Some guys over on reddit have been doing some pretty amazing stuff with this 'joke' currency Dogecoin. They somehow were able to sponsor a Nascar Team by donating dogecoin.
Take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5nTwq5zlrw
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
jah_house_chefIt seems so damn useless. I'll stick to my good old benjamins that actually hold value. And are physical currency recognized by all.
.MASSHOLE.You need to do some research then. It is far from useless. You think your benjamins actually hold value? Do you know what they are even backed by? Or how easy it is to alter the value if you are the Fed? Bitcoin offers something conventional money does not, a fixed supply. Once it stabilizes, which it eventually will, it will hold value much better than your dollar/euro/fiat money. It will be immune to many of the things conventional money are susceptible to, namely governmental influence.
jah_house_chefYou do realize that due to the nature of bitcoin versus actual, government endorsed currency it is much more probably that bitcoin will only succeed when it offers advantages over the current system of physical currency. I can't go to 7/11 and get gas with bitcoin. But I can with the USD.
TBH, I'm not even sure if you're trolling. Or, if you're one of those kids who thinks the internet is the answer to everything.
The referenced post has been removed.
The referenced post has been removed.
ayylmaoall bitcoins probably won't be in circulation until the 2100s. they hold value. I don't know what you're talking about. that's also not the only benefit
The referenced post has been removed.
swordsandpensThey provide no value, yet right before that you state how people hold onto them because they know the price will rise....I.E value. I mean who wouldn't with prices still at over $400 USD per 1 BTC and it's only gone up. Also we already have a bitcoin vending machine here in the US (New Mexico), and retailers are starting to accept it more and more frequently. It simply can't be written off like some feeble attempt at a global currency like you make it out to be.
NFGnarA big problem with using some of these crypto-currencies to buy things from physical retail stores is that the conformation time is so long. No one wants to wait around for 10 minutes for their purchase to be confirmed
swordsandpensI agree that no average person wants to do that seeing as the average person would realistically not probably have more than 10 coins at this point with the price the way it is. But, if you are a long time miner or someone with a lot of bitcoin I don't see it being that big of an issue because they have been dealing with it for a while through buying and also the fact that the mining process is the longest/most difficult process they will have to go through.
mrbillgatesCan you buy half a bit coin's worth of goods? Or even a 1/4 of a bit coin's worth of goods?
mrbillgatesThis. What I don't understand is if a bit coin is worth around $400, how do you walk into a store to buy something worth less than that? Can you buy half a bit coin's worth of goods? Or even a 1/4 of a bit coin's worth of goods?
.MASSHOLE.I am assuming they have some sort of electronic system or ATM that allows you to input Bitcoins. You can send up to .000001 Bitcoins as a transfer, so I imagine it would be similar to what you do now. Give someone a $20 for $15 worth of goods and you get $5 back. So you buy something worth .5 of a bitcoin in dollars, you get .5 of that bitcoin back.
The referenced post has been removed.
steezysteezeCan somebody please explain to me why it's important for money to be backed by a physical commodity?
MadzzbSome ridiculously smart asian kid at my school had a stupid amount of bitcoin currency and has since transferred it to some form of real currency and is rich as fuck now.
The referenced post has been removed.
The current financial crisis emerged out of an economic boom that began in 2003 and saw rising stock values, increasing home prices, and high levels of employment and production. The upturn followed a downturn that hit in 2001 after the dazzling prosperity during the second half of the 1990s.
In other words, over slightly more than one decade, the economy has gone through two swings of the business cycle, with still no certainty about how long and severe the recession phase of the present cycle will turn out to be.
Many mainstream economists are baffled about these events. The Keynesians certainly cannot claim there has been any shortfall in "aggregate demand." Both in America and around the world, the demand for raw materials and consumer goods has been riding high for a long time.
On the other hand, the monetarists believe monetary policy has not been excessive; price inflation has remained pretty much in check, with consumer prices only rising at 2 to 3 percent a year for a long time.
So what has caused these economic crises? The answer can be found in the ideas of another group of economists, those of the Austrian school. Though this school of thought developed in Austria in the late nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, most "Austrian" economists are Americans living in the United States.
The two leading figures of the school in the twentieth century (and who were originally from Austria) were Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974 partly for his work on business cycles.
For many Austrian economists the past two business cycles have been, in the words of Yogi Berra, "like déjà vu, all over again." Mises and Hayek had first developed their theory of the business cycle in the 1920s, when the American economy experienced numerous technological innovations that lowered manufacturing costs, raised labor productivity, and thus resulted in an expanding supply of consumer goods, along with a rising stock market and a massive real estate boom. And all the while the general level of prices was rising at no more than 2 percent a year.
