Comment: Thoughts?

(See in situ)

Cyril's picture



Sure. Now a NO-BRAINER on this end.

My economic intuition tells me there really is nothing essentially flawed or (morally) "wrong" in the notion of stocks - as an appraisal for the discrete, temporal value of a company, or a group of associated individuals (e.g., sport team) or even, why not, a well-delimited set of intangible intellectual properties - e.g., patents, copyrights, you name it.

Nothing wrong at all, IMO.

But as you point out, what's essentially flawed for the long term (and 100 or so years isn't even quite THAT long of a term when speaking of corporations) ... is the reckless idea of "backing" such valuations in terms of fiat currency - much elastic, and with centralized "elasticity authority" - by very construction.

Actually : of "backing" ANYTHING in ANY fiat currency.

Gold and silver COST energy to get mined. That cost BALANCES the temptations / intents for voluntary, controlled inflation.

Indeed: as with much of everything else, it'd likely be much wiser, much less risky to make those in gold or silver... Or anything else we might discover having the same friendly properties as these two guys have - portability, divisibility, scarcity, etc.

It just so happens it doesn't seem we have many others out there provided by Mother Nature.

Seriously, my rationale is:

I even find totally LOGICALLY ABSURD or UTTERLY SUSPECT that anyone would ever come with the idea of putting A THIRD ITEM in what ought to be a pair, i.e., a fiat currency intermediary somewhere - totally redundant and prone to generate (statist) friction:

1. hard or well-defined intangible asset (e.g., some patent, some book's copy rights)

2. gold (and/or silver in some supply-demand parity or not)


Two fixed points ought to be it, and that's it. How/where/when/why put a third in there ?!

Or: HOW THE HELL a third, intermediary, completely arbitrary, completely elastic valuation criterion could be ANY meaningful, in the first place ?

Can't A SINGLE FRACTION to be computed be NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT for trading purposes ?


THAT makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever to me, now, if it's not for in fact confusing, stealing, biasing things on/from one end or the other (1), or (2) (plus, made out of cheap cotton to add insult to injury!)

Well, of course we know how it works : ANY fiat currency has a VERY nice property - FOR THIEVES, COUNTERFEITERS - confessed or not... as that costs (TIME + ENERGY) almost nothing to create MANY, MANY more units of it. There you have it:

WHOEVER controls the fiat tokens creation process can manipulate either or both of the two fractions forced down our throats:

(1) / (2) and (2) / (3).

Those don't want to be handcuffed by Mother Nature's Law all in a SINGLE fraction - (1) / (2).

Nah. What they want is as in their childhood I suppose:

A rigged game of Monopoly.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius