You're truly a confused mortal. You only hear what you want to hear. I never once ruled against currency. Show me where I definitively ruled against all currency.
Seems nowhere. But when pushed to clarify your stance, you've moved onto this weird idea that multiple currencies is that cure for all that ails us. It's an idea we've already tried and one that was found to not be feasible in reality.
It failed because it was made to. It was never given a real chance. Same thing with going away from Central Banking. It failed because the wealthy wouldn't do their part and purposely allowed problems to occur. Then they came around and introduced the Central Bank once again, overnight by the way, and along with a couple of other bills, they had full control.
The only other cure is unattainable at this point. This thread is a very, very small proof as to why that is.
Hundreds of years of trying it on and off isn't enough time? Hell, we're still toying with the idea. What do you think bitcoins are all about? But of course this form of private currency is so volatile, that we would be fools to try doing it on a national level.
The bitcoins are completely electronic and therefore subject to serious problems. Give me a 10 Prime bill to compete with a $10 Bill and that is a good step.
Bitcoin volatility isn't because they are electronic. They could be printed out and still have the same problems.
Perhaps, but being electronic means you never truly have it in hand. That's a problem.
Not sure you get modern currency, but most US dollars exist nowhere but on a ledger somewhere.
You're not very good at this, are you? How can you claim that bitcoins fail because they are don't physically exist while ignoring the fact that most of our US currency doesn't exist physically?
Do you have any bitcoins in your bank, your pocket, your piggy bank? No. Do you have American currency in those same things? Yes.
Thank you, I like you being more open minded and logical. It's a good fit for you Fred.
I don't believe I got into the details of new currencies yet. Fred was arguing for me, not for you.
Actually, this isn't accurate. The vast majority of my money doesn't exist in physical form. It is simply a number in my bank's system. Does the bank have this money physically? No, on that, too. Banks only carry a fraction of what they have on their ledgers. Does the US government have this money in physical form? No, again. It is also just a number on their ledger somewhere. Do you even know how our system works? Your posts suggest you do not.
You sure about that Sparky? Might want to reread his post. He clearly points out the problems of bitcoins being able to compete with US dollars.
I didn't offer bitcoin as an example of a good competing currency did I? I flat out said it was a bad idea.
Soooo...we went away from Central Banking...and the wealthy STILL controlled things?
Through their chaos arose opportunity, that they themselves couldn't stop from happening. With the system the way it is now, you have to pass through its scope to even get started, and with those very elites now have full governmental backing and support.
Central bank took away
There is absolutely no way to square this with what you posted earlier.
It failed because the wealthy wouldn't do their part and purposely allowed problems to occur.
Are you suggesting that these purposeful problems created a chaos they couldn't control and that allowed "opportunity to arise" (whatever that means)? If that's the case, how did it "fail", forcing us back to Central Banking?
Are you looking for some sort of answer that you wish to hear? It has already been explained and you yourself explain it in this very post. I feel as if you're getting confused here.*sigh*
YOU said going off the Central Bank "failed because the wealthy wouldn't do their part and purposely allowed problems to occur." So...Tom...did it fail or not? And did it fail because "the wealthy didn't do their part" or not?
If you didn't mean it, why did you say it? Or do you just not remember saying it?
For chrissake. You're reading skills are so subpar that you don't even know when other posters are disagreeing with you. It's quite the irony given that your whole purpose of this thread is to criticize ignorant people.
Ok. You got me there. Usually I'm able to catch errors like that on at least the third edit.
