Jesús ya lo había dicho
Forocochero
- Desde
- 28 Nov 2020
- Mensajes
- 1.102
- Fruta
- 391
Dad al Estado lo que es del Estado: la propiedad de las monedas
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Nota: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente.
Debe actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Debe actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Una moneda sin Estado NO ES MONEDA
- Autor del tema Jesús ya lo había dicho
- Fecha de inicio
Decipher
Contra la oscuridad
- Desde
- 28 Ene 2015
- Mensajes
- 81.256
- Fruta
- 140.906
Dad al Estado lo que es del Estado: la propiedad de las monedas
Ahora mismo al estado no le doy ni una pila de estiercol.
fluctuat nec mergitur
Ex nolotílico
- Desde
- 2 Nov 2008
- Mensajes
- 4.315
- Fruta
- 16.425
Que alguien te quiera vender el bitcoin como "dinero de la gente" es suficiente como para empezar a desconfiar.Una moneda no es dinero.
El oro y la plata es el dinero de Dios, y Bitcoin es el dinero de la gente.
Me recuerda a lo de "el partido de la gente".
XXavier
Madmaxista
- Desde
- 7 Jun 2010
- Mensajes
- 24.598
- Fruta
- 23.560
Claro que es moneda. Un ejemplo clásico es el del dinar iraquí llamado 'suizo'... Lo que sigue es un fragmento de un artículo del NYT.
(...) Indeed, one can have currencies that have no government backing. Gold has been used for centuries as a medium of exchange; cigarettes were used for payment in prisoner-of-war camps in World War II; and countless other goods, including cowrie shells and peacock antiestéticathers, have functioned as money throughout history. They were money because people were willing to accept them as payment for debts, public and private. Gold, cigarettes, cowrie shells and peacock antiestéticathers all have "use value" in addition to their "exchange value." These items were originally valued for their utility or their beauty, and they became used as currency. It is rare to see a purely paper currency functioning as money without the backing of some government or financial institution.
Rare, perhaps, but not unheard of. Mervyn A. King, governor of the Bank of England, cited an interesting example - the Iraqi dinar - in the Ely Lecture delivered at the recent American Economics Association meeting in San Diego. (Mr. King's speech can be downloaded from
Here is the story Mr. King told:
After the gulf war of 1991, Iraq was divided in two: the south ruled by Saddam Hussein, the north governed by the local Kurds. Mr. Hussein needed money to finance government spending, and in the time-honoured tradition of dictators, created it himself.
The government could not import more of the bank notes then in use, because of United Nations sanctions, so Mr. Hussein ordered the local printing of a new currency. In May 1993, the
During the next few years, so many Saddam dinars were printed in southern Iraq that they became virtually worthless. The face value of cash in circulation rose from 22 billion dinars in 1991 to 584 billion in four years, and inflation averaged about 250 percent a year over that period.
Residents of northern Iraq could not exchange their notes. The 25-dinar notes continued to circulate and became known as the "Swiss dinars," because they were printed with plates made in Switzerland.
The fact that the Swiss dinars continued to be used at all speaks to the power of social conventions. The Kurds in the north despised the Baghdad government, and would have much preferred to have their own currency. But there was no government in place powerful enough to mandate a currency change, so they kept using the old Swiss dinars by default.
The Swiss dinar was in fixed supply, while the Saddam dinar was flying off the printing presses, so it is not surprising that the Swiss dinar quickly became more valuable. By spring 2003, it took 300 Saddam dinars to buy one Swiss dinar.
The more interesting economic effect was the behaviour of the Swiss dinar against the dollar. In fall 2002, as it became more and more likely that the United States would invade, the Swiss dinar became more and more valuable.
This appreciation was driven by expectations. If the Kurds had expected that they would once again fall under Saddam's sway, the Swiss dinar would have quickly become worthless. As this became less likely, and the belief that future governments would accept the Swiss dinar became more widespread, the local currency became more valuable. Of course, every exchange rate movement can be interpreted in two ways: in the north, the Kurdish regional government initially interpreted the rise in the Swiss dinar against the dollar as a fall in the value of the dollar.
The government soon realised, however, that since the dollar was stable against other currencies, the correct explanation was that recounted above: the increasing belief that the Swiss dinars would, in fact, be honoured by future governments.
The government was right. On July 7, 2003, the American occupation administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, announced the creation of a new Iraqi dinar that would be exchanged for the two existing currencies at a rate that implied that one Swiss dinar would be worth 150 Saddam dinars.
Interestingly, the currency markets valued the Swiss dinars somewhat higher than the official 150 exchange rate, primarily because many counterfeit 10,000-dinar Saddam notes were in circulation.
This story illustrates that paper currency can take on a life of its own, even in the absence of government backing. At the same time, it is clear that government backing makes a significant contribution to the value of paper currency: the more likely it became that the Swiss dinars would be valued by a subsequent government, the more valuable they became.
Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido
(...) Indeed, one can have currencies that have no government backing. Gold has been used for centuries as a medium of exchange; cigarettes were used for payment in prisoner-of-war camps in World War II; and countless other goods, including cowrie shells and peacock antiestéticathers, have functioned as money throughout history. They were money because people were willing to accept them as payment for debts, public and private. Gold, cigarettes, cowrie shells and peacock antiestéticathers all have "use value" in addition to their "exchange value." These items were originally valued for their utility or their beauty, and they became used as currency. It is rare to see a purely paper currency functioning as money without the backing of some government or financial institution.
Rare, perhaps, but not unheard of. Mervyn A. King, governor of the Bank of England, cited an interesting example - the Iraqi dinar - in the Ely Lecture delivered at the recent American Economics Association meeting in San Diego. (Mr. King's speech can be downloaded from
Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido
.)Here is the story Mr. King told:
After the gulf war of 1991, Iraq was divided in two: the south ruled by Saddam Hussein, the north governed by the local Kurds. Mr. Hussein needed money to finance government spending, and in the time-honoured tradition of dictators, created it himself.
The government could not import more of the bank notes then in use, because of United Nations sanctions, so Mr. Hussein ordered the local printing of a new currency. In May 1993, the
Tienes que estar registrado para ver este contenido
of Iraq announced that citizens had three weeks to exchange their old 25-dinar notes for the new "Saddam dinars," which bore his portrait.During the next few years, so many Saddam dinars were printed in southern Iraq that they became virtually worthless. The face value of cash in circulation rose from 22 billion dinars in 1991 to 584 billion in four years, and inflation averaged about 250 percent a year over that period.
Residents of northern Iraq could not exchange their notes. The 25-dinar notes continued to circulate and became known as the "Swiss dinars," because they were printed with plates made in Switzerland.
The fact that the Swiss dinars continued to be used at all speaks to the power of social conventions. The Kurds in the north despised the Baghdad government, and would have much preferred to have their own currency. But there was no government in place powerful enough to mandate a currency change, so they kept using the old Swiss dinars by default.
The Swiss dinar was in fixed supply, while the Saddam dinar was flying off the printing presses, so it is not surprising that the Swiss dinar quickly became more valuable. By spring 2003, it took 300 Saddam dinars to buy one Swiss dinar.
The more interesting economic effect was the behaviour of the Swiss dinar against the dollar. In fall 2002, as it became more and more likely that the United States would invade, the Swiss dinar became more and more valuable.
This appreciation was driven by expectations. If the Kurds had expected that they would once again fall under Saddam's sway, the Swiss dinar would have quickly become worthless. As this became less likely, and the belief that future governments would accept the Swiss dinar became more widespread, the local currency became more valuable. Of course, every exchange rate movement can be interpreted in two ways: in the north, the Kurdish regional government initially interpreted the rise in the Swiss dinar against the dollar as a fall in the value of the dollar.
The government soon realised, however, that since the dollar was stable against other currencies, the correct explanation was that recounted above: the increasing belief that the Swiss dinars would, in fact, be honoured by future governments.
The government was right. On July 7, 2003, the American occupation administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, announced the creation of a new Iraqi dinar that would be exchanged for the two existing currencies at a rate that implied that one Swiss dinar would be worth 150 Saddam dinars.
Interestingly, the currency markets valued the Swiss dinars somewhat higher than the official 150 exchange rate, primarily because many counterfeit 10,000-dinar Saddam notes were in circulation.
This story illustrates that paper currency can take on a life of its own, even in the absence of government backing. At the same time, it is clear that government backing makes a significant contribution to the value of paper currency: the more likely it became that the Swiss dinars would be valued by a subsequent government, the more valuable they became.
The Hellion
Madmaxista
- Desde
- 3 Ago 2011
- Mensajes
- 10.049
- Fruta
- 31.293
Las monedas son (eran) las divisas de los estados.
Las criptomonedas serán (son) las divisas de las redes.
Las criptomonedas serán (son) las divisas de las redes.
¿por qué iba Dios a necesitar dinero?
No lo necesita, el oro y la plata se crean solamente en supernovas o más raramente, en choques de estrellas de neutrones, que son los únicos eventos cósmicos capaces de sintetizarlos.
También es mencionado en la Biblia numerosas veces, de ahí la afirmación (para creyentes en la Biblia claro)
ciberobrero
Madmaxista
- Desde
- 15 Abr 2017
- Mensajes
- 32.683
- Fruta
- 85.238
Es justo al revés, pero bueno, vale, lo que tu digas.
Dios hizo el oro y cuando el Hombre inventó internec Dios se transmuto en Satoshi para crear un oro actualizado.
Una moneda no es dinero.
