Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Bitcoin theft causes Bitfloor exchange to go offline
40hz:
I think it's only going to be a matter of time before regulators are forced to shut BitCoin down. There's too much at stake to allow it to continue with its current track record for insufficient security..-40hz (September 06, 2012, 01:22 PM)
--- End quote ---
I doubt it's going to be shut down before it poses a serious threat to the current money model - but you can bet it'd be shut down with extreme prejudice as soon as it does.
-f0dder (September 06, 2012, 02:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
As soon as money gets lost via wire the Feds get involved where we are. And BitCoin is already functioning in a gray area under US Law. Arguments could be made it's operating illegally as an unlicensed money transfer agent. Nobody's done much since it hasn't rocked the boat for anybody but Apple so far. But now that a lawsuit has been filed against them, the US courts are going to have to make a determination, and the regulators will be forced to take action.
And besides....it's an election year!!!! :-\
barney:
And besides....it's an election year!!!! :-\
-40hz (September 06, 2012, 05:28 PM)
--- End quote ---
Hee, hee, hee. Ya thimk?
Paul Keith:
A functional economy must favor those that take action more than those, who don't. That is why a mild, predictable inflation is necessary. Deflationary economy favors hoarders instead of producers of goods and services. In time, deflation drives active entities out of market and therefore the bitcoins in their current form cannot become widespread. They would kill every industry segment that would depend on them.
-vlastimil (September 06, 2012, 10:34 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not so sure that inflation is a good thing either. It might just be the lesser of two evils. (* See Humor Thread for a cheapo joke!)
The way I see inflation, the "middle class" gets jammed because at the personal side "revenue" (aka your wages) is someone's judgement with a game theory low-level tendency to go DOWN. Expenses are Other People's Revenue with a "market gamble" to push UP. So in MicroEconomics, there are a series of ideas around "counter-intuitive demand curves". "As the price of a core Product And/Or Service go up, the proportion of the consumer's money spent on them goes UP." (You'd think it should go down, like most discretionary offerings.) The key word is proportion. The famous examples are car gas and rent. When trying to stay alive gets more expensive, you have no room left to do anything fun. And when any consumer ever asks in frustration why this is, the business managers all whine "prices are always rising." Consumer responds "But you're paying me less." "Yeah, well, gotta keep costs down, blah blah".
(I said "Low Level" game theory up there, because at the more advanced stages, you get things like a town boycott can shut down a store, or the mayor can influence wages, or in a really hard business you get the "quality of worker you pay for", etc. (Outsourcing Customer service, etc.))
So while difficult, maybe an exactly level economy might be best on paper. A true deflationary economy is bad news, because a ton of the economy runs on "momentum" and when you lose the "critical mass" you get a mess like Detroit. However an interesting thing, while a bit tricky at first, is a currency adjustment which is simply math on the currency, but the actual GDP etc of the country is the same.
-TaoPhoenix (September 06, 2012, 03:30 PM)
--- End quote ---
The poster did say predictable inflation. Plus mild. Maybe extremely mild would be a better fit.
I think exactly level economy is bad. However, it could be that my paper is different.
A level economy means no innovation is taking place ever to push direction towards a particular business or a particular career.
This only sounds good on paper if, on paper, you are not factoring government and private entities capability to over-spend and under-adjust and cause run away deflation/inflation. A level economy would never be prepared for this and would hit depression/recession stages much faster and recover less faster. Textbook keynesianism sounds like it's urging spending during a crisis for this factor: Progress is much faster at making up for costs than savings. Progress is also much better at motivating people to deal with the economy than stable periods of the business cycle.
Also: Compared to many of the world's worst country, Detroit sounds like Canada. It could be that I've never been to Detroit but from the bits I've read, that place's problem is more corruption and mis-allocated production than it is currency.
I could also be mistaken but I got the sense that Gold Standard economies run less on momentum which is what helps them recover fastest during the downturn of a business cycle. Am I wrong in assuming this?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version