ?
>
>
> Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start,


 Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over
time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for
ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*...

>>> I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million,
>>
>>
>> By design.
>>
>>>
>>> and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated?
>>>
>>
>> Because a bitcoin cannot be recreated as the number is fixed. So if you
lose your wallet (erase it), then the bitcoins in it are lost forever...
>
>
> Sorry, but that doesn't tell me why the number is fixed, and why one
can't be recreated. Preferably explain in simple terms, so an idiot like me
can grasp it.

It is by design.  You can't cteate more than 21 millions and you can't
recreate a lost bitcoin.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

Le 18 déc. 2013 22:37, "Telmo Menezes"  a écrit :
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Quentin Anciaux 
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/12/18 LizR 
> >>
> >> On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal 
> 
>  On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> >
> > Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a
> > society with more individual freedoms, for example.
> 
> 
>  I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would
achieve
>  that ?
> 
> 
>  Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over
> >>> time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for
> >>> ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*...
> >>>
> >> I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million,
> >
> >
> > By design.
> >
> >>
> >> and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated?
> >>
> >
> > Because a bitcoin cannot be recreated as the number is fixed. So if you
lose
> > your wallet (erase it), then the bitcoins in it are lost forever...
> >
> > Also as the bitcoins are limited (and over time some are and will be
lost),
> > they can only deflate, and as the goods and services are not limited the
> > same way, this encourage hoarding. I can't see a benefit in that... but
the
> > most unfair thing is that the first 5 millions bitcoins were easy and
cheap
> > to mine... rendering the first in the system potentially billionaires
> > without having created *any* wealth... it's a con currency, not a
currency.
> > The only people who will benefit from it (if some crazy thing happen in
the
> > world and the thing is adopted) are the early adopters.
>
> > Plus the way the
> > blockchain work, it cannot scale well and just for that it is doubtful
> > bitcoin could see a large adoption.
>
> This is often repeated but not true. The blockchain can be truncated
> and old transaction discarded.

What about the remaining of what I said?

The solution is described in the
> original paper, section 7:
> http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
>
> Telmo.
>
> >
> > Quentin
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
> >> "Everything List" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an
> >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
> > Batty/Rutger Hauer)
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an
> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 19 December 2013 10:44, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> Le 18 déc. 2013 22:37, "Telmo Menezes"  a écrit :
> >
> > This is often repeated but not true. The blockchain can be truncated
> > and old transaction discarded.
>
> What about the remaining of what I said?
>
In that case, too, the blockchain was truncated and the old transaction
discarded!





...Sorry, I'll get my digital coat.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

Le 18 déc. 2013 23:21, "LizR"  a écrit :
>
> On 19 December 2013 10:44, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>>
>> Le 18 déc. 2013 22:37, "Telmo Menezes"  a écrit :
>>
>> >
>>
>> > This is often repeated but not true. The blockchain can be truncated
>> > and old transaction discarded.
>>
>> What about the remaining of what I said?
>
> In that case, too, the blockchain was truncated and the old transaction
discarded!
>
>
>
>

?

>
> ...Sorry, I'll get my digital coat.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 19 December 2013 11:24, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> >> > This is often repeated but not true. The blockchain can be truncated
> >> > and old transaction discarded.
> >>
> >> What about the remaining of what I said?
> >
> > In that case, too, the blockchain was truncated and the old transaction
> discarded!
> >
>
> ?
>
Sorry, I attemped a joke.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:31 PM, LizR  wrote:
> On 19 December 2013 10:09, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>>
>> 2013/12/18 LizR 
>>>
>>> On 19 December 2013 08:01, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

 2013/12/18 Bruno Marchal 
>
> On 18 Dec 2013, at 09:47, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>> Depends on the problem you're considering, I think it can lead to a
>> society with more individual freedoms, for example.
>
>
> I don't think it can... can you give argument how bitcoin would achieve
> that ?
>
>
> Bitcoin was not deflationist at the start,

 Yes it was and is... the number of bitcoins are finite and fixed over
 time... There will be at most 21 millions bitcoins in circulation for
 ever... a lost bitcoin is lost *forever*...

>>> I don't know much about bitcoins. Why are they limited to 21 million,
>>
>>
>> By design.
>>
>>>
>>> and if one is lost, why can't it be recreated?
>>>
>>
>> Because a bitcoin cannot be recreated as the number is fixed. So if you
>> lose your wallet (erase it), then the bitcoins in it are lost forever...
>
>
> Sorry, but that doesn't tell me why the number is fixed, and why one can't
> be recreated. Preferably explain in simple terms, so an idiot like me can
> grasp it.

All the transactions that occurred so far are registered in a file
that is shared between the nodes in the network.  New transactions are
broadcast to many nodes.

One of these nodes is going to be lucky enough to find a way to
incorporate the outstanding transactions into the file according to
very strict requirements. These outstanding set of transactions will
form a "block". A block contains the following things:

- the hash of the previous block
- the set of transactions
- an arbitrary number (nounce)

An hash is the output of a one-way functions. One-way functions are
hard to invert, so getting the original block from the hash is
computationally hard. The bitcoin protocol wants to make the hash hard
to create, in part because every time a hash is discovered, the
discoverer is rewarded with a predetermined number of bitcoins. The
way to make the hash hard to create is that the network agrees that it
must start with a certain number of zeros. The only way to meet this
requirement is through brute force, by trying random values for the
nounce until one works.

Once the hash is found, a new block is created and work will begin on
finding the nest one, ad infinitum. This is why the ledger file is
called a blockchain. Each block hashes the hash of the previous block.

