Is There A World Banking Conspiracy?

[prendrelemick]

The days when "money" was based on something tangible are long gone anyway.


My son has some bitcoin , he told me something of them today.

They were earned (or created) in the first place by rewards for solving problems - or "mining" for answers rather than gold. The problems are getting more and more difficult so that now only one or two a year are found, and there will never be more than about 20 million of them in circulation. Compare that with banks that create money from nothing. But that's not the point.

They can be easily traded for a bank's version of money. (The son bought his within 5 mins of downloading an ap) Current rate aprox £450 per coin. Unlike "bank money" the price or supply cannot be politically manipulated, (remember "quantitive easing") their worth is set by supply and demand. You can buy or sell goods and services with them with a RFID contactless app on your phone, just the same as bank money, but they have no physical form - that's not the point either.

Here's the point, they are run and administered by a blockchain rather than a bank. In the bitcoin context, a blockchain is a digital ledger that records every bitcoin transaction that has ever occurred. It is protected by cryptography so powerful that breaking it is typically dismissed as "impossible". More importantly, the blockchain resides across a network of computers, (of all the users). Whenever new transactions occur, the blockchain is authenticated across this distributed network, before the transaction can be included as the next block on the chain. (Thankyou Wikipedia )

This means it is a system outside Bank and Government control and National Boundries. There are no costs or commisions for transactions, no profits to shareholders etc... And they can't just fabricate money because there is no 'They'- there is no one in charge.

There are other virtual currencies too.

Now, I only found all this out today and have not thought about the implications. But if someone offered me a bitcoin for a weeks work I think I would accept.

[YesNo]

The bitcoin seems similar to having a rare coin except:

(1) It is more or less liquid depending on the demand in the virtual community.
(2) It has no transaction costs.
(3) It has no storage costs.

I assume you would have to compute capital gains and losses should the value change from the time of purchase to the time of sale.

People who like having a real silver or gold coin in their hands would not likely want something like this. They would not trust the liquidity and in exchange take on transaction and storage costs for the real coin. I assume they would have to pay capital gains taxes as well if they have any capital gains but not if the coin is legal tender and they want to exchange it for face value.

The bitgold account tries to offer the best of both worlds. There is real gold underlying the account, but it is still electronic and that gold is not in the person's hand. But transactions are easier.

As I mentioned, I don't have any of these figuring the price of precious metals is still too high. At the moment having the fiat currency (dollars, pounds, euros, whatever) is the easiest way to handle transactions assuming the currency does not inflate rapidly. I guess that inflation risk is why people diversify into a precious metal or bitcoin currency.

[Danik 2016]

The days when "money" was based on something tangible are long gone anyway.


My son has some bitcoin , he told me something of them today.

They were earned (or created) in the first place by rewards for solving problems - or "mining" for answers rather than gold. The problems are getting more and more difficult so that now only one or two a year are found, and there will never be more than about 20 million of them in circulation. Compare that with banks that create money from nothing. But that's not the point.

They can be easily traded for a bank's version of money. (The son bought his within 5 mins of downloading an ap) Current rate aprox £450 per coin. Unlike "bank money" the price or supply cannot be politically manipulated, (remember "quantitive easing") their worth is set by supply and demand. You can buy or sell goods and services with them with a RFID contactless app on your phone, just the same as bank money, but they have no physical form - that's not the point either.

Here's the point, they are run and administered by a blockchain rather than a bank. In the bitcoin context, a blockchain is a digital ledger that records every bitcoin transaction that has ever occurred. It is protected by cryptography so powerful that breaking it is typically dismissed as "impossible". More importantly, the blockchain resides across a network of computers, (of all the users). Whenever new transactions occur, the blockchain is authenticated across this distributed network, before the transaction can be included as the next block on the chain. (Thankyou Wikipedia )

This means it is a system outside Bank and Government control and National Boundries. There are no costs or commisions for transactions, no profits to shareholders etc... And they can't just fabricate money because there is no 'They'- there is no one in charge.

There are other virtual currencies too.

Now, I only found all this out today and have not thought about the implications. But if someone offered me a bitcoin for a weeks work I think I would accept.

For me that is absolutely amazing. A decentralized money system that is not linked neither to any banks nor to any countries! Well, as turned to Google to learn more I saw several propagandas o my Brazilian page offering bitcoins for sale. It seems that we are not having pure bitcoin yet at least. The two systems are mixing.

