Post Reply  Post Thread 
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »

Yanis Varoufakis, Bitcoin and the dangerous fantasy of apolitical money

Author Message
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #1
Yanis Varoufakis, Bitcoin and the dangerous fantasy of apolitical money

The Crash of 2008 has infused our societies with enormous scepticism on the role of the authorities, both government and Central Banks. It is quite natural that many dream of a currency that politicians, bankers and central bankers cannot manipulate; a currency of the people by the people for the people. Bitcoin has emerged as the great white hope of something of the sort. Alas, the hope it brings to many people’s hearts and minds is false. And the reason is simple: While it is true that local communities have, in the past, generated successful communitarian currencies (that enabled them to improve welfare in their midst, especially at a time of acute economic crises), there can be no de-politicised currency capable of ‘powering’ an advanced, industrial society.

1. What are bitcoins and what makes them a very special form of digital currency

Bitcoins are digital units of currency that one can use, on the Internet, to purchase (a limited number of) goods and services. The digital nature of bitcoin is not what makes it novel and unique. There are, indeed, a large array of digital currencies, including dollars, euros, frequent flyer points, Amazon points etc. Starting with standard (fiat) money, more than 90% of dollars, euros, yen etc. are, indeed, digital. When your bank gives you a loan, for instance, it appears as digital money in your bank account. And when you use debit/credit cards or Internet Banking in order to transfer it to someone else’s account, from whom you are buying a good or service, your dollars, euros and yen come and go as mere digital currency units. Only a tiny portion of standard money takes a paper or metallic form.

Similarly, when an airline grants you frequent flyer points, that you can add to by using a particular credit card or redeem on some flight, upgrade or duty free item, it is creating a digital currency that you are accumulating for the purposes of using it in the future in order to purchase goods or services. Similarly, when the European Union created its carbon trading scheme, to be used by corporations and traders, it concocted a digital stock of carbon dioxide, divided it up in small bundles, distributed them to corporations (attaching to each such bundle or unit a quantity of carbon dioxide that the bundle’s owner could emit) and then set them free to trade these bundles (or pollution rights) amongst themselves in the hope that this digital market would generate a price for carbon dioxide such that corporations would have an incentive to produce less of it and sell (to less efficient firms) the balance of their bundles. Had this scheme worked, these bundles of carbon dioxide would emerge as a digital-only currency.

So, bitcoin is not novel because it is a digital currency or because it is a ‘made up’ currency. Digital, ‘made up’ currencies are everywhere. What is, however, genuinely novel and unique about bitcoin is that no ‘one’ institution or company is safeguarding the so-called Ledger: the record of transactions that ensures that, when you have spent one unit of currency, there is one less unit of currency in your (digital) wallet.

Put differently, take gold sovereigns as an example: By their (metallic) nature they constitute private and excludable media of exchange, in the sense that if I use one to pay Mary for a car that she is selling, I shall end up with one less such unit in my wallet. The great challenge of creating a non-physical, wholly digital, currency is the pressing question: If a currency unit is a string of zeros and ones on my hard disk, who can stop me from taking that string, copying and pasting it as often as I want and become infinitely ‘moneyed’? For if I can do that, then it is as if all of us have a printing press in their living room, in which case we would have the makings of instant hyperinflation.

Until bitcoin’s emergence, the conventional wisdom was that to make a non-hyper-inflationary digital currency possible, a Ledger of Transactions, keeping track of each unit that you and I spent, must be kept by some Central Bank or some corporation. E.g. the Fed or the ECB or indeed Visa keeping track of our digital dollars, or euros. Or British Airways or Lufthansa or Amazon maintaining a Ledger of the ‘frequent flyer’-like points that they administer. Bitcoin, quite audaciously, broke the back of this assumption.

