Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 101 results by tarball
Has anyone made a case for layering capitalist and socialist ideas on top of each other, seeing as that's what actually works in reality?
Insurance is a great example of that. A profit making company (capitalist outermost layer) that administers a money pool (socialist inner structure) that people join voluntarily (capitalist at the individual level) to manage risks.
Here's how you fuck that up: insurance companies convince government to add an extra layer; coerced standards (aka "regulations"). This makes it very difficult to break into the market as a startup. Then the existing companies can easily charge too much, because they haven't got any competition (and can make deals with their existing competition not to undercut each other). Next, the insurance company cartel can get government to force people into buying insurance for various risks, and present it as "keeping everyone safe".
Supply side distortions (standards that prevent new entries to the market) and demand side distortions (forcing all people to buy something at fixed prices) completely destroys the market, but it's apparently easy to convince people that this is free market capitalism in action.
But if everyone is forced to buy and there is no competition, how is that different from socialism? The method is different to outright socialism, and complicated: 5 layers of socialism and capitalism nested inside or across each other. But what's the outcome? Very similar to what happens in total socialism: friends of the government run massive companies that don't have any incentive to do a good job.
Insurance is a great example of that. A profit making company (capitalist outermost layer) that administers a money pool (socialist inner structure) that people join voluntarily (capitalist at the individual level) to manage risks.
Here's how you fuck that up: insurance companies convince government to add an extra layer; coerced standards (aka "regulations"). This makes it very difficult to break into the market as a startup. Then the existing companies can easily charge too much, because they haven't got any competition (and can make deals with their existing competition not to undercut each other). Next, the insurance company cartel can get government to force people into buying insurance for various risks, and present it as "keeping everyone safe".
Supply side distortions (standards that prevent new entries to the market) and demand side distortions (forcing all people to buy something at fixed prices) completely destroys the market, but it's apparently easy to convince people that this is free market capitalism in action.
But if everyone is forced to buy and there is no competition, how is that different from socialism? The method is different to outright socialism, and complicated: 5 layers of socialism and capitalism nested inside or across each other. But what's the outcome? Very similar to what happens in total socialism: friends of the government run massive companies that don't have any incentive to do a good job.
And how do you prevent big companies to use their money as leverage and lobby to corrupt your government and create regulations in their favor? :/
With representative democracy, socialism or capitalism is all the same. It leads to concentrate the power in few hands, them being corporations in capitalism and government members in socialism.
The end doesn't change, though capitalism takes longer I'd say.
Back in the day, the US government was limited, it did not get in the way of the economy, and there were no lobbyists. Remove the government's job of managing the market economy, and the corporations will not be able to lobby.
1. I am searching for coins that could be used to aid socialist ideas (coins for commies). Google "blockchain communism" and you will realize that the possibilities of communist applications of crypto are endless. Here are the ones I have focused on. Keep in mind that crypto tokens or blockchain technology do not have to represent money.
I don't use Goolag, sorry.
I am aware of hoarding and tax loopholes. Tax loopholes should be closed. I am also aware that although speculative investment happens, it is unrealistic that every vacant property would be simultaneously off the market to a point where new businesses could not obtain leases.
The only reason there are tax loopholes is because there is a tax system in the first place. Remove the system, et voilà!
...
You guys are not only stupid but dangerous.
Without the tax system, there would be no country. The government can either collect taxes or go into debt.
Someone needs to pay YOUR bills.
You misunderstand me. I was not advocating of removing the tax system. I was merely point out the fact that tax loopholes only exist because a tax system exists in the first place.
However, before the 16th amendment was created, how do you think the government made money? Not through taxes, but mostly free trade. There are alternatives to taxes.
I misunderstood, I thought you wanted to remove the tax system.
Today, the government needs taxes and lots of them. The debt interest payments increase every year, not to mention spending and the size of the government. You know, building border walls, fighting wars that cannot be won, spending money on immigrants etc.
There is no way the government can survive without taxes. They barely survive with them.
The reason the US government was able to survive off trade was because it was small and limited. However, today, the government is much bigger and therefore requires tax to function.
I am aware of hoarding and tax loopholes. Tax loopholes should be closed. I am also aware that although speculative investment happens, it is unrealistic that every vacant property would be simultaneously off the market to a point where new businesses could not obtain leases.
The only reason there are tax loopholes is because there is a tax system in the first place. Remove the system, et voilà!
...
You guys are not only stupid but dangerous.
Without the tax system, there would be no country. The government can either collect taxes or go into debt.
Someone needs to pay YOUR bills.
You misunderstand me. I was not advocating of removing the tax system. I was merely point out the fact that tax loopholes only exist because a tax system exists in the first place.
However, before the 16th amendment was created, how do you think the government made money? Not through taxes, but mostly free trade. There are alternatives to taxes.
I am aware of hoarding and tax loopholes. Tax loopholes should be closed. I am also aware that although speculative investment happens, it is unrealistic that every vacant property would be simultaneously off the market to a point where new businesses could not obtain leases.
The only reason there are tax loopholes is because there is a tax system in the first place. Remove the system, et voilà! No more tax loopholes. Also, hoarding is not bad. However, is better to use a more sophisticated vocabulary, the word being 'savings.'
1. Its not stealing because it is built into the agreement that the US government has the right to print more money. Also "money holders" are not wise and not good for economic growth. Incentivizing spending further stimulates the economy.
'It is the aim of good government to stimulate production, of bad government to encourage consumption' (Jean-Baptiste Say, A treatise on political economy).Spending more doesn't actually do anything; that is the Keynesian illusion.
