Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 03, 2016, 05:59:36 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Poll

Are you using Bitcoins yet?

Yes.
No.

Last post Author Topic: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?  (Read 7288 times)

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« on: June 24, 2011, 01:49:20 AM »
Is anyone here using Bitcoins yet?

www.bitcoin.org


Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

app103

  • That scary taskbar girl
  • Global Moderator
  • Joined in 2006
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,666
    • View Profile
    • App's Apps
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2011, 02:41:01 AM »
I don't have faith in the value of bitcoins and I won't until mainstream retailers start accepting them for payment. Until then it's a waste of my money/electricity to generate or buy bitcoins.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2011, 02:59:12 AM »
To be honest, I think that if it does attract mainstream attention/use, it will mysteriously experience problems and get shut down.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

mahesh2k

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,417
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2011, 05:55:01 AM »
Do these service qualify for mainstream market ?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade

I know that they're not accepted at some popular sites.But the concept is to replace real currency. Most likely individuals and business will enter in this bitcoin stuff earlier and will participate as long as they make 4-6 figure profit out from it and then they'll step out of it. So like any other currency market, bitcoin will also experience few quakes before death.

E-gold got shut down when they tried to do that but recently revived when they worked on their Anti-money laundry policy. Same is the case with liberty reserve and hd-money and other processors.No doubt they're good paypal alternative but they perform poorly when global market is disturbed or if there is recession. 

Lashiec

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,374
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2011, 06:12:10 AM »
Bitcoin is already experiencing big problems. Even without those, I don't see the point in using such a volatile virtual currency, there's a reason why pretty much any currency is tightly controlled, virtual or not (see ISK in EVE Online). And even without the volatility, I have PayPal and no way of buying objects under a veil of anonymity, which is nearly impossible anyway.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 06:15:53 AM by Lashiec »

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2011, 09:10:55 AM »
To be honest, I think that if it does attract mainstream attention/use, it will mysteriously experience problems and get shut down.

You've already got a few US politicos screaming for legal action against it. Are we surprised? ;D

On a more serious note  ;) currencies are only as good as what backs them - unless they're made out of some precious metal. If I'm going to accept a currency, I'd want it to be just like the dollar or the euro where there's the promise from the issuers they will tax their people unto the twentieth generation to make good on what it represents. And who furthermore promise to unleash the full fury of their satellite directed night-vision equipped high-tech military forces on anybody who dares say otherwise. (Including their own people.)  :'(







« Last Edit: June 24, 2011, 09:13:10 AM by 40hz »

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,713
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2011, 03:34:46 PM »
We just need to get back to the gold standard. I wouldn't mind the dollar being worth an ounce of gold right now. If I understand it correctly, 1 ounce of gold is currently worth about $1,500.

If each dollar bill had the buying power of $1,500 then I would be a very wealthy person, even though I've only got about 40 dollar bills in my wallet right now.


40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2011, 03:43:41 PM »
We just need to get back to the gold standard.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The whole deficit spending program most governments function under would come to a screeching halt if they actually had to base the rubber checks they were writing to themselves on something that existed in the real world.

Which is unfortunate. Because they have a bear by the tail with that one. The current economic situation can't go on indefinitely without a crash. And if they try to reform it, it will provoke a an even more rapid crash.

Small wonder so many politicians  throw the problem as far into the future as they possibly can and then hope they'll be dead before the day of reckoning arrives.


Shades

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,096
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2011, 04:06:31 PM »
I find it "funny" that maximum limit of debt the US is allowed to make, has to be stretched further...which is first to be handled by their own government and has to have the backing of the IMF as well (as far as I understand).

Guess what, the bossman of the IMF has been caught with his pants down.

Starts to become too coincidental, if you ask me.

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,405
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2011, 04:09:19 PM »
We just need to get back to the gold standard.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The whole deficit spending program most governments function under would come to a screeching halt if they actually had to base the rubber checks they were writing to themselves on something that existed in the real world.