This difficulty also serves as a proof-of-work (a receipt that shows
that a certain amount of computational effort was spent, on average).
This protects the network against attacks. If a node received two
conflicting blockchains, it will chose the longest one. This way,
unless the attacker controls the majority of the computing power of
the network, it cannot create a fake blockchain longer than the rest
of the network.

So mining for bitcoins is the same process that allows for
transactions. There is also the possibility of transaction fees. When
you make a transaction, you can volunteer to pay a fee to the miners.
The discoverer of the next block will receive this fee. Nodes that
receive your transactions are not forced to accept them, so the fee is
an incentive for them to accept it. As mining becomes less profitable,
it becomes more likely that miners will expect fees. Once all coins
are discovered, the network will work solely on fees, and I imagine
fee prices will emerge naturally (miners will compete on price, users
will pay more according to urgency). In a market with many
transactions, mining can become profitable even with no new coins to
discover and low fees.

What "contains" your coins are wallets. Wallets are two random
numbers. One is public, for incoming transactions and one private, for
outgoing transactions. Only you know your private address but if you
sign a transaction with it, the validity if the transaction can be
confirmed through a one-way function against the blockchain. So
ultimately, you keep possession of your coins by knowing the private
address.

So the blockchain is a gigantic number and the wallets are numbers.
The actual coins are not numbers, they are a complete abstraction.

Telmo.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 19 December 2013 12:13, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

>
> All the transactions that occurred so far are registered in a file
> that is shared between the nodes in the network.  New transactions are
> broadcast to many nodes.
>
> One of these nodes is going to be lucky enough to find a way to
> incorporate the outstanding transactions into the file according to
> very strict requirements. These outstanding set of transactions will
> form a "block". A block contains the following things:
>
> - the hash of the previous block
> - the set of transactions
> - an arbitrary number (nounce)
>
> An hash is the output of a one-way functions. One-way functions are
> hard to invert, so getting the original block from the hash is
> computationally hard. The bitcoin protocol wants to make the hash hard
> to create, in part because every time a hash is discovered, the
> discoverer is rewarded with a predetermined number of bitcoins. The
> way to make the hash hard to create is that the network agrees that it
> must start with a certain number of zeros. The only way to meet this
> requirement is through brute force, by trying random values for the
> nounce until one works.
>
> Once the hash is found, a new block is created and work will begin on
> finding the nest one, ad infinitum. This is why the ledger file is
> called a blockchain. Each block hashes the hash of the previous block.
>
> This difficulty also serves as a proof-of-work (a receipt that shows
> that a certain amount of computational effort was spent, on average).
> This protects the network against attacks. If a node received two
> conflicting blockchains, it will chose the longest one. This way,
> unless the attacker controls the majority of the computing power of
> the network, it cannot create a fake blockchain longer than the rest
> of the network.
>
> So mining for bitcoins is the same process that allows for
> transactions. There is also the possibility of transaction fees. When
> you make a transaction, you can volunteer to pay a fee to the miners.
> The discoverer of the next block will receive this fee. Nodes that
> receive your transactions are not forced to accept them, so the fee is
> an incentive for them to accept it. As mining becomes less profitable,
> it becomes more likely that miners will expect fees. Once all coins
> are discovered, the network will work solely on fees, and I imagine
> fee prices will emerge naturally (miners will compete on price, users
> will pay more according to urgency). In a market with many
> transactions, mining can become profitable even with no new coins to
> discover and low fees.
>
> What "contains" your coins are wallets. Wallets are two random
> numbers. One is public, for incoming transactions and one private, for
> outgoing transactions. Only you know your private address but if you
> sign a transaction with it, the validity if the transaction can be
> confirmed through a one-way function against the blockchain. So
> ultimately, you keep possession of your coins by knowing the private
> address.
>
> So the blockchain is a gigantic number and the wallets are numbers.
> The actual coins are not numbers, they are a complete abstraction.
>
> Thank you very much for that description, which I think I have more or
less managed to understand. (I assume the 21 million limit is an outcome of
this system demanding that the hast start with a specified number of
zeroes?)

It sounds as though these things will eventually mimic house prices, which
"decouple" from the cost of building after a while and go into a
market-driven upwards spiral. (Well, except that people actually *need *
houses...)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-19 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:43 AM, LizR  wrote:
> On 19 December 2013 12:13, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>>
>>
>> All the transactions that occurred so far are registered in a file
>> that is shared between the nodes in the network.  New transactions are
>> broadcast to many nodes.
>>
>> One of these nodes is going to be lucky enough to find a way to
>> incorporate the outstanding transactions into the file according to
>> very strict requirements. These outstanding set of transactions will
>> form a "block". A block contains the following things:
>>
>> - the hash of the previous block
>> - the set of transactions
>> - an arbitrary number (nounce)
>>
>> An hash is the output of a one-way functions. One-way functions are
>> hard to invert, so getting the original block from the hash is
>> computationally hard. The bitcoin protocol wants to make the hash hard
>> to create, in part because every time a hash is discovered, the
>> discoverer is rewarded with a predetermined number of bitcoins. The
>> way to make the hash hard to create is that the network agrees that it
>> must start with a certain number of zeros. The only way to meet this
>> requirement is through brute force, by trying random values for the
>> nounce until one works.
>>
>> Once the hash is found, a new block is created and work will begin on
>> finding the nest one, ad infinitum. This is why the ledger file is
>> called a blockchain. Each block hashes the hash of the previous block.
>>
>> This difficulty also serves as a proof-of-work (a receipt that shows
>> that a certain amount of computational effort was spent, on average).
>> This protects the network against attacks. If a node received two
>> conflicting blockchains, it will chose the longest one. This way,
>> unless the attacker controls the majority of the computing power of
>> the network, it cannot create a fake blockchain longer than the rest
>> of the network.
>>
>> So mining for bitcoins is the same process that allows for
>> transactions. There is also the possibility of transaction fees. When
>> you make a transaction, you can volunteer to pay a fee to the miners.
>> The discoverer of the next block will receive this fee. Nodes that
>> receive your transactions are not forced to accept them, so the fee is
>> an incentive for them to accept it. As mining becomes less profitable,
>> it becomes more likely that miners will expect fees. Once all coins
>> are discovered, the network will work solely on fees, and I imagine
>> fee prices will emerge naturally (miners will compete on price, users
>> will pay more according to urgency). In a market with many
>> transactions, mining can become profitable even with no new coins to
>> discover and low fees.
>>
>> What "contains" your coins are wallets. Wallets are two random
>> numbers. One is public, for incoming transactions and one private, for
>> outgoing transactions. Only you know your private address but if you
>> sign a transaction with it, the validity if the transaction can be
>> confirmed through a one-way function against the blockchain. So
>> ultimately, you keep possession of your coins by knowing the private
>> address.
>>
>> So the blockchain is a gigantic number and the wallets are numbers.
>> The actual coins are not numbers, they are a complete abstraction.
>>
> Thank you very much for that description, which I think I have more or less
> managed to understand. (I assume the 21 million limit is an outcome of this
> system demanding that the hast start with a specified number of zeroes?)

