White House Says Gold Reserves May Be Used to Purchase Bitcoin
finance.yahoo.com
finance.yahoo.com
When you fall into this illusion, you can no longer tell the difference between money and commodities, between commodified money and monetized commodities, and between gold and Bitcoin.
I am sure that many people within the Fed and the Treasury are aware of this and capable of overcoming this illusion, but the question remains as to the extent to which such rationality can influence decision-maker
for now, i'll consider this is just a planned hype of bitcoin, they will not do it for real
Today gold have some advantage over bitcoin in that it has some intrinsic value. But if someone finds a way to covert iron into gold, your reserve will disappear overnight.
But no such risk for bitcoin. The maximum supply is capped at some number.
If you actually share what you mean by illusion, I can try to address it.
it's complex so i'll just raise a simple question:
What distinguishes Bitcoin from Titcoin, another kind of cryptocurrency which also is with a 'capped supply'?
other similar questions:
back to the old time - the gold-standard era, gold supply is also capped, why the gold-standard died?
The presence of a growing community that are willing to accept it for good and services.
> why the gold-standard died..
You don't want the entire economy of a country to be based on capped assets. That would limit the size of your economy. But such assets can work well as a reserve. Gold works because of its intrinsic value, and is not dependent on the presence of a community that accept it. But its intrinsic value can disappear overnight. Bitcoin works as reserve because of the presence of a growing community that accept it, and is dependent on the community. But its value would not disappear and is only decided and ensured by the community.
So it really a matter of reaching community wide consensus. Bitcoin have it right now and there is no fundamental reason why it would lose its value. Sure governments can ban it, and it ll lose its value. But if the government itself is holding reserves in it, then we can be pretty sure that that would not be done.
So to answer your question, gold standard died because it would limit the size of the economy that it can support, because supply of gold is limited.
Value comes from people and the work they do. A currency, or a system of money, or let us speak plainly, a system of economy tracks the value provided by a person to the community. If you have 100$ with you, that means that you have done 100$s worth of work for the community. Same with bitcoin, if you have 100 bitcoins with you, that is a proof that you have done that much work for the community. And you are entitled to the same amount of work from the community. You redeem it by paying with this currency, the other people of the community for their services.
So in otherwords, paper currency is just a distributed ledger. Instead of a ledger with some values written in a piece of paper against your name, you just hold the corresponding amount of paper currency to prove the work that you have done. When you consider all the currency held by a the people in a community, it is really a ledger that is distributed over the people in that community.
A bitcoin economy can work exactly like this. Fundamentally because in reality, in a real economy, you are not storing the value, you are tracking it.
This makes sense, because an economy really is a system that enables people helping each other, ensuring that no one takes more than they provide, or have to provide more than they take.
But solving PoW puzzle to mine bitcoin is also useful work in the sense that it adds one coin to the economy, which is why miners are rewarded for it.
Bitcoin is just one of an infinite number of cryptos.
For humans, the only things that have 'intrinsic' value are air/oxygen, shelter, water, food. (Notwithstanding things like joy/happiness and being loved by others.)
Anything else is an arbitrary / psychological trick, or sociological agreement, that we do amongst ourselves. Rocks are just part of this latter mechanism, regardless of whether they are shiny or not:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
> The maximum supply is capped at some number.
A fixed money supply is a bug, not a feature. The historical record shows this:
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/arch...
* https://www.moneyandbanking.com/commentary/2016/12/14/why-a-...
I get the drawbacks of gold backed money. But I think it dwarfs when compared to a debt based money. Basically I think debt based economies tend to foster rampant exploitation. Yea, I think inflation is really exploitation and thievery. There is no other way to see it. Debt based economies cannot work in a fair way without a way for the community to extract values from the entities that are indebted. It might be a government, or it might be a person. When a bank gives out a loan, it can ask for some collateral. But what collateral does a government provide when it issues a bond?
So in short, a gold backed economy might hinder progress or slow it down, but it won't actually enable thievery and exploitation. But the modern economies does that, and so they are a much bigger evil than a gold backed one.
CPI<0 is deflation, and history has shown how badly things go with that. CPI>>0 has had recent examples and people don't like it. CPI=0 is practically impossible, as you have measurement error and can easily slip into CPI<0 territory.
