My first poll for the NZ public

[bogan]

I think even Piggy found THAT out!

Some politician from before my time?

[SMOKEU]

'At current difficulty rates' See this is the problem, from this link https://bitclockers.com/calc in a week that difficult will increase by 27%. Add to that more miners looking for fewer coins, and the rate of difficulty is bound to rise exponentially.

Its bullshit because virtual currency is not a resource, its virtual, and massively subject to the exchange rates of other currencies. It's bullshit because the miner's rate of return for the same amount of work diminishes hugely as the coin limit is approached. Why is the cost of aquiring it not just limited to buying through bitcoin exchanges, why have mineable coins at all?

In the perfect world the BTC/$ ratio is directly proportional, but fluctuations in the markets are a risk. The current BTC/$ ratio is about the same it was 2 years ago, so there is some stability. Over the past month or so prices have changed very little too.

If you're not keen on Bitcoin, there are a few derivatives such as Litecoin which offers significantly faster transaction times in comparison to Bitcoin and also has the added bonus to GPU miners of not having ASICs forcing up the difficulty as much since it's written using Scrypt which isn't optimized for ASICs. Even CPU mining for Litecoins is viable, so if you can get a botnet up and running you could come out with a fair bit of money.

[bogan]

In the perfect world the BTC/$ ratio is directly proportional, but fluctuations in the markets are a risk. The current BTC/$ ratio is about the same it was 2 years ago, so there is some stability. Over the past month or so prices have changed very little too.

If you're not keen on Bitcoin, there are a few derivatives such as Litecoin which offers significantly faster transaction times in comparison to Bitcoin and also has the added bonus to GPU miners of not having ASICs forcing up the difficulty as much since it's written using Scrypt which isn't optimized for ASICs. Even CPU mining for Litecoins is viable, so if you can get a botnet up and running you could come out with a fair bit of money.

What's BTC/$? the exchange rate I would have thought, but that has been anything but stable.

Its the whole concept I'm not really getting tbh.

[mashman]

Give everyone a pay rise, and people would buy from elsewhere, give everyone a pay cut and they would move elsewhere (though now I'm confused, cos I thought people didn't get paid in a money free society). Change the price of raw materials and they would be bought elsewhere, or NZ's stock would be bought out then we would have to import our own at higher prices than we just sold it. I'm no economist, but your oversimplification and just plain misunderstanding of how the global economy works pretty much voids your ideals of a local money free society functioning within the world economy.

You don't seem to realise prediction is vastly preferable to reactive as an economic model due to how investing works. Sell when you predict something is about to fall in price is far better than selling as a reaction to a drop in price.

Money is virtual remember. We still produce value because we still produce goods/services etc... and that goes onto the balance sheet. As for raising and lowering prices, we'll respond to what the market dictates in the appropriate manner.

You are an economist, even economists say that everyone is. So highlight the areas of the global economy that you would like expanded upon. My understanding doesn't void anything. You're the one choosing to over-complicate how an economy works, not me.

In response to the areas you have highlighted: You have ignored the quality of the raw materials we are going to produce. Yes if our prices are too high people will not buy. You have ignored that our internal economy makes up a part of our GDP. You seem to be equating the cost of production to some form of linear all inclusive BBQ, yes that's how it currently works, but where you control wages and good/service prices/taxation etc... you also control the final price of the good. Take these things as individual costs and weight as appropriate. In theory you could give everything that NZ exports away for free and the internal economy would produce the costs required to make up that part of your GDP... ad infinitum. Not fair and I'm sure it would incur the wrath of some organisation or other... but definitely possible to do.

And overseas suppliers to NZ?

WTO

[SMOKEU]

[QUOTE=bogan;1130555547]What's BTC/$? the exchange rate I would have thought, but that has been anything but stable.

QUOTE]

Yes.

The market isn't always stable, but you have to be prepared to take the risk if you want to make any investment. With a keen eye on the markets you can generally speculate short term price changes with relative accuracy.

[bogan]

Money is virtual remember. We still produce value because we still produce goods/services etc... and that goes onto the balance sheet. As for raising and lowering prices, we'll respond to what the market dictates in the appropriate manner.

