Bitcoin Crash: Beginning Of The End?

[Rart]

BitCoin isn't tied to any one nation or GDP, therefore it becomes an enigma.

Yep. And that's exactly why so many are afraid of it. It doesn't exactly follow the "rules" of conventional currency, and the established are scared. It's what allows so many media sites to create such click bait fear mongering articles out of every little up and down in the market that blow it completely out of proportion.

[Rart]

Currencies undergo speculation, investment, and all of that other financial nonsense.

Thus it is a commodity by both definition and context.

"A currency in the most specific use of the word refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation, as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money. "

"In economics, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs."

Currency is something that can be used as a medium of exchange for commodities. They are completely distinct, albeit related, concepts.

The subtext blaring context was that you ignore input from anyone here.

Do you have a stick up your ass or something? How many times do you want to make me explain this to you before you reach some sort of comprehension?

I thought MBM was building upon Skiz's point because he quoted him. It turned out he was introducing something else. I realized this upon his subsequent post, where he quoted me and clarified/expanded upon his point. I now understand what he was saying.

How the hell is this me not listening to his "input" or something? Please do tell, I genuinely want to know.

[mjmacky]

"A currency in the most specific use of the word refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation, as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money. "

"In economics, a commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs."

Currency is something that can be used as a medium of exchange for commodities. They are completely distinct, albeit related, concepts.

The subtext blaring context was that you ignore input from anyone here.

Do you have a stick up your ass or something? How many times do you want to make me explain this to you before you reach some sort of comprehension?

I thought MBM was building upon Skiz's point because he quoted him. It turned out he was introducing something else. I realized this upon his subsequent post, where he quoted me and clarified/expanded upon his point. I now understand what he was saying.

How the hell is this me not listening to his "input" or something? Please do tell, I genuinely want to know.

I think it's just a matter of you always being two steps behind, hence your frustration.

About your fixation on trying to make currency and commodity mutually exclusive. Do currencies have assessed values? Yes. Can you buy and sell money in the marketplace? Yes. It may sound like a paradox, but the purposeful creation of currency is a commodity in its very essence. It replaced trading things with other things.

[Rart]

I think it's just a matter of you always being two steps behind, hence your frustration.

I'm not entirely sure scratch that I have absolutely no idea what you mean. How am I always two steps behind? MBM made a post that I misinterpreted, he clarified it literally a couple of posts later, and now I understand it. That was it. I was never "always" behind, I was never frustrated with him.

It seems however that you are convinced I've done MBM a great injustice and anything I say won't convince you otherwise so I won't pursue it further.

About your fixation on trying to make currency and commodity mutually exclusive. Do currencies have assessed values? Yes. Can you buy and sell money in the marketplace? Yes. It may sound like a paradox, but the purposeful creation of currency is a commodity in its very essence. It replaced trading things with other things.

I'm not "fixated" on it. Someone else (Idol?) brought it up and I replied. In general that's how discussions work.

Also I absolutely never implied that currency and commodities are mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite, they're very, very, closely related. In fact, the entire existence of currency is based on the fact that there are commodities to trade, otherwise there'd be no point in having a currency.

However, you seem to be using some pseudo philosophical theory as reasoning that currency and commodity are one in the same. You can debate as much as you want how philosophically similar they are, but the fact of the matter is that no sane economist would use commodity and currency interchangeably. They are two distinct words with two distinct roles in an economy. Related? Absolutely. But still different.

[mjmacky]

It seems however that you are convinced I've done MBM a great injustice and anything I say won't convince you otherwise so I won't pursue it.

Injustice? That's crazy talk. I've threatened to molest his children. You might be taking that a bit too seriously.

Commodity and currency are not interchangeable, and that was not the premise. How are you with analogies? Every dildo is a sex toy, but not every sex toy is a dildo. A dildo can also be a weapon, door stop, etc.

Did you figure out which is the dildo and which is the sex toy in that analogy? It's you, you're the dildo.

Here's a smiley face to let you know the last statement was in jest



Nobody gets me

[Rart]

You seemed pretty serious when you said I blaringly ignore input from anyone else

Every dildo is a sex toy, but not every sex toy is a dildo. A dildo can also be a weapon, door stop, etc.

