Perspectives on the global economic changes

[TSJones]

don't believe everything you read on the internet.....

Under Obama, 1 million fewer workers, overall, are working than before the beginning of the Great Recession.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

[Austin]

don't believe everything you read on the internet.....

Under Obama, 1 million fewer workers, overall, are working than before the beginning of the Great Recession.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

The key point there was 93 % were part time work generated not full time job under Obama

[Austin]

I'm for letting people decide what they want to use without banksters & scammers or even gold bugs deciding for them what money should be. Forcing people into a bankster controlled fiat standard or a gold standard where gold producers have an advantage over the people from the very start, is tyranny.

Anytime some entity which had no part in earning a persons' wealth tries to dictate what should be used as money, it's a corrupt system where the non-productive (i.e govt, banksters, gold producers) are trying to rob the productive through currency chicanery.

I can accept the Gold Argument leading to more discipline in economy and less under control of banker unlike fiat one.

But the argument that each person should decide what is best form of currency to trade would lead to anarchy , where there would be multiple system of trading and currency and likely having no interchangeability with other like eg bitcoin and other currency.

Why should some subset of people trading in bitcoin should trust another subset of people trading in fiat or gold or some other form unless there is a way to enforce it or is universally acceptable.

To me Gold Backed Currency with all its limitations and shortfall seems to be the best way to move ahead towards a fairer economy to countries and its people.

Jim Rickard statement ( although its not his own personal one but more like that is the Plan B ) of using IMF SDR is another way to enforce fiat like currency system and is doomed to fail

[shyam]

One thing that is never talked about bitcoin is that for all crypto currencies, it is very easy to generate first 80% of the currency. Some anonymous crypto billionaire owns that 80% of bitcoin and others struggling to make this guy even richer. This is an unjust system.

[Neshant]

But the argument that each person should decide what is best form of currency to trade would lead to anarchy , where there would be multiple system of trading and currency and likely having no interchangeability with other like eg bitcoin and other currency.

What is the problem interchanging one currency to the next? I don't get your point.

We are already living in a digital age where the exchange rate is automatically applied when you purchase something in currency X that's priced in currency Y.

Obviously the market has already figured out how to interchange one currency to the next - instantaneously. Its just a question of why the monopoly for that conversion or issuance of the currency should reside with banksters skimming cream for producing nothing of value in every transaction.

In fact, the market figured out not only how to interchange currencies but to do it in a way that govt & banksters cannot steal during the transaction process. (i.e. crypto-currencies)

Its figured out a way where these transactions cannot be shut down by banksters looking to preserve their monopoly over the issuance of fiat money.

Its figured out a way where the currency cannot be devalued (i.e crypto-currencies).

The whole point here is the market does not need some guy sitting in an ivory tower dictating how/what money should be.
The only reason the monopoly over the issuance of currency exists and is enforced through violence via the tax code is banksters to steal from those who produce wealth.

[Neshant]

One thing that is never talked about bitcoin is that for all crypto currencies, it is very easy to generate first 80% of the currency. Some anonymous crypto billionaire owns that 80% of bitcoin and others struggling to make this guy even richer. This is an unjust system.

But you always have the option of creating your own crypto currencies. Anyone can.

And that's the beauty of it.

If someone gains a monopoly over X currency, simply switch to Y currency where there is no monopoly.

The market decides the value of X vs Y and can do so constantly.

Banksters do not want people to have this freedom. I mean how does a multi-trillion dollar industry that produces nothing of value survive if they cannot rob the producers of wealth in society.

In fiat currency controlled by banksters, there is no option. You are forced to use a currency that banksters create & control. This is done by enforcing payment of taxes in the fiat currency created by banksters. No other form of tax payment is accepted except in the banksters' currency. The law enforces the extinguishing of debt in that currency as well which benefits the bankster who controls the supply of the currency. i.e creditors can be cheated as and when the bankster wishes.

[shyam]

>95% of aam janata neither have time nor have expertise to evaluate which currency is better and which is not. They always follow the mass trend. When stock market goes up, they will go after stocks; when gold goes up they will go after gold; when bitcoin goes up, they will go after bitcoin. This lack of mass knowledge, will force any type of money to be under the hand of few banksters and rating agencies, and will end up seeing the same problem people have with existing currencies.

You can have your own crypto currency, but why would anyone accept that from you? Why would he trust you that you won't do what GOTUS did to gold backed dollar?

[Austin]

But the argument that each person should decide what is best form of currency to trade would lead to anarchy , where there would be multiple system of trading and currency and likely having no interchangeability with other like eg bitcoin and other currency.

What is the problem interchanging one currency to the next? I don't get your point.

We are already living in a digital age where the exchange rate is automatically applied when you purchase something in currency X that's priced in currency Y.

Obviously the market has already figured out how to interchange one currency to the next - instantaneously. Its just a question of why the monopoly for that conversion or issuance of the currency should reside with banksters skimming cream for producing nothing of value in every transaction.