So we're left with CPI≳0, which is what most monetary policy aims for:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_targeting
> So in short, a gold backed economy might hinder progress or slow it down, but it won't actually enable thievery and exploitation.
The era of the gold standard was the Gilded Age, when wealth inequality was at its highest. The US has reached that peak again by some measures—while other countries have not, which probably says more towards other social policies that are probably more important than currency regime.
Further, the gold standard causes deflation, which is a terrible burden for those that have debt, like most farmers, and anyone who has a mortgage. It can grinds down wages.
There's a reason why many regular folks hated the gold standard back in the day:
the promise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g
the reneg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
the alarm: https://web.archive.org/web/20161205215516/https://www.nytim...
then 911 happened. Who done it? Don't ask, cause we won't tell.
Then, US moral authority (in whatever sense) flushed down the toilets of Abu Gharaib and Guantanemo.
Then, the basis for US monetary hegemony was trashed - politicized international finance infrastructure.
Now, the trashing of alliances, and internally the very foundations of the republic.
United States the power was an impediment to a world government. It is being dismantled, a "bipartisan" project, and atm we are in the midst of an assets sale. Next is total bankruptcy.
When the dust is settled, certain "ally" of ours will be the superpower of our making lording it over the most critical energy and global trade corridor in the world (which will keep China in line).
Now you may go back to your "red vs blue" entertainment.
> Oh, we are just so much in debt, we need to tighten our belts... With a 2.5 trillion dollar tax cut.
If you ignore all the glaring flaws it's a wonderful plan!
I'm adding that to my stock of meetings comments.
So the idea is that this will be reinvested, leading to more productivity and job, which is a more sustainable way of getting rid of debt.
If you tax the rich, chances are that their business will cut spending, lay off people and increase unemployment. So while "Tax the rich" looks impressive if you are looking only superficially, it is not very sustainable.
Of course you are not hoping they will do out of their good of their hearts.
They would naturally want to enrich themselves, and one way to do that is launch new business and employ people, which in turn leads to the transferring back of the wealth to the people. In this manner, this also boosts economy in ways that a simple tax hike would not.
So how would this graph look if it did trickle down? Just curious..
Deficit is not a fancy word for debt, it’s a first order derivative.
They see potential, they jump in on new coin, new coin flies. I don’t see why they wouldn’t. Microstrategy, musk and trump can collude. I don’t think there are any regulations stopping them. I don’t see why they wouldn’t, either. Unless they are worried about PR or that is just a difficult way to increase wealth.
It's just at that level of ridiculousness already, on so many sides, that very little is still unexpected.
How about with foreign public assets owned by governments?!
But there is a vesting schedule with a 3 month cliff, so he hasnt rugged… yet. perfect time to promote now though lol
"but it's just some mild economic policies, bro" -- HN, probably
Here, have a preemptive upvote to keep you afloat for one extra second.
The only people that should be overjoyed are current holders of bitcoin.
Which I don’t doubt includes (somehow) a lot of the people active in the administration.
Described in depth in „lying for money”
The logical part of me can not fathom why governments are getting into unregistered unlicensed securities. [1] I can understand some of us plebs getting sucked up into it from desperation but the federal government of all entities should know better given they made laws about it in the 1930's due to fraud. The conspiracy theorist in me has a gut feeling this might be a way to circumvent FDIC backing so when they induce a collapse everyone just loses everything.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpqreZlmHGU [video][8 mins][cnn]
It seems like the White House is planning on selling US gold holding above a specific dollar value. Since the price of gold in dollars is rising, mostly because the price of the dollar is falling, then they're probably planning on emptying a significant portion of the US gold reserve to allow every major Bitcoin holder to clear their positions.
The article seems to be aggregated from some Benzinga website:
>Founded in 2010 by Jason Raznick, Benzinga is a financial technology, media, and data company based in Detroit, Michigan. The website also features a news service that publishes financial news.
so now they have found budget neutral ways
our gold reserves have been valued at $42 per troy ounce for like 80 years
their market value is $3000 per troy oz, so selling them at market value doesnt adversely impact the budget because they werent part of it to begin with