I get what you're saying but I just don't think that its true. Commodities don't encompass currencies. Currencies are a medium of exchange, something issued by a certain party/group of people and doesn't really have an intrinsic value, just what people choose to represent it as for the purposes of trade (ie a USD's intrinsic value is really just how much it cost to produce the piece of paper, but it reality it's worth far more because people give it value to facilitate trade).

A commodity is an item produced in order to satisfy wants and needs, and has an intrinsic value to it. Now you might argue that people want or need money, but that's not exactly true. People want money so that they can buy what they want/need, they don't want money for the sake of having the physical currency itself.

It might seem like a small difference but I think it's an important distinction.

[Rart]

Also fun fact: AMD cards are now seeing price hikes in the range of 80-90% because of crytocurrencies. Whether that's a result of unreasonable hype that will soon crash or demonstrates the strength of the currency is up to you to decide...

[mjmacky]

Now you might argue that people want or need money, but that's not exactly true. People want money so that they can buy what they want/need, they don't want money for the sake of having the physical currency itself.

Trying to make that distinction undoes your point since there are plenty of other commodities (besides money) that aren't needed by most people, but rather they are produced to exchange for goods that they do need.

You can keep trying to unlabel currencies as commodities, but each argument you present will either be countered by me or conflicted within your own statements.

The part about your unwillingness to accept input by others here was just an observation I've made based on your interactions with other members, and I only mentioned it to announce that I'm aware of the futility of trying to set you straight. I don't mind it being a futile effort, for practicing the debate form isn't wasteful regardless of outcome.

However, I should honor my observations and point you to an outside resource that discusses commodities with an inclusive discussion on currency. You're free to find something on your own as well.

http://www.investinganswers.com/fina...commodity-1035

[mjmacky]

P.S. I tried googling "money is not a commodity" to provide you some kind of edge since this is a little too one sided, and while going through the results that did not state currency=commodity, I only found a bit of incoherent fringe discussion. Try finding something that doesn't come from a Tea Party nut or conspiracy theorist if you have the time, and refer it if you think a sound assessment has been made.

[Rart]

Trying to make that distinction undoes your point since there are plenty of other commodities (besides money) that aren't needed by most people, but rather they are produced to exchange for goods that they do need.

A commodity by definition is something that people want or need. If it isn't it isn't a commodity. There is the edge case of "commodity money", where people trade commodities they don't necessarily need (eg gold, silver, salt, cigarettes), but that's still something that has intrinsic value to someone else who may want to use it. That's why currency used to be "backed by gold". People worried their currency were useless slips of paper (no intrinsic value), so they wanted the security of having it backed by a commodity. Commodity = intrinsic value, currency = no intrinsic value.

And I'll mention it again: I'm sure you can create a deep, abstract, philosophical argument for why currency and commodities are one and the same, and I wont disagree that they are very similar. But for practical purposes of discussing economic theory and their applications to the real world, currency and commodities are used as terminology to discuss two distinct things. It would get very confusing if you read an economic paper and decided that you could swap currency for commodity wherever it was mentioned.

for practicing the debate form isn't wasteful regardless of outcome

I agree. A lot of people seem to misinterpret my verbose arguments as irritation or anger, but I'm just doing what I view a forum's purpose is, or at least why I joined this forum discussing shit.

The part about your unwillingness to accept input by others here was just an observation I've made based on your interactions with other members, and I only mentioned it to announce that I'm aware of the futility of trying to set you straight. I don't mind it being a futile effort, for practicing the debate form isn't wasteful regardless of outcome.

So I'm assuming you're talking about the hardware thread? It seems a little ironic that you specifically would mention it "for the futility of setting me straight" since outside of Artemis and the occasional post from Skiz you guys provided squat for input into that discussion. Feel free to post what you want, but it seems funny you'd bring it up when half your posts were dick pics.

But no, what Artemis said wasn't enough to make me put down everything and take what he says as gospel as you seemingly want me to for the sake of "accepting input from other members". I responded to all his points, and yes I did agree with some of them (water coolers certainly provide an advantage in terms of usable space), and in my mind I was certainly taking in his input. Sorry if our definitions of "taking in input from other members" are different, I don't believe it encompasses blindly agreeing with people without inciting discussion and discourse.

If you present an argument with logical claims and backed up by solid evidence, I'd be happy to admit in a second that I'm wrong and change my opinion. Same goes for the hardware thread. I joined this forum to learn, not to impose. I will happily admit I'm wrong if the evidence proves otherwise, as that would mean I learned something new that day. So far though, I don't believe you've done that.