You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Proof of Stake Coins as (almost) free way to multiply your holdings.
Not if the 'money' isn't backed by 'real labor'! However, I see your point with interest bearing money, this is an endemic problem in our present currency! If you're interested I designed a new currency that addresses this issue along with 'depressions', wealth inequality, basic income, all in new currency!
Challenging the Old Money Gods (Including Bitcoin)! A New Crypto-Currency for a New Society!
Interesting story you got there rieki. What's your end goal? to replace old money?
Follow me @Yehey
Thank you.
look my post about waves is leasing coin
https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@superpako/waves-plataform-and-lease-cryptocurrency
Well, to redesignate money to its place as a medium of exchange, and not an all-powerful store of value. It's what's driving our conversion of our world into money. While we're at it we can design a money that suits a lot more of our collective needs as well... So essentially yes, replace old money...
value is backed in real labor and money is a measure of value
Only if the value of money was derived that way, but it in reality, it isn't.
Money is a store of value m8. You need something to measure value in to trade objects effectively
Money as a store of value is the opposite as money as a medium of exchange (trade objects effectively). They are opposing forces, and one of the main drivers of capitalism...
There are at least 9 other highly viable forms of capital as stores of value, outside of money.
"Money as a store of value is the opposite as money as a medium of exchange "
last I checked to be a good medium of exchange it has to be considered a measurement of value
Measurement != store.
You can measure and exchange value with money (in fact that was the main purpose of money, to begin with) it wasn't until later (with gold, etc) that money evolved to being a store of value... It evolved further to be able to seek economic rents (interest) of that value as well. All of these are in addition to, the medium of exchange. They are separate functions, not inherent.
"A store of value is the function of an asset that can be saved, retrieved and exchanged at a later time, and be predictably useful when retrieved."
"The most common store of value in modern times has been money, currency, or a commodity like a precious metal, cryptocurrency or financial capital. The point of any store of value is risk management due to a stable demand for the underlying asset. Money is one of the best stores of value because of its liquidity, that is, it can easily be exchanged for other goods and services.[1] An individual's wealth is the total of all stores of value including both monetary and nonmonetary assets.[2]"
Time = money - which is your labour; I get what you are saying - how to apportion value to something you can't see or touch? That's why I think the cryptos that retain value will be the ones that do something tangible.....provide a service, etc. and have differentiation.....Ripple is being investigated for adoption by the banking sector; Dash is an Apple pick; Lisk provides a service and enables the functionality of further cryptos, etc. Ultimately, cryptos that survive will have to have functionality, otherwise why bother?? And I get what you are saying about the measure - that's why I think eventually, crypto might resurrect the gold standard as a measure of value....as opposed to the value of a service....Bitcoin is valuable for what it allows - the digital exchange, but also the brand has established trust.
what? That makes no sense.
Labor is the only real measure of value is what I'm saying.
From my economics text book (coauthored by Ben Bernanke):
"Store of Value
As a store of value, money is a way of holding wealth. An extreme example is a miser who keeps his life's savings in cash under his mattress. But even someone who spends his cash wages 15 minutes after is using money as a store of value for that short period.
In most cases only money functions as a medium of exchange or a unit of account, but any asset-for example, stocks, bonds, or real estate- can be a store of value. AS these other types of assets normally pay the holder a higher return than money does, why do people use more as a store of value? The answer is that money's usefulness as a medium of exchange makes it worthwhile to hold, even though its return is relatively low."
Value is set by the price people are willing to pay for a product and not by the amount of work done or hours worked.
No. The labor theory of value is better, because that measures what it takes to produce an object. The true value of an object lies in the amount of socially necessary labor it takes to create it.
You are thinking of the price, not the value.
This explains it well:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
" designed a new currency that addresses this issue"
wow you designed a currency called the destruction of capitalism?
Well, ya... I mean, that is the point... Destruction, however, is not my goal. Building a vastly superior alternative to capitalism is. Being such a dominant force in our world transitions don't happen all at once, this is designed to transition away to a new model, it's built right into it...
ah yes I forgot that the rich people are fine with a peaceful economic transition away from capitalism and won't just stop it at all costs, including through the use of violence. I totally forgot that mass murders of millions and millions of these anti-captialists never happened. I totally forgot what happened when chile elected a socialist. I guess it is possible
For sure, some people are in a different position and feel the use of violence is best suited to meet their needs. It may very well be, I'm not the one to say. However, you are correct, I am not in that position. In fact economically speaking I would have a lot to lose by fully implementing the system I propose. But, that's just economic loss, on near every other qualitative measure for joy and happiness I would gain. Which is why I chose a transition. I don't have to resort to violence because I'm designing a new life without the need to do so. I am fortunate to have that ability, and this design can help others who aren't so fortunate a financial position as well. I spent 6 years in the military carrying out violence, it is not something I wish to ever do again.
Further, I'm against capitalism just as much as I'm against state run socialism or any form of communism we've seen employed. In fact it would be fair to say there hasn't been a single system implemented in living memory (at least in our dominant culture) that I would ever wish to be a part of. So, by advocating against capitalism I'm not by default advocating for any other typical system...
' I spent 6 years in the military carrying out violence,"
there is a difference. The violence you carried out was mainly against people who had done nothing wrong, as the tool of the rich. There are two ways to stop the military. Asking politely and destroying it. How many people do you think begged for their lives before a military killed them and their families? How many people do you think never even had a chance to because of drone strikes?
You could not stop hitler by asking nicely. The economy of Chile could not change to the peaceful will of the majority. Same in Venezuela today.
https://espressostalinist.com/u-s-imperialism-page/
Do you know how many millions of peaceful communists, anarchists, mutualists, and socialists where slaughtered by governments? This was all done to keep capitalism in place. Do you know how many unions were broken up by killing? 20 million or so die of poverty a year, and I'm sure the majority would prevent that peacefully if it could, but that hasn't happened yet and it never will.
"For sure, some people are in a different position and feel the use of violence is best suited to meet their needs."
let me guess, you think asking politely would stop hitler?
I'm not interested in stopping Hitler... I would be more interested in speaking with his army and demonstrating to them a better life that could be lived so they didn't carry on with his orders. That is where my efforts are best spent. It you feel like your efforts are best spent in violence. Then, by all means, carry on. Sounds like we have different approaches to solving our problems. There is by no means a one-size-fits-all solution here.
" Sounds like we have different approaches to solving our problems."
no, I just understand somebody who keeps slaves through violence won't peacefully let them go.
next time somebody murders a small child in front of you, by all means ask them nicely to stop. I'm sure they will think about it while killing the next one.
"demonstrating to them a better life that could be lived so they didn't carry on with his orders"
uhhhhh
they purged the party of people like that. They killed them without a second thought.
And they killed those who resisted through violence as well... What's your point? Resist and die, or don't and die? So, sounds to me that, to you, it's death either way. Which is naturally the case anyway. So, why not chose what path is going to make you happiest whilst you have a few seconds of life left?
If the new paradigm has to be brought in by violence, then it is not a new paradigm... Same old shit.
Further, I chose to create a life that, to me, seemed pragmatic and obtainable. Which is why It's a transition. Because that can, and is, something that creates a solution immediately while striving towards larger goals. People have been seeking the demise of capitalism for the last century at least. How well did they do?