No, actually the number of zeros is variable, and is determined by the
moving average of the time between block discoveries. This way, the
rate of block discovery can be kept more or less constant (about one
every 10 minutes).

The 21 million is a convention that all nodes agree on. When you try
to generate a block, you include all the transactions your node
received plus one transaction to give you an agreed upon amount of
bitcoins. If you find a solution, the other nodes will check a number
of things before accepting it. One of those things is your reward.
There is a predefined agreement on the size of the reward, based on
the number of blocks already discovered. This is tuned so that it is
reduced by 50% about every 4 years. This just happened last November,
and the initial reward of 50 btc was halved to 25 btc. Once 21 million
btc are created, the reward becomes zero. This is all enforced by the
majority of computational power in the network.

> It sounds as though these things will eventually mimic house prices, which
> "decouple" from the cost of building after a while and go into a
> market-driven upwards spiral. (Well, except that people actually need
> houses...)

I would argue that this is different. With houses, the price went up
because the banks were increasingly lax in giving  credit for people
to buy them. They started to give credit to riskier costumers. This
increased demand, and thus the prices went up. Eventually the riskier

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-19 Thread John Mikes

Liz - with all y appreciation for your so far experienced stance - you seem
feministic if you believe *("**Wherever women are given equal rights the
birth rate drops dramatically") *assuming a superb mental position by the
child-bearing gender.
Just thik about e.g. Mrs Romney - a woman with extensive rights - and 5
children etc.
Brent's proposal seems more mundane - he just forgot about Islam (in "any
other religion...") and the surviving communist-like powers that still are.

We all, dreamers as we are, fancy a 'reasonable' world that may never come
to be.
Cut out exploitaton(?). Cut out the economic cissor between 'lords' and
'serfs', cut out property-rights to nature's ingredients (crop, mining
products, animals, territory, etc.)
cut out the pastime of 96% Americans: faith in some invasionary religion, a
similar proportion in the oxymoron of "democracy" (with it's hoax called
'voting') and all the adoraton of past geniuses accepting their obsolete
worldviews as base for tomorrow.
The very early capitalist-theoreticians praised the 'Mom&Pop Cornerstone
capitalism' - not the *corporation-person*'s totalitarianism just as the
'socialists' of 2 centuries ago falsified the ideas of any balancing in
social economy into obsolete Marxism and later Leninism without securing
advancement.
The latter rules a big chunk of today's world, the brutally invading faith
part another big chunk and the third (with Christianity as not far from the
preceding one) another big chunk, all of them brutally enforced to suppress
even the slightest trial of escape into reason. How would you imagine to
save the world (I mean: humanity)?

John M

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 18 December 2013 12:23, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>
>> The first step has to be to stop population growth.  That's pretty much
>> happened in all the OECD nations, except the U.S. and it would be the case
>> there too except for immigration from the south.  How to stop population
>> growth: *educate women* so they can lead meaningful lives aside from
>> bearing children and provide readily available birth control; and get rid
>> of Catholicism, Mormonism, and any other religion preaches against birth
>> control.
>>
>> That is exactly how to stop population growth. Wherever women are given
> equal rights the birth rate drops dramatically (if they are forced to
> choose between children and a career, it drops precipitously - the places
> that get the balance right allow you to do both).
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-19 Thread LizR

On 20 December 2013 09:25, John Mikes  wrote:

> How would you imagine to save the world (I mean: humanity)?
>

Someone out there discover the psychological root causes of all the bad
stuff we do and design a retrovirus that will fix them. Turn us all into
saints - until we're invaded by aliens, we'll do OK.

And I'd like a pair of hoverboots.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-20 Thread John Mikes

Liz: we had a stereotypic reply in Hungary applicable to what you wrote
*And THEN you woke up.*
John


On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 20 December 2013 09:25, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> How would you imagine to save the world (I mean: humanity)?
>>
>
> Someone out there discover the psychological root causes of all the bad
> stuff we do and design a retrovirus that will fix them. Turn us all into
> saints - until we're invaded by aliens, we'll do OK.
>
> And I'd like a pair of hoverboots.
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-21 Thread LizR

Yes, I know that one. So I will add to my wish list ... and I continue to
dream!

