Quote from: deisik on August 13, 2019, 11:58:53 AM

Quote from: Tylev on August 13, 2019, 05:07:39 AM

Quote from: Leyss on May 31, 2019, 09:11:07 PM

Money has always been a tool of politics first, and then the economy. So the invited elite of society always went into politics primarily in order to strengthen their economic, that is, financial position. On the whole, the issue of issuing money has always been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. Who controlled the issue of issuing money, he had real political power. Therefore, one should not be surprised if states continue to tighten the rules for cryptocurrency circulation and try to control it.

Yes, it's true. Politics and money have always been and will be inextricably linked. The meaning of political decisions is usually almost always aimed at strengthening the economic condition of society or its individual groups. There is nothing surprising here. After all, we live in our rough physical world, where the economy determines politics, and not vice versa

I tend to disagree with this view

If anything, it is politicians who determine the economic policy of a country and ultimately its fate, not economists. Politics has the upper hand in the economic matters, and to prove that is in fact pretty easy. Most wars turn out an economic disaster for the belligerent countries (it has been so for millenia), while the questions of peace and war are in the hands of a few people who may not have a damn clue about economics and how the economy works. In other words, it remains to be seen whether political decisions are actually aimed at strengthening the economic conditions of a country as it may well be to the contrary

Could those people actually end up having economic benefits from wars? Direct of indirect benefits?
Centralization of power and situation where economic operators are dependent on government to operate creates situations of monopolies, corruption, etc...