You probably knew this, but that statement is a bad mistranslation: "Die reale Wirtschaft darf nicht zum Monopoly-Spiel werden." = "The real economy must not become a Monopoly game." (note the capital M in Monopoly).
He isn't saying that bitcoin shouldn't monopolize the economy, he is saying that funny colored bills shouldn't be the economy. What the difference a capitalization makes...
However, can anyone point me at what a "real" economy is in the first place? Rare near-useless metal hauled from the depths of the ear = real economy? Rare near-useless bits hauled from the depths of the internet = no real economy?
Not in Germany. The finance office has made billions recently because nearby tax havens like Luxembourg and Switzerland were betrayed by bank employees. If this lobby organization says bitcoin might be abused for tax evasion, money laundering and illegal transactions, you can be sure many people in Germany will avoid it. Besides, I think the whole project is pretty naive ..
Yeah, for example, a shared secret (credit card details; shared with everyone you pay to, or just a random guy behind your shoulder who had a good memory) is way better than Bitcoin's crypto.
And PayPal works only in some countries and is proven to sometimes ban upright accounts.
Are there any alternatives to Bitcoin, which are non-discriminating (in a same way paper cash is) and fairly secure to exchange online? I believe "real economists" had failed to provide any solution in this field.
The so called "lobby organization" says on their website "we are the web" - a statement which usually pretty much disqualifies one from speaking for anyone but themselves.
I think the complicated decision here is how to classify Bitcoins:
If you treat Bitcoins as currency you would need to state the value of your Bitcoin income on your tax statement. However, when doing so you would need to convert the Bitcoin value to your government's local currency, so that taxes can be calculated. The problem here is that the Bitcoin market is still relatively small and that you have no guarantee that you can sell a given amount of Bitcoins at a given price. E.g., you may have earned 100.000 BTC in a given year. However, when you try to sell all of them on the Bitcoin exchange markets at the same time, it may be possible that you crash the market. So you would need to pay taxes in your governments currency for something that you cannot sell at the estimated price.
On the other side, you could only declare income resulting from selling Bitcoins for a "real" currency. However, I'm not sure if your government will allow this, as this would allow for "creative" tax statements. E.g., as a freelancer you could charge your clients in Bitcoins, but then only convert Bitcoins to a "real" currency if you need to buy something that cannot be bought for Bitcoins. So if you would have charged your client in USD, you would have had to pay a large amount of taxes in a given year. However, by using Bitcoins, you can delay the payment of those taxes.
I think the most obvious way to classify bitcoins is to consider them as a fungible commodity (like gold). Just about anybody would accept gold as payment for something, but it is still classified as a commodity tax-wise.
This is an attempt at misdirection. If bitcoins take over the monetary system, they will naturally be stored in banks. No family man would walk around with his family's rainy day fund in his iPhone. For reasons of practical logistics, organized crime will use private banks that can be captured and destroyed.
What actually scares the bankers is loss of the ability to control the discount rate, which is a very legitimate concern. Human psychology being what it is, all economic systems end up running on credit and suffering from periodic crises of confidence. A fiat currency can simply print its way out of a deflationary terror, but a hard currency like bitcoin is well and truly screwed.
Seriously, how would you possibly bail out a company like AIG if it had written derivative contracts on bitcoins?
[+] [-] dmethvin|15 years ago|reply
So says the banker with the monacle.
[+] [-] jgoewert|15 years ago|reply
He isn't saying that bitcoin shouldn't monopolize the economy, he is saying that funny colored bills shouldn't be the economy. What the difference a capitalization makes...
However, can anyone point me at what a "real" economy is in the first place? Rare near-useless metal hauled from the depths of the ear = real economy? Rare near-useless bits hauled from the depths of the internet = no real economy?
[+] [-] a3_nm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldarchon|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drdaeman|15 years ago|reply
Yeah, for example, a shared secret (credit card details; shared with everyone you pay to, or just a random guy behind your shoulder who had a good memory) is way better than Bitcoin's crypto.
And PayPal works only in some countries and is proven to sometimes ban upright accounts.
Are there any alternatives to Bitcoin, which are non-discriminating (in a same way paper cash is) and fairly secure to exchange online? I believe "real economists" had failed to provide any solution in this field.
[+] [-] larelli|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitless|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gst|15 years ago|reply
If you treat Bitcoins as currency you would need to state the value of your Bitcoin income on your tax statement. However, when doing so you would need to convert the Bitcoin value to your government's local currency, so that taxes can be calculated. The problem here is that the Bitcoin market is still relatively small and that you have no guarantee that you can sell a given amount of Bitcoins at a given price. E.g., you may have earned 100.000 BTC in a given year. However, when you try to sell all of them on the Bitcoin exchange markets at the same time, it may be possible that you crash the market. So you would need to pay taxes in your governments currency for something that you cannot sell at the estimated price.
On the other side, you could only declare income resulting from selling Bitcoins for a "real" currency. However, I'm not sure if your government will allow this, as this would allow for "creative" tax statements. E.g., as a freelancer you could charge your clients in Bitcoins, but then only convert Bitcoins to a "real" currency if you need to buy something that cannot be bought for Bitcoins. So if you would have charged your client in USD, you would have had to pay a large amount of taxes in a given year. However, by using Bitcoins, you can delay the payment of those taxes.
[+] [-] aidenn0|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MattBearman|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BarkMore|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coconutrandom|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Daniel_Newby|15 years ago|reply
What actually scares the bankers is loss of the ability to control the discount rate, which is a very legitimate concern. Human psychology being what it is, all economic systems end up running on credit and suffering from periodic crises of confidence. A fiat currency can simply print its way out of a deflationary terror, but a hard currency like bitcoin is well and truly screwed.
Seriously, how would you possibly bail out a company like AIG if it had written derivative contracts on bitcoins?
[+] [-] Pooter|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]