:-)


On 21 December 2013 12:53, John Mikes  wrote:

> Liz: we had a stereotypic reply in Hungary applicable to what you wrote
> *And THEN you woke up.*
> John
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> On 20 December 2013 09:25, John Mikes  wrote:
>>
>>> How would you imagine to save the world (I mean: humanity)?
>>>
>>
>> Someone out there discover the psychological root causes of all the bad
>> stuff we do and design a retrovirus that will fix them. Turn us all into
>> saints - until we're invaded by aliens, we'll do OK.
>>
>> And I'd like a pair of hoverboots.
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-22 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
> > On 12/16/2013 12:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 12/15/2013 4:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruno Marchal 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>  On 14 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LizR wrote:
> 
>  I haven't had a chance to watch it, but I do know that banks are
>  stealing
>  our wealth - as indeed are rich people generally, since "wealth breeds
>  more
>  wealth" and that more wealth has to be extracted from you and me.
> 
> 
> 
>  Money and richness is not a problem. It is the blood of the social
>  system.
> 
>  Money and richness is a problem only when it is based on lies, and
> when
>  it
>  is used to hide the lies and perpetuate them.
> 
>  Honest money enrich everybody. True, it is slower for poor, and
> quicker
>  for the rich, but when people play the game "honestly", everyone win,
>  and
>  poverty regress.
> 
>  In a working economy, there are few poor. Presence of poverty means
> that
>  there are stealers and bandits (or war or catastrophes). Accusing the
>  system
>  and money itself is all benefices for the bandits. It dilutes their
>  responsibility and wrong-doing in the abstract. It helps them to feel
>  like
>  not guilty.
> 
>  As I said, criticizing the economical system is like attributing to
> the
>  blood cells the responsibility of some tumor since the blood cells
> feeds
>  it.
>  It hides the real root of the problem, and focus on the wrong target.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I agree, unsurprisingly. :)
> >>> I also agree with Liz, in that it is clear who is stealing the money.
> >>>
> >>> The "rich get richer" is a very fundamental phenomenon. Even if we
> remove
> >>> money from society, it will still happen because it also applies to
> >>> social
> >>> interactions. The more friends and alliances you have, the more likely
> >>> you
> >>> are to get new ones. This is the reason why every entrepreneur seeks
> the
> >>> allegiance of celebrities. It's a more subtle form of currency.
> >>>
> >>> However, we got trapped into a system that effectively amplifies "rich
> >>> get
> >>> richer" dynamics. This system is central banking -- since the powerful
> >>> have
> >>> the capacity to issue fiat money in the form of debt, two things
> happen:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't take central banking to make the rich get richer.
> >>
> >> Yes, that is what I said. My claim is that central banking amplifies the
> >> effect.
> >>
> >>> Ever since
> >>> civilization began the rich have been able to get richer just by owning
> >>> stuff. For a couple of millenia it was owning land.  If you owned land
> >>> then
> >>> serfs and peasants had to pay you for working the land.  Then
> >>> merchantilism
> >>> added ships to what you could own.  Then industrialization added mines
> >>> and
> >>> oil and factories.  Banking and insurance added financial instruments
> >>> that
> >>> you could own.  But it's all of a piece.  If you own stuff that you can
> >>> rent/lend you're rich and you can get richer.
> >>
> >> But central banks can print new money. This new money is lent. The
> >> more money you have, the more new money the banking system will lend
> >> to you. Thus the amplification. Also, the marginal value of money
> >> decreases the more you have, so this devaluation and speculation with
> >> new money exposes the poor to more risk, while they don't actually
> >> have access to the investment opportunities that the rich have.
> >
> >
> > You always refer to "central" banks.  But all banks always did this.  The
> > bank would take 1M$ in deposits and then make 10M$ in loans, depending on
> > the fact that statistically only a few depositors would ask for their
> money
> > at any one time.  So they collected interest on 10M$ while only having to
> > pay interest on 1M$ (if at all).
>
> I agree. It is interesting to notice that it is highly illegal if a
> private citizen does this, but it is the business model of modern
> banks. An advantage of bitcoin is that it removes the need for the
> bank as a storage facility. It will still be useful to have security
> experts providing safe wallets, but they will not be able to behave as
> banks and lend your money.
>
> We already have pear to pear lending, although it is illegal in many
> places. Again, with bitcoin, it will be very hard to regulate against
> such behaviours, and I think that is a good thing.
>
> The current situation is very unfair. We need banks to store our
> money, and they get to invest it in ways that we are not allowed.
> Then, we don't get any of the profit the bank generates from our own
> money. This also amplifies "rich get richer" dynamics.
>
> > Of course this occasionally resulted in

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-22 Thread Jason Resch

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM, LizR  wrote:

> On 18 December 2013 12:23, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>
>> The first step has to be to stop population growth.  That's pretty much
>> happened in all the OECD nations, except the U.S. and it would be the case
>> there too except for immigration from the south.  How to stop population
>> growth: *educate women* so they can lead meaningful lives aside from
>> bearing children and provide readily available birth control; and get rid
>> of Catholicism, Mormonism, and any other religion preaches against birth
>> control.
>>
>> That is exactly how to stop population growth. Wherever women are given
> equal rights the birth rate drops dramatically (if they are forced to
> choose between children and a career, it drops precipitously - the places
> that get the balance right allow you to do both).
>
>
The rates aren't just stable in OECD nations, they are negative.  It seems
given the choice and long enough time frames the human population will drop
to zero. (this of course ignores future trends such as technical solutions
to ageing and the technological singularity, but it  is an interesting
observation of human nature.)