Bitcoin was born the day in 2008 some anonymous computer geek, using an unlikely Japanese pseudonym (aka Nakamoto), posted an algorithm (on some obscure listserve website) that made something remarkable possible: It could generate a string of zeros and ones that was unique, ensuring that, before it could be transferred from one computer or device to another, a minimum number of other users had to trace its transfer and verify that it left the device of the seller (of some good or service) before moving to the device of the buyer. Moreover, the algorithm was written in such a way as to guarantee a steady ‘production’ of these strings, or bitcoins, over time and in response to the computing power devoted by users in order to help track transfers and, thus, in order collectively to maintain The Ledger. Lastly, to cap the supply of bitcoins, and thus safeguard their value, the algorithm guaranteed that the maximum number of these strings, or bitcoins, could only grow (given the algorithm’s structure) to 21 million units by the year 2040. Once it reached that quantity, its ‘production’ would cease and the users of bitcoins would have to do with these 21 million units. Meanwhile, before that date, and before the maximum bitcoin supply is reached, the ease with which users could ‘mint’ or ‘dig up’ fresh bitcoins (by making computer power available to the bitcoin community) would be inversely related to the total quantity of bitcoins already ‘created’ or ‘extracted’ from the algorithm.

In a sense, the designer of the bitcoin algorithm (the delectable Mr ‘Nakamoto’, who has, by the way, dropped off the radar some time ago) seems to have designed the new currency on the basis of faith in the crudest version of the ‘monetarist’ Quantity Theory of Money (i.e. the idea that the value of money depended solely on the quantity of money supplied to the public) and, thus, aimed at creating the digital equivalent to… gold. Come to think of it, bitcoin was, indeed, modelled on gold.

2. Bitcoin as a digital simulation of some precious metal (e.g. gold)

What is the great merit of gold? Its scarcity! The fact that, once humans, for some strange reason (most possibly related to gold’s perpetual glitter and scarcity) started using it as (a) a means of exchange and (b) a store of value, gold became a currency and its smallest possible, meaningful, quantity became a currency unit. The designer of bitcoin’s algorithm tried his damnest to emulate gold. Just like gold, which one presumes to be in fixed supply under the Earth’s surface, bitcoin is also limited, artificially (through the design of its algorithm) to a plateau of 21 million units. And just like gold, there are two ways in which bitcoins can be acquired: One is to buy them using dollars, chickens, silk, honey, whatever… The other is to ‘dig’ for them like 19th century gold diggers dug for gold. To that intent, Mr ‘Nakamoto’ designed his brilliant algorithm in a manner that allowed for ‘bitcoin digging’. This is how he did it:

The uniqueness of bitcoin, as alluded to earlier, is that no centralised institution (private or public) is the custodian of the bitcoin transactions’ Ledger. So, who is? The answer is a spectacularly liberal-cum-communitarian: “We all are!” By that, what I mean is that the bitcoin algorithm is written in a manner that makes it possible (indeed demands) that the whole community of bitcoin users has access to, and polices, the Ledger of Transactions (which ensures that I cannot cut and paste my one bitcoin a large, or indeed infinite, number of times).

In this sense, bitcoin users must make available computing power to the bitcoin users’ community so that everyone can ‘see’ the Ledger, in order to ensure perfect community ownership of the transactions’ record, as opposed to trusting some government agency (e.g. the Fed) or some private corporation that may have its own agenda. Naturally, as the bitcoin economy, and the number of transactions grows exponentially, the amount of computing power that is necessary for one individual to devote to the ‘bitcoin community’ in order to ‘mint’, or ‘unearth’ a new bitcoin rise exponentially with time. This increasing complexity also acts as a legitimiser of the notion that new bitcoins are delivered to the accounts of the users that put increasing computing power at the bitcoin community’s disposal.

3. Bitcoin’s two fundamental flaws

As with all things digital, there are a number of concerns to do with security; with the fear of hackers and e’spivs. Imagine a world that has shifted entirely to bitcoin. Would we not live in fear that some ingenious hacker will get the better of Nakamoto’s algorithm and manipulate it to his benefit? Would it be wise for humanity simply to assume that the bitcoin algorithm is un-hackable (especially so in the absence of some authority that can intervene and save the day if something horrible happens to the algorithm)? Besides, even if the algorithm is safe, there is always the danger of waking up to the realisation that one’s bitcoin stash was e’looted during the night. And if one entrusts one’s stash to some company with better firewalls and computer security, what happens (in the absence of a bitcoin Central Bank) if that company goes broke or simply disappears into the Internet’s darker crevices (with its customers’ bitcoins)?

