Quote from: r0ach on July 30, 2017, 03:05:12 AM

Is this a joke? None of the crap you say makes any sense then you post this horrific shilling for the central banks statement LOL. The further you abstract money from barter the bigger a scam it is. Using a physical, commodity based currency (noble metals in native coin format - you know, like gold coins, silver coins, copper coins, etc) is about as close as it gets to barter, which is why it's generally the only non-scam monetary system.

Pure barter was PROVED by John Nash to be not optimal for all parties involved. The addition of money to trade creates a higher order for efficiency this was mathematically proved in the 50's. http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs286r/courses/spring02/papers/nash50a.pdf

Commodity money is not superior to bitcoin for the reasons you are implying. In fact it would be optimal that we release gold and oil from their monetary components as inflation hedges so that they can be used as resources otherwise.

You are implying gold is scarce, but gold is not scarce and so going forward it would not be a good money. And historically we have seen issues in this regard. Bitcoin doesn't suffer from this problem.

There is no evidence and no founded argument that money must consist of an otherwise useful commodity.

Quote from: r0ach on July 30, 2017, 03:05:12 AM

I don't want to hear any of your Keynesian garbage where you attempt to obfuscate the monetary system through a Rube Goldberg machine in order to scam people whether it's bitcoin or some other poorly constructed Rube Goldberg likes the ones CBs already use. Occam's Razor wins in the end and shekling scammers can BTFO.

My argument is not pro-keynesian by any standpoint it is based on the Nashian viewpoint:

Quote

The label Keynesian is convenient, but to be safe we should have a defined meaning for this as a party that can be criticized and contrasted with other parties.
So let us define Keynesian to be descriptive of a school of thought that originated at the time of the devaluations of the pound and the dollar in the early 30s of the 20th century. Then, more specifically, a Keynesian would favor the existence of a manipulative state establishment of central bank and treasury which would continuously seek to achieve economics welfare objectives with comparatively little regard for the long term reputation of the national currency~Ideal Money

To be clearer:

Quote

There can be Keynesians Neo-Keynesians New-Keynesians Post-Keynesians. Even the Post-Keynesians are still Keynesians~Lecture, Ideal Money

You have to be more careful with your arguments and presumptions cause I'll make a mockery of your missteps. Call me Keynesian again...