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-22 Thread meekerdb


On 12/22/2013 7:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 18 December 2013 12:23, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:


The first step has to be to stop population growth.  That's pretty much 
happened
in all the OECD nations, except the U.S. and it would be the case there 
too
except for immigration from the south.  How to stop population growth: 
*educate
women* so they can lead meaningful lives aside from bearing children 
and provide
readily available birth control; and get rid of Catholicism, Mormonism, 
and any
other religion preaches against birth control.

That is exactly how to stop population growth. Wherever women are given 
equal rights
the birth rate drops dramatically (if they are forced to choose between 
children and
a career, it drops precipitously - the places that get the balance right 
allow you
to do both).


The rates aren't just stable in OECD nations, they are negative.  It seems given the 
choice and long enough time frames the human population will drop to zero. (this of 
course ignores future trends such as technical solutions to ageing and the technological 
singularity, but it  is an interesting observation of human nature.)


Maybe human nature responds to perceived crowding.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-23 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>> > On 12/16/2013 12:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On 12/15/2013 4:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruno Marchal 
>> >>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>  On 14 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LizR wrote:
>> 
>>  I haven't had a chance to watch it, but I do know that banks are
>>  stealing
>>  our wealth - as indeed are rich people generally, since "wealth
>>  breeds
>>  more
>>  wealth" and that more wealth has to be extracted from you and me.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  Money and richness is not a problem. It is the blood of the social
>>  system.
>> 
>>  Money and richness is a problem only when it is based on lies, and
>>  when
>>  it
>>  is used to hide the lies and perpetuate them.
>> 
>>  Honest money enrich everybody. True, it is slower for poor, and
>>  quicker
>>  for the rich, but when people play the game "honestly", everyone win,
>>  and
>>  poverty regress.
>> 
>>  In a working economy, there are few poor. Presence of poverty means
>>  that
>>  there are stealers and bandits (or war or catastrophes). Accusing the
>>  system
>>  and money itself is all benefices for the bandits. It dilutes their
>>  responsibility and wrong-doing in the abstract. It helps them to feel
>>  like
>>  not guilty.
>> 
>>  As I said, criticizing the economical system is like attributing to
>>  the
>>  blood cells the responsibility of some tumor since the blood cells
>>  feeds
>>  it.
>>  It hides the real root of the problem, and focus on the wrong target.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I agree, unsurprisingly. :)
>> >>> I also agree with Liz, in that it is clear who is stealing the money.
>> >>>
>> >>> The "rich get richer" is a very fundamental phenomenon. Even if we
>> >>> remove
>> >>> money from society, it will still happen because it also applies to
>> >>> social
>> >>> interactions. The more friends and alliances you have, the more likely
>> >>> you
>> >>> are to get new ones. This is the reason why every entrepreneur seeks
>> >>> the
>> >>> allegiance of celebrities. It's a more subtle form of currency.
>> >>>
>> >>> However, we got trapped into a system that effectively amplifies "rich
>> >>> get
>> >>> richer" dynamics. This system is central banking -- since the powerful
>> >>> have
>> >>> the capacity to issue fiat money in the form of debt, two things
>> >>> happen:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It doesn't take central banking to make the rich get richer.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, that is what I said. My claim is that central banking amplifies
>> >> the
>> >> effect.
>> >>
>> >>> Ever since
>> >>> civilization began the rich have been able to get richer just by
>> >>> owning
>> >>> stuff. For a couple of millenia it was owning land.  If you owned land
>> >>> then
>> >>> serfs and peasants had to pay you for working the land.  Then
>> >>> merchantilism
>> >>> added ships to what you could own.  Then industrialization added mines
>> >>> and
>> >>> oil and factories.  Banking and insurance added financial instruments
>> >>> that
>> >>> you could own.  But it's all of a piece.  If you own stuff that you
>> >>> can
>> >>> rent/lend you're rich and you can get richer.
>> >>
>> >> But central banks can print new money. This new money is lent. The
>> >> more money you have, the more new money the banking system will lend
>> >> to you. Thus the amplification. Also, the marginal value of money
>> >> decreases the more you have, so this devaluation and speculation with
>> >> new money exposes the poor to more risk, while they don't actually
>> >> have access to the investment opportunities that the rich have.
>> >
>> >
>> > You always refer to "central" banks.  But all banks always did this.
>> > The
>> > bank would take 1M$ in deposits and then make 10M$ in loans, depending
>> > on
>> > the fact that statistically only a few depositors would ask for their
>> > money
>> > at any one time.  So they collected interest on 10M$ while only having
>> > to
>> > pay interest on 1M$ (if at all).
>>
>> I agree. It is interesting to notice that it is highly illegal if a
>> private citizen does this, but it is the business model of modern
>> banks. An advantage of bitcoin is that it removes the need for the
>> bank as a storage facility. It will still be useful to have security
>> experts providing safe wallets, but they will not be able to behave as
>> banks and lend your money.
>>
>> We already have pear to pear lending, although it is illegal in many
>> places. Again, with bitcoin, it will be very hard to regulate against
>> such behaviours, and I think that is a good thing.
>>
>> The current situation is very unfa

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-23 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 23 Dec 2013, at 10:29, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Jason Resch   
wrote:




On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Telmo Menezes >

wrote:


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 12/16/2013 12:53 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:


On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:59 AM, meekerdb   
wrote:


On 12/15/2013 4:23 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:




On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Bruno Marchal  


wrote:



On 14 Dec 2013, at 23:27, LizR wrote:

I haven't had a chance to watch it, but I do know that banks are




snip




The reason why I put more faith in cryptocurrencies is that, if one or
several of them succeed, then it won't be possible to tamper with what
made them work in the first place. The other thing that excites me is
that more and more cryptocurrencies are being tried. If I have an
ideology, it's experimentalism. Technology finally allows us to
experiment with currency, weather the politicians like it or not.



Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the  
freedom of privacy and privateness.


Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin  
suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can  
do their work "honestly" or not.
"honestly" is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at  
the least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep  
jobs despite they became obsolete).


Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible  
life goal.


When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and  
is enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so  
"those who make money the main goal" crack, and corrupt the system,  
which at that moment become pyramidal.

It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool.

Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual  
bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid.
The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different  
competing economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening  
from the lies) more smooth.


Such competitor money can help to follow the "non-monopoly rule". But  
they can be swallowed by other money, and they are not immune against  
new lies per se. (risk can be diminushed by investment in "real"  
education (≠ brainwashing)).


When the bandits got power, count on them to exploit  
(disadvantageously for *you*) any solution you could find on the  
economical problem. You might need to encrypt it :)


Bruno









Telmo.


Jason


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of privacy and
privateness.

Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin suspects. They just
allowed to create new independent banks which can do their work "honestly" or not.
"honestly" is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the least, to not
base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite they became obsolete).

Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible life
goal.

When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is enriched. But
the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so "those who make money the main
goal" crack, and corrupt the system, which at that moment become pyramidal.

It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool.

Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank system which
seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid.
The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing economies, and
can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies) more smooth.

I don't see it as any different than gold or silver. Banks used to have reserves of gold
or silver and they issued their own script money that was redeemable in gold or silver.
BUT they always loaned much more script than they had gold or silver. They relied, quite
reasonably, on the fact that in any given time interval, only few people would want to
redeem their script in gold or silver.

Now you may say this is "lying", but so long as not done to excess, it makes for good
economics. Consider and extreme example: Suppose the 'banker' has no gold or silver at
all but he's prepared to loan script anyway. Someone comes to him and wants to borrow
$1000 to build a bridge over small river near the town. The banker loans him the script.
He pays for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script is
backed by gold. The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town much more quickly,
productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more people deposit money in the bank
and the banker can actually buy some gold to back up his script. "Artificially"
increasing the money supply can be very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions
it depends a lot on trust. If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people
automatically distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0

Brent

Such competitor money can help to follow the "non-monopoly rule". But they can be
swallowed by other money, and they are not immune against new lies per se. (risk can be
diminushed by investment in "real" education (≠ brainwashing)).

When the bandits got power, count on them to exploit (disadvantageously for *you*) any
solution you could find on the economical problem. You might need to encrypt it :)

Bruno

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-23 Thread Jason Resch

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom
> of privacy and privateness.
>
> Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin
> suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do
> their work "honestly" or not.
> "honestly" is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the
> least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs
> despite they became obsolete).
>
>
> Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible
> life goal.
>
> When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is
> enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so "those
> who make money the main goal" crack, and corrupt the system, which at that
> moment become pyramidal.
> It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool.
>
> Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank
> system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid.
> The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing
> economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies)
> more smooth.
>
>
> I don't see it as any different than gold or silver.  Banks used to have
> reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was
> redeemable in gold or silver.  BUT they always loaned much more script than
> they had gold or silver.  They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that
> in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their
> script in gold or silver.
>
> Now you may say this is "lying", but so long as not done to excess, it
> makes for good economics.  Consider and extreme example: Suppose the
> 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script
> anyway.  Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge
> over small river near the town.  The banker loans him the script.  He pays
> for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script
> is backed by gold.  The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town
> much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more
> people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold
> to back up his script.  "Artificially" increasing the money supply can be
> very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on
> trust.  If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically
> distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down.
>
> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0
>
> Brent
>
>
>
One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are not
required for either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers.  If they are never
held by intermediaries then they have nothing to loan out.

Jason




>
>
> Such competitor money can help to follow the "non-monopoly rule". But they
> can be swallowed by other money, and they are not immune against new lies
> per se. (risk can be diminushed by investment in "real" education (≠
> brainwashing)).
>
> When the bandits got power, count on them to exploit (disadvantageously
> for **you**) any solution you could find on the economical problem. You
> might need to encrypt it :)
>
> Bruno
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 12/23/2013 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom of
privacy and privateness.

Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin
suspects. They
just allowed to create new independent banks which can do their work
"honestly" or
not.
"honestly" is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the
least, to
not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite they
became
obsolete).

Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible life
goal.

When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is
enriched.
But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so "those who make
money the
main goal" crack, and corrupt the system, which at that moment become
pyramidal.
It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool.

Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual bank
system
which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid.
The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing
economies,
and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies) more smooth.

I don't see it as any different than gold or silver. Banks used to have
reserves of
gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was redeemable
in gold or
silver. BUT they always loaned much more script than they had gold or
silver. They
relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that in any given time interval, only
few
people would want to redeem their script in gold or silver.

Now you may say this is "lying", but so long as not done to excess, it
makes for
good economics. Consider and extreme example: Suppose the 'banker' has no
gold or
silver at all but he's prepared to loan script anyway. Someone comes to him
and
wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge over small river near the town.
The banker
loans him the script. He pays for material and labor, which he can do
because
people believe the script is backed by gold. The bridge gets built and so
farmers
can come to town much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town
thrives,
so more people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy
some gold
to back up his script. "Artificially" increasing the money supply can be
very
useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on
trust. If
nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically distrust
their
government, then the economy is dragged down.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0

Brent

One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are not required for
either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers. If they are never held by intermediaries then
they have nothing to loan out.

The point of my example is that you don't HAVE to have anything to loan out. Banks loaned
out the value of gold without having the gold (having only a small part of it).