El oro y la plata es el dinero de Dios, y Bitcoin es el dinero de la gente.
El Bitcoin NO es dinero puesto que para serlo debería tener valor por sí mismo. Ergo no puede ser el dinero de nadie sino otra cosa. Lo mismo sucede con el dinero fiat.
.
.
.
.
.
.
El Bitcoin NO es dinero puesto que para serlo debería tener valor por sí mismo. Ergo no puede ser el dinero de nadie sino otra cosa. Lo mismo sucede con el dinero fiat.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Si poder guardar y transferir dinero por todo el planeta sin que ningún estado pueda evitarlo ni te lo pueda confiscar no significa nada para ti, quizá para muchas otras personas e instituciones si significa y vale algo.
_______
Madmaxista
- Desde
- 16 Abr 2019
- Mensajes
- 17.713
- Fruta
- 28.847
Nada tiene valor por si mismo, el valor se lo dan las personas.El Bitcoin NO es dinero puesto que para serlo debería tener valor por sí mismo. Ergo no puede ser el dinero de nadie sino otra cosa. Lo mismo sucede con el dinero fiat.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Es tan real el oro contante y sonante como el Internet y el blockchain de bitcoin.
Es tan real tu mano como los pensamientos de tu cabeza
Si poder guardar y transferir dinero por todo el planeta sin que ningún estado pueda evitarlo ni te lo pueda confiscar no significa nada para ti, quizá para muchas otras personas e instituciones si significa y vale algo.
Nunca he dicho que el Bitcoin no sirva para nada.
Nada tiene valor por si mismo, el valor se lo dan las personas.
Si mañana el Bitcoin deja de aceptarse, por los vendedores de bienes o servicios, su precio sería CERO (a menos que siga habiendo demanda irracional como sucede en las burbujas especulativas). ¿Qué otros usos tiene un Bitcoin si ya no sirve para ser intercambiado por otros bienes o servicios?, NINGUNO. Por ello digo que el Bitcoin no tiene valor por sí mismo. El Bitcoin sólo es valioso porque algunas personas piensan que les va a servir para intercambiarlo por bienes o servicios (o para especular con su precio). Si esa idea se demuestra como falsa entonces el valor de un Bitcoin es CERO.
Si mañana el oro deja de aceptarse, por los vendedores de bienes o servicios, su precio NO sería cero. ¿Qué otros usos tiene el oro si ya no sirve para ser intercambiado por otros bienes o servicios?, se usa en la fabricación de joyas, en electrónica, en medicina, en química, en la industria, para galardones y trofeos, baños en oro, tecnología espacial, ortodoncia, alimentación, cosméticos, etc. Es por todo ello que el oro seguiría siendo demandado y, por lo tanto, su precio no sería cero.
Es tan real el oro contante y sonante como el Internet y el blockchain de bitcoin.
Es evidente que un Bitcoin no es algo tangible ergo no es como el oro.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sota_de_espadas
Madmaxista
- Desde
- 30 Ene 2007
- Mensajes
- 13.671
- Fruta
- 22.916
Esa relación entre dinero y estado es uno de los viejos mantras que a la gente le cuesta la cigot entender. Metéoslo en la cabeza, el dinero es anterior a cualquier estado, pensad en la época de las cavernas donde solo habían tribus aisladas, ahí no había ningún estado ni nada que se le parezca, sin embargo la gente usaba lo que tenía a mano a modo de dinero, piedras, metales, conchas, plumas, trueque, etc. No necesitamos ningún estado para usar dinero y Bitcoin es la demostración palpable de ello, si no lo entendéis ahora ya lo entenderéis más adelante.
marvi
Madmaxista
- Desde
- 18 Nov 2010
- Mensajes
- 267
- Fruta
- 441
El Bitcoin NO es dinero puesto que para serlo debería tener valor por sí mismo. Ergo no puede ser el dinero de nadie sino otra cosa. Lo mismo sucede con el dinero fiat.
¿Quizás lo podemos llamar herramienta? Dinero y herramienta no son lo mismo, aunque la herramienta cuesta un dinero y tiene una utilidad.Si poder guardar y transferir dinero por todo el planeta sin que ningún estado pueda evitarlo ni te lo pueda confiscar no significa nada para ti, quizá para muchas otras personas e instituciones si significa y vale algo.
¿Quizás lo podemos llamar herramienta? Dinero y herramienta no son lo mismo, aunque la herramienta cuesta un dinero y tiene una utilidad.
El buen dinero no deja de ser un medio de cambio, una unidad contable y un almacén de valor.
La utilidad práctica tanto del oro/plata como de Bitcoin son ya conocidas, pero el componente monetario va aparte como un añadido a dicha utilidad.
stiff upper lip
Buscador de la verdad
Una moneda es cualquier cosa que la gente acepte como pago en intercambios, ya sean conchas o semillas de cacao