Post history

History for paulm

Current version

Posted May 30, 2022 19:25 · last edited May 31, 2022 02:49

But thats exactly what fiat currency was right?
That is why it was successful, initially, until the government debased it and debased it, and then eventually severed the peg to gold altogether. And now were so used to that, that you are even saying that fiat currencies are not *supposed* to be stores of value, when thats *exactly* what they were expected to be, and what they were, when they were created. They were simply a way of making the store of value more easily transmissible, they were never intended to *not* be a store of value.
I completely agree that gold was/is a decent store of value - the best we ever had until bitcoin. That's why the fiat currencies were backed by it.
But like every other government in history, all our current governments could not resist the temptation to print money (clip coins) to get themselves out of sticky situations, which is what broke that peg to gold. And now they have done it so much we have normalcy bias about it.
You are saying we should essentially create the same currencies again, that we already had, for what? So they can do it all over again? Do you trust them not to? There is zero historical basis for that level of trust. Humans simply cannot manage it, it's too tempting to just print more. And with a CBDC it gets even easier. Yes they can program in some scarcity, but they can't enforce that as the government will hold the keys to it. The first government that does it might stick to it, but the next government that encounters economic difficulty will immediately look to increase the supply, that's how it always pans out.
This is why bitcoin will win. It takes those policy decisions out of untrustworthy hands (humans), and gives it to simple, unbreakable, mathematical equations.

Previous versions

5 versions

Unknown editor edited May 31, 2022 02:49

But thats exactly what fiat currency was right?
That is why it was successful, initially, until the government debased it and debased it, and then eventually severed the peg to gold altogether. And now were so used to that, that you are even saying that fiat currencies are not *supposed* to be stores of value, when thats *exactly* what they were expected to be, and what they were, when they were created. They were a way of making the store of value more easily transmissible.
I agree that gold was/is a good store of value - the best we ever had until bitcoin. That's why the fiat currencies were backed by it.
But like every other government in history, all our current governments could not resist the temptation to print money (clip coins) to get themselves out of sticky situations, which is what broke that peg to gold. And now they have done it so much we have normalcy bias about it.
You are saying we should essentially create the same currencies again, that we already had, for what? So they can do it all over again? Do you trust them not to? There is zero historical basis for that level of trust. Humans simply cannot manage it, it's too tempting to just print more. And with a CBDC it gets even easier.
This is why bitcoin will win. It takes those policy decisions out of untrustworthy hands (humans), and gives it to simple, unbreakable, mathematical equations.

Unknown editor edited May 31, 2022 02:46

You do realise thats exactly what fiat currency was right?
That is why it was successful, initially, until the government debased it and debased it, and then eventually severed the peg to gold altogether. And now were so used to that, that you are even saying that fiat currencies are not *supposed* to be stores of value, when thats *exactly* what they were expected to be, and what they were, when they were created.
I agree that gold was/is a good store of value - the best we ever had until bitcoin. That's why the fiat currencies were backed by it.
But like every other government in history, all our current governments could not resist the temptation to print money (clip coins) to get themselves out of sticky situations, which is what broke that peg to gold. And now they have done it so much we have normalcy bias about it.
You are saying we should essentially create the same currencies again, that we already had, for what? So they can do it all over again? Do you trust them not to? There is zero historical basis for that level of trust. Humans simply cannot manage it, it's too tempting to just print more. And with a CBDC it gets even easier.
This is why bitcoin will win. It takes that policy out of untrustworthy hands (humans), and gives it to simple, unbreakable, mathematical equations.

Unknown editor edited May 31, 2022 02:42

You do realise thats exactly what fiat currency was right?
That is why it was successful, initially, until the government debased it and debased it, and then eventually severed the peg to gold altogether. And now were so used to that, that you are even saying that fiat currencies are not *supposed* to be stores of value, when thats *exactly* what they were expected to be, and what they were, when they were created.
I agree that gold was/is a good store of value - the best we ever had until bitcoin. That's why the fiat currencies were backed by it.
But like every other government in history, all our current governments could not resist the temptation to print money (clip coins) to get themselves out of sticky situations, which is what broke that peg to gold. And now they have done it so much we have normalcy bias about it.
You are saying we should essentially create the same currencies again, that we already had, for what? So they can do it all over again? Do you trust them not to? There is zero historical basis for that level of trust. Humans simply cannot manage it, it's too tempting to just print more.
This is why bitcoin will win. It takes that policy out of untrustworthy hands (humans), and gives it to simple, unbreakable, mathematical equations.

Unknown editor edited May 31, 2022 02:41

You do realise thats exactly what fiat currency was right?
That is why it was successful, initially, until the government debased it and debased it, and then eventually severed the peg to gold altogether. And now were so used to that, that you are even saying that fiat currencies are not *supposed* to be stores of value, when thats *exactly* what they were expected to be, and what they were, when they were created.
But like every other government in history, all our current governments could not resist the temptation to clip coins/print money to get themselves out of sticky situations. And now they have done it so much we have normalcy bias about it.
You are saying we should create the same currencies again, that we already had, for what? So they can do it all over again? Do you trust them not to? There is zero historical basis for that trust.
This is why bitcoin will win. It takes that policy out of untrustworthy hands (humans), and gives it to simple, unbreakable, mathematical equations.

Unknown editor edited May 30, 2022 19:26

You do realise thats exactly what fiat currency was right?
That is why it was successful, initially, until the government debased it and debased it, and then eventually severed the peg to gold altogether. And now were so used to that, that you are even saying that fiat currencies are not *supposed* to be stores of value, when thats *exactly* what they were expected to be, and what they were, when they were created.
But like every other government in history, all our current governments could not resist the temptation to clip coins/print money to get themselves out of sticky situations. And now they have done it so much we have normalcy bias about it.
You are saying we should create the same currencies again, that we already had, for what? So they can do it all over again? Do you trust them not to? There is zero historical basis for that trust.
This is why bitcoin will win. It takes that policy out of untrustworthy hands (humans), and gives it to simple, unbreakable, mathematical equations.
One thing that we are also affected by normalcy bias on is the idea that currency should be issued and managed by central authorities. This is a terrible idea and history has shown repeatedly that they are very poor at it. It should not be in their hands.