Crypto Currency Thread
Discussion
Lol. Dimots you're mad in the head lad.
Did you really just suggest that the barrier to wirelessly charging a tesla over a wifi network wad the payment system, rather than the wireless charging part?
@harris i
I appreciate your arguement but i'm not sure i can agree with it. I am not a historian but remember lots of gcse details about the roman empire kind of being a military dictatorship with slaves, plebs etc on one side, and people with huge wealth and power living in opulence on the other. I'm not sure that you can suggest that society now is less equal than then, either within the empire itself or comparing the empire to other civilisations who would generally be far.less wealthy.
I would also question the notion that the reason for more recent times being bloodier is related to currency rather than technology. Back in the day, warfare was just, well inefficient. It could take an army a year or more to force a.castle to surrender. Now you can arm your rebels with a few ak47's and woop you can annex part of a state.
Was still very refreshing to see pro- crypto arguments that are well structured and put across.
Did you really just suggest that the barrier to wirelessly charging a tesla over a wifi network wad the payment system, rather than the wireless charging part?
@harris i
I appreciate your arguement but i'm not sure i can agree with it. I am not a historian but remember lots of gcse details about the roman empire kind of being a military dictatorship with slaves, plebs etc on one side, and people with huge wealth and power living in opulence on the other. I'm not sure that you can suggest that society now is less equal than then, either within the empire itself or comparing the empire to other civilisations who would generally be far.less wealthy.
I would also question the notion that the reason for more recent times being bloodier is related to currency rather than technology. Back in the day, warfare was just, well inefficient. It could take an army a year or more to force a.castle to surrender. Now you can arm your rebels with a few ak47's and woop you can annex part of a state.
Was still very refreshing to see pro- crypto arguments that are well structured and put across.
dimots said:
Condi said:
But the bank pays me to keep my money with them, offers me 85k of protection against the bank going bust, protects me from fraud, and doesnt charge me to move it or spend it.
Seems like a better deal than what you're proposing.
They do all that at no cost? I feel so naive. I had no idea they were so charitable. You have shattered my reality.Seems like a better deal than what you're proposing.
Trolleys Thank You said:
dimots said:
Condi said:
But the bank pays me to keep my money with them, offers me 85k of protection against the bank going bust, protects me from fraud, and doesnt charge me to move it or spend it.
Seems like a better deal than what you're proposing.
They do all that at no cost? I feel so naive. I had no idea they were so charitable. You have shattered my reality.Seems like a better deal than what you're proposing.
I realize you 2 zealots will be all like aha! What a total noob! The credit card co charged a fee for that transaction worn by the vendor. This is undoubtably correct. However, given that the price would have been no lower via any other method, i am very happy to watch the vendor see that as part of the cost of sale.
Honestly, banks are great. If you are financially not a t
t they pay you, give you free services and use your money to make money from tts. If you're into btc then you can't be a debt monkey because you're buying crypto assets with money. On the other hand, at least one of you is claiming that holding an asset thats lost 50% of it's value since you held it is financially prudent, whilst openly admitting to tax evasion on the assets you're in profit on - so maybe i'm on the fence there...Look I get the point, but free banking is a recent phenomenon and it is merely an excuse for the profit making activities of banks to continue unabated in the post 2008, post mid-selling scandals, post-quantitative easing mess we have allowed to become our reality.
Bitcoin is better. I can’t be bothered to go into why here, but if you wish to find out why I think this I would recommend ‘The bitcoin standard’ by Saifedean Ammous. It was recommended to me here by Behemoth and it’s fantastic.
Am I suggesting everything will happen 100% as I predict and in quick order? No. Do I expect the status quo to change unprompted? No. Do I think the current system is fked and the majority of experts are only experts in navigating a fked up system? Yes.
Bitcoin is better. I can’t be bothered to go into why here, but if you wish to find out why I think this I would recommend ‘The bitcoin standard’ by Saifedean Ammous. It was recommended to me here by Behemoth and it’s fantastic.
