3 ms·

>Inflation is an indirect motive to spend money today and not hoard. Why is spending good? If I spend money on the things I don't really need because I'm afrai

by snitko 13y ago

>Inflation is an indirect motive to spend money today and not hoard. Why is spending good? If I spend money on the things I don't really need because I'm afraid I'm gonna lose otherwise, why do you think it's good for the economy? Some spending is good, some spending is bad. If everyone spends money on cars while they don't really need that many cars, why is it good? Inflation might create some jobs, but those jobs wouldn't be secure for long, because workers would be producing things people really don't want. I don't understand how scaring people into spending is a good idea. >Bitcoin in my view, will never be a largely used currency because it does not have this imperative characteristic any currency should have. So people would rather spend dollars Since you argue that people would rather spend dollars, here's a thought experiment. Let's say Bitcoin is accepted in most places. Say you store your wealth in Bitcoin. Now you want to buy something. Why would you want to exchange it into USD, pay commission to the exchange and then make a purchase instead of paying it in Bitcoin in the first place?

crassus 13y ago
Pretty much the whole of modern economics is built around justifying the existing cultural regime
atmosx 13y ago
In your hypothetic world, would I be able to pay taxes in BTC?
- snitko 13y ago
  Why do you want to pay taxes?
  - oleganza 13y ago
    You want people to eat each other in a complete anarchy? We need some minor group of accountable well-educated lawyers and bankers to decide the laws and issues of life and death. That'd be more civilised. And this requires people to fork off a part of their income. It's a social contract, man.
  - atmosx 13y ago
    I shouldn't? Maybe you need to provide a complete frame, because I'm not sure I follow. ps. I have a deep respect for Anarchism, as I have for Communism (Marx/Engels), although I don't endorse their views about society. That said, believing that bitcoin is in any way close to anarchy because you don't pay taxes is wrong. As Prof. Shamir (the 'S' in RSA) showed some time back, 98% of BTC is controlled by 2% of portfolios. If you have a financial background you can see how this is deeply flawed and extremely centralized.
    - snitko 13y ago
      No one says you shouldn't pay taxes, of course. But just think about what taxes really are. A group of people calling themselves "a government" claims it has the right to collect part of the created value to provide some products and services that they claim nobody else is able to provide at the same or better quality and price. And because the government not just offers those services, but simply orders people to give money (or go to jail), almost nobody is able to compete with government - if a consumer wanted an alternative, he still would have to buy this service from government and then put extra money for the alternative. Needless to say, people are reluctant to do that. That's why private schools are mostly for rich parents who can afford paying taxes and paying for a private school. That's why in Europe private hospitals are for rich people. That's why protection services are for rich people, but the poor get abused by government police force. What Bitcoin is able to do is to break this vicious cycle. Of course, governments are not going to give up easily, but fighting a war against mathematics is arguably a bad idea. As for 98% of BTC being controller by 2% of portfolios - same can be argued for almost any currency, that's the state of the world. The difference with Bitcoin is that although those players can shift the market, they have a lot less power than any government. They can't force me to buy from them. And they arguably didn't get their money by stealing it from others.
      - atmosx 13y ago
        I think that the BTC 2% has the same power as a government inside their ecosystem, no responsibility (ethical or other) given the complete anonymity and thus can not be held directly or indirectly accountable in any way, while a gov can. The fact is that you know who runs the FED. You don't know who owns 95% of BTC in circulation. They didn't stole directly, but it's a perfect Ponzi scheme if they choose to liquidate their BTC overnight :-) ... They are in a position to create "money" out of thin air. Money issued by people trusting BTC. So there is no difference from a trading Wall Street crook who sells garbage stocks for gold to naive investors (calling Goldman Sachs)...

by snitko 13y ago

crassus 13y ago

Pretty much the whole of modern economics is built around justifying the existing cultural regime

atmosx 13y ago

In your hypothetic world, would I be able to pay taxes in BTC?

snitko 13y ago
Why do you want to pay taxes?
- oleganza 13y ago
  You want people to eat each other in a complete anarchy? We need some minor group of accountable well-educated lawyers and bankers to decide the laws and issues of life and death. That'd be more civilised. And this requires people to fork off a part of their income. It's a social contract, man.
- atmosx 13y ago
  I shouldn't? Maybe you need to provide a complete frame, because I'm not sure I follow. ps. I have a deep respect for Anarchism, as I have for Communism (Marx/Engels), although I don't endorse their views about society. That said, believing that bitcoin is in any way close to anarchy because you don't pay taxes is wrong. As Prof. Shamir (the 'S' in RSA) showed some time back, 98% of BTC is controlled by 2% of portfolios. If you have a financial background you can see how this is deeply flawed and extremely centralized.
  - snitko 13y ago
    No one says you shouldn't pay taxes, of course. But just think about what taxes really are. A group of people calling themselves "a government" claims it has the right to collect part of the created value to provide some products and services that they claim nobody else is able to provide at the same or better quality and price. And because the government not just offers those services, but simply orders people to give money (or go to jail), almost nobody is able to compete with government - if a consumer wanted an alternative, he still would have to buy this service from government and then put extra money for the alternative. Needless to say, people are reluctant to do that. That's why private schools are mostly for rich parents who can afford paying taxes and paying for a private school. That's why in Europe private hospitals are for rich people. That's why protection services are for rich people, but the poor get abused by government police force. What Bitcoin is able to do is to break this vicious cycle. Of course, governments are not going to give up easily, but fighting a war against mathematics is arguably a bad idea. As for 98% of BTC being controller by 2% of portfolios - same can be argued for almost any currency, that's the state of the world. The difference with Bitcoin is that although those players can shift the market, they have a lot less power than any government. They can't force me to buy from them. And they arguably didn't get their money by stealing it from others.
    - atmosx 13y ago
      I think that the BTC 2% has the same power as a government inside their ecosystem, no responsibility (ethical or other) given the complete anonymity and thus can not be held directly or indirectly accountable in any way, while a gov can. The fact is that you know who runs the FED. You don't know who owns 95% of BTC in circulation. They didn't stole directly, but it's a perfect Ponzi scheme if they choose to liquidate their BTC overnight :-) ... They are in a position to create "money" out of thin air. Money issued by people trusting BTC. So there is no difference from a trading Wall Street crook who sells garbage stocks for gold to naive investors (calling Goldman Sachs)...