These concerns would probably suffice to put a dent in bitcoin’s prospects. But they are not the main drawbacks of the currency. No, there are two insurmountable flaws that make bitcoin a highly problematic currency: First, the bitcoin social economy is bound to be typified by chronic deflation. Secondly, we have already seen the rise of a bitcoin aristocracy (a term ‘coined’ by Greek blogger @techiechan) which, besides the issues of distributive justice which it raises, evokes serious fears about the capacity of very few entities or persons to manipulate the currency in a manner that enriches them at the expense of financial instability. Let us look at these two problems in some detail.

First, deflation is unavoidable in the bitcoin community because the maximum supply of bitcoins is fixed to 21 million bitcoins and approximately half of them have already been ‘minted’ at a time when very, very few goods and services transactions are denominated in bitcoins. To put simply, if bitcoin succeeds in penetrating the marketplace, an increasing quantity of new goods and services will be traded in bitcoin. By definition, the rate of increase in that quantity will outpace the rate of increase in the supply of bitcoins (a rate which, as explain, is severely constricted by the Nakamoto algorithm). In short, a restricted supply of bitcoins will be chasing after an increasing number of goods and services. Thus, the available quantity of bitcoins per each unit of goods and services will be falling causing deflation. And why is this a problem? For two reasons: First, because an expected fall in bitcoin prices motivates people with bitcoins to delay, as much as they can, their bitcoin expenditure (why buy something today if it will be cheaper tomorrow?). Secondly, because to the extent that bitcoins are used to buy factors of production that are used to produce goods and services, and assuming that there is some time lag between the purchase of these factors and the delivery of the final product to the bitcoin market, a steady fall in average prices will translate into a constantly shrinking price-cost margin for firms dealing in bitcoins.

Secondly, two major faultlines are developing, quite inevitably, within the bitcoin economy. The first faultline has already been mentioned. It is the one that divides the ‘bitcoin aristocracy’ from the ‘bitcoin poor’, i.e. from the latecomers who must buy into bitcoin at increasing dollar and euro prices. The second faultline separates the speculators from the users; i.e. those who see bitcoin as a means of exchange from those who see in it as a stock of value. The combination of these two faultlines, whose width and depth is increasing, is to inject a massive instability potential into the bitcoin universe. While it is true for all currencies that there is always some speculative demand for them, as opposed to transactions demand, in the case of bitcoin speculative demand outstrips transactions demand by a mile. And as long as this is so, volatility will remain huge and will deter those who might have wanted to enter the bitcoin economy as users (as opposed to speculators). Thus, just like bad money drives out good money (Gresham’s famous ‘law’), speculative demand for bitcoins drives our transactions demand for it.

Can these two flaws be corrected? Would it be possible to calibrate the long-term supply of bitcoins in such a way as to ameliorate for the deflationary effects described above while tilting the balance from speculative to transactions demand for bitcoins? To do so we would need a Bitcoin Central Bank, which will of course defeat the very purpose of having a fully decentralised digital currency like bitcoin.

4. Conclusion: The fantasy of ‘de-politicised’, ‘honest’ money

The Crash of 2008 has infused our societies with enormous scepticism on the role of the authorities, both government and Central Banks. It is quite natural that many dream of a currency that politicians, bankers and central bankers cannot manipulate; a currency of the people by the people for the people. Bitcoin has emerged as the great white hope of something of the sort. Alas, the hope it brings to many people’s hearts and minds is false. And the reason is simple: While it is true that local communities have, in the past, generated successful communitarian currencies (that enabled them to improve welfare in their midst, especially at a time of acute economic crises), there can be no de-politicised currency capable of ‘powering’ an advanced, industrial society.

Since the second industrial revolution made possible the emergence of large, networked oligopolistic companies (the Edisons and Fords of the 1900s, and the Googles or Apples of today), capitalism became dependent on large credit spurts for the purposes of financing these capital corporations’ needs. Such credit spurts required large boosts in the money supply, both in order to finance the creation of new capital goods and also to support the new consumption patterns that were necessary to maintain the economy’s new productive capacity. Even when capitalist economies operated under the Gold Standard, banks found ways of creating money by lending increasing quantities against the existing, stable, stock of gold.