In fact, the market figured out not only how to interchange currencies but to do it in a way that govt & banksters cannot steal during the transaction process. (i.e. crypto-currencies)

Its figured out a way where these transactions cannot be shut down by banksters looking to preserve their monopoly over the issuance of fiat money.

Its figured out a way where the currency cannot be devalued (i.e crypto-currencies).

The whole point here is the market does not need some guy sitting in an ivory tower dictating how/what money should be.
The only reason the monopoly over the issuance of currency exists and is enforced through violence via the tax code is banksters to steal from those who produce wealth.

Too many issues there , if there are lakh set of groups that uses dozens of ways or currencies to trade then there will be issue of interoperability , enforcement , regulations etc.

Even Government should agree to these else every 1000 groups will come with its own set of currency , In the end it will lead to more chaos. If there is any litigation what would be the rules to enforce and who will enforce it for respective currency , There will be million debate on why my currency is better than yours

Lets stick to what is practical and known to work for 1000 of years , if Gold Backed Currency works then they should work on how to implement those , such that it is universally acceptable.

But why would some one even do that , If US can happily print money by just raising debt ceiling then why should it adhere to monetary discipline , if EU can print Euro the way it wants to then why should they accept self imposed discipline that wont be popular with its voters , same of Japan that can infinely increase its debt or China or any other nation.

No nation certainly not the one in dominant position would ever like to get enforced into some kind of monetary discipline because it would be greatly unpopular among its voters unless it is forced to and left with no choice.

Bottom line is all talk about Gold Backed Currency are not really practical unless the current system implodes due to its own contradiction and then countries are forced to adopt monetary discipline with appropriate incentive and punishment in maintaining economic policy for adopting such gold backed system

[panduranghari]

The notion that govt and banksters can help themselves to wealth created by productive individuals is one aspect that sorely needs to be abolished in the 21st century.

Please tell me how that is possible? There will always be people who will exploit others irrespective of what happens.

In the west, people complain that their purchasing power is declining as the central banks are ruining the currency by manipulating it.
In the east, the people complain the quality of life if poor as basic ammenities are difficult to get.

For the west, the relative ease of access to basic ammenities means the money has to be debased to make the provision of good quality of life.
In the east, people want to have a better quality of life but they are unwilling to give up the privacy that goes with it. In the east the usual assumption, as promoted by the west and internalised by us, is the people are poor because the rulers steal and keep everyone poor. While this is certainly true up to some extent, its not the whole story. We can see congis railing against DeMo because they can actually see the possibility that people will be net beneficiaries.

Only by separating the 3 functions of money into 2 separate camps, can you even remotely hope to have the equanimity you propose. Gold standard wont work because government has a tendency to expand the balancesheet and kick the can down the road to allow the next government to deal with the consequence.

DeMo was the way to ensure this can kicking stops. This means Modi wants to be in for the long haul.

1. So do you want to convenience of super efficient law and order, super clean streets, regular water and power supply?

or

2. will you accept an acceptable level of law and order, clean enough streets, reasonably regular water and power but with occasional shortages?

Because 1. is being promised by the west- this is unsustainable
2. is being promised by Modi govt.- which is still unsustainable but more sustainable than 1.

Its easy to rail against bankers or governments. Offering solutions is what you ought to do.

[panduranghari]

One thing that is never talked about bitcoin is that for all crypto currencies, it is very easy to generate first 80% of the currency. Some anonymous crypto billionaire owns that 80% of bitcoin and others struggling to make this guy even richer. This is an unjust system.

Exactly. Money should be in unrestricted (not unlimited!!) amount. Not too much not too little. The reason why you say bitcoin is unjust is because you wont have any access to any when you need it or when you use some of it, you will need to mine more of it, instead of work for it and get it from someone else. Think about a yoyo. It goes up and down depending on the angular momentum it generates but eventually it reaches a stasis. At what point does bitcoin reaches its stasis? Fiat currency on the other hand has the inherrent ability to go up and down in quantity. But its only possible if there is an external unit to measure it compared to how it stands with other fiat currencies elsewhere in the world.

[Neshant]

>95% of aam janata neither have time nor have expertise to evaluate which currency is better and which is not.

Who says a guy dressed up in a fancy suit would know which is better any more than the average person?
Only with monopoly over the issuance of currency do those who are politically connected to the money printers know which way to place bets. Its called corruption. This is not possible under a system where nobody has a monopoly over the issuance of currency.

The difference between the above system and bankster fiat currency is that if you make a choice and it turns out to be the wrong choice, it is YOUR loss. You cannot transfer YOUR loss onto someone else the way banksters transfer their leveraged gamblings losses onto the backs of suckers (i.e. taxpayers, savers, wage earners, pensioners) through their monopoly over the issuance of fiat money.

Monopolies are bad in the free market. Trying to make the case that people are too dumb to wipe their butts and thus need govt & banksters to do it for them does not work in the free market. Neither does it work in a rigged market either - at least not for the people doing productive work who exist only to be cheated.