You are an economist, even economists say that everyone is. So highlight the areas of the global economy that you would like expanded upon. My understanding doesn't void anything. You're the one choosing to over-complicate how an economy works, not me.

In response to the areas you have highlighted: You have ignored the quality of the raw materials we are going to produce. Yes if our prices are too high people will not buy. You have ignored that our internal economy makes up a part of our GDP. You seem to be equating the cost of production to some form of linear all inclusive BBQ, yes that's how it currently works, but where you control wages and good/service prices/taxation etc... you also control the final price of the good. Take these things as individual costs and weight as appropriate. In theory you could give everything that NZ exports away for free and the internal economy would produce the costs required to make up that part of your GDP... ad infinitum. Not fair and I'm sure it would incur the wrath of some organisation or other... but definitely possible to do.

It's virtual, but it is also a measure of value, determined globally. We still produce the same value, but without an internal money system, how is that value distributed throughout the population?

Not good enough, you said earlier you can pluck money out of thin air for use in the global economy, justifying this by changing wages (which we wouldn't get, so this confuses me), and changing material prices (only applies to export). To then say it would be done as a response to the market is contrary to your earlier proposed use as a tool to pluck money out of thin air.

I was going to write more, but you seem to be going around in circles, so I'll leave it at that and see if you can work on the one point for a while.

[bogan]

Yes.

The market isn't always stable, but you have to be prepared to take the risk if you want to make any investment. With a keen eye on the markets you can generally speculate short term price changes with relative accuracy.

The exchange rate 2 years ago was 20usd per bitcoin, now it is 130usd per bitcoin. Those numbers are not the same.

[mashman]

It's virtual, but it is also a measure of value, determined globally. We still produce the same value, but without an internal money system, how is that value distributed throughout the population?

Not good enough, you said earlier you can pluck money out of thin air for use in the global economy, justifying this by changing wages (which we wouldn't get, so this confuses me), and changing material prices (only applies to export). To then say it would be done as a response to the market is contrary to your earlier proposed use as a tool to pluck money out of thin air.

I was going to write more, but you seem to be going around in circles, so I'll leave it at that and see if you can work on the one point for a while.

The point is. You control your money supply. You control what percentage of that money is "spent" on everything your produce. You could start charging a $1 baby shit tax if you liked. In other words, you can do what the fuck you want with your GDP at any given point in time to react to market conditions. What are you assuming is going to be determined globally?

Think of the money being plucked out of thin air as a form of QE or CE. Except we put it on whatever we want... or at least the account code representation of.

In other words, you're out of ideas or simply can't grasp the concept (fair enough, it took me a while)? You're putting up your own roadblocks which you're quite capable of bypassing yourself should to choose to do so. And given that you're the one asking all of the questions, perhaps you should try gaining more of an understanding before you continue... the bonus being that it'll stop me from having to repeat myself.

[bogan]

The point is. You control your money supply. You control what percentage of that money is "spent" on everything your produce. You could start charging a $1 baby shit tax if you liked. In other words, you can do what the fuck you want with your GDP at any given point in time to react to market conditions. What are you assuming is going to be determined globally?

Think of the money being plucked out of thin air as a form of QE or CE. Except we put it on whatever we want... or at least the account code representation of.

In other words, you're out of ideas or simply can't grasp the concept (fair enough, it took me a while)? You're putting up your own roadblocks which you're quite capable of bypassing yourself should to choose to do so. And given that you're the one asking all of the questions, perhaps you should try gaining more of an understanding before you continue... the bonus being that it'll stop me from having to repeat myself.

Yes, you control your money supply, but the global economy controls its value. This is the point you are continually failing to address from the money side.

The other points you failed to address is worker motivation, and consumer resource allocation. Though if you could prove your claim that NZ can pluck money out of thin air, and thus subsist on imports, then workers wouldn't have to work, and resources would be plentiful enough that allocation is not required.

[mashman]

Yes, you control your money supply, but the global economy controls its value. This is the point you are continually failing to address from the money side.