The 1920s thus demonstrates the impossibility of an apolitical money supply. Even though the monetary authorities were insisting on a stable correspondence between the quantity of paper money and gold, the financial sector was boosting the money supply inexorably. Should the authorities stop them from so doing? If they had, the Edisons and the Fords would have never flourished, and capitalism would have failed to produce all the goodies that it did; indeed, it would have stagnated and spawned social tensions that would put its institutions under a cloud well before 1929. So, the authorities stood by, allowing the bubbles of the 1920s to inflate, leading to 1929 and to the disaster of the Great Depression.

To the extent that bitcoin attempts to emulate the Gold Standard, if a large portion of economic activity is denominated in bitcoin, the dilemmas of the 1920s will return to plague the bitcoin economy. Finance will either have to find ways of introducing bitcoin denominated securities, 1920s-style, that will cause asset bubbles to form or the bitcoin political economy will nosedive into a deflationary spiral that either causes untold hardship amongst its users or leads them, as is more likely, to abandon bitcoin altogether.

The reason that money is and can only be political is that the only way of steering a course between the Scylla and Charybdis of dangerous ponzi growth and stagnation is to exercise a degree of rational, collective control over the supply of money. And since this control is bound to be political, in the sense that different monetary policies will affect different groups of people differently, the only decent manner in which such control can be exercised is through a democratic, collective agency. In brief, while apolitical money is a dangerous illusion, a Central Bank that is democratically controlled (as opposed to the indefensible notion of an ‘independent’ Central Bank) remains our best hope for a form of money that is for the people and by the people. Bitcoin, despite its many interesting features, can never be that.

Epilogue

Bitcoin enthusiasts, just like believers in the Gold Standard, understand money as if it were some commodity which has spontaneously emerged as a unit of exchange – a little like cigarettes did in the POW camp ‘economy’ that R.A. Radford (1945) described so brilliantly. This is a gross misconception based on the unexamined (and dangerously false) faith that there is no substantial difference between Radford’s POW camp and a modern capitalist economy; that, like in that POW camp, output is independent of expectations and demand is always abundant enough to absorb the produced output. As for investment, it is assumed to be uni-directionally determined by savings which are, in turn, determined by the rate at which present consumption is deferred to the future. None of that holds in an economy involving not only exchange but also production and investment. It is these two activities, production and investment, that preclude the possibility of apolitical money.

http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2013/04/22/bit...cal-money/


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 22.04.2013 18:59 by Helsworth.

22.04.2013 18:54
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
pwnAlot
iPwn a great many things
*


Posts: 174
Words count: 45,338
Group: Basic
Joined: Sep2012
Status: Offline
Reputation: 3
Experience: 22
Glory Points: 20
Medals: 2

Post: #2
RE: Yanis Varoufakis, Bitcoin and the dangerous fantasy of apolitical money

Thank you, now i know Bitcoins are a good thing Smile


---- Who is John Galt? ----
22.04.2013 20:06
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Roger Mexico
Member
*


Posts: 191
Words count: 63,341
Group: Basic
Joined: Mar2013
Status: Offline
Reputation: 12
Experience: 319
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #3
RE: Yanis Varoufakis, Bitcoin and the dangerous fantasy of apolitical money

Bitcoin is a pyramid scam. Unless you're a drug dealer or a tin foil hat collector, a special internet currency with a variable exchange rate to real money has no utility that you can't get from PayPal with less hassle.

Hipsters, drug dealers, and tin foil hat collectors are buying it now, which is good for the "inventors" because the currency is designed to do nothing but deflate as demand rises.

Therefore it will keep deflating until the novelty wears off and people who aren't worried about the government or the Illuminati Reptilians tracking their online porn consumption remember that it's useless and the only people buying it are speculators, at which point it will crash and thereby allow the people who started it to walk away with a bunch of real money they've successfully separated from a bunch of fools.

This post was last modified: 23.04.2013 04:05 by Roger Mexico.