You can have your own crypto currency, but why would anyone accept that from you? Why would he trust you that you won't do what GOTUS did to gold backed dollar?

They are not forced to accept it. It is their choice to accept/reject it. The system is voluntary unlike the bankster controlled fiat monetary system which is based on forced acceptance.

The market already knows the exchange rate between one currency and another at any given time. I pay them in the currency they want after the conversion. When people don't want your Rupees but want Dollars, you change your Rupees into Dollars and pay in Dollars. And before you ask, this need not be a physical exchange. Its no different than how you pay electronically or through the internet or phone today.

[Neshant]

Too many issues there , if there are lakh set of groups that uses dozens of ways or currencies to trade then there will be issue of interoperability , enforcement , regulations etc. Even Government should agree to these else every 1000 groups will come with its own set of currency , In the end it will lead to more chaos.

In any other industry, the absurdity of the above statement would be self evident. Did we need a bankster instead of the free market to define how a microprocessor or software should be designed. At some level one could make the case that designing a microprocessor is at least a science. Perhaps we'd need a lead engineer to define the process. Fiddling with interest rates, printing money and profiting their cronies, isn't science. It is half dice rolling & half con artistry to profit those politically connected to the money printers.

It sounds like you've been brainwashed into believing you are incapable of handling your wealth and the task should be turned over to banksters.

The mere fact that banksters even with the use of govt violence/force have been unable to prevent the emergence of private currencies that circumvents their control tells you the market is way more powerful than these thieves. The fact that they need to use force, corruption & bribery to keep themselves around tells you they are parasitic, not beneficial to productive society.

To summarize : The market figures out on its own what the most efficient way of commerce should be - that is CAPITALISM.

If there is any litigation what would be the rules to enforce

Is there litigation for contractual obligations against McDonalds, Intel, Boeing, McDonalds, Apple - of course.
The judicial system and the market becomes the arbiter of right & wrong.
What are you proposing as an alternative? The present system is one where there is no legal recourse. Banksters manipulate the market and print money when they wish and bribe politicians for multi-trillion dollar bailouts. Hell they even corrupt the executive & judiciary.

Lets stick to what is practical and known to work for 1000 of years

Freedom is practical. Using force to make someone hold gold, bitcoin, fiat money..etc is tyranny.
As much as I am a gold bug, I would never force everyone to use or keep their savings in gold.
What I'm saying here is - nobody should have a monopoly over the issuance of currency. Let the market decide.

[Austin]

In the end it is about wealth and not about processor or fridge where failure is acceptable and only the competitive ones survive , If there is infinite freedom to choose the way one can issue or uses currency , there will be hazar ponzi scheme that will come up and people will loose their life long saving because most people do not understand and will go where most put their money ( heard mentality ) into or since they dont understand they will opt for somehting thats known to work say gold or silver.

In India there is no shortage of ponzi scheme even with all the current regulation by SEBI , RBI and monetary system we have , One can imagine what it would be without one , Unless one wants to move to traditional barter system.

There has to be some standard mechanism with or without banker where you can transact goods for money , on the sidelines you can have other system like bitcoin working and if market really trust such system they can go big time or we can have two parallel system but these would take time to come up may be even decades.

In the meanwhile Gold Backed System is a reliable alternative , proven and tested over time perhaps not an ideal one but all ideal system ends up onlee on paper. May be they can also have a mix of Gold/Silver/Oil basket or perhaps Gold/Silver/Oil/SDR basket with major percentage allocated to gold and lowest end to fiat system like SDR.

[panduranghari]

There has to be some standard mechanism with or without banker where you can transact goods for money , on the sidelines you can have other system like bitcoin working and if market really trust such system they can go big time or we can have two parallel system but these would take time to come up may be even decades.

That is a very coherent argument for multitudes of money forms circulating side by side. Greshams law states that bad money drives good money away. And bad money is what people percieve as bad. Good money is what people are willing to retain even when a competing currency is available.

Money is truly a mental concept. You could in theory trade your software skills for my dentistry skills. This double coincidence of wants is what good money eliminates. For eg. if you trust gold or eggs as currency but I also trust these, then I would accept them in lieu for payments. If I do not, then I wont. However, at supra national and trans national level, this is unlikely to be easy to implement. While the sheikhs of Arabia or the housewives of India or the African coffee growers or mega corporations of the US or the drug/people smugglers anywhere can accept any currency that they think is good, they will have to find a suitable option (if they all sit at a table to negotiate), they can agree without any duress to what one gets from another. While we may rail against fiat currency and the central banker controlled police state, you got to agree that fiat currency makes convenient mode of making payments and accounting for what one owes another. It’s a lousy store of productive effort as fiat currency by nature tends to inflate away.
While cryptocurrency is promoted as free market option, I wonder who calls it a free market byproduct? The tin foil hat brigade, the occupy wall street brigade? The only connection between free markets and "capitalism" is that "capitalists" ingenuously claim they like free markets, while at the same time taking every opportunity to destroy them, or to encourage governments to do it for them. Or, a little less harshly, a capitalist is someone who wants to buy from a free market, but sell into a restricted (protected) market, where he/she is protected from competition. Does this not remind you of cryptocurrencies with relation to Greshams Law?

In the meanwhile Gold Backed System is a reliable alternative , proven and tested over time perhaps not an ideal one but all ideal system ends up onlee on paper. May be they can also have a mix of Gold/Silver/Oil basket or perhaps Gold/Silver/Oil/SDR basket with major percentage allocated to gold and lowest end to fiat system like SDR.

John Kenneth Galbraith said, "Most things in life--automobiles, mistresses, cancer--are important only to those who have them. Money, in contrast, is equally important to those who have it and those who don't. Both, accordingly, have a concern for understanding it. Both should proceed in the full confidence that they can."

Gold backed anything is just another way for the west to keep the US dollar primacy going forward. Chinese making the same noises means they want to take over the crown from US as they believe it’s their god given right. At the moment oil is backing the dollar. Until 1971 it was gold exchange permissible overseas to the US. Prior to 1933 it was pure gold. So when Rickards calls for SDR backing to an international currency, why does he not answer the problem of Triffins Dilemma?
The Triffin dilemma is the conflict of economic interests that arises between short-term domestic and long-term international objectives for countries whose currencies serve as global reserve currencies.
Gold in fort knox could not back the dollar anymore, because the US had shown that they could just withdraw it from backing. In fact, the entire validity of backing any currency with a fixed gold amount was in question with this new age of "super nation blocks". For it to work again, gold and the reserve currency backed by it would have to reside in different "power blocks" to guarantee delivery. That wasn't going to happen. Indeed, with supply of the worlds major oil reserves being controlled outside the US, the dollar was now backed more effectively by a commodity that could be used to devalue it (through the oil price) should the money supply run wild.

I live and work in the real world of fiat currency--there is no point in trying to be circumventive about it. As I work I am paid by others with fiat currency, and I quite happily pay my own bills with fiat currency. I manage my expenses responsibly, and so there is always some fiat currency left over at the end of each month. This I exchange for Gold without fail--to serve as my savings for a later time. No doubt this arrangement will appeal to you in equal measure with your understanding that Gold is the ultimate money; with your sense that it won't/can't be manipulated into extinction; and with your appreciation for the notion that a person, on average, can produce over a lifetime more than he consumes. That final element should also hold true for a group of people (such as a nation,) and no magic of accounting can alter that long-term necessity. Establishing a reliable "accountant" for your life's period of productivity should be enough for any honest person, and Gold serves that role better than any other. I believe those who share this view are among the fortunate few that are ahead of their time--even as the world is rushing to catch up. This will be clearer in time.

A gold bug or an irrational occupy wall street romantic wants circulating gold coins as currency or its new iterant called gold backed money or something backed money. Its an idealistic position because even in the past coins gave way to certificates.
Pause for a moment to fully consider this practical notion of saving Gold on one hand, while on the other, borrowing and spending paper just as we always have in our lifetimes (and know of no other reality from personal experience.) This is in perfect tune with Gresham's law. Given our own limited history, this accord with Gresham's law provides a very comforting reassurance for predicting the success of this system. Why? Because Gresham's law is arguably the only economic law that survives beyond challenge--an echo of the universal and enduring truth that given a choice, people will choose the option that serves their own needs best. Gresham's law predicts that the world's supreme currency, Gold, would not actually circulate in a conventional sense, though it would move from the hand of one saver to another as individual circumstance might require. Sure, you could use it outright as money if you insisted, but nodding to Gresham's law, wouldn't you rather keep your Gold for the rainy day and spend your paper instead? This system will enhance the transparency of national economics and financial positions, rewarding those with good fiscal policy and balanced budgets, and giving none an exorbitant privilege over another through reserve currency status. It will allow the citizens a natural avenue to protect themselves against depreciation of the national currencies (which will inevitably inflate until the end of time,) and to actually gain a no-risk real "return" by simply holding the metal without the self-defeating aspect of lending it out for interest.
All these backing ideas to currency will ultimately die and we will be back to not too dissimilar position to today.
Buy physical gold to hold ignoring what will happen to the financial system or how the situation will resolve itself. Cryptocurrencies have their place but not superseding gold. In the time to come, this money in the hand will outperform any investment you have ever known. Few today accept just how high physical gold will rise. Be a part of the "physical gold advocates" and tell a story your grandchildren will grow tired from hearing!

[Neshant]

Little by little, the US is turning into a police state with banksters & oligarchs deciding what the people should be allowed to hear as news.
Now that the legacy media (e.g. CNN, NBC..etc) have lost their power to brainwash people, the move is on to prevent any independent analysis of the news.

Using "propaganda from Russia" excuse, they want to crack down on anyone who has an opinion different that what the govt/banksters want people to hear.

Spam bots and other machine learning will be used to flood website commentary section to support the oligarchs narrative of news events.

All that remains is to nominate the Truth Tsar. A rather dark and disturbing turn of events as more monetary control, more censorship of the news & opinion and other scam artistry is used to create a police state where everyone in it is a slave to oligarchs and banksters.

_____
Obama Quietly Signs The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" Into Law

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-2 ... da-act-law

[Neshant]

there will be hazar ponzi scheme that will come up and people will loose their life long saving

There was a time when computers were considered too complex for a person to understand.
What if a person not too knowledgeable got an email from "The Price of Nigeria" regarding a multi-million dollar deal.
Would they not fall for it and lose all their saving.

As per your logic, we should not have email or computers because people are too dumb to safeguard their own wealth.
Email should only be accessible at a govt center with a govt official reading your incoming & outgoing mail to protect you from scammers.

The reality is, people learn fast and even faster when they lose money. They don't need the kind of spoon feeding you think they need.
Second, the market creates companies that not only offers to protect its customers from theft, spam, con games - but even offers to insure them against loss if their protection fails. They exist & profit purely on the basis of their reputation as protectors. Through the process of natural selection aka capitalism, the ones that give shitty advice and lose their customers money are trusted less and less until they vanish.

You can come up with a million reasons why people would be poor custodians of their own wealth but all end up sounding absurd when one considers this :

By contrast and ironically, we are now in a system where those claiming to protect us against Ponzi schems are in fact the biggest monetary Ponzi schemers themselves. Worse yet, govt has been corrupted & co-opted into protecting the bankster Ponzi schemers - even as they rip off peoples' wealth. And if you thought these jokers have any great insight into the future and how to protect your wealth, know that they themselves needed a bailout from those they are claiming to protect (LOL!). This on top of all the stealing (aka profits) they make.

Inevitably when you hand over power to dictate what should and should not be money to a small group, they structure a system which is largely beneficial to themselves at the expense of the vast majority.

I say again - nobody should have the right to dictate what should be money. You can only believe in this if you believe in free markets.
The market knows far better than some guy in a fancy suite what something should be valued at, who can be trusted and what real money should be.

If the market selects gold or bitcoin or sea shells, it is making a decision on the basis of collective wisdom of society. If it trusts one type of money over another, it is trust based on collective wisdom. If it turns out to be wrong (and surely nobody can predict the future), then those who have not diversified their wealth and have trusted too much in one type of money get taken to the cleaners. That is THEIR loss to eat, not to be passed on to someone else. That is the free market.

All else is tyranny - forced wealth transfer, corruption and cronyism.

[Neshant]

It wouldn't have something to do with trying to print/inflate away debts now would it.
Its all about banksters trying to lock down peoples' wealth so they can steal it.
___

Europe Proposes Confiscating Gold In Crackdown On "Terrorist Financing"

Hot on the heels of China gold import restrictions, and India's demonetization and gold confiscations, The European Commission proposed tightening controls on cash and precious metals transfers from outside the EU under the guise of shutting down one route for funding of militant attacks on the continent, following the Berlin Christmas attack.

The plan complements Commission proposals after the Paris attacks to tighten controls on virtual currencies such as bitcoin, and prepaid cards, which French authorities said were used to fund the bombings.

EU states backed these proposals on Tuesday. Under the deal, which still needs European Parliament approval, holders of prepaid cards would have to show some form of identity when they make payments of 150 euros or more.

The Commission is also proposing common rules for the 28 EU countries on freezing "terrorists' financial resources" and on confiscating assets even from those thought to be connected to criminals.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-2 ... -financing

[Neshant]

India's Demonetization Highlights The Dangers Of Monetary Monopoly

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-2 ... y-monopoly

A philosophical question that economists need to answer after Lehman, zero-interest money, QEs, and demonetisation (in our case) is whether central banks ought to have that kind of monopoly over money.

Most free-market economists would agree that monopolies are bad, but they do not usually challenge the state’s monopoly over violence and law-making or the central banks’ monopoly over the issue and regulation of currency.

Leaving aside the state’s monopoly on some kinds of power, let’s ask whether a central bank’s money monopoly is worthwhile since it does not appear to have delivered the kind of benefits to the world in recent decades which can justify the conferment of a monopoly.

The fundamental reason why we have grown to love (or learned to live with) central banks is that we cannot remember a time when they did not exist. So the argument is better the devil you know…

[Austin]

It wouldn't have something to do with trying to print/inflate away debts now would it.
Its all about banksters trying to lock down peoples' wealth so they can steal it.
___

Europe Proposes Confiscating Gold In Crackdown On "Terrorist Financing"

Hot on the heels of China gold import restrictions, and India's demonetization and gold confiscations, The European Commission proposed tightening controls on cash and precious metals transfers from outside the EU under the guise of shutting down one route for funding of militant attacks on the continent, following the Berlin Christmas attack.

The plan complements Commission proposals after the Paris attacks to tighten controls on virtual currencies such as bitcoin, and prepaid cards, which French authorities said were used to fund the bombings.