Which is unfortunate. Because they have a bear by the tail with that one. The current economic situation can't go on indefinitely without a crash. And if they try to reform it, it will provoke a an even more rapid crash.

Small wonder so many politicians  throw the problem as far into the future as they possibly can and then hope they'll be dead before the day of reckoning arrives.



I don't agree with every(most- even)thing that has been done financially, but this I will say... getting off the gold standard was the best thing that has been done in concept, and going back to it is pretty much a no-go, even talking fiscal responsibility.  Basing your economy on a limited resource limits your economic growth.

An article on why we shouldn't go to the Gold standard, and an alternative standard to replace the USD.

JavaJones

  • Review 2.0 Designer
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,717
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2011, 12:48:43 PM »
And what's wrong with limiting economic growth? Everything else in the *real world* has limits, so eventually economic growth must also be limited. We're just putting off the time line of that limitation artificially for the short-term gain of a few.

- Oshyan

steeladept

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,059
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2011, 01:53:47 PM »
I don't agree with every(most- even)thing that has been done financially, but this I will say... getting off the gold standard was the best thing that has been done in concept, and going back to it is pretty much a no-go, even talking fiscal responsibility.  Basing your economy on a limited resource limits your economic growth.

An article on why we shouldn't go to the Gold standard, and an alternative standard to replace the USD.

That is a horrible and bogus article that doesn't even understand the concept of money.  It is precisely BECAUSE it is scarce that it is a good source to base the monetary system on.  The reason everything fluctuates so much is because it is being debased by the controllers of the system.  Gold's price fluctuations are not the effect of the value of gold, but rather the relative value of gold.  In other words, the reason the price of gold changes so much is because of the amount of fiat currency people are willing to take in it's place.  When there is more currency, we call it inflation, and it takes many more dollars/pounds/whatever to buy it.  When there is less, or when it is based on a solid relatively fixed quantity commodity, it takes less to buy it.

Think of it this way.  In 1950, just for example, it took approximately 20 oz of Gold to buy an average car.  That same car cost about $400.   (As a side note, in 1950 the dollar was on a gold standard pegged at $20/oz IIRC).  Today, it is still about 20 oz. of Gold to buy an average car that cost - what?  About $30,000?  That, to me means that the price of gold has stayed the same, but the value of the dollar has dropped (not gold going up!).  Something to think about...  

40hz

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 11,768
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2011, 02:30:30 PM »
I find it "funny" that maximum limit of debt the US is allowed to make, has to be stretched further...which is first to be handled by their own government and has to have the backing of the IMF as well (as far as I understand).

I think they need to do that for any large economic factor regardless of their scruples or ideals. It's happening now with Greece.

And it applies within countries when banks and other institutions need to be bailed out to prevent the entire system from going into a major crisis. Most people understand the necessity even though it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. (Why it's allowed to happen over and over again, however, is another question entirely.)

Reform and pragmatics don't always go hand-in-hand when it comes to the actions of the World Bank, the IMF, and the central banks. Sometimes they do what they should. But more often than not, they do what they must. Situational ethics to be sure - but many times it comes down to a choice between proving a point or minimizing a disaster.

Quote
Guess what, the bossman of the IMF has been caught with his pants down.

Starts to become too coincidental, if you ask me.

I think it's more an issue of cultural differences and a certain hubris on the part of some highly placed individuals to sometimes believe the rules are different for them because of their status.

I'm perfectly willing to grant Dominique Strauss-Kahn the presumption of innocence. But there appears to be enough reported facts in his case along with his subsequent (and prior) behaviors to make an argument there was reasonable cause for  his arrest.

Conspiracy? Possibly.

Suffice to say anybody holding an office like his is bound to acquire formidable enemies over time. But that's a speculative road that has no end, so I'd rather not walk down it.