As for security I'm not sure; can't you lose your bitcoins?

Brent

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-23 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2013/12/23 meekerdb 

>  On 12/23/2013 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom
>> of privacy and privateness.
>>
>> Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin
>> suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do
>> their work "honestly" or not.
>> "honestly" is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the
>> least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs
>> despite they became obsolete).
>>
>>
>> Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible
>> life goal.
>>
>> When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is
>> enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so "those
>> who make money the main goal" crack, and corrupt the system, which at that
>> moment become pyramidal.
>> It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool.
>>
>> Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual
>> bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid.
>> The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing
>> economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies)
>> more smooth.
>>
>>
>>  I don't see it as any different than gold or silver.  Banks used to have
>> reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was
>> redeemable in gold or silver.  BUT they always loaned much more script than
>> they had gold or silver.  They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that
>> in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their
>> script in gold or silver.
>>
>> Now you may say this is "lying", but so long as not done to excess, it
>> makes for good economics.  Consider and extreme example: Suppose the
>> 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script
>> anyway.  Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge
>> over small river near the town.  The banker loans him the script.  He pays
>> for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script
>> is backed by gold.  The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town
>> much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more
>> people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold
>> to back up his script.  "Artificially" increasing the money supply can be
>> very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on
>> trust.  If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically
>> distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down.
>>
>> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>
>  One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are
> not required for either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers.  If they are
> never held by intermediaries then they have nothing to loan out.
>
>
> The point of my example is that you don't HAVE to have anything to loan
> out.  Banks loaned out the value of gold without having the gold (having
> only a small part of it).
>
> As for security I'm not sure; can't you lose your bitcoins?
>

Not only you can lose them...  but they are lost for everyone... Also,
bitcoin is full of intermediaries (to change bitcoin with "accepted"
currencies)... bitcoin doesn't solve anything... but it's not because
bitcoin is I think bad, that I think any digital crypto currencies are
bad... I've not come accros one that could be useful yet.

Quentin

Quentin


>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-23 Thread Jason Resch

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:02 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/23/2013 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the freedom
>> of privacy and privateness.
>>
>> Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin
>> suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do
>> their work "honestly" or not.
>> "honestly" is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the
>> least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs
>> despite they became obsolete).
>>
>>
>> Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible
>> life goal.
>>
>> When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is
>> enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so "those
>> who make money the main goal" crack, and corrupt the system, which at that
>> moment become pyramidal.
>> It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool.
>>
>> Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual
>> bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid.
>> The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing
>> economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies)
>> more smooth.
>>
>>
>>  I don't see it as any different than gold or silver.  Banks used to have
>> reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that was
>> redeemable in gold or silver.  BUT they always loaned much more script than
>> they had gold or silver.  They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact that
>> in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their
>> script in gold or silver.
>>
>> Now you may say this is "lying", but so long as not done to excess, it
>> makes for good economics.  Consider and extreme example: Suppose the
>> 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script
>> anyway.  Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge
>> over small river near the town.  The banker loans him the script.  He pays
>> for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script
>> is backed by gold.  The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town
>> much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more
>> people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold
>> to back up his script.  "Artificially" increasing the money supply can be
>> very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on
>> trust.  If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically
>> distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down.
>>
>> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>
>  One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are
> not required for either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers.  If they are
> never held by intermediaries then they have nothing to loan out.
>
>
> The point of my example is that you don't HAVE to have anything to loan
> out.
>

Commercial banks from which people get loans don't create the Federal
Reserve notes they loan out, they need to already have some on hand before
they can make a loan.  With bitcoins it is clear you can't loan any out
unless they are in your possession.

Of course, our money today is fundamentally nothing but IOUs, which can be
created out of thin air and backed by nothing but a promise. The
instability of such a system arises when debt (which is money in our
system) is created faster than the rate at which the economy grows.
Defaulted debt destroys outstanding IOUs and collapses the money supply.


>   Banks loaned out the value of gold without having the gold (having only
> a small part of it).
>
> As for security I'm not sure; can't you lose your bitcoins?
>
>
You can, but their security need not depend on traditional physical
security approaches: vaults, guards, cameras, etc. You can encrypt your
wallet and then its security is assured.  Your wallet may even be based on
some suitably long password or passphrase which is not stored physically
anywhere (as http://brainwallet.org/ demonstrates).

So long as you don't forget and don't disclose this secret your funds are
safe.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

On 12/23/2013 6:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:02 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 12/23/2013 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the
freedom of
privacy and privateness.

Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin
suspects.
They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do their
work
"honestly" or not.
"honestly" is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the
least,
to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs despite
they
became obsolete).

Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible
life goal.

When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is
enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so
"those who
make money the main goal" crack, and corrupt the system, which at that
moment
become pyramidal.
It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool.

Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual
bank
system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid.
The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing
economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the
lies)
more smooth.

I don't see it as any different than gold or silver. Banks used to have
reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that
was
redeemable in gold or silver. BUT they always loaned much more script
than
they had gold or silver. They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact
that in any
given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their script
in gold
or silver.

Now you may say this is "lying", but so long as not done to excess, it
makes
for good economics. Consider and extreme example: Suppose the 'banker'
has no
gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script anyway. Someone
comes
to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge over small river
near the
town. The banker loans him the script. He pays for material and
labor, which
he can do because people believe the script is backed by gold. The
bridge gets
built and so farmers can come to town much more quickly, productivity is
improved and the town thrives, so more people deposit money in the bank
and the
banker can actually buy some gold to back up his script. "Artificially"
increasing the money supply can be very useful; but just as with all
kinds of
interactions it depends a lot on trust. If nobody trusts anybody else,
as now
so many people automatically distrust their government, then the
economy is
dragged down.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0

Brent

One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are not
required
for either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers. If they are never held by
intermediaries then they have nothing to loan out.

