BITCOIN

Section62

darren232002 said:

Why should a government have to borrow money at all? Why can't governments just, y'know like regular people, live within their means? (Broadly speaking) 

Because 'regular people' elect governments to do stuff which costs money and that money isn't always on hand to be spent. Nor is putting up taxes always an option.

Governments that try to cut back on spending (and borrowing) tend to be pretty unpopular and short-lived... because the 'regular people' who elect them are quite happy for the services and infrastructure they want right now to be provided at someone else's expense (even if that's their great-grandkids problem).

This is a political problem - or more specifically a problem with who is allowed to vote - and it isn't going to be solved by Bitcoin.  The subject is interesting, but getting rather off-topic on a Bitcoin thread.

User232002

Section62 said:

Because 'regular people' elect governments to do stuff which costs money and that money isn't always on hand to be spent. Nor is putting up taxes always an option.

Just to avoid some silly semantics here, I'm not referring to cash flow issues when I talk about borrowing. I think its fine for a government to borrow money throughout a tax year to alleviate cash flow issues associated with receiving tax revenues in large chunks on specific dates.

However, consistent deficit spending (living beyond your means) can't be condoned. The bill comes due at some point and you can't put it off forever. This has to be a self evident truth surely - If you genuinely believe that borrowing can be done with impunity then why can't we just 'borrow' (because by borrow, we really mean print) a few trillion and make everyone a millionaire? 

Historically, deficit spending was conducted in the hope that higher future growth would allow you to pay off your accrued debt in the future. However, growth and productivity have been consistently trending down in the UK (and many western countries) for some time now and the debt has approached such a size that this argument doesn't seem to hold much water any more. How high does growth have to be and for how long just to pay off the current accrued debt? Does that seem realistic? The current best hope is technological innovation - but tech companies seem more interested in getting everyone to scroll through adverts for cheap tat  than providing the lower tranches of Maslow's needs in a more efficient manner.

Section62 said:

Governments that try to cut back on spending (and borrowing) tend to be pretty unpopular and short-lived... because the 'regular people' who elect them are quite happy for the services and infrastructure they want right now to be provided at someone else's expense (even if that's their great-grandkids problem).

I agree. I've posted exactly this in this thread before. The incentives of the current status quo are not aligned with the long term health of society and because of this a fiat system is doomed to failure.

Section62 said:

This is a political problem - or more specifically a problem with who is allowed to vote - and it isn't going to be solved by Bitcoin.  The subject is interesting, but getting rather off-topic on a Bitcoin thread.

I don't think this is off topic at all and its exactly what Bitcoiners refer to when they use the phrase 'fix the money, fix the world.'

You'll notice I talk about incentives a lot; Bitcoiners (and crypto particpants more widely) tend to believe in creating systems of incentives that encourage the particpation that you want/need/aspire to. 

Notepad_Phil

darren232002 said:

....
I'm not a fan of the gold standard and I'm not advocating for its return

Apologies, it was spnego on the previous page who was advocating "If we were in a bitcoin based system, a bitcoin standard if you will then governments wouldn't be able to magic up money out of thin air to pay for things they would have to borrow real bitcoin."  and it was in terms of that post that I was replying.

As to the rest of your post:

I was heavily involved in software engineering so my mention of tainted software was more of a throwaway warning. Code can always potentially be tampered with - it might be very difficult but it's not impossible, and no I'm not talking about 51% attacks or other such unsubtle methods.

Self-custody is great until it's not - be it forgetting or losing the slip of paper with your 12 words on, or however else you've lost access to it. I wonder what the percentage of bitcoins in lost wallets is at now?

It was you who was talking of bitcoin perpetuity, so I'm not sure how you can complain about my mention of 1000 years.

If BTC gives you the means by which you feel safe against the ravages of QE then that's great. However it doesn't give me that feeling so I'll continue to keep clear and continue investing elsewhere.

Zola.

Much like separating religion from government policies .. Cutting off the ability to print endless amounts of money to then invade another country would be another benefit in moving to a Bitcoin standard.

If the government had to raise that money honestly they'd think twice about the true cost and consequences of war 

Aegis

Zola. said:

Much like separating religion from government policies .. Cutting off the ability to print endless amounts of money to then invade another country would be another benefit in moving to a Bitcoin standard.

If the government had to raise that money honestly they'd think twice about the true cost and consequences of war 

History would very much suggest that this wouldn't be a barrier at all.  In fact, the vast majority of wars we've been involved in were when we had an asset-backed currency.  There are plenty of discussions to be had around currency and asset-backing vs fiat, but the idea that an asset-backed currency would reduce wars is just not even close to true.

Zola.