[prendrelemick]

I wonder, is it legal tender? it's the same as having a bag of beans to trade for a lawnmower - does tax come into that? If any profit is in bitcoin is it profit? What you (yes/no) say about capital gains and legal tender is interesting. Can you have capital gains on something that is intangible? What if you get them as a wage and use them to buy goods rather than cash them in? (the bag of beans analogy again) Would you even need to declare them to the taxman? I used to repair up my neighbours walls, and he would transport my sheep to market - all undeclared -but I'm rambling now!

Danik: The only way to get them now is to buy them with bank money or trade them for something because the 'problem mine' is worked out.
My son did say there are agencies (would be JP Morgans) trying to monetize the system by offering to hold and trade them for a fee for clients. (selling shovels to gold miners) He also said that these are regularly attacked and hacked by anarchic hackers who want to keep big buisness out. He got his through an auction, with no fees or commission. Another thing he said, is each coin or part coin is individually recognisable by the system - making theft or fraud difficult.

I should add all my 'knowledge' comes from a 5 minute chat with The Son, nothing deeper than that

[YesNo]

Regarding capital gains tax, I don't think barter arrangements have to worry about capital gains tax because no transaction measured in a fiat currency was involved. Also one can get around capital gains by using cash (bills, coins) and not report the transaction. There might be a legal issue with not reporting that transaction. But if you bought something with cash and the transaction was recorded, the government probably knows about the transaction or can find out. Then if you sell what you bought the government would know that as well and the difference would be liable to capital gains (or losses). The losses are important because they might reduce your other taxes so this is not all a bad system considering that you have to pay taxes.

You could have capital gains on something that is intangible such as a stock or option transaction through a broker.

I missed an item in my list. Besides (1) liquidity, (2) transaction costs and (3) storage costs, there is also "counter-party risk" with using a bitcoin. You mentioned one such risk with those hackers. You are now dependent on a counter-party to keep the record of the bit coin you own safe. That is another reason why some people want real coins made out of real metal in their real hands. No counter-party risk. They will take care of the risk from thieves by purchasing real safes and real guns.

I'm not recommending any of this. It seems that gold, silver and bitcoins are all overpriced. At least with gold and silver even if they drop through some deflationary pressures (that is, everything drops in value) they will still retain some value.

[Danik 2016]

......

[Danik 2016]

I can´t answer you on the tax part prendre, my knowledge of bitcoin been so recent. All I know is that the propaganda is officially in the net and that that bitcoins are pretty expensive.
Anyway if one going to sell or buy them for the usual money i don´t see any advantage in them.
As for personal work favour exchanges, seems ok but I wouldn´t publish them anywhere.

I found this forum on the subject:
https://bitcointalk.org/

[prendrelemick]

I reckon they make no sense as a commodity or investment but only as a useable currency. And I'm not sure they are that yet.

[YesNo]

They would have to be a form of legal tender to be a currency. A legal tender would be something one could use to remove a debt or obligation that the other person has to accept at a certain value. The bitcoin, or bitgold, would probably have to be sold first to get a legal currency.

I think the main problem is debt. If we have inflation, then the debt gets removed by less expensive dollars or pounds. If salaries increase then for the same amount of work we get more currency and can more easily pay off the debt.

But if we have deflation then everything, including salaries, drops in value except for the debt. That debt is still payable in dollars or pounds or euros even though the value of those currencies are deflated, that is, they are harder to get. Rather than having gold or bitcoins, I would prefer being out of debt and not offering any credit. Of course bankruptcy is an option in a severe deflation. That is the risk the creditor takes unless the government bails out the creditor by bailing out the debtor and raising taxes. That's probably too simplistic, but it is what popped into my head at the moment.

Edit: This just occurred to me. Sometimes debt is denominated in US dollars, which means it has to be paid back in dollars not some other currency, but the debtor gets income in euros. If the value of the euro drops in terms of the dollar, then the debtor has to earn more euros to pay off the dollar denominated debt.

[prendrelemick]

The legal status of a non legal tender an interesting point you raise. If you paid a bill in Bitcoin (agreeing beforehand with your supplier) Could he later claim the account is still unpaid because bitcoin is not legal tender? Money is about confidence in the end.

This goes back to the original poster's theme on bank conspiracies, and what alternatives are there. I can see the blockchain regulated financial system working only if it were to reach a critical mass of users. But then what about credit and debt and enforcement of financial agreements? They have to be backed by Law.

In the past banks worked because people and governments had confidence and trust in them. Now they work because people and governments are afraid of them - or a world without them.

[YesNo]

When my dad died he had accounts at many different banks not because there was a lot of money involved, but he did not trust any one bank to survive and he didn't trust the government insurance against bank failure. He remembered the 1929 depression.

I have heard of people preferring to put money in safes because savings accounts at banks offer little interest and they don't trust the savings in a bank that could fail. In the US there's a federal insurance (FDIC) to support confidence in banks that banks pay to protect depositors, but the depositor is making a loan to the bank when they put money in a savings account and for that they collect some interest (and maybe negative interest in some cases, or so I've heard, today). If all banks failed, I don't know if that federal insurance would be able to cover the losses. It should work for a smaller number of failures.

As far as bank conspiracies go, I wonder what banks are conspiring to do?

[Vota]

A world government leads to the collapse of diversity, and completely removes the checks and balances in place that keep the human race relatively free. Considering the population disparity between different races, as well as birth rates, and the open borders policies and thinking of multiculturalists, it's not unreasonable to say that sometime in the near future, people classified as white or western European will die out, which is basically a slow form of cultural and racial genocide. This isn't conspiracy theory. Look at the statistics. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together.

Globalization is basically a post-modern revolt and full on assault on western culture. It isn't a good thing. The propaganda about everyone getting along and having no borders, and being under the rule of a benevolent World Government is a pipe dream.

Each country should have the right to protect its border, protect its culture, and protect its racial identity - which is almost always tied to its culture.

Western Europe is already facing the massive repercussions of allowing millions of migrant into their countries, many of whom come from a religious background that is inherently intolerant of other beliefs. That's a really bad idea, and the politically correct politicians are doing everything in their power to block the truth from being made public about the horrible problems this is creating - because that would mean admitting that they are and were wrong about multiculturalism.

I'm all for the sharing of ideas, fair and open trade between countries, travel between countries, and legal immigration, but each country should have the right to protect its culture and people from the veiled intolerance of multiculturalism.

[YesNo]

It does seem that globalization is a form of intolerance against those who do not want to blend in to globalist uniformity. I don't know how the banks are involved in this. It looks like the increase in debt may bring down the globalist structures with the banks failing when the debt cannot be repaid.

[Press]

Unfortunately, the New World Order is closing in on their one world government stranglehold. Greedy bankers only see one color, green, and the more the merrier, especially if they remain atop the pyramid apex above the other 99%.

[desiresjab]

A world government leads to the collapse of diversity, and completely removes the checks and balances in place that keep the human race relatively free. Considering the population disparity between different races, as well as birth rates, and the open borders policies and thinking of multiculturalists, it's not unreasonable to say that sometime in the near future, people classified as white or western European will die out, which is basically a slow form of cultural and racial genocide. This isn't conspiracy theory. Look at the statistics. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together.

Globalization is basically a post-modern revolt and full on assault on western culture. It isn't a good thing. The propaganda about everyone getting along and having no borders, and being under the rule of a benevolent World Government is a pipe dream.

Each country should have the right to protect its border, protect its culture, and protect its racial identity - which is almost always tied to its culture.

Western Europe is already facing the massive repercussions of allowing millions of migrant into their countries, many of whom come from a religious background that is inherently intolerant of other beliefs. That's a really bad idea, and the politically correct politicians are doing everything in their power to block the truth from being made public about the horrible problems this is creating - because that would mean admitting that they are and were wrong about multiculturalism.

I'm all for the sharing of ideas, fair and open trade between countries, travel between countries, and legal immigration, but each country should have the right to protect its culture and people from the veiled intolerance of multiculturalism.

I am in basic agreement with your post. The Quigley-ites have won, however. They already did it. They already brought 60,000,000 immigrants to the U.S. in the last 52 years. Somebody did. You see, it's done. I hate to say it. What we have now is a sore belly. The food has been swallowed. There was even more at work behind these actions than a desire for votes from each administration which brought them ashore wholesale. A deeper philosophy which has turned rotten with intolerance for that which is home cultural rather than multi-cultural. All groups of whites protesting for the preservation of or acknowledgement of whites to civiliztion will be labled racist. Groups of other colors doing the same thing will be hailed as pioneers of civil rights.

There will be no more whites, and that is one of the long term goals of the so-called multi-culturalists. I say, let each race purify itself. People can marry whoever they want, but it is also okay for those to exist who do not want to mix. That philosophy is not evil, and those who hold that view do not need to be stamped out or suppressed. Many today want to immediately mark it evil, however, to associate it with Ku Klux Klan and other vile racists. If they can associate such ideas with the vile, they have their excuse to stamp out those who hold counter views which are not politically correct. I do not care if it is some folk in Nigeria who want to do this or some folk in Estonia. The thing is, it is all right, it is not evil. You cannot have diversity unless these various cultures and lineages are preserved. Everything homogenized together is not my idea of diversity, it is my idea of homogenization.