Actually, I think he was set up because he had accidentally discovered the truth about Area 51 and the aliens that Majestic is in league with (along with their supporters and 'sleeper' agents in the World Bank, the Vatican, The John Birch Society, The Republican National Party, The American Bar Association, The International Red Cross, The Illuminatus, The Board of Directors for Walt Disney Studios, The National Transgender Alliance, the Knights of the House of the Apostles of Eris Esoteric (Kallisti!), the Public Broadcasting Network, and The American Rifle Association, et al.) and was planning on releasing his discovery to Wikileaks except his contact was consumed by flesh-eating zombies that worked for fascist werewolves that work for communist vampires before he could transfer the information! I mean think about it. It's sooo obvious!
,
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 02:36:18 PM by 40hz »

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,405
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2011, 03:18:28 PM »
And what's wrong with limiting economic growth? Everything else in the *real world* has limits, so eventually economic growth must also be limited. We're just putting off the time line of that limitation artificially for the short-term gain of a few.

Limiting economic growth without limiting population growth?  You *really* want to talk about the haves and the have nots.

I don't agree with every(most- even)thing that has been done financially, but this I will say... getting off the gold standard was the best thing that has been done in concept, and going back to it is pretty much a no-go, even talking fiscal responsibility.  Basing your economy on a limited resource limits your economic growth.

An article on why we shouldn't go to the Gold standard, and an alternative standard to replace the USD.

That is a horrible and bogus article that doesn't even understand the concept of money.  It is precisely BECAUSE it is scarce that it is a good source to base the monetary system on.  The reason everything fluctuates so much is because it is being debased by the controllers of the system.  Gold's price fluctuations are not the effect of the value of gold, but rather the relative value of gold.  In other words, the reason the price of gold changes so much is because of the amount of fiat currency people are willing to take in it's place.  When there is more currency, we call it inflation, and it takes many more dollars/pounds/whatever to buy it.  When there is less, or when it is based on a solid relatively fixed quantity commodity, it takes less to buy it.

Think of it this way.  In 1950, just for example, it took approximately 20 oz of Gold to buy an average car.  That same car cost about $400.   (As a side note, in 1950 the dollar was on a gold standard pegged at $20/oz IIRC).  Today, it is still about 20 oz. of Gold to buy an average car that cost - what?  About $30,000?  That, to me means that the price of gold has stayed the same, but the value of the dollar has dropped (not gold going up!).  Something to think about...  

You didn't really read the whole thing, did you?  To base the entire world's economy on one material of limited supply that has no intrinsic value is the part that is the problem, and most economists agree with that point.  Just because the system has been abused doesn't mean that leaving it was a bad thing.

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,713
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2011, 03:46:07 PM »
To base the entire world's economy on one material of limited supply that has no intrinsic value is the part that is the problem, and most economists agree with that point.

I don't see how basing the entire world's economy on one material of unlimited supply that has no intrinsic value is any better.


zridling

  • Friend of the Site
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,292
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2011, 06:03:36 PM »
I see a Mad Max world soon for those of us in the lower 99%! Note that all austerity policies around the globe only affect those "without the gold" (the richest folks), so I apologize for the digression.

mckinleysm.jpg

Is It Better to Forgive Than to Receive?
Repudiation of the Gold Indexation Clause in Long-Term Debt During the Great Depression
by Randall S. Kroszner, 1998.
http://faculty.chica...rs/repudiation11.pdf

Here's a blockquote short version:
This paper examines the consequences of large-scale debt relief during the Great Depression in order to examine theories of debt overhang and the costs of bankruptcy. When the U.S. went off the gold standard and devalued the dollar with respect to gold, the government declared that the courts would no longer enforce gold indexation clauses which appeared in virtually all long-term private and public debts up to that time. If the gold clauses had been enforced, the debt burden of borrowers would have increased by the extent of the devaluation, which was 69 percent. I examine asset price responses to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold this effective debt jubilee. Equity prices rise, but more surprisingly, the debt relief also led to higher prices for corporate bonds (all of which contained gold clauses). In contrast, government bonds with gold clauses fall in value. These responses suggest that the benefits of eliminating debt overhang and avoiding bankruptcy for private firms more than offset the loss to creditors of some chance of trying to recover the additional 69 percent. Consistent with large costs of debt overhang and bankruptcy, in the cross section, stock and bond prices of firms closer to bankruptcy rose more than other firms. The results suggest that in these circumstances it is indeed better to forgive than to receive.
_____________________________
  • Following the inflation during the Civil War, almost all long-term financial contracts in the U.S. came to include a “gold clause” which effectively indexed to gold the value of the payments to creditors. This clause protected creditors against devaluation of the dollar since they could demand payment in gold or the equivalent value of gold in nominal dollars if the price of gold were to rise during the life of the contract. On June 5, 1933, Congress passed a Joint Resolution nullifying gold clauses in both private and public debt contracts. One legal authority has remarked of this Resolution: “In legal history there is probably no other statute of a purely private-law character which has engendered such enormous financial changes…”
  • The abrogation of gold clauses was a key part of Roosevelt’s “first hundred days,” providing the foundation for much of the New Deal policies directed at reflating the economy including the departure of the U.S. from the gold standard. Although the Supreme Court struck down most of Roosevelt’s early New Deal programs, the Court upheld the government’s ability to alter financial contracts by refusing to enforce gold clauses. Given that the price of gold rose from $20.67 per ounce to $35 per ounce when the U.S. officially devalued in 1934, the abrogation of these clauses was tantamount to a debt jubilee….
  • Justice McReynolds, in a strident and emotional dissent, decried that “the Constitution is gone” and compared the actions of the government in these cases to those of “Nero in his worst form.” The minority expressed “shame and humiliation” at the majority’s decision and found the consequences of the decision upholding repudiation “abhorrent.” With the sanctity of private contracts now eliminated and the government effectively repudiating its obligations, the dislocation of the domestic economy could be much greater in the long run than any possible short run disruptions due to gold clause enforcement….
  • High Bankruptcy Costs and Debt-Deflation Hypothesis: If the costs of bankruptcy and distortions of investment incentives of debt overhang are sufficiently large, then enforcement of the gold clause could have reduced the expected payments to corporate bond holders. This occurs when the anticipated benefit of enforcement of the gold clause, which would raise nominal payments to bond holders by 69 percent times the expectation of a decision upholding enforceability, must be more than offset by the expected reduction of payments to bond holders due to bankruptcy and distorted investment incentives….
  • In addition to the bankruptcy costs that affect individual firms, there could have been an external effect of massive bankruptcies and underinvestment incentives induced by a decision adverse to the government (e.g., Fisher 1933, Myers 1977, and Lamont 1995). The two-year long recovery of the economy might have been stopped and a severe crisis could have arisen as individual firm bankruptcies led to further waves of failures of financial intermediaries and to broad financial and economic collapse…
  • VII. Conclusions
  • The evidence presented above is consistent with the “high bankruptcy costs and debt deflation” hypothesis. The debt repudiation that was the practical effect of the gold clause decision increased the value of both debt and equity, and firms with greater likelihood of experiencing financial distress had the greatest increase in the value of their securities. These preliminary results suggest that models emphasizing debt overhang and the costs of financial distress may have empirical relevance for evaluating policies of debt relief for both firms and nations.

It really shows what a total bad ass Franklin Roosevelt was back in the day compared to our leaders today.

steeladept

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,059
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2011, 09:17:17 AM »
To base the entire world's economy on one material of limited supply that has no intrinsic value is the part that is the problem, and most economists agree with that point.