Aegis said:

Zola. said:

Much like separating religion from government policies .. Cutting off the ability to print endless amounts of money to then invade another country would be another benefit in moving to a Bitcoin standard.

If the government had to raise that money honestly they'd think twice about the true cost and consequences of war 

History would very much suggest that this wouldn't be a barrier at all.  In fact, the vast majority of wars we've been involved in were when we had an asset-backed currency.  There are plenty of discussions to be had around currency and asset-backing vs fiat, but the idea that an asset-backed currency would reduce wars is just not even close to true.

The fall of the roman empire was largely down to continuous currency debasement via coin clipping, which was used to fund wars, via taxation essentially. That would be impossible with bitcoin. 

What's happening today is not too dissimilar - using the money printer and subsequent taxes to fund military spending and ultimately wars.

We're moving off topic from the most recent discussions...but I think we can all agree bitcoin is a fascinating concept and one that has barely begun to take hold in the world. 

Section62

Zola. said:

Aegis said:

Zola. said:

Much like separating religion from government policies .. Cutting off the ability to print endless amounts of money to then invade another country would be another benefit in moving to a Bitcoin standard.

If the government had to raise that money honestly they'd think twice about the true cost and consequences of war 

History would very much suggest that this wouldn't be a barrier at all.  In fact, the vast majority of wars we've been involved in were when we had an asset-backed currency.  There are plenty of discussions to be had around currency and asset-backing vs fiat, but the idea that an asset-backed currency would reduce wars is just not even close to true.

The fall of the roman empire was largely down to continuous currency debasement via coin clipping, which was used to fund wars, via taxation essentially. That would be impossible with bitcoin. 

So Bitcoin could have saved the Roman Empire?  If only they had invented the Blockchain instead of straight roads and plumbing.

Makes me wonder when someone else will come along claiming Bitcoin can cure cancer.  Although I've got a feeling if I put those words into google I'll find someone has put forward that idea already.....

IvanOpinion

Section62 said:

Makes me wonder when someone else will come along claiming Bitcoin can cure cancer.  Although I've got a feeling if I put those words into google I'll find someone has put forward that idea already.....

Waves hand Not bitcoin, but one of the companies I work for is looking at ways the block chain can be leveraged to make it easier to mine data in relation to determining patterns in relation to the treatment of cancer.  I see huge value and understand blockchain technology but, as it stands at the minute, crypto currency is far too early in its evolution to be of mainstream use.

Section62

darren232002 said:

Section62 said:

Because 'regular people' elect governments to do stuff which costs money and that money isn't always on hand to be spent. Nor is putting up taxes always an option.

Just to avoid some silly semantics here, I'm not referring to cash flow issues when I talk about borrowing. I think its fine for a government to borrow money throughout a tax year to alleviate cash flow issues associated with receiving tax revenues in large chunks on specific dates.

Yup, I worked in Government long enough to know that in-year cash flow is not a problem.  The things I had in mind relate more to spending and in particular spending on infrastructure.  Few global governments would be able to spend £100Bn+ building (say) a railway wholly within their annual disposable income - especially not when the revenue from that infrastructure won't start arriving for a couple of decades.

However, to follow through on your 'regular people' argument - these 'regular people' borrow fantastic sums to buy a roof over their head. Arguably its insane that people are willing to spend so much on a property, but neither would most people be able to buy a property outright 'within their means' if prices were a factor of 10 cheaper.  What is the intrinsic difference between borrowing £100k to buy a house, or £100Bn to buy a railway?

'Regular people' borrow to live their dreams.  There are enough people who want governments to do the same to mean this issue is greater than the type of currency we use. Changing the currency won't fix the problem.

darren232002 said:

However, consistent deficit spending (living beyond your means) can't be condoned. The bill comes due at some point and you can't put it off forever. This has to be a self evident truth surely - If you genuinely believe that borrowing can be done with impunity then why can't we just 'borrow' (because by borrow, we really mean print) a few trillion and make everyone a millionaire? 

Historically, deficit spending was conducted in the hope that higher future growth would allow you to pay off your accrued debt in the future. However, growth and productivity have been consistently trending down in the UK (and many western countries) for some time now and the debt has approached such a size that this argument doesn't seem to hold much water any more. How high does growth have to be and for how long just to pay off the current accrued debt? Does that seem realistic? The current best hope is technological innovation - but tech companies seem more interested in getting everyone to scroll through adverts for cheap tat  than providing the lower tranches of Maslow's needs in a more efficient manner.

Form a political party, get yourself elected on a platform of austerity, live your dream.

Section62

Zola. said:

...........

Given you heavily edited your original post while I was relying to it, I wonder whether the "point" you refer to is what you originally said, or the version people can now see?