Am I suggesting everything will happen 100% as I predict and in quick order? No. Do I expect the status quo to change unprompted? No. Do I think the current system is f
ked and the majority of experts are only experts in navigating a fked up system? Yes.dimots said:
Look I get the point, but free banking is a recent phenomenon and it is merely an excuse for the profit making activities of banks to continue unabated in the post 2008, post mid-selling scandals, post-quantitative easing mess we have allowed to become our reality.
Not true.dimots said:
Bitcoin is better. I can’t be bothered to go into why here, but if you wish to find out why I think this I would recommend ‘The bitcoin standard’ by Saifedean Ammous. It was recommended to me here by Behemoth and it’s fantastic.
better in some ways? Perhaps, but hardly as one-sided as you try and pretend.dimots said:
Am I suggesting everything will happen 100% as I predict and in quick order? No. Do I expect the status quo to change unprompted? No. Do I think the current system is fked and the majority of experts are only experts in navigating a fked up system? Yes.
On what do you base that claim - are you an 'expert'?ked and the majority of experts are only experts in navigating a fked up system? Yes.no bank has charged me a fee for normal savings / current / transaction/ credit card my whole life. That's over 30 years of banking (i didn't have an account in my early years). Since this historical length is longer than the lifespan of crypto, your argument is irrelevent. "Free" banking predates crypto.
That's what I mean when I say economists have become priests of religious dogma masquerading as science. The world has come to believe banks are providing a free service and that fractional reserve banking and quantitative easing are good for us. It's a brilliant fraud, cleverly convincing us it's OK to create new money in an amount multiples greater than we deposit, coupled to massive stealth devaluation which we don't notice because it chips away only a few per cent a year. So when a potential solution to a sound monetary system presents itself, we contemptuously dismiss it as a tulip bubble, arguing over its investment value over a 12 month timeline, instead of considering whether it might solve some fundamental human issues.
Harris_I said:
That's what I mean when I say economists have become priests of religious dogma masquerading as science. The world has come to believe banks are providing a free service and that fractional reserve banking and quantitative easing are good for us. It's a brilliant fraud, cleverly convincing us it's OK to create new money in an amount multiples greater than we deposit, coupled to massive stealth devaluation which we don't notice because it chips away only a few per cent a year. So when a potential solution to a sound monetary system presents itself, we contemptuously dismiss it as a tulip bubble, arguing over its investment value over a 12 month timeline, instead of considering whether it might solve some fundamental human issues.
Indeed, though I suggest you may be pissing into a gale.It's all a timeline. It's not difficult given a little thought...
SDarks said:
Banks are not giving anything for free. They take your hard earned, lend the same pound to five different people at the same time (creating debt out of thin air).
Ignorance is bliss and all that.
Who is ignorant? Ignorance is bliss and all that.
The people on this thread who are most sceptical of Bitcoin are those who work within financial services, and know not just how banks work, but how the regulation and international rules which the banks operate within work as well. Those who are most supportive of Bitcoin don't understand half of what the banks really do, especially around protecting your money and preventing fraud or loss.
I've also benefited from free banking since I can remember, hell when I was a child they even gave me a set of porcelain pigs to thank me.
When Icesave went bust I had "enough" in there and got it all back despite what I believe was no obligation for the FSCS to do so (it was a while back so I can't recall).
I can deposit almost infinite money in NS&I and get some return on it and a 100% government guarantee.
I quite like the concept of Bitcoin and have no issue with it as a "bit of a punt" but I do struggle a little with the almost religious aspect of it.
To each their own but I don't like the idea of many people losing more money than they can afford on this.
When Icesave went bust I had "enough" in there and got it all back despite what I believe was no obligation for the FSCS to do so (it was a while back so I can't recall).
I can deposit almost infinite money in NS&I and get some return on it and a 100% government guarantee.
I quite like the concept of Bitcoin and have no issue with it as a "bit of a punt" but I do struggle a little with the almost religious aspect of it.
To each their own but I don't like the idea of many people losing more money than they can afford on this.
Harris_I said:
DonkeyApple said:
Why don’t you explain why you want to see a removal of money regulation and what you think that will achieve? Can you cite any time in the history of mankind that moving backwards in finance has produced stability and security?
