You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Dear crypto critics... Money does NOT need backing to be money
There are so many conflicting terms and definitions that it's silly. That MIGHT be the point.
I was taught in economics 101 half a century ago that 'money' was a portable store of wealth.
Currency is a whole nother thing. Today currency (except for crypto) are typically IOU'S
Terms are just words. Philosophically there can only be one correct way to understand money. It may have various effects, but the nature of it can only be one thing. Difficulty to grasp money and the evil need to cover up the corruption creates all the various terms
money, currency and debt are NOT the same thing.
Oh yes they are, that is my whole point. The accounting is debt owed in an unfulfilled transaction. How this debt is represented, by memory, by paper, by gold, by cigarettes etc.. is not interesting, except for those commodities ability to not be counterfeited etc. You could say that debt is what creates money. The debt owed in an unfulfilled transaction, is what spurs the need for money. I equalize debt and money. Money is permanent and indistructable circulating debt... you only have money because you are owed some sort of commodity or service and have access to it... Tom Hanks on his solitary island, have no need for an accounting of unfulfilled trabsactions and therefore no needfor money
Hi @mandibil
@barbro from Ramta headquarter here (not vikings anymore, to many wanted to be Vikings).
This whole post is the best that I ever saw on money. It made everything very clear and easy to understand for me. It is how I always have seen money my self, but could not put into words the way you did. Now it is not only me that understand it but my brain too.
So, thank you very much for this post!
Hey @barbro glad to help. Did you read the quoted article also ?
Hi again @mandibil
I did read it the first time you wrote it, but since you asked me I did read it again. It gave me even more to read it again.
glad to be of help :-)
nope..that is incorrect.
it's entirely possible to have money without any debt.
If everyone got everything at once that they ever wished for, would we need money ?
they wouldn't
back in my g'g grand parents day they called it 'spending money' and they mostly didn't have any
They grew or made for themselves everything they needed.
living on the farm..back in the hills.
it's still possible...not LIKELY...but possible.
"conflicting terms and definitions"
Yeah but we have the same with the cryptoworld :-)
Satoshi never were thinking on terminology of that all - in fact that make it also hard to understand for non tech-savy people. There were in 2013 even a large discussion in BTC community if we should rename the stuff all.
yup...words can be used to conceal as well as reveal. What's the goal?
goal.... mass adoption! :-)