EU states backed these proposals on Tuesday. Under the deal, which still needs European Parliament approval, holders of prepaid cards would have to show some form of identity when they make payments of 150 euros or more.

The Commission is also proposing common rules for the 28 EU countries on freezing "terrorists' financial resources" and on confiscating assets even from those thought to be connected to criminals.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-2 ... -financing

I read that 2 days back and thought the same confiscating peoples gold in the guise of stopping terror financing. I wont be surprised if in next crisis EU would make keeping gold by citizen completely illegal

[Neshant]

I read that 2 days back and thought the same confiscating peoples gold in the guise of stopping terror financing. I wont be surprised if in next crisis EU would make keeping gold by citizen completely illegal

They want to track & register all individuals who purchase gold for later wealth confiscation schemes (i.e. tax on gold previously purchased).

There are precedents for this. Companies have been asked to pay additional tax on years gone by if they are making windfall profits currently.
How this shit is even legal I'm not sure. I guess just about anything can be made legal and applied retroactively.

However I still don't see any way they can shut down crypto-currencies, can you?
Unlike gold which they can tax and make very difficult to use in commerce or move across borders, they have no control over crypto-currencies.
Other than threatening dire consequences for not registering your crypto-coins or moving it in/out of the country without their permission, what actual steps can they take?

What's becoming apparent is that banksters are increasingly desperate to keep people locked into a system they can steal from. I really don't like this trend of thieves up top demanding access to peoples' earnings & savings which they had no role in creating.

[Austin]

Well they can ban crytp currency in two way , Ban Crypto currency and make it illlegal in the country , second block the domain/website/ips etc for any transaction done on such currency and introduce penalties/jail term for any one found doing that.

[Neshant]

The above is hard to enforce as its easy to mask bitcoin transactions and also move bitcoins across borders.
The latter being an advantage that gold does not have.

Are you beginning to see why the market should decide what money should be

Despite the efforts of multiple govts & banksters to lock people into a system that they alone control, the free market at least for now is able to out-innovate them. That is why the free market should always decide what the monetary system should be. Not govts (who are too dumb and corruptible) and sure as hell not banksters (who are thieves).

[shyam]

No money is above government and law agencies. If you don't like what government does, work towards changing them. If you see that all governments are colluding, then you know where the real problem is, it doesn't matter whether you own land, cash, gold or bitcoin. Bitcoin can cross boarders easily, but you can't do that to yourself (physically moving out) easily. If a government declares it illegal,there is nothing you can do except to leave that country.

Every government knows bitcoin servers in the world, and it is not a big deal to block accesses to those servers from one country. It is not a big deal to initiate DoS attack on all its servers to make its transactions difficult. All hyped up security of bitcoin is only waiting for the next smart hacker to corrupt its database. At that time all you will have is a number that is worthless. Bitcoin had its biggest crash when GOTUS raided a bitcoin exchange. If DT finds that bitcoin is used primarily for illegal operations like drug trade, human trafficking and sponsoring anti-government activities, and bans it then it is done for bitcoin.

[Neshant]

No money is above government and law agencies.

Have you seen any bankster going to jail for market manipulation and outright fraud.

At this point in western countries, banks are the govt.

I would not put anything past them. But if govts could find a way to ban Bitcoin, they would have done it ages ago.

[shyam]

That is because the govt and banks collude. The problem is with political leaders, and things will fall in place if such sponsored politicians are taken care of. What is needed is the political awareness among the masses about the leaders they elect.

Governments have not banned bitcoins yet because they have not found real threat in that. Rather some might be finding advantages like financing anti-communists in China or rebels in Iran etc. If GoI sees that maoists and Kashmiri terrorists use bitcoins after demonetization, I bet it will be banned in India.

[shyam]

Another big risk with bitcoin is that every transaction is logged, either with IP address or with bitcoin exchange used. If a government really want to crack down they can easily track down the individuals who did the transaction.

[Neshant]

Banks are the govt in western countries.
That is the end result of govt sceeding control of the nation's monetary system to private banks (via central banking).
Govt has not banned Bitcoin because there is no easy way to ban it. That's the whole reason it was created.
They can't ban Bitcoin any more than they can ban music piracy.

[shyam]

There is a big difference between music piracy and bitcoin. In music piracy there was no need to keep the integrity of records. All they have to do is transfer files without letting anyone knowing it. Still governments limited it by using legal measures. In the case of bitcoin, it has to ensure the integrity of each bitcoin and its transactions. For this it has to ensure that records are in sync at different locations, hence this server information has to be public. Once they are public, government can track internet transactions to those servers. People may use proxies, but a determined government can track them down and use huge punitive actions as deterrent. Start a server in the country to get access to all records of bitcoins before cracking down.

[Neshant]

Like I was saying, if they could shut it down, they would have shut it down already.
In essence, verifying the ledger is just moving information. There is no way to ban the movement of information.
Now you have the advent of encrypted and distributed movement of packets making things even harder to detect let alone shut down.

