5 ms·

> people are giving it serious attention and thought I did. That's why I was wise enough to buy bitcoins very early on. > take moral ground against a system t

by javert 13y ago

> people are giving it serious attention and thought I did. That's why I was wise enough to buy bitcoins very early on. > take moral ground against a system that, whatever its flaws, protects its community from the disasters Because the Federal Reserve fundamentally cannot and certainly does not protect people from disasters.

dragontamer 13y ago
Case in point. >>> I did. That's why I was wise enough to buy bitcoins very early on. You take a post complaining about greed, and then RUB IT INTO HIS FACE that you made more money than other people in this venture. BTC is a grand experiment, no matter what its price. The true enthusiast wants BTC for what it represents, not to use it to make a quick buck.
- javert 13y ago
  If other people have a problem with the fact that I made money---and they shouldn't---that is their problem. But I made my point: it's unjust to claim that everyone who made money on bitcon just got lucky and to therefore condemn them.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Whether or not you made money is irrelevant to greater technological progress. My personal beef with this whole BTC thing is that it once represented a potential future of money exchange. But today, the big news of BTC is how much money people are either making or losing. The entire "technocrat" viewpoint of BTC seems to be disappearing beneath a wave of greed. And its a shame too... the technocrat viewpoint is the most interesting to me.
    - javert 13y ago
      > Whether or not you made money is irrelevant to greater technological progress. True, but if people are going to say that bitcoin earnings are not deserved because they are based on a lucky guess, I am going to provide the only counterexample I can personally attest to. Since I can only read my own mind, that counterexample is myself.
beat 13y ago
Central banks can and do protect people from disasters. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve in the US, there have been three really disruptive crises: The Great Depression, 1970s stagflation, and the 2008 collapse. Action by the Fed cured stagflation (with a short-term induced recession - thanks to Paul Volcker's leadership and Reagan's support of him in the face of a hostile Congress), and the Fed's short-term intervention into the unsecured loans market kept the capital contraction of the CDO collapse from taking countless other businesses down with it.
- javert 13y ago
  Why was the Great Depression so dang much worse than all the boom and bust cycles that came before? Could it be because of the government's massive economic intervention? I think so, and it's not like economists uniformly disagree with me. The 2008 collapse is ultimately part of long-term stagnation in the economy. It would have been better to just take the medicine and build a healthy economy after that, that to keep living under the fantasy that government manipulation of the economy can help us in the long run.
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Calling the Great Depression the result of "government intervention" is the supreme result of the famous "Do Nothing" president, Calvin Coolage. Despite seeing the signs of impending market collapse, Calvin Coolidge felt that it was not within his rights as president to do anything about it. Hoover tried desperately to solve the problem of the Great Depression in his first (and only) term, but when the Black Friday market crash occurred only 8 months into Hoover's presidency, it is clear who deserves the blame of the famous market crash that set off the Great Depression. Deregulation of banks, laissez-faire economics, and a complete reluctance to increase the monetary supply are all cited as reasons for the Great Depression of 1930s. The ideas of Laissez-faire economics should have died in 1930. It is part of the Government's job to prevent such depressions from occurring ever again.
    - javert 13y ago
      You actually seem to be arguing my side. Coolidge did the same thing as all prior presidents in economic recessions, and it always worked for them. Hoover, incluenced by the Progressive philosophy of "governmnet solves all problems and individuals be damned," tried to "force" a solution to the recession. Unlike every prior case, it got much worse for much longer. So if you want to assume correlation strongly suggests causation, I win the argument. If you instead want to say that we need to look at root causes, I say the notion that we need or can solve economic problems with top-down force instead of bottom-up individual pursuit of values is ludicrous. > It is part of the Government's job to prevent such depressions from occurring ever again That is just your assertion. And the notion that the government can do that is fantasy thinking. I think they can influence contractions and expansions but the net of it is less economic production in the long run; it doesn't gain you anything. And sometimes they screw up small and cause things like Freddie and Fannie's mortgage bubble. And eventually they screw up big, as any puppet master does, and you get hyperinflation or bank crises.

by javert 13y ago

dragontamer 13y ago

Case in point. >>> I did. That's why I was wise enough to buy bitcoins very early on. You take a post complaining about greed, and then RUB IT INTO HIS FACE that you made more money than other people in this venture. BTC is a grand experiment, no matter what its price. The true enthusiast wants BTC for what it represents, not to use it to make a quick buck.

javert 13y ago
If other people have a problem with the fact that I made money---and they shouldn't---that is their problem. But I made my point: it's unjust to claim that everyone who made money on bitcon just got lucky and to therefore condemn them.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Whether or not you made money is irrelevant to greater technological progress. My personal beef with this whole BTC thing is that it once represented a potential future of money exchange. But today, the big news of BTC is how much money people are either making or losing. The entire "technocrat" viewpoint of BTC seems to be disappearing beneath a wave of greed. And its a shame too... the technocrat viewpoint is the most interesting to me.
  - javert 13y ago
    > Whether or not you made money is irrelevant to greater technological progress. True, but if people are going to say that bitcoin earnings are not deserved because they are based on a lucky guess, I am going to provide the only counterexample I can personally attest to. Since I can only read my own mind, that counterexample is myself.

beat 13y ago

Central banks can and do protect people from disasters. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve in the US, there have been three really disruptive crises: The Great Depression, 1970s stagflation, and the 2008 collapse. Action by the Fed cured stagflation (with a short-term induced recession - thanks to Paul Volcker's leadership and Reagan's support of him in the face of a hostile Congress), and the Fed's short-term intervention into the unsecured loans market kept the capital contraction of the CDO collapse from taking countless other businesses down with it.

javert 13y ago
Why was the Great Depression so dang much worse than all the boom and bust cycles that came before? Could it be because of the government's massive economic intervention? I think so, and it's not like economists uniformly disagree with me. The 2008 collapse is ultimately part of long-term stagnation in the economy. It would have been better to just take the medicine and build a healthy economy after that, that to keep living under the fantasy that government manipulation of the economy can help us in the long run.
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Calling the Great Depression the result of "government intervention" is the supreme result of the famous "Do Nothing" president, Calvin Coolage. Despite seeing the signs of impending market collapse, Calvin Coolidge felt that it was not within his rights as president to do anything about it. Hoover tried desperately to solve the problem of the Great Depression in his first (and only) term, but when the Black Friday market crash occurred only 8 months into Hoover's presidency, it is clear who deserves the blame of the famous market crash that set off the Great Depression. Deregulation of banks, laissez-faire economics, and a complete reluctance to increase the monetary supply are all cited as reasons for the Great Depression of 1930s. The ideas of Laissez-faire economics should have died in 1930. It is part of the Government's job to prevent such depressions from occurring ever again.
  - javert 13y ago
    You actually seem to be arguing my side. Coolidge did the same thing as all prior presidents in economic recessions, and it always worked for them. Hoover, incluenced by the Progressive philosophy of "governmnet solves all problems and individuals be damned," tried to "force" a solution to the recession. Unlike every prior case, it got much worse for much longer. So if you want to assume correlation strongly suggests causation, I win the argument. If you instead want to say that we need to look at root causes, I say the notion that we need or can solve economic problems with top-down force instead of bottom-up individual pursuit of values is ludicrous. > It is part of the Government's job to prevent such depressions from occurring ever again That is just your assertion. And the notion that the government can do that is fantasy thinking. I think they can influence contractions and expansions but the net of it is less economic production in the long run; it doesn't gain you anything. And sometimes they screw up small and cause things like Freddie and Fannie's mortgage bubble. And eventually they screw up big, as any puppet master does, and you get hyperinflation or bank crises.