The other points you failed to address is worker motivation, and consumer resource allocation. Though if you could prove your claim that NZ can pluck money out of thin air, and thus subsist on imports, then workers wouldn't have to work, and resources would be plentiful enough that allocation is not required.

Yes the global economy does control the value of the $ to a large degree. However you can use that system against itself. As mentioned earlier, depending on how you stimulate (positively or negatively) the economy, you can mitigate that to a large extent... or at minimum you should be able to. A group of country's would have to be waging financial war against NZ for that not to be the case. And that would be a tad hypocritical of them if they did. Some country's are printing money, some are relying on austerity, some bloke just needs to make a speech, a few company's only need to return positive accounts etc... for the economy to react. Given that it's primarily confidence, would the NZ economy not have the confidence of the global economy in the knowledge that we can meet the market? Manipulation of the $ happens in many ways. I'm sure there are smart fullas in unzed who understand very single nuance of that system that could insulate NZ from having financial war waged against them.

Worker motivation: if they have voted in a brand spanking new system, why would you not put in your effort if the outcome would be a return to the old ways? Seeing the society work will be enough. Else why vote for it?
Consumer resource allocation: As said earlier, pretty much the same as it happens now. Personal responsibility being key to not rattling through resources in the first 5 minutes.
I'll look out the IMF document that explains that banks can "print" their own money.
Whilst that could well happen. It's a Resource Based Economy. Resources will have to be allocated and as I said earlier, that has to be done on a need basis. You need your bike part, then we'll get it. You need a Ferrari, then you're probably taking the piss, but there are ways (we're still going to have a record of who had what $ wise before switching the flip) to get around that and make that car available. With any luck the person that has it will lend it out when they're not using it. Personally I'm happy with the Prila and have a large dose of personal responsibility thrown in for good measure.

Here's a video referencing IMF document and explaining more about how money is created from real economists in NZ. One of them used to work with JK.

[bogan]

Yes the global economy does control the value of the $ to a large degree. However you can use that system against itself. As mentioned earlier, depending on how you stimulate (positively or negatively) the economy, you can mitigate that to a large extent... or at minimum you should be able to. A group of country's would have to be waging financial war against NZ for that not to be the case. And that would be a tad hypocritical of them if they did. Some country's are printing money, some are relying on austerity, some bloke just needs to make a speech, a few company's only need to return positive accounts etc... for the economy to react. Given that it's primarily confidence, would the NZ economy not have the confidence of the global economy in the knowledge that we can meet the market? Manipulation of the $ happens in many ways. I'm sure there are smart fullas in unzed who understand very single nuance of that system that could insulate NZ from having financial war waged against them.

Worker motivation: if they have voted in a brand spanking new system, why would you not put in your effort if the outcome would be a return to the old ways? Seeing the society work will be enough. Else why vote for it?
Consumer resource allocation: As said earlier, pretty much the same as it happens now. Personal responsibility being key to not rattling through resources in the first 5 minutes.
I'll look out the IMF document that explains that banks can "print" their own money.
Whilst that could well happen. It's a Resource Based Economy. Resources will have to be allocated and as I said earlier, that has to be done on a need basis. You need your bike part, then we'll get it. You need a Ferrari, then you're probably taking the piss, but there are ways (we're still going to have a record of who had what $ wise before switching the flip) to get around that and make that car available. With any luck the person that has it will lend it out when they're not using it. Personally I'm happy with the Prila and have a large dose of personal responsibility thrown in for good measure.

Here's a video referencing IMF document and explaining more about how money is created from real economists in NZ. One of them used to work with JK.

Ok, so there is no way to pluck money out of thin air, you can give things a prod here an there, but the country would still need to rely on the value of exports to maintain the imports.

Worker motivation, that is circular logic, I thought you were explaining why they would want to vote it in in the first place.
Resource allocation. No, your whole point is that money is gone, so it cannot be the same as now. You can't rely on personal responsibility to maintain the same level of consumerism for at least two reasons, 1 is the obvious theiving/greedy cunts that are around, 2 is there's no way to work towards something; I want that new bike, but without a savings metric how do I know when it is responsible for me to go and get it?