There was much talk of a "new economic era" and the "death" of the business cycle. One of America's most renowned economists, Yale professor Irving Fisher, publicly declared in the spring and summer of 1929 that the stock market had reached a plateau from which it could only go higher. That was just months before the great stock-market crash in October.
The Austrians argued, both before and after 1929, that the cause of the boom and the inevitable depression was Federal Reserve monetary policy. Under the influence of a variety of economists, including Fisher, the Federal Reserve had sought to stabilize the general price level on the rationale that both inflation (rising prices) and deflation (falling prices) were harmful.
Given the expansion of the supply of goods and services during the 1920s, prices throughout the economy would have been expected to fall slowly, and this likely would have happened if not for the Fed's policy.
Viewing any decline in the price level as a sign of "bad" deflation, the monetary authorities pumped additional quantities of money and credit into the banking system to prevent prices from falling. The banks could lend this newly created money only by lowering interest rates below what the Austrians call their "natural," or equilibrium, level, where the amount of money demanded by borrowers would equal the amount saved by income earners. Thus there were insufficient savings to complete and maintain many of the investment projects that were undertaken.
Because monetary expansion prevented prices from falling, no harmful price inflation appeared. Thus the magnitude of the monetary inflation was hidden by the stable price level. Nevertheless, the investment distortions and imbalance between savings and investment were real.
In late 1928 and early 1929, the Fed became concerned that its expansionary monetary policy was finally threatening a significant rise in the price level. The bank put on the monetary brakes, and in late 1929 and 1930 the stock-market, investment, and real-estate house of cards came tumbling down.
The severity and the duration of what soon became labeled the Great Depression were caused by the interventionist policies of first the Hoover and then the Roosevelt administrations. Rather than allow the market to adjust to the new noninflationary environment—which would have required timely downward adjustments in prices, wages, and shifts in production and employment—the government used various pressures and controls to prevent these changes. The American economy for a long time was caught in "disequilibrium" relationships between costs and prices, supply and demand, and production and consumption—not because of any "failure of capitalism" but because the heavy hand of government prevented the market from reestablishing "full employment."
How similar this is to the events of the last decade! Technological innovations, cost efficiencies, greater output and new goods on the market, along with booming stock prices and real-estate values—all occurring mostly with an annual price inflation of around 1 or 2 percent.
But throughout the second half of the 1990s and then again after 2003, the Fed undertook expansionary monetary policies, with the money supply sometimes increasing annually at double-digit rates. Interest rates were pushed to 1 to 2 percent and were even at times negative, when adjusted for price inflation. Money for investment and other purposes was being given away virtually for free.
Is it any wonder that financial markets boomed, that standards of credit-worthiness for investment and mortgage loans almost disappeared, that real-estate prices went up and up? Both in 2000 and in 2007, when the Fed became concerned that its policy was creating an unstable and unsustainable inflationary environment, did it put on the brakes. And both times the Fed-created house of cards came tumbling down.
Every historical episode has its own unique features. History never mechanically repeats itself. But like causes do bring about like effects. The concentration of monetary control in a central bank means that those who manage monetary policy are in effect central planners. Like all forms of central planning, monetary planning is heavy-handed, clumsy, and pervasive in its effects throughout the economy.
We will see the same inevitable sequence again and again for as long as money is in the hands of a monopoly central bank and the central bankers believe they are sufficiently knowledgeable, wise, and able to manage the society's economic affairs.
.MASSHOLE.The anti-central bank movement stems from the Austrian School of Economics with economists like von Hayek and Mises who have theorized that a state-run monopoly of money issuance creates the boom-bust cycles that plague the classic Keynesian model of economics. Almost every single capitalist country follows the Keynesian Economic models.
Von Hayek is very wary of central bank and their control over interest rates, as he sees that as the reason there are boom and bust cycles. Obviously, interest rates and money supply are related with the Fed, and by tinkering with the interest rates, the money supply will change.
But changing the money supply is a more effective way to combat recessionary/inflationary gaps than the Keynesian method of shifting aggregate demand. There's significantly less time lag and it helps avoid the political business cycle
bieberhole69.*But changing the money supply is a more effective way to combat recessionary/inflationary gaps than the Keynesian method of shifting aggregate demand. There's significantly less time lag and it helps avoid the political business cycle
I don't know how I quoted my own reply
.MASSHOLE.Changing the money supply results in interest rate changes, and these are at the heart of many depression and recessions that have occurred in the last few decades.
bieberhole69.Well sometimes they had to decrease the money supply to increase interest rates and decrease inflation, in order to prevent the market from correcting itself later on once the situation had gotten a lot worse.
The goal is for smooth growth, taking away both the lows and also the highs to make the economy more stable