See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHAsnzALQJk
Saving is more important. If you have capital to to start a business, that business will grow, growing or stimulating the economy.
For example, if you use bitcoin to buy a cup of coffee everyday, you are not growing the economy. However, you can save that bitcoin to start a business, that will.
Lets just call them System 1 and System 2.
System 1: People are oppressed by a power hierarchy. The fruits of labor are stolen by force or contract. People do not have the liberty to do what they want with their own lives. In the end, needs are not even met.
Where the gun in the workers' heads forcing them to work?
Also, if you are a socialist (which means you despise a concentration in wealth), why are you into crypto? There is a huge concentration of wealth in crypto. Most coins are owned my few persons (for altcoins).
'Wealth, as Mr. Hobbes says, is power. But the person who either acquires, or succeeds to a great fortune, does not necessarily acquire or succeed to any political power either civil or military. His fortune may, perhaps, afford him the means of acquiring both, but the mere possession of that fortune does not necessarily convey to him either.'
This quote is taken from Chapter 5 of Book 1 of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
Here he is saying that power doesn't just come to those who have money. They can acquire it with money, but by default haven't the power. It doesn't matter if there is a concentration of wealth, because they don't have political puissance ( I am excluding market manipulation which isn't political).
Off topic:
Of course socialism/communism and fascism/authoritarianism is different. The government/leader/dictator has almost all the wealth, and by default they have the legal power as well.
This quote is taken from Chapter 5 of Book 1 of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.
Here he is saying that power doesn't just come to those who have money. They can acquire it with money, but by default haven't the power. It doesn't matter if there is a concentration of wealth, because they don't have political puissance ( I am excluding market manipulation which isn't political).
Off topic:
Of course socialism/communism and fascism/authoritarianism is different. The government/leader/dictator has almost all the wealth, and by default they have the legal power as well.
It is not possible to know the private key from a bitcoin (other way around works however). If that were the case, then everyone's funds would be stolen.
However, if you are talking about an address in your wallet which you created (with a 12 or 24 word seed), then you can retrieve the private.
If the latter is the case, please specify the wallet you are using so we can help you.
However, if you are talking about an address in your wallet which you created (with a 12 or 24 word seed), then you can retrieve the private.
If the latter is the case, please specify the wallet you are using so we can help you.
Well, for storing money, do not choose Bitcoin. It seems to me that Bitcoin is not good for storing money because it is not stable, you may suffer a loss if you make a wrong decision. Therefore, you should think about litecoin, it is more stable and safe to store money.
Can you name the reasons for trusting Litecoin more than others?
Bitcoin is very stable. After all, it is stabler than the Standard & Poor's.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-02/s-p-500-s-wild-ride-makes-u-s-stocks-more-volatile-than-bitcoin
Last time I checked on Coinbase, when you want to buy, it clearly states 'bitcoin,' 'litecoin,' and bitcoin cash' so I wonder how you ended up with bitcoin cash, unless you somehow thought they were the same and decided to buy the cheaper one.
What does 0.1 btc minimum mean? Does it mean I must have a minimum of 0.1BTC to participate in a coinjoin tx?
This means that the input you are using to participate in the coinjoin features has to be more than 0.1 BTC.
So, owning more than 0.1 BTC is not enough, you need to use/spend more than 0.1 BTC in such a transaction.
Unfortunately the coins I want to put in a coinjoin is only 0.01BTC. rip
I read somewhere that despite the adoption of gold over the years, the value still fluctuated with a level of volatility.
I think this is because of central bank inflation which causes the change in price of gold.
Methinks that the increase in bitcoin adoption has done its work in reducing volatility.
it has reduced the volatility but not in this way. this reduction of volatility means it no longer is going to rise from ~$200 to ~$1200 in a month (6x rise). and this current stability is somewhat common. we have had this in the past and pretty soon the rise will start again and a couple of months after that we will see price shoot up again.
but it is interesting to have this kind of dead stable price that lasts months!
Well yeah, going from 200$ to 400$ (increase of 200$) is a 100% increase and going from 1000$ to 1200$ (increase of 200$) is a 20% increase. But I agree, volatile bullish runs followed by non-volatile bearish price movements.
but it is interesting to have this kind of dead stable price that lasts months!
and this current stability is somewhat common. we have had this in the past and pretty soon the rise will start again and a couple of months after that we will see price shoot up again.
I saw this article in my twitter feed; t'was interesting. The S&P500 is now more volatile than bitcoin.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-02/s-p-500-s-wild-ride-makes-u-s-stocks-more-volatile-than-bitcoin
Methinks that the increase in bitcoin adoption has done its work in reducing volatility.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-02/s-p-500-s-wild-ride-makes-u-s-stocks-more-volatile-than-bitcoin
Methinks that the increase in bitcoin adoption has done its work in reducing volatility.
hello member of the bitcoin forum, 
I'm confused and looking for answers about how to help people who are having economic problems,
are there any of us in this forum who have a good heart to help the economy of fellow human beings,
can opening new jobs reduce unemployment and improve the economy?
I'm confused and looking for answers about how to help people who are having economic problems,
are there any of us in this forum who have a good heart to help the economy of fellow human beings,
can opening new jobs reduce unemployment and improve the economy?
The best thing we can do is to maintain a free market. Free market allows for competition, which lowers prices for the consumer. Government regulation and intervention hurts natural job growth because it merely redistributes rather than creates.
Re: Do you think bitcoin redistributes wealth or just makes the wealthy richer?
I don't think it should redistribute wealth. In every system there is a hierarchy, a concentration of wealth (or power). It is foolish to eliminate something natural.