Quote from: Etlase2 on March 01, 2012, 03:20:52 PM

I really don't see bitcoin solving the problem of currency being manipulated. It basically begs to be manipulated by having absolutely zero recourse to combat hoarding.

All money must at all times be in someone's possession. There is no scientific way of distinguishing "hoarding" from other possession of money.

Quote from: Etlase2 on March 01, 2012, 03:20:52 PM

The upper echelon of the wealthy can call in loans, sell investments, etc. and hoard currency ...

Why should any of such action have any effect on Bitcoin?

Quote from: Etlase2 on March 01, 2012, 03:20:52 PM

... and cause the markets to panic/crash.

Even if it worked this way, there is no reason to conclude that this would somehow benefit the perpetrators. They could just as well lose and make some Bitcoins speculators incredibly rich.

Quote from: Etlase2 on March 01, 2012, 03:20:52 PM

There is evidence that this is what JP Morgan and his buddies did on purpose to get the Federal Reserve Act passed, so that the public can be slowly bled dry instead of causing major recessions.

Even if this was correct, this only could have worked with legal tender. If JPM had crashed the pound rather than dollar, again there would be no effect. Like Soros when he shorted the pound in 1992. It made the BoE angry but there's no reason why US public or politicians should be affected by that.

Quote from: Etlase2 on March 01, 2012, 03:20:52 PM

I disagree in part about fractional reserve though. I believe it gets a bad rap because of how it has been abused and how that abuse has been sanctioned by world governments. Fractional reserve can be a very good thing for economic growth, but it can be a catastrophic thing when it is abused, and historically it has always been abused.

The problem is not fractional banking per se, rather elasticity of the money supply. While they typically do go hand in hand, it depends on other features of the monetary system. Furthermore, while credit is beneficial to the economy, this can be done without affecting the money supply.

Quote from: Etlase2 on March 01, 2012, 03:20:52 PM

Oh I don't disagree with you. It's just the fact that everyone who didn't save in gold and silver gets screwed, and those holding gold/silver profit because of it.

As long as there are different goods, some of them will be more suitable as a store of value and some less. And, some people will be able to predict this more accurately than the others.

Quote from: Etlase2 on March 01, 2012, 03:20:52 PM

I have moral issues with this.

But it's unavoidable.

Quote from: Etlase2 on March 01, 2012, 03:20:52 PM

I'm not accusing anyone of being immoral for being ahead of the curve, but I just wish there weren't a curve anyone had to be ahead of.

It's still unavoidable.

Quote from: Etlase2 on March 01, 2012, 03:20:52 PM

Money should be neutral.

Here is what Ludwig von Mises says:

Quote from: Ludwig von Mises

But in any case I must protest against the belief that it has to be a goal of monetary policy to make money neutral and that it is the duty of the economists to determine a method of doing so. I wish to emphasize that in a living and changing world, in a world of action, there is no room left for a neutral money. Money is non-neutral or it does not exist.