23.04.2013 04:04
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #4
RE: Yanis Varoufakis, Bitcoin and the dangerous fantasy of apolitical money

Roger Mexico Wrote:
Bitcoin is a pyramid scam. Unless you're a drug dealer or a tin foil hat collector, a special internet currency with a variable exchange rate to real money has no utility that you can't get from PayPal with less hassle.

Hipsters, drug dealers, and tin foil hat collectors are buying it now, which is good for the "inventors" because the currency is designed to do nothing but deflate as demand rises.

Therefore it will keep deflating until the novelty wears off and people who aren't worried about the government or the Illuminati Reptilians tracking their online porn consumption remember that it's useless and the only people buying it are speculators, at which point it will crash and thereby allow the people who started it to walk away with a bunch of real money they've successfully separated from a bunch of fools.

OWNED! Cool


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache
23.04.2013 11:40
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
pwnAlot
iPwn a great many things
*


Posts: 174
Words count: 45,338
Group: Basic
Joined: Sep2012
Status: Offline
Reputation: 3
Experience: 22
Glory Points: 20
Medals: 2

Post: #5
RE: Yanis Varoufakis, Bitcoin and the dangerous fantasy of apolitical money

Yes, because it is more important to PWN someone than to percieve the reality...


---- Who is John Galt? ----
23.04.2013 16:45
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #6
RE: Yanis Varoufakis, Bitcoin and the dangerous fantasy of apolitical money

Roger owned with his post, because he was able to condense what Varoufakis was saying.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache
23.04.2013 16:56
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chad7405
Unregistered


Post: #7
RE: Yanis Varoufakis, Bitcoin and the dangerous fantasy of apolitical money

Roger Mexico Wrote:
Bitcoin is a pyramid scam. Unless you're a drug dealer or a tin foil hat collector, a special internet currency with a variable exchange rate to real money has no utility that you can't get from PayPal with less hassle.

Hipsters, drug dealers, and tin foil hat collectors are buying it now, which is good for the "inventors" because the currency is designed to do nothing but deflate as demand rises.

Therefore it will keep deflating until the novelty wears off and people who aren't worried about the government or the Illuminati Reptilians tracking their online porn consumption remember that it's useless and the only people buying it are speculators, at which point it will crash and thereby allow the people who started it to walk away with a bunch of real money they've successfully separated from a bunch of fools.

I agree completely. I never was on board with the whole bitcoin craze to begin with, and this post explaining it didn't do much better for my bitcoin-acquiring potential prospects. I agree with Roger, this is a novelty. It's just like the whole Netherlands tulip bubble or the English South Sea Co. Bubble; one financially-smart person realizes he can manipulate some unexplored new idea with no real potential, scam everyone, and come away rich with everyone else screwed. Take the aforementioned Tulip Bubble in the Netherlands during the 1630's. For some unknown reason, people discovered tulips and started buying and investing in them, speculating on higher prices. It went up and up and up before the smart ones said "screw this, they're flowers; the money's been made and we're out". By the time the common man realized it was too late; many lost everything and it was one of the first financial speculation crashes in history (known) Then there's the South Sea Bubble that you may have also heard of. A British trading corporation which was chartered to operate out of the East indies to compete with the Dutch in the area and Augment the EITC. Everyone knew the success of the EITC and hailed this new company as a great idea and bought up huge stakes. However, unlike the EITC, they did nothing. Again, the founders said "Screw it, we're out" and made huge profits from their stock while screwing everyone else. Bitcoin will be no different in the sense that people who jump on board early are going to watch prices of an amusing new novelty skyrocket, sell at the right time, and people who thought they were getting a good deal are going down the tubes. It's happened before and it'll happen again; There's limited supply and lots of demand and it will end up being disastrous for people who come too late.

08.01.2014 00:04
Quote this message in a reply
Rising Phoenix
Unregistered


Post: #8
RE: Yanis Varoufakis, Bitcoin and the dangerous fantasy of apolitical money

What is sad is how many people intend to/are supporting this scam. Even Piratebay has bought into it... Sad

08.01.2014 01:15
Quote this message in a reply
chad7405
Unregistered


Post: #9
RE: Yanis Varoufakis, Bitcoin and the dangerous fantasy of apolitical money

Rising Phoenix Wrote:
What is sad is how many people intend to/are supporting this scam. Even Piratebay has bought into it... Sad

Piratebay,Zynga,Hulu,Groupon, it goes on and on and on and on... They're not dumb though. They're the people i mentioned in my other reply;the smart ones who jump on board, get it, sell it, and win. Everyone else will lose though.

08.01.2014 02:46
Quote this message in a reply
Boudifle
Junior Member
*


Posts: 10
Words count: 1,304
Group: Basic
Joined: Dec2013
Status: Offline
Reputation: 0
Experience: 369
Glory Points: 0
Medals: 0

Post: #10
RE: Yanis Varoufakis, Bitcoin and the dangerous fantasy of apolitical money

I had the chance to meet with some open mind people (and very narrow minded men too) who, fortunately or not, have contributed in many changes in this world during the last 20 years.
From muslim terrorist to liberal anarquists, passing by futur dictators in south america... the worl is changing BECAUSE our old models are not the whole truth. It doesn't means than the "others" are right. But we are very narrow minded in our pure kenesian models. If we want to stimulate exchanges, the offer of money is the good way. But if we want to limit the labor decay price, it's the wrong way (talking in general of course).
I won't explain you the relationship betwin depth, offer of money, concentration of capital, land price etc...
The bitcoin is comming specially to constituate a capital reservoir witch is the consequence of massive monetary emission that begane in 1971 and culminate now with the creation of depth from a capital that has desapeared long ago (see reglamentation of european authorities). If authorities accelerate the speed of assets and money exchanges, they can still maintainig the illusion of economical growth. But if this monetary creation is canalised in BC, which doesn't obey to kenesian laws, the global rates can only be maintained at zero. The economical growth will still exist but with an incredible fall of purchase capacity from consumers.
That is to say: massive poverty in developped countries.
The stok exchange global system can react against speculative (money saving) crisis emmiting massive "papers", that is to say titles that do not have the backup they pretend: it happened specially during the fall of gold prices. Tecnically it's the same thing than monetary massive emission... You trust in something? We emite more in order to make you pay more till you trust less. It's a tax! If we calculate the things in that way (i recognise that not everybody agrees) our economy is much more taxed that what we usually think. Is public AND private tax. Of course this difference of value is lost... so not productive. Finally the productivity of capital is dramatically falling. This may explain why the worldwide growth is every 10 years, less and less spectacular, compared with proportional monetary emission. The long term models are showing a zero economical growth.
Bit coin just show the limit of the model. It a symptom of course. Not a solution.
But if we want to solve the problem we should first understand who REALY emite "money". And think about that...

08.01.2014 16:15
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pages (2): « First [1] 2 Next > Last »
Post Reply  Post Thread 

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Money Growth Does Not Cause Inflation! Helsworth 18 5,361 26.09.2017 02:04
Last Post: Hilder
  The Quantity Theory of Money: A Critique Helsworth 1 999 18.01.2017 23:24
Last Post: VineFynn
  Why Positive Money is wrong, by Mike King Helsworth 2 1,611 16.07.2016 08:33
Last Post: Helsworth
  Money & the Myth of Barter Helsworth 0 1,228 09.03.2016 18:26
Last Post: Helsworth
  How Modern Money Theory Replies to Hyperinflation Hyperventilators Helsworth 0 2,203 11.02.2015 17:45
Last Post: Helsworth
  How to turn litter into money, all about debt, deficits, and economic policy Helsworth 0 2,703 13.12.2014 21:18
Last Post: Helsworth
  Critique of Thomas Piketty's Capital, Yanis Varoufakis Helsworth 0 1,328 08.12.2014 18:36
Last Post: Helsworth
  Why Central Banks Should Give Money Directly to the People Helsworth 0 1,386 05.09.2014 19:28
Last Post: Helsworth
  Money is destroyed when loans are repaid Helsworth 2 2,571 20.08.2014 20:23
Last Post: Helsworth
  DEBT-FREE MONEY: A NON-SEQUITUR IN SEARCH OF A POLICY Helsworth 3 2,046 02.07.2014 20:34
Last Post: Alexei B.Miller

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: