Bitcoin Forum

I found out about this currency two weeks ago. I acted on it because it will meet the needs of an idea of mine and now I am coming to realize it challenges the powers that be. I never expected much out of its current form since it is so young.

What is confusing is that people are declaring it dead because it can't maintain a constant price after an increase over 1000 times? I really don't understand this. Somebody please tell me how Bitcoin is suffering right now? From what I am seeing it has had great progress. I don't see anything to complain about.

Everything eventually comes to an end. Some sooner than others.

Most get caught up in the noise instead of looking at the big picture.

The volatility makes it less useful as a medium of exchange. If you accept 100 bitcoins in exchange for some hardware and the next day those 100 bitcoins are worth 15% less, you may wind up taking a loss on the transaction. This matters because you typically can't pay your employees, pay your utility bills, pay your rent, or pay your suppliers in bitcoins.

Otherwise, the price of a bitcoin measures a whole bunch of things mixed together. One of the things it measures is the collective opinion of the long-term viability of bitcoins as a medium of exchange. But that's mixed in with so many other factors that you really draw too many conclusions.

I think a lot of people just assume that a high price is good and a low price is bad without really thinking too much about it. They confuse the price of a bitcoin with things like the price of a company's stock.

The price of a companies stock is investors confidence in future earnings.

Is the low price, and lowering of price, the Bitcoin's economy's confidence in the viability of it's future?

Whoever says bitcoin is dead is an idiot :)

No isn't.  The price of the stock is a reflection of projected earnings and growth.

For example investors can have EXTREME confidence that a company will make $1 next year growing roughly 1% and the stock price will be very low.

The price of bitcoin is more like any other currency.  It's value is based on supply relative to demand.  Demand is based on transaction volume and supply is based on minting.  At the current rate of minting and transactions the market (which may be wrong) is saying that Bitcoin warrants a price ~$3.00 not $30.00.  If the block reward was 5 instead of 50 likely Bitcoin would be at $30.00.  Alternatively if transaction volume declines significantly (due to volatility making it too risky to use for exchange) then price of Bitcoin will fall (as supply is increasing and demand is falling).

Ragnar, don't mind them too much. It's a common reaction at the end of a speculative bubble.

Nobody knows whether Bitcoin will live, neither now nor did anyone five months ago. You will hear hundreds of short-sighted arguments why it "must fail". I'll name a few in the order they appeared.

"Deflation will make price rise over 9000 but then nobody can use it because everyone will only hoard"
"It was all a ponzi scheme, now the inventors are taking their money and running"
"Volatility is so high, nobody will ever use them for trade"

If you pay attention, you will see that these arguments aim at short time-scales. Nobody will hoard forever, initial distribution is unimportant once coins have moved around, and volatility is paid by bad speculators, which means it will decrease over time.

There are some problems with Bitcoin, but they can be fixed, and have nothing to do with the things the doomsayers name.

The people declaring it dead are (for the most part) the same people that have been declaring it dead for a long time. They declared it dead during the skyrocket bubble because it meant people will hoard it and never use it for currency. They declared it dead during large swings, because it was too volatile to use as currency. They've been declaring it dead every time it drops in price, because they assume it will drop forever.

Certainly, the falling price has shaken confidence. Those who are least confident in the technology have gotten scared. Some of us aren't so easily shaken. If you understand it as a payment system, instead of a speculative investment, then the price swings won't bother you as much.

how so if we cant even trade with such volatility? what does a payment system do without a transaction?
 

I would not say that at all.  Whoever believes someone who says that Bitcoin is dead may be.  Or not.  Time will tell.

You know exactly what i meant, can you use bitcoin to put food on the table?

If not, you will have to fall back to fiat currency.

Bitcoin isnt a curreny, its a mean for transferring money which isnt gonna happen if the exchange is so volatile.

Yes.

BitMunchies.com

That doesn't prove anything though. Bitcoin's usefulness and value does not derive from it's proximity to the acquisition of food.

That was deep.

You cant be serious. Why do you refuse to see my point? Are you holding a large number of bitcoins? Yes we all know its usefulness, that is ability to send money anonymously. If you expect ppl to use bitcoin as a currency, you're dreaming.

Assume you have the payment system ready, convince me as a merchant to use your system without me exchange the coins back to fiat currency.

Dude, I use it as a currency almost daily.

You seem to think that just because many receivers of the coins will desire dollars instead, that such will always be the case. You assume it's static, not realizing that as the economy matures the need to "convert back" lessens over time.

Bitcoin becomes a common currency gradually, and for some of us it is already very much a currency now. And no I'm not a large holder of coins, only about 200... I had more yesterday but I paid someone, and in fact I received most of them by doing work for other people. It's almost like... a currency! And no fees + transferable instantly around the world.

Sure you may be using to exchange goods or services online. That does not change the fact that in real life, you must use fiat currency to buy goods for living.

Like i said, convince me as a merchant to use your payment system while all my business expenses are in fiat currency.

So... what would convince you?  What if you could pay 10% of your expenses using bitcoin, and it cost you 1% less if you used bitcoin?

There are lots of chicken-and-egg problems that bitcoin has to overcome to compete with the dollars or euros we're all using now; I see two paths to bitcoin's success:

Maybe there are enough ideologically motivated people to form a self-sustaining economy. If even 1% of people find the idea of bitcoin attractive and started using it for 1% of their transactions that would still be huge.

Or maybe one or more 'killer apps' for bitcoin will emerge, giving it a foothold in certain markets. Maybe it will never expand beyond those markets, or maybe it'll slowly grow beyond them because of lower cost and higher tech.

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter for what could be a massively influential idea, then you should probably come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system.

+1

This is the key, I've been doing everything I can to urge other leftist ideologues to adopt Bitcoin to create an egalitarian economy, it will take a few years to catch on but the ability of Bitcoin to ease redistribution of wealth will make it the inevitable choice once people tire of trying to work inside the same old broken system.

That's a good point. I don't think stable prices will ever be Bitcoin's strong point; however, this weakness is completly offset with its ease to take it to market and sell just as quick as you receive it. So, if I receive payment in bitcoin and choose to wait before selling. That loss is my fault and not neccessarily bitcoin as a currency.
The free market is already providing even better solutions than this. MtGox has a merchant service where you can receive payment in bitcoins that are immediatly converted to USD - there's no loss.

In my opionion, People tagging Bitcoin as dead comes from the continued decline in bitcoin prices.
For me, bitcoin prices comming back to reality is a huge win for Bitcoin.
It went way past its fundamental value. Now the market is more mature and you can short. hopefully, such a tragedy of super fast rising prices will never happen again.
Every one sees the failing pricess as the disease, but no one was complaining when prices were sky rocketing.
What goes up irrationally must come back down and speculators are punished.
Can't be too harsh though, I've lost a couple grand, but that was my expensive learning experience and I hold no anomosity towards this brilliant technology.

On second thought, maybe so many are tagging it as dead because they are too prideful to reconize they screwed up.
I know it took me a while.

JoelKatz, Evorhees, and Gavin,

You got mad Bitcoin smarts. There are a bunch of rtards on this forum (anyone reading this is of course wicked brilliant, and beautiful if you are a lady, which you aren't...) so I'm glad to hear your well thought out and level-headed responses.

Aren't "THE SKY IS FALLING!" people annoying the crap out of you?

This pretty well sums it up.  Folks, let's not forget that we're trying to do something which has never been done before.  Is Bitcoin perfect in its present incarnation?  No, but I haven't seen anyone come forward with any other solution which maintains all of Bitcoin's positive attributes while addressing its major shortcomings (particularly the unstable exchange rate).  I'm sorry if some of you have lost real money in the past few months, but perhaps now is a good time to re-emphasize the "beta" nature of the Bitcoin software and ecosystem.

As a business owner, what makes me excited is increasing profits. You have to think from my point of view if you want me to use your system. I'm not some geek engineer whos excited by using a coolest tech. This is why visionary makes innovations succeed.

I like your chicken and egg thinking tho.

I have to laugh at the irony of this post. I'm not laughing at you Rarity. But I'm laughing with... well, I guess with all the folks who started this forum!

Bitcoin is the crypto-anarchist libertarian's wet dream of a currency. Its core premise is that there is no way for anyone to force redistribution of wealth. There is nothing particularly egalitarian about bitcoin. Sure the leftist ideologues, libertarians, and tea party folks are all trying to pull down the current system.

However, everyone is trying to pull it down from opposing directions. It is all very self defeating and amusing to watch.

I've actually already debated this extensively in other threads.  In the primal state bitcoin is not good for redistribution, but once you have a government that identifies the users by address it is perfect for it because of the transaction log.  I know you would have some doubts of that but I don't feel like running through the debate I just had in the other thread, I'll link you if you are interested.

The bottom line is Bitcoin allows you to take the means of currency production out of the hands of corrupt central banks and the corporations who rule them and gives it to the people.

So are you saying you are a fan of Bitcoin because of its *lack* of anonymity?


Means of currency production? You are well aware of the fact that Bitcoin doesn't have a means of currency production right? It just slowly allocates the existing 21 million coins. By the time the government takes notice and reverse engineers who holds each address (say 5 years) 75% of bitcoins will already be in the hands of the bitcoin rich. How are "the people" going to produce more or redistribute existing wealth from the bitcoin rich?

I guess a link might be in order. :)

Precisely because of the lack of anonymity compared to cash, yes.  There is no reason to reverse engineer out all the addresses, the government simply assigns an address to each citizen and these addresses are the only legal means of sending or receiving the coins.  Anything outside the whitelist is considered illegal by default.  This system does not interfere with the actual network at all, it just defines how the network is legally used in a country.

Debated it more in depth here:  http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47916.60 (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47916.60)

By means of currency production with the people I mean as opposed to the out of control printing of wealth done by central banks and handed off to the wealthy in the form of bailouts and favorable regulation.  With Bitcoin the government can't create money out of thin air, it is mined by the people and all transactions are public and easily monitored.  There will be no more need for something like campaign finance reform, for example, when every donation to a campaign is recorded and mad publicly available for the voters.

Maybe someday you'll realize that the entire purpose of the central bank's inflationary activities is precisely for wealth redistribution - both from the rich to the poor (to buy votes from government spending programs) and from the poor to the rich (via inflation). In both cases, the government is strengthened at the expense of individual freedom.

How about we stop "redistributing" property justly acquired by humans. It's a lesson mankind is unfortunately taking thousands of years to learn - don't steal from or harm people, and society will be good.

It's incredible how "socialists" are always so eager to be charitable with other peoples' money, while typing their nonsensical tyranny on computers which could surely be donated to more needy children in 3rd world countries...

Oh please, the 400 richest people in America hold more wealth than the bottom half of the population combined.  There is only one direction in which corrupt central banking distributes money, and that is why it must be destroyed.


It is for those people I use my voice to try and save us all from the tyranny of the rich.  When the job is done, I'll be glad to pass along my rig.  For now, I'll concentrate on supporting policy that will give them potable water, food to eat, education, electricity, roads, and healthcare.  

I grew up wealthy and have done very well for myself in my own career, I'll be happy to see my money be taxed at a higher rate to support those in need.

Seek professional help.

I don't know, man. 99% of the so-called "poor" have refrigerators these days. Even Czar Nicholas II didn't have one of those. Game. Set. Match.

If there's one thing I've learned from Bitcoin libertarians, it's that true freedom mainly involves working 18 hours a day for a dollar an hour and living in a tin-roofed shack (look Ma, no building regulations!).

Tell it to Warren Buffet too, or George Soros, or Mark Cuban.  People can be wealthy without being selfish.


http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-tax-the-hell-out-of-wall-street-and-give-it-to-main-street-and-other-advice-for-the-protesters-2011-10

Good for you then. Have fun here!

For reference I believe that only ideas of folly start with, "First everyone had to do (X) exactly as I say, then (Y) can never happen and the world will be a better place!"

If your idea is a good one, start with 100,000 people and completely open accounting. If it makes these 100,000 people's lives genuinely better, everyone else will notice and come over willingly.

If the first 100,000 fails to benefit from the wisdom of your idea. Well, that's the definition of being wrong.

^ The Democratic process will be the source of this change as people tire of our long running and long failed current experiment.

Because a "democratic process" decides, (first everyone must do (X) then (Y) will happen) doesn't make the idea any less folly. Ken Burns has a really good documentary about Prohibition out at the moment.

That scourge was much worse than the current banking scourge. The solution was successfully tested locally among the willing. It was imposed on everyone popularly with the best of intentions. And yes, it turned out to be complete folly.

Good or bad, it's the will of the people.  It has legalized slavery and it has outlawed it.  It is a far better system than rulership by corrupt unelected bankers.  In the case of switching to a Bitcoin economy, it would most certainly be a good.

The greatest freedom that America affords you is the freedom to work two dangerous jobs to pay for the medical bills you incurred from working two dangerous times.


If you are really upset about this, next time pick to be born to a family of investment bankers.

Wow what a fun bit of mixed metaphors!

Where does rulership by benevolent unelected bankers fit on the scale? Would that be better or worse than legalized slavery?

Both mindsets make sense. People who are inclined to the left think of redistribution as getting a competitive amount of sustenance for doing what they are trained to do. They don't feel personally responsible about the place in society they happen to be, which makes sense up to a point. Another part of the picture is the ability to become who you want, be omnidirectional, not have to put your social status or background into the equation, which makes sense too. Both are practically impossible. Bitcoin is a simple tool which might in some circumstances help with the latter, both for being independent of the banking structure and for being subject to only the least common denominator of regulations (weak point being exchanges). This helps with redistribution of wealth, especially if you think globally. Imagine you are free to compete or cooperate with anyone else on the globe; Bitcoin is an enabler in this aspect. It's not a magical solution to the distribution problem, but neither is occupy movement or such. Arguably, Bitcoin has more serious practical consequences.

No system of government is immune from mistakes. Thousands of years of civilization have taught us all we need to know of so-called "benevolent" dictatorship.  Democracy has the benefit of at least striving to enact the will of the people, instead of the whims of tyrants or oligarchs.  

Possibility to receive remote payments with no VAT nor need to declare income or any other sales taxes, just like you'd do with cash payments. Not enough? You get zero credit card fees as a gift.

And there's no problem if you convert it back to cash to make your daily expenses, as long as you avoid the banking system which may track you down. But if you manage not to convert it and make your expenses in bitcoins as well, more profits to you. And even more profits if you manage to convince your suppliers to accept bitcoin payments as well.

Holy crap! People like you are the reason totalitarian governments ever came to be.

I'm quite a fan of Democracy myself. I'm also one of those people with my own will. You, however, don't seem so interested in enacting the will of the people I know. That I find, troubling and a bit tyrannical.

Express a point of view and i'll tell you if I'm with your or against you.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the Wall Street bailouts. My sentiments are not, however, because bankers are evil. It is because any banker who needed to be bