Francis

[Francis @random_francis_]

Le problème c'est qu'il n'y a peut-être même pas d'accord sur la base: "'ce que nous voulons pour notre prochain. Moins de misère, plus de richesses, de meilleures conditions de vie" n'est pas forcément l'objectif du socialiste: certains fantasment avant tout l'égalité de fait (et non pas l'égalité devant la loi)

[Francis @random_francis_]

Banks literally create the money when they issue a real estate loan. They credit your account with new deposits (M2 money) while booking the mortgage as an asset. The collateral, income checks, and stress tests are just the guardrails on how much "printing" they do for you. When rates spike and home builders go bankrupt, it shows the spigot was wide open on cheap credit before, but they can't access the cheap money they expected for their project to be profitable. Artificially low interest rates fuel the next boom and bust cycle.

[Francis @random_francis_]

@the_fishr_king @L4UR3N7 Débat toujours en cours au sénat, rien d'annulé, rien de finalisé. Il faudra encore attendre quelques semaines peut-être avant de savoir

[Francis @random_francis_]

@UlrichFm @CarlosValdes21 L'inverse de la loi de Gresham est parfois aussi appelée "loi de Thiers" apparemment

[Francis @random_francis_]

Sur ce coup là Ulrich je pense que ce point mérite que ton attention. Pour caricaturer ce n'est pas la présence de longues formules compliquées qu'on voit dans les livres keynésiens qui rendent l'approche keynésiennne "mathématique". Et inversement ce n'est pas l'absence de formules compliquées dans les œuvres autrichiennes qui fait de la praxeologie une méthode "non-mathematique". Et quelque part c'est plutôt sympa de se dire que les Autrichiens appliquent une rigueur mathématique à l'économie (axiomes/déductions). Les keynésiens aussi tentent une approche scientifique mais se trompent de méthodologie : ils pensent pouvoir mettre l'économie dans un labo et isoler les variables pour tester leurs hypothèses (sciences naturelles).

[Francis @random_francis_]

"par quel mécanisme deux individus qui valorisent différemment le même bien produisent-ils un prix unique ?"

--> par l'action de l'échange volontaire. La transaction a lieu ou n'a pas lieu, ou alors négociation. Si l'acheteur n'a que 50 euros à dépenser aujourd'hui et qu'il doit aussi acheter des fruits et légumes le même jour, il ne va pas pouvoir échanger avec le vendeur de la veste qui veut 50 euros pour s'en séparer (peut-être que son prix de production était 40 et il veut 10 de marge de profit, à lui de voir). Si la veste ne trouve pas preneur pendant plusieurs jours, peut-être que le vendeur finira par baisser son prix, ou pas. Mais il n'y a pas de prix unique et permanent.

[Francis @random_francis_]

"Avant que l’O&D puissent se rencontrer, il faut que tes 100 et mes 50 soient déjà exprimés dans la même unité"

--> non pas besoin d'une « unité commune psychologique », avant l'échange chaque individu a ses préférences intériorisées de manière ordinale (dans quel ordre on préfère les choses) mais personne ne se balade avec une affiche "je préfère les pommes aux bananes et je préfère les euros aux vestes en cuir" donc on ne peut rien comparer avant l'échange.

[Francis @random_francis_]

"Qu’est-ce qui rend deux valorisations subjectives comparables avant l’échange ?"

--> Rien justement ! Avant l'échange ces deux valorisations subjectives ne peuvent pas être comparées. Je pense que tu raisonnes en utilité cardinale, tu supposes qu'on puisse mesurer le bonheur ou l'utilité en chiffres précis, avec une unité commune ?

[Francis @random_francis_]

@cardano_card @wirexapp Great work! Any partnership planned with Midnight for transaction privacy enhancements ?

[Francis @random_francis_]

@SebGouspillou @isabellasg3 Bonjour Sébastien, y-a-t-il déjà eu un éclairage ou une analyse approfondie proposée par l'écosystème Bitcoin français sur le sujet ? @ClaireBalva , @StachAlex , @BitcoinPolicyFr , @RichardDetente , @EricLarch

[Francis @random_francis_]

@mrvicfer Salut Victor, c'est tout à fait leur style donc ce n'est qu'une question de temps avant Zucman 2.0 mais quelle est ta source pour le moment à propos de ces 0.5% sur les patrimoines de 2M ?

