“debt is money” FALSE. Debt is the opposite of money. Is negative money.
“The government prints money” FALSE. The government prints bonds promising to repay currency that was created out of thin air BY A PRIVATE BANK plus interest. (Yes, if it’s retarded is because it is)
“We print it digitally, as a central bank we print money. We also print actual currency” FAKE. Money and currency are the opposite. It’s like calling the day a night.
“To lend to a bank we mark the computer” FALSE. They don’t lend anything, they just pump liquidity to keep the ponzi running. Banks never repay their loans. Only slaves do.
“There an infinite amount of cash at the federal reserve” FALSE. There’s no cash at the federal reserve.
The FED has no limit to how much federal reserves it can print as much as the government has no limit to how much debt it can create.
The FEDERAL RESEVE IS NOT FEDERAL AND HAS NO RESERVES. It’s a private cartel of banksters ringing the biggest scam on earth. It’s a parasite and is sucking the life force from the economy.
The FED can only print as much as the government can borrow. Infinite debt is not infinite cash, it’s the opposite.
nostr:nevent1qqsrgsm5x7lt4cnymrdqzrz656qzym0pz33wq9mdygmw6lkl33pfg8s2nuyrd
Unpopular opinion amongst Bitcoiners (but still correct): debt *is* money.
Money is an elaborate method of quantifying societal obligations. These obligations trigger action and exchange.
As long as it remains a zero sum game, it’s working. Fiat and contemporary credit practices distorted this. That’s the scam. That’s why Bitcoin is the fix.
Btw money also requires nation states for it to exist because they enable the necessary degree of abstraction in societal interaction.
Debt is not money.
Banks do not lend anything
The government prints credit
Banks create banks credit
Both of them are just one side o f a balance sheet, the other side is debt. You are right when you say it should be a zero sum game, but it’s not, and will never be with debt.
Money MUST BE debt free. Because money is the opposite of debt. That the only fear system. Private property you can own with no counterparty risk.
You don’t need the government to tell you what money is. They will let you know by prohibiting it, and trying to control it or replace it with fake money = debt
Nation state borders will slowly dissolve as the bitcoin standard evolves into a world currency.
I think that’s unlikely. Nation states in its current form will dissolve but geopolitical considerations will remain. Therefor borders of some kind will too.
I think we mostly agree. Only difference is our definition of debt. I define it in a very broad sense as set of all societal obligation expressed in and related to money.
I think what you are trying to say is that debt/currency/credit is an accepted medium of exchange with a big network effect.
But that doesn’t mean it’s money. Thats my point. Money has no central issues and no liability attached to it. Money is debt free.
No what I’m saying is societal obligation triggered the need for the creation of money as unit of account to accurately track obligations within society (debt). That’s its primary function, not medium of exchange which is secondary. Money didn’t emerge to transcend barter but to optimize debt relations.
Debt is not money.
Banks do not lend anything
The government prints credit
Banks create banks credit
Both of them are just one side o f a balance sheet, the other side is debt. You are right when you say it should be a zero sum game, but it’s not, and will never be with debt.
Money MUST BE debt free. Because money is the opposite of debt. That the only fear system. Private property you can own with no counterparty risk.
You don’t need the government to tell you what money is. They will let you know by prohibiting it, and trying to control it or replace it with fake money = debt
Money must be debt (broad definition) otherwise no one would trade it for goods. That’s why people are obliged to accept money for goods by law on most countries. It’s a tool to keep track of balances. These balances are balances of societal obligations
Money is an emergent phenomenon whose existence has never required the state.
Everything is an emergent phenomenon. Money requires societal abstractions. Empires provided this. Money doesn’t need the modern nation state but it requires this kind of abstraction provided by widespread homologizing power.
Nonsense. Empires didn’t scale and then decide what money was. They were able to scale because of money, which existed before and without their existence.
Please indicate where I stated empires „decided what money was.“
Fair point. Allow me to clarify my responses.
“Money requires societal abstractions.”
Agreed.
“Empires provided this.”
Humans engage in “societal abstractions” without the need for Empires providing the environment for those abstractions to exist.
“Money doesn’t need the modern nation state”
Agreed.
“but it requires this kind of abstraction provided by widespread homologizing power.”
Humans engage in societal abstractions for the idea of nation states and money to exist, sure, but not entirely sure how you define “widespread homologizing power.”
With widespread homologizing power I mean a power structure across cultures assimilating these to something new, unified. Typically empires.
I think the only thing we don’t agree on is our interpretation on how societal abstractions arise. You seem to champion the bottom up approach. I’m suggesting the bottom up always leads to top down. Both are needed i guess.
If you were right there would have been barter societies that made the rise of money necessary. But there was no such thing. No barter societies to be found.
Money was almost always a thing of empires because that’s what empires do: abstracting, standardizing, co-integrating and scaling the cultural patterns they find.
Great convo.
I’d probably frame societal abstractions more along the lines of centralization vs decentralization, but we could quibble in a long tangential thread regarding that framework.
I don’t believe that barter alone lead to the emergence of money, as credit existed along side barter and is IMO older than barter.
I’m fully willing to concede the notion of the growth of civilization from small groups to the nation state as an accelerant or amplifier of shared abstractions, but draw the line in the notion that scaling those conditions are requisite for that phenomenon to exist.
