Posted: Feb 23, 2019 3:06 am
by Thommo
jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:

This is patently untrue. It's so obvious and easily checkable that there's simply no point arguing.
You're starting to make a tit of yourself. The claim is that no fiat currency has ever survived for more than a few decades devoid of backing from other currencies/assets.

No. That is not what you said, and it's fucking tiresome to have you pretend it was and that somehow you contradicting yourself makes me "look like a tit".

Here's what you said:
jamest wrote:history shows that ALL fiat has always failed for millennia within a few decades

This is not true. Not in the slightest. The modern era of fiat currency started in 1971 when Nixon unlinked the US$ from gold. Since then, to name just one example of one currency that has survived decades (all the years since) without "backing from other currencies/assets" and without "failing": the US dollar. And that's to ignore the utter sophistry and superficiality of pretending modern economics including the attendant opportunities and demands of currency and technological faciliation is just the same as what's happened "for millenia".

The reason the dollar became fiat, rather than linked to a gold standard is that (in a sense) linking it to gold failed: the currency could not meet the demands of the economy. Albeit this was not the kind of ludicrous overblown full on economic collapse about which you've ranted and raved in blusterous but vague and inexpert terms.

How long will the US dollar persist in its current state in the future? Nobody knows. Albeit in a spectacular example of Duning-Kruger you've decided that you do because you took a two-bit internet course. And C&P'd some advertising copy from blokes selling crypotcurrencies that you swallowed wholesale.

jamest wrote:It's clear to all here that you don't even know what colour the greenback is.

It's great that you've adopted the language of the crank websites and conspiracy theorists, to make it maximally obvious where you're getting this from.

jamest wrote:It's also clear that you cannot be arsed to read links provided as a basis for a serious argument, as if you did then this nonsense about currencies lasting for far more than decades wouldn't even be mentioned.

I did read them, not that you've provided serious links. You googled up a few things that vaguely support weaker versions of what you're saying and then misrepresented them consistently and spammed one of them over and over - you haven't even accepted that one of your major points was about how the US government seized gold (and therefore you're safe buying gold but not dollars).

Anyway, here's the full set of links you've provided: ... cy-system/ ... el-roubini

And yes, I read them.
jamest wrote:For the FINAL time, the claim that ALL fiat currency has failed within recorded history is wrt its ability to survive independently of any other asset/currency.

What is wrong with you? I know that's the claim.

It's wrong. That's why I linked you four fiat currencies, not linked to any other asset or currency that have not failed and exist in recorded history. Jesus.

The classic example on these crank websites you think make you some kind of educated expert know-it-all is the Roman empire. Roman coinage didn't stop being used because of problems with fiat, it stopped being used because the empire collapsed after 500 years. Now, it is quite possible that Britain will stop existing in 500 years and the Pound Sterling will go out of use, but this is useless speculation, it does not tell you that Sterling is going to collapse tomorrow, next week, or in my life time, or that if it does it won't be possible to see it coming and escape.

If Sterling "only" lasts 80 years, I only live 50 and bitcoin loses 80% of its value over the next two years (again) you'll still be much worse off investing in bitcoin regardless of any superficial nonsense you spout about "fiat currencies always fail". They don't.

There are no guarantees, but some risks are bigger than others.