14 hours ago
R: I have been a bit busy, but finally have a little free time to respond.
Dissecting select statements and then sniping at them with what is often presumptuous and self serving rhetoric (as you did with the Bitcoin shop piece and other readers feedback is a “TACTIC”.
MD: Replying without even referencing the issue of focus is worse. That’s typically what I run into. You are correct. It is a TACTIC. I read an article through the frame of what I know. When I come across something that is in violation of what I know and can prove, even if all I see is a symptom, my TACTIC is appropriate for calling attention to it.
R: Apparently you believe that this type of “dialogue” places you in the critics seat or “instructor” role providing “instructive critique”; it does nothing of the kind, and rest assured you do not enjoy that relationship with me.
MD: “Apparently” is the operative word here. Its root is “appear” … and thus it must appear so … to you. I am in the critics seat. And I am an instructor if I can produce evidence that contradicts what I am reading and prove it. And that is true even if my profession is not “instructor”. The root of the word is “instruct” and it means “teach a subject or skill”. And that’s exactly what my comments do … in as unambiguous fashion as possible.
R: Allow me to demonstrate:
TM – Without even knowing what those theories are, I think it is foolish. You don’t fix an “improper” MOE process by resetting it. You don’t fix an “improper” MOE process by switching to another “improper’ process. And if you have a “proper” MOE process in operation it never requires “re-booting”………”
RD – How can you comment upon the efficacy of any theories if you do not read them. You speak of a “proper” MOE but you repeatedly fail to identify it. Your statement indicates that it is not necessary to learn anything about other theories as only your own are of importance.
MD: When I know what is true and can prove it, I don’t need to know what is theorized if the mention of the theory makes it obvious, it goes against what is provably true. Re. Failing to identify a “proper” MOE process: that takes me about 500 words. I have done it at least 4000 times over the 4+ years it has become obvious to me. I can’t begin every comment with those 500 words. If you want to know the “proper” MOE process, just ask (actually, you can now see it in the right panel). I am now using my MoneyDelusions site to annotate these articles. Contained in the right column is the definition of money and the proof. I do need to add the description of the process … but anyone understanding the definition and proof should be able to easily arrive at the process themselves … and quickly see the defects in other “theories”.
TM – [T] Who is “they”. With a “proper” MOE there are no gains! … period! Usually are reset means the create a new name for their money, you redeem the old money for the new money at 1,000,000 to 1 … and it all starts over again
RD – Who to you think “they” are? It is the authors of the piece at the link. If you read the piece you would know this.
MD: Actually, it is not the authors of the piece … even in this instance. That’s why my method of annotating the actual article is my preferred mechanism. It was actually this article that motivated me to do it create the Money Delusions site. I had done it once before sometime back under a different umbrella … but after a while I was banished for breaking some rule … I was never told what. Money Delusions is now on my own host so I don’t have to deal with such nonsense. It’s not pretty yet … and may not ever be. But the points I make are indisputable.
TM – [T] “All” money is fiat … because all promises are fiat … they are made up by the person making the problem. And that’s not a bad thing … though fiat is “always” used as a slur…..”
RD – Of course the dollar and other currencies are Fiat money. The fact that I called the dollar Fiat currency should make it obvious to you that I am well aware all paper currency is Fiat. Bellicose statements are not required.
MD: What is obvious to me is you haven’t thought very deeply on the issue. Whether money is in the form of coin, currency, or simply ledger references is irrelevant. It “always” stands for an “in-process promise to complete a trade”. It is always … and only … created by traders getting their trading promises certified so they can span time and space. And of course, “all” promises are “fiat” … so “all” money is “fiat”.
As with you, the use of the term “fiat” is to contrast it with “sound” through a slur. “Sound” implicitly means “having intrinsic value” … and the the Bitcoin nuts have to extend it … having reference to “work done”. But once money becomes sound … i.e. trades for something of intrinsic value, it ceases to be money. The trade completed. When you say gold is money, all you’re really saying is that it is an inefficient, expensive, clumsy stand-in for real money. Anyone who takes it as money must somehow exchange it in a future time and space with zero loss of value in the gold itself. And that’s impossible because the supply/demand balance for gold is far from stable. With “real” money it is “perfectly” stable … perpetually … everywhere!
You are correct: Bellicose statements are not required. They just kind of take on that tone after addressing the tone deaf for 4+ years … who, in the final analysis resort to religious arguments when they’re trapped by proof … or run away as soon as they become unhappy with the form.
R: Do you see what I mean? Your style of communication does nothing to advance the discussion let alone your own theories.
MD: My style of communication does more than your style of rebuttal. You haven’t addressed anything of substance which I have asserted. You have only addressed my form. That is “your” TACTIC. It is avoidance. Avoidance is far worse than abrasiveness.
R: I am quite busy and have little time to engage in this level of discourse, let alone time to even read the DB, and I am “done” with this communication thread.
MD: You’re not too busy to make false assertions. You are just too busy to support them and defend them. As usual … the line goes dead … not after rebuttal but after rejection. There are no gloves soft enough for engaging you people.
R: Respond if you must, and if it follows your prior “protocol”, rest assured that it will receive all of the consideration it deserves!
MD: Here’s an article from GoldMoney.com about crypto currency. They don’t get it either … and I prove them wrong. See it at:
It’s one of my many new instances of trying to get the “obvious” across to the deluded.