Quote from: BobK71 on April 25, 2017, 04:11:54 PM

Quote from: deisik on April 24, 2017, 06:04:19 PM

Quote from: BobK71 on April 24, 2017, 04:11:36 PM

The only problem with this view is that everything that is deemed 'money' is issued by the state. And money that is issued by the state has the incentives built in to eventually self-destruct, since the elites get to receive unearned power and wealth by issuing too much of it

The reason for that was quite simple, though

But it is no longer applicable, anyway. Money was the state's privilege simply because they had the monopoly on the means of communications and could easily intercept anything you might send over, say, a phone line. With Internet reaching almost every hole out there and encryption all over the place, this is no longer the case, so this monopoly is essentially over too. Money as cash doesn't play a significant role in today's world, it is transferring value over long distances with minimal delays which is what counts nowadays

I'm sorry, but this is wrong in many ways.

Are you saying communications technology was how the state used to monopolize money? Compared to the gold standard, communications interception wasn't even a close second, in terms of being a tool of monopoly

You are as dishonest as always

At first you started talking about the money issued by the state (otherwise known as fiat) and then, all of a sudden, you switched to gold and gold standard. Gold as money is not issued by the state, period. Other than that, yes, the state monopolized fiat money (or soft currency if you are going to pick on the word fiat) since it had monopoly on the means of communication. Privately issued money (or publicly if it is beyond the state's control as Bitcoin) without the capacity of transferring value over distance is set to lose to any fiat currency which doesn't get abused too much