The point of my example is that you don't HAVE to have anything to loan out.

Commercial banks from which people get loans don't create the Federal Reserve notes they
loan out, they need to already have some on hand before they can make a loan. With
bitcoins it is clear you can't loan any out unless they are in your possession.

That's like saying those banks in the old west couldn't loan out gold unless they had it
in their possession. Sure; but it didn't keep them from loaning script that, according to
them, was backed by gold.

Of course, our money today is fundamentally nothing but IOUs, which can be created out
of thin air and backed by nothing but a promise. The instability of such a system arises
when debt (which is money in our system) is created faster than the rate at which the
economy grows. Defaulted debt destroys outstanding IOUs and collapses the money supply.

Which is the down side when money creation is excessive - but you miss the point of my
example which shows that this same fiat creation of money can also be good. Fundamentally
all money rests on trust. Even gold is only good because people believe others will
accept it for food, sex, etc.

Banks loaned out the value of gold without having the gold (having only a
small
part of it).

As for security I'm not sure; can't you lose your bitcoins?

You can, but their security need not depend on traditional physical security approaches:
vaults, guards, cameras, etc. You can encrypt your wallet and then its security is
as

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth

2013-12-23 Thread Jason Resch

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:22 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 12/23/2013 6:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 5:02 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>  On 12/23/2013 12:46 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>>  On 12/23/2013 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> Crypto-currencies, like cryptography, can surely help to save the
>>> freedom of privacy and privateness.
>>>
>>> Crypto-currencies does not need to be a pyramidal con, like Quentin
>>> suspects. They just allowed to create new independent banks which can do
>>> their work "honestly" or not.
>>> "honestly" is not moral here, but it means that it is attempted, at the
>>> least, to not base economy on lies (which often happens to keep jobs
>>> despite they became obsolete).
>>>
>>>
>>> Money is both the most wonderful economical tool and the most horrible
>>> life goal.
>>>
>>> When money is used honestly, every one (good willing enough) win and is
>>> enriched. But the longer the play, the bigger the liars can win, so "those
>>> who make money the main goal" crack, and corrupt the system, which at that
>>> moment become pyramidal.
>>> It is basically a confusion between meaning and use, or goal and tool.
>>>
>>> Today, a part of the economy relies on lies, so it is more the actual
>>> bank system which seems to lead us (partially) to a pyramid.
>>> The existence of crypto-money can help by providing different competing
>>> economies, and can help in making transition (and awakening from the lies)
>>> more smooth.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I don't see it as any different than gold or silver.  Banks used to
>>> have reserves of gold or silver and they issued their own script money that
>>> was redeemable in gold or silver.  BUT they always loaned much more script
>>> than they had gold or silver.  They relied, quite reasonably, on the fact
>>> that in any given time interval, only few people would want to redeem their
>>> script in gold or silver.
>>>
>>> Now you may say this is "lying", but so long as not done to excess, it
>>> makes for good economics.  Consider and extreme example: Suppose the
>>> 'banker' has no gold or silver at all but he's prepared to loan script
>>> anyway.  Someone comes to him and wants to borrow $1000 to build a bridge
>>> over small river near the town.  The banker loans him the script.  He pays
>>> for material and labor, which he can do because people believe the script
>>> is backed by gold.  The bridge gets built and so farmers can come to town
>>> much more quickly, productivity is improved and the town thrives, so more
>>> people deposit money in the bank and the banker can actually buy some gold
>>> to back up his script.  "Artificially" increasing the money supply can be
>>> very useful; but just as with all kinds of interactions it depends a lot on
>>> trust.  If nobody trusts anybody else, as now so many people automatically
>>> distrust their government, then the economy is dragged down.
>>>
>>> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/in-no-one-we-trust/?_r=0
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>  One difference I see is that with crypto-currencies intermediaries are
>> not required for either, 1. safe keeping, or 2. transfers.  If they are
>> never held by intermediaries then they have nothing to loan out.
>>
>>
>>  The point of my example is that you don't HAVE to have anything to loan
>> out.
>>
>
>  Commercial banks from which people get loans don't create the Federal
> Reserve notes they loan out, they need to already have some on hand before
> they can make a loan.  With bitcoins it is clear you can't loan any out
> unless they are in your possession.
>
>
> That's like saying those banks in the old west couldn't loan out gold
> unless they had it in their possession.  Sure; but it didn't keep them from
> loaning script that, according to them, was backed by gold.
>
>
>
This would be considered fraud in any other line of business.


>
>  Of course, our money today is fundamentally nothing but IOUs, which can
> be created out of thin air and backed by nothing but a promise. The
> instability of such a system arises when debt (which is money in our
> system) is created faster than the rate at which the economy grows.
> Defaulted debt destroys outstanding IOUs and collapses the money supply.
>
>
> Which is the down side when money creation is excessive - but you miss the
> point of my example which shows that this same fiat creation of money can
> also be good. Fundamentally all money rests on trust.  Even gold is only
> good because people believe others will accept it for food, sex, etc.
>


Trust is not a bad thing to have, but to design a system that inherently
requires trust to function and will crash should that trust ever evaporate
is a less-than-perfect design.


>
>
>
>>   Banks loaned out the value of gold without having the gold (having only
>> a small part of it).
>>
>> As for security I'm not sure; can't you lose your bitcoins?
>>
>>
>  You can

Re: How the banks are stealing our wealth