Crypto-currencies threaten banksters' monopolistic control of the nation's currency.
Anything that threatens banksters control over peoples' wealth is prime target to be shut down at the very moment it goes live.
The fact that they cannot shut it down is testament to their inability to stop it. Not of their kind heartedness.

If you think you can stop it for them, I'm sure they want to speak to you.
After all, how can a useless industry that produces nothing survive, if it cannot pick the pockets of the productive economy.

[shyam]

It doesn't matter whether packets are encrypted or not, if the destination IP address is that of a bitcoin server, it must be for bit coin transaction. Now if the source is IP address is from your country, the government can infer that this person is doing bit coin transaction. Government can not find out how many bitcoins are transacted, bought or sold. To find that out, they just need allow a bit coin server to be setup in their own country, so all bitcoin information is updated in that server too. Bitcoin source code is public, and you only need a good programmer to hack that source code to decode the information stored on the server.

Governments have not yet felt threatened by bitcoin. They don't see it as money equivalent, and IRS treats it as asset and you pay tax on the dollar profit you make on bitcoin transactions. Once they feel that national currency or security is threatened by bitcoin, they will really go after it. If they pass a law that you can be jailed if you keep or transact bitcoin, like against printing your own currency, no mainstream person will use it. Only fringe guys may use it, and since it doesn't have any intrinsic value, it will have no real value.

[Neshant]

If they could shut down Bittorrent, they would have done it ages ago.
Ditto for Bitcoin.
There are many ways to break up and encrypt packets and merge it in with other random data sent out to ever changing pick up sites.
Detection itself becomes a challenge especially if the pickup point changes and the server itself is mobile.
Hell you could transmit encrypted packets on morse code if you had the time.

Banning information movement in general is hard.
Finally any attempt to ban or disrupt crypto-currencies only results in even more drive among the community to circumvent the noose banksters are trying to slip around everyone's wallet.

___

Here is a summary from online :

I think the best way of analyzing your question would be to break the destruction of the Bitcoin into categories. There is the notion of a hard destruction meaning an attempt is made to physically compromise the Bitcoin network either by a 51% attack or international legislation. And there is the notion of a soft destruction, where attempts are made to De-legitimize the currency through media manipulation and also persistent DDOS attacks on the infrastructure supporting the Bitcoin.

In terms of Hard Destruction, I can identify the following scenarios:

-The NSA or some other entity with both the budget and experience create a VLSI project to both develop and deploy an ASIC design that would result in a 51% attack

- International regulation is developed that significantly inhibits one's ability to exchange Bitcoins for local currencies. Essentially forcing the Bitcoin underground like a drug cartel

- A mathematician discovers how to break ECDSA (very unlikely)

- Innovation results in the Bitcoin being replaced with another currency

In terms of Soft Destruction, I can identify the following scenarios:

- The media alongside a covert multi-government effort conduct several propaganda campaigns to sway public opinion that the Bitcoin is either a massive scam or somehow bad

- Cumbersome regulations are adopted to monitor and control Bitcoin exchange

- Persistent DDOS attacks occur on the major exchanges like Mtgox and also the supporting infrastructure

- One way to attack Bitcoin would be to have large amounts of money alternately pushed into Bitcoin and pulled out of Bitcoin, thereby massively increasing volatility. These market fluctuations could be aggravated by a covert government programme of destructive funding and public dis-information. This would make doing business in Bitcoin more difficult.

- In all honesty, the Bitcoin is an experiment. We have no idea what will happen and who will oppose it.

[shyam]

Governments or the banks have not felt threatened by bit torrents yet. It is movie studios who are complaining. If they really want to put few people in jail, just download bit torrent, find out the sources from where they came, and get those guys. But the cost of that is not worth following up. If they could wage war against Iraq and Libya (allegedly) for challenging dollar, bitcoin is a piece of cake.

[panduranghari]

I read that 2 days back and thought the same confiscating peoples gold in the guise of stopping terror financing. I wont be surprised if in next crisis EU would make keeping gold by citizen completely illegal

Within EU, gold is completely tax free. No VAT. No sales tax. Upto 15000£ or 15000euro annual sales by individual are tax free. If you purchase over 10000£ per transaction, the dealer informs the tax authorities. SO the best thing I do is I buy upto 9k per annum from one dealer, SHQ also does the same.

That article is unnecessarily scaremongering.

[panduranghari]

Yuan-bitcoin trade in volume is higher than dollar-bitcoin volume.

Isn't this a proof for the exponential rise of bitcoin price in fiat as Chinese flee capital controls. Carrington effect and poof all the BTC gone.

[panduranghari]

Link

Bitcoin had a great 2016. The cryptocurrency rallied 120% to $952, threatening to break the $1,000 mark for the first time since 2013. While bitcoin has seen a consistent bid throughout the year, its 57% gain (in US dollar terms) over the past three months has been particularly impressive.

So what's behind the move?

China.

In his latest edition of "Greed & Fear," CLSA's Christopher Wood notes, "Daily turnover in Shanghai-based BTC China, the world's largest bitcoin exchange by volume, has risen from around Rmb1bn in late September to a peak of Rmb27.8bn on 22 December and Rmb16.4bn on Wednesday (see Figure 11) while the Bitcoin price has risen by 70% over the past three months to Rmb6,927."

The increased volume in the cryptocurrency comes as money continues to rush out of China. The country saw its foreign-exchange reserves shrink by about 8% in 2016 to $3.05 trillion as of November. The drop in reserves has occurred as China's currency, the yuan, weakened by 6% against the dollar in 2016. The currency is threatening to weaken below 7.00 per dollar for the first time since Q1 2008.

Things aren't expected to get better anytime soon, either.

Deutsche Bank strategist Gautam Kalani recently called the yuan "the most expensive" currency in the world on a trade-weighted basis. While he didn't go into specifics, his call most likely has to do with the fact that as the dollar strengthens on expectations for Federal Reserve interest-rate hikes, the yuan gets weaker and money pours out of China.

Additionally, Bloomberg economist Tom Orlik wrote, "China's corporates continue to hold on to almost half of their forex earnings — a sign that yuan depreciation expectations remain high."

In fact, it's possible that the yuan's depreciation kicks into a higher gear, causing money to flee China at an ever faster rate. That's because at its most recent policy meeting, the US Federal Reserve appeared to be a bit more hawkish than previously expected. The Fed said it had begun to expect three rate hikes in 2017, up from its previous forecast of two. If that happens, the dollar will get even stronger, and the yuan will get weaker.

Of course, that will be even more positive for bitcoin.

Is bitcoin the greatest thing since sliced bread? You decide.

[Austin]

James Rickards - The Road To Ruin - PART 1/2 | London Real

[A_Gupta]

On bitcoin: the Boston Fed.
https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Docum ... pp1404.pdf

[Austin]

China’s yuan suffers biggest one-year loss since 1994

China’s yuan strengthened against the dollar on Friday, but was on track for its biggest annual loss since 1994, which would make it the worst performing major Asian currency this year. The yuan, which has reached an 8-1/2 year low, was on course to shed nearly 7 percent against the dollar in 2016. Many market watchers expect the yuan to recoil further next year if President-elect Donald Trump’s policies stoke stronger US economic growth and higher interest rates. In 2016, the yuan has been pressured by worries about slowing Chinese economic growth and more recently by a resurgent US dollar, which has spurred capital outflows from many emerging markets. (Reuters)

[Neshant]

China is worried US is going to put an end to endless trade surpluses China builds up against the US and the continual drain of manufacturing jobs from US to China.

They are also afraid Trump will not hesitate to retaliate militarily if they heckle the US too much in Asia. Hence the reason China quickly returned the US submersible which they "confiscated" in the South China Sea recently right after Trump tweeted his annoyance over them taking US property. I guarantee they won't pull that stunt again.

Just the image of Trump sends the message that Pimp Daddy is on the block and you best be on your best behavior..

[panduranghari]

On bitcoin: the Boston Fed.
https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Docum ... pp1404.pdf

Good article.

A chief advantage of bitcoin touted by its supporters is that transactions are free. This claim,
however, considers only the explicit out-of-pocket expense faced by users as required by the protocol. It
ignores the fact that the protocol, as designed, imposes an implicit cost on every existing holder of bitcoin
whenever a transaction request is sent out to the network, in that a given number of new bitcoin will be
created to reward the first miner who solves the hash function, and thus validates the transaction. This is
equivalent to money creation that results in inflation, and hence the devaluation of all existing money
holdings, all else being equal. This is clearly a form of negative externality––call it seignorage externality–
–in that the person initiating the transaction imposes on everyone a cost for which the initiator is not
charged.
A related interesting development is that some users have voluntarily started to pay explicitly for
having their transactions validated even though they are not required to do so. Figure 4 depicts the
average explicit fee measured in dollars paid by Bitcoin network users since early 2009. 14 Clearly, even
ignoring the implicit cost of the seignorage externality, the transaction fees paid for using Bitcoin have
been nontrivial when measured in dollars, especially in recent months. This is because the fees are more
or less fixed in bitcoin units. Their dollar value thus moves proportionally with the bitcoin price, which
has risen substantially since late last year. The emergence of explicit fees seems to be a precursor of what
will become inevitable in the long-run steady state when the supply of bitcoin will have stopped growing
according to the built-in algorithm. At that time, for bitcoin to continue serving its medium-of-exchange
role, miners will have to be paid directly by individuals requesting to have their transactions verified.
In addition to the implicit as well as the explicit cost for carrying out transactions in bitcoin,
adopters of Bitcoin also face nonnegligible transaction fees when they convert standard currencies into
bitcoin through the major bitcoin exchanges, as displayed in Table 2.
Moreover, some users may also consider the amount of time necessary to have a transaction
eventually confirmed and entered into the blockchain, a nonpecuniary but nonetheless real cost: in order
for a transaction to be considered completely final, Bitcoin users must wait up to an hour. 15