I don't see how basing the entire world's economy on one material of unlimited supply that has no intrinsic value is any better.
It doesn't.  In fact, it makes it worse.  The fact that gold has no intrinsic value is not part of the problem, rather it is the reason it is a good basis for monetary policy.  If you have a continuously variable supply that can be consumed by any number of sources (silver, for example) then the value is based on the supply at hand and makes everything relative and meaningless.  Gold has a stable supply (it increases supply at a miniscule, stable rate and has no significant source of consumption), can only be increased by small amounts (you have to find it before you can dig it up), requires economic activity to grow, and most importantly can not be created or destroyed by those who control the monetary system.  The only thing they can do is control how much exits their system (the banking system); and to a certain extent, how much enters it.  If they can not control a material that is intrinsically valuable due solely to scarcity (which is the only intrinsic value of gold), then they can not arbitrarily control the entire economy at will as they do now.

As far as "... most economists agree on that.", the only thing I have seen economists agree on with regard to your argument is that gold has no intrinsic value.  I have never heard an economic debate where they agree that the problem was because it is a limited resource of no intrinsic value.  That argument is patently absurd for the reasons mentioned above.  If it is unlimited resource, then by definition it also has no intrinsic value.  If it is a limited resource with an intrinsic value (and few resources truly do, BTW) such as food stuffs, then the variability of the supply makes it far too unstable to be a useful source to base monetary policy on.

worstje

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 571
  • The Gent with the White Hat
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #17 on: June 26, 2011, 11:26:05 AM »
I've got a simpletons solution to everything.

...

Let's base it inversely on the amount of CO2 and other crappy stuff in our air. It will finally give the beancounters a reason to favor nature and the generations we are currently ignoring with our own selfishness. :D

In case it isn't obvious yet: I can't really bother with analyzing economy like that. :) I understand it is important for tons of people, most of whom are beancounters, but in the long term I only see it mess stuff up given the inherent Do-Take-Dont-Give mentality it embodies.

But just to add my $0.02... my naive view is that relying on gold as our base commodity is pretty decent if only for the fact that way back countries weren't in as major debt as they are now. Money is an abstract number nowadays. Going deeper into debt doesn't seem to matter once you are already into debt for billions, and fixing it isn't something anyone wants - they just want to spend. If it was based on gold, we'd need so many shitty amounts of gold that countries/companies would finally stop biting into the apple-of-infinite-debt-money. Realistic people don't give their time or hard work away willy-nilly with a promise of being paid, but around all the big money that little fact seems forgotten. Greece is only the first of many running into a wall they created for themselves.

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #18 on: June 26, 2011, 11:33:00 AM »
Let's base it inversely on the amount of CO2 and other crappy stuff in our air.

AIR?!!??!

C'mon... If you're gonna do something different, at least try and center it around porn...

Cripes... Some computer dude you are... Can't even... pron... mrphle... tits... mufle... muff-diver... mmmfff... nookie... garble garble...

:P :D
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

steeladept

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 1,059
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #19 on: June 26, 2011, 11:39:53 AM »
Porn.  Nice...

Worstje, you nailed it.  Very perceptive.

Deozaan

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • ***
  • Points: 1
  • Posts: 7,713
    • View Profile
    • The Blog of Deozaan
    • Read more about this member.
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2011, 02:21:14 PM »
Let's base it inversely on the amount of CO2 and other crappy stuff in our air.

Erm... CO2 isn't "crappy stuff" in our air. It's necessary for all plant life. Despite what you hear on TV and in the newspaper, the science isn't settled, there is no consensus, and there is still quite a large debate about the whole man-made global warming thing going on.

But now we're really getting off the topic of Bitcoins.


worstje

  • Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2009
  • **
  • Posts: 571
  • The Gent with the White Hat
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2011, 02:41:56 PM »
Deozaan, I know that. :) Stop focusing on the badly worded part of my post!111 :tellme:

More seriously: there's plenty of CO and spraycan gasses and other nasties like nano-particles that are quite on their way to messing stuff up beyond words. Just 1% more oxygen would make a world of difference the way I understand it, even if the greenhouse theory ends up being a total balloon of hot air (pardon the pun)..

Also....  :-* Porn porn porn!



Very relevant, or so I thought when I was getting the link, but I'm confusing it with another video. All those WoW videos are alike. I am sad to say, no chinese goldfarmers in this one... just porn. :D

JavaJones

  • Review 2.0 Designer
  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,717
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2011, 08:59:45 PM »
And what's wrong with limiting economic growth? Everything else in the *real world* has limits, so eventually economic growth must also be limited. We're just putting off the time line of that limitation artificially for the short-term gain of a few.

Limiting economic growth without limiting population growth?  You *really* want to talk about the haves and the have nots.

Population growth is largely self-limiting in developed ("1st world") countries. Unchecked population growth only ultimately leads to the saturation of Earth as a habitable space, regardless of its cause. So clearly growth without limit is untenable, and any system that relies on it as a fundamental principle is not sustainable long-term. One can make the argument that it might make sense as a short-term strategy for various reasons, but pretending it can achieve sustainable long-term viability is not only foolish but dangerous. The physical laws of the universe itself are ultimately standing in the way, but much sooner than they will rear their head the limitations of our own comparatively tiny world and resources will do so. Not acknowledging that eventual reality and *planning for it* is irresponsible in the extreme. Our current economic models have no answer or solution to that "end game".

- Oshyan

Renegade

  • Charter Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,220
  • Tell me something you don't know...
    • View Profile
    • Renegade Minds
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2011, 11:55:18 PM »
And what's wrong with limiting economic growth? Everything else in the *real world* has limits, so eventually economic growth must also be limited. We're just putting off the time line of that limitation artificially for the short-term gain of a few.

Limiting economic growth without limiting population growth?  You *really* want to talk about the haves and the have nots.

Population growth is largely self-limiting in developed ("1st world") countries. Unchecked population growth only ultimately leads to the saturation of Earth as a habitable space, regardless of its cause. So clearly growth without limit is untenable, and any system that relies on it as a fundamental principle is not sustainable long-term. One can make the argument that it might make sense as a short-term strategy for various reasons, but pretending it can achieve sustainable long-term viability is not only foolish but dangerous. The physical laws of the universe itself are ultimately standing in the way, but much sooner than they will rear their head the limitations of our own comparatively tiny world and resources will do so. Not acknowledging that eventual reality and *planning for it* is irresponsible in the extreme. Our current economic models have no answer or solution to that "end game".

- Oshyan

+1

Good points.

Perhaps a simplistic view: In math, physics, chemistry, blah blah, equations balance. Infinite growth models? They can't balance.

Here's a mathematician.

I have 1 apple. I still have 1 apple. I still have 1 apple. Ooops. I ate it. I have zero apples.

Here's an economist:

I have 1 apple. I have 1.2 apples. I have 1.5 apples. I have 2 apples. Ooops. I ate my apple, now give me your apple so I can eat my second apple.
Slow Down Music - Where I commit thought crimes...

Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. - John Diefenbaker

wraith808

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 8,405
  • "In my dreams, I always do it right."
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Anyone Using Bitcoins Yet?
« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2011, 02:17:15 PM »
Population growth is largely self-limiting in developed ("1st world") countries. Unchecked population growth only ultimately leads to the saturation of Earth as a habitable space, regardless of its cause. So clearly growth without limit is untenable, and any system that relies on it as a fundamental principle is not sustainable long-term. One can make the argument that it might make sense as a short-term strategy for various reasons, but pretending it can achieve sustainable long-term viability is not only foolish but dangerous. The physical laws of the universe itself are ultimately standing in the way, but much sooner than they will rear their head the limitations of our own comparatively tiny world and resources will do so. Not acknowledging that eventual reality and *planning for it* is irresponsible in the extreme. Our current economic models have no answer or solution to that "end game".

That still doesn't address the fact that there is no limit on population growth.  It's all well and good to say that population growth is limited in 1st world countries, but if you go to extremely rural or extremely urban areas of the U.S., it would quickly become evident that this is not true.  And I wasn't saying that there shouldn't be a limit on economic growth- only that limiting it without limiting population growth takes the ability of any limited economic system to support the (still) growing population.