Again, I'll keep it brief so we stay on point.

[gwigs]

The way I see it in a resource based economy people would not actually need to own anything,
people own things that dont get used often enough,say a video camera or tools ,stuff that sits in cupboards or sheds doing nothing...why not be able to get things you need from your local facility
(dont have a word for it but like a Hire outlet) for free.
So there would be thousands of units of an item that no longer need to be made saving valuable resources.
In a resourced based economy people would be able to follow their interests without the stumbling block of money...Say you are a ten year old fascinated by astronomy but your parents are poor..
Too bad kid youre poor..who knows what potential has been lost...this kid may have made many fantastic discoveries...or the poor kid who wants to be a doctor..or a scientist..or whatever....
Money, its no suprise they,re giving non away.
i know I will be flamed for this but I dont give a fuck..
I will probably get called a dreamer...a bit like John Lennon...but I,m not the only one eh..

[mashman]

Ok, so there is no way to pluck money out of thin air, you can give things a prod here an there, but the country would still need to rely on the value of exports to maintain the imports.

Worker motivation, that is circular logic, I thought you were explaining why they would want to vote it in in the first place.
Resource allocation. No, your whole point is that money is gone, so it cannot be the same as now. You can't rely on personal responsibility to maintain the same level of consumerism for at least two reasons, 1 is the obvious theiving/greedy cunts that are around, 2 is there's no way to work towards something; I want that new bike, but without a savings metric how do I know when it is responsible for me to go and get it?

Again, I'll keep it brief so we stay on point.

Theoretically we'll still be pulling money out of thin air and as it is a current practice around the globe we could use it as a mechanism for generating more money. Although we're offering "value" for "money". Yup, our exports should balance our imports.

Worker motivation and the reason that you vote for the system aren't mutually exclusive in the first instance, as we need base point to start from i.e. calculate the "wealth" of the country, figure out which jobs aren't required (of which there will be many), figure out educational priorities, service priorities etc... Hence the request that we keep our current jobs at the start.
Resource Allocation. It can be the same as now and it will. The reason being that the Ocean1's, jonbuoy's etc... of the world who believe that they are worth more than someone else, can in fact get more than someone else in the short term. With any luck that'll keep the greedy cunts happy for a while. In regards to working towards something, you won't necessarily have to. Needs will most definitely be fulfilled, it's the wants that will be the issue. If you use a motorcycle as your transport and something goes tits, it'll be seen as a need because we need your input at work. there's going to have to be a large element of trust i.e. personal responsibility, in that people don't go ape shit and consume consume consume over and above that which they need. There's very little choice in that matter and goes back to Resource Allocation to a certain degree. We can only hope that need will be your driver and not want.

[mashman]

The way I see it in a resource based economy people would not actually need to own anything,
people own things that dont get used often enough,say a video camera or tools ,stuff that sits in cupboards or sheds doing nothing...why not be able to get things you need from your local facility
(dont have a word for it but like a Hire outlet) for free.
So there would be thousands of units of an item that no longer need to be made saving valuable resources.
In a resourced based economy people would be able to follow their interests without the stumbling block of money...Say you are a ten year old fascinated by astronomy but your parents are poor..
Too bad kid youre poor..who knows what potential has been lost...this kid may have made many fantastic discoveries...or the poor kid who wants to be a doctor..or a scientist..or whatever....
Money, its no suprise they,re giving non away.
i know I will be flamed for this but I dont give a fuck..
I will probably get called a dreamer...a bit like John Lennon...but I,m not the only one eh..

Absolutely... but we have to go from point A to RBE relatively carefully, because as you know, some people are so scared (of only having the same as someone who "technically" earns less than they do) of change, that they're going to have a hard time letting that fear go. Resource Library's I think the VP call them, great idea and one of the first things we could set up. That should make a fair dent in the imports we require, leaving money available for motorcycly things

[Ocean1]

as you know, some people are so scared (of only having the same as someone who "technically" earns less than they do) of change

Not to mention those that aren't keen on subsidising those who earn fuck all any more than they currently do.

You still haven't got a handle on "earn" have you?