[Francis @random_francis_]

It's literally the meaning of the word: capitalism teaches us to build and save capital for increased productivity in the future. 'Consumerism' is not a feature of capitalism, it's a feature of fiat money. A continuously depreciating money teaches you that it is better to consume today and go into debt than to save. Capitalism under a sound money system would incentivise long term planning and reasonable consumption.

[Francis @random_francis_]

The key is for every individual to be free to make his own choices. Speculation and risk-taking are integral parts of how markets allocate capital. With a non-centralized money, individuals are allowed to benefit or suffer from the consequences of their actions. Learning responsibility and better decision-making over time should not be delegated to governments.

[Francis @random_francis_]

Archaeological evidence shows that coinage helped expand trade across the Mediterranean, facilitating commerce beyond single sovereign states. These coins weren’t debt — they were valued for their inherent scarcity and wide acceptance. Credit existed, but commodity money acted as a universal medium of exchange. https://t.co/lOi3vSlowv

[Jonathan Newman @NewmanJ_R]

@meygavox Good overview: Rahmstorf, L. (2016). From ‘value ascription’ to coinage: a sketch of monetary developments in Western Eurasia from the Stone to the Iron Age. The Archaeology of Money, School of Archaeology and Ancient History, Leicester, 19-42.

[Francis @random_francis_]

True, rule of law reduces the need for constant individual defense — but only as long as the law itself defends property rights. When institutions violate those rights (via inflation or asset seizures), self-custodial money becomes a safeguard, even if it requires extra effort. Freedom always comes with a cost.

With cryptography, individuals now have a way to defend their property rights at a fraction of the cost. Just like how the longbowman in the 13th century gave individuals the power to defend themselves against heavily armored knights, cryptographic technologies enable individuals to protect their wealth without relying on centralized institutions. This shift empowers people to take control of their own assets while lowering the barriers to entry, making the protection of property more accessible than ever (See "the sovereign individual")

[Francis @random_francis_]

True about trade-offs. If banks and governments were perfectly honest, individuals wouldn’t need to spend time and energy protecting their wealth. But banks and governments are made of humans too — and when trusted with unchecked control over money, they often become the plunderers themselves.

[Francis @random_francis_]

Totally agree — if you remove the word "money" from that sentence. Understanding the distinction between property and possession is crucial.

A possession-based sound money acts as a necessary counter-power against arbitrary violation of property rights through inflation.

This doesn’t mean people must self-custody their money at all times. Institutions can still provide custodial services. The key difference is that self-custody remains an option, letting individuals choose who they trust — or choose to trust no one at all.

When money is rooted in possession, rather than solely a legal construct, it strengthens individual sovereignty and makes property rights more resilient against state or institutional overreach.

[Francis @random_francis_]

Every dollar in existence is a fungible unit of debt. You can’t find one that isn’t --> True! The whole monetary system we had for the last 54 years now is purely based on debt, and everyone who studied the question knows that, so why complain that we lost 100 years in economic thinking by not understanding money as debt (your point above) ? What is lacking is the understanding of the actual impact this pure debt-based money had on society for the past half-century. https://t.co/Dd9eqsKxQQ

That's why the debate "What is money" is finally getting the attention it deserves, and it's not a matter of "what is the correct theory of money" since we know all 3 forms of money (Fiat, credit, commodity) can potentially exist, but rather a matter of understanding the different consequences they have on society. Choosing the money is a political question. Separating money from state is a political project. It aims at de-politicizing money (no more arbitrary monetary policy). As a liberty man, it should resonate with you.

A fiat token if used can act as a medium of “something for nothing” (zero sum). Taxes = solvency --> True, that's where you agree with the Austrian perspective, MMT is just crazy.

The reason is that only debt can allow for “something for something” (non zero sum exchange) --> Not really...barter is literally the first transaction system that allows "something for something". A commodity-based monetary system is basically bartering but using the most marketable good (which has been many different things depending on the time and place) in all exchanges to solve the double coincidence of wants. This doesn't mean that we don't need institutions and property rights. A hard money system just decreases the chances of power concentration and currency manipulation.

[Francis @random_francis_]

@AKlibertyman @mises Great example of a monetary system that can work in a small community where trust is not an issue. But trust does not scale without centralizing power. Also, fish is a limited resource, promises can be infinite.

[Francis @random_francis_]

@AKlibertyman @mises Money solves the problem of double coincidence of wants. Man chooses whatever is most convenient at the time and adapts to market conditions, so long as he is free to choose.