Maybe one way to answer your question is to point to a time in history when politically motivated devaluation of a currency has led to a decline in equality, and increase in conflict, and ultimately the end of empire.We could choose pre-Nero Roman Empire (Nero clipped 10% off the aureus), or Byzantium from the devaluation of the nomisma (which subsequently led to the prevalence of the Arab dinar along the Silk Route). Or most significantly, we can point to the removal of the gold standard in the 20th century, the bloodiest century in history, during which governments no longer merely exhausted their own treasure chest to wage war, but the entire wealth of populations by transferring people's wealth to the state through devaluation.
In 5000 years of economic history, the cycle of decline follows a familiar pattern: a significant devaluation event allows a ruler or government to spend beyond its natural means, the govt continues to devalue the currency to finance spending (a free lunch), inequality rises in society (because the rulers and financiers closest to the money supply are able to spend it before it devalues), tensions and internal conflicts rise, trade barriers and physical barriers are erected, external conflicts rise, and eventually when the currency has been devalued beyond all original recognition, the end of empire. By the 5th century, Roman currency had only 0.02% silver content remaining. By the end of the 20th century, the US dollar had devalued 96% in real terms, and $4 trillion of QE in recent years has accelerated that decline.
If anything, there is a powerful historical argument that govt control of money results in instability. In contrast, centuries of a gold standard has resulted in healthy trade and political stability (Rome, Byzantium, pre-Renaissance Arabia/Persia, 19th century). With that stability you create space for increased investment in for example education, healthcare, the environment.
Democracy is the often leveraged argument but it is the introduction of efficient regulation that brings not just peace but also wealth. It is regulation that brings about a stable currency. From that we can expand centralised states to efficiently and evenly collect taxes which outside of a tyranny, monarchy or dictatorship can be invested in feeding, housing, employing and keeping healthy the population.
It would be very ill advised to look at our recent currency devaluation via QE and attempt to contrast it to dictatorial currency clipping etc.
From the 1990s the West has been removing regulation that restricted consumer spending. Look at what we now have. We have had 30 years of accelerated economic activity based around the poor borrowing to consume more and more and more and a select few becoming accidentally overtly wealthy. This the wealth divide has increased, which is never healthy. It’s not that the poor in the West are actually poor but that the divide is too large for a healthy social cohesion.
The free people of Britain, who are nearly all net recipients of taxation ( that’s the big difference between now and then) did not invest or borrow to invest in crypto out of desperation due to poverty and servitude but out of good old fashioned greed and stupidity. Desperation borne out of envy at the fair, endebted lifestyles of puppets put before them to encourage them to borrow more and spend more. Consumer fools, consuming themselves into misery and anger, where the tyrants seek their unwitting recruits for their crusty armies that will propel them to their New World Orders.
QE was about keeping people in their homes and keeping people in the jobs. It is a currency devaluation that stands out from all the Friday 13th historical events.
We should never have had QE as the regulation that controls retail consumer debts should never have been ripped out.
But a belief that the total removal of regulation is the solution to an issue caused by the partial removal of regulation is exceedingly unhealthy and history again will show us what happens to those who support the extremists attempting to take control away from a democratic state.
There is no argument that logically supports the removal of regulation as a route to glorious wealth and wellbeing for the masses so just why is it that some people are jumping in the band wagon of claiming to be downtrodden surfs and wanting a new world order of no regulation and dictatorships all from the comfort of their nice warm home, job opportunities, free healthcare, free welfare support for them and their families and freedom of movement?
It’s because they don’t like that Dave next door appears to have more money than them because he’s just had a new TV delivered by Radio Rentals. It’s all consumer greed.
Easily tempered by putting back in place some of the regulation that was deliberately removed to allow consumer borrowing to replace wage inflation and to inflate asset values to create even more spending. So why would someone want to further remove regulation, the tool of wealth and security creation? Why would someone so readily believe the ‘Blame the Jew’ mantra of QE? They aren’t starving. They aren’t freezing. They aren’t dying of simple diseases. They are just upset that people aren’t giving them any more free money or lending them enough to buy the latest consumer s
te that no one needs. coyft said:
What’s to stop all central banks in unison producing enough new money to pay off world debt? They could issue this new money at 0% interest, effectively wiping out government global debt.
Why would they want to do that? The last thing they want is to get rid of debt as their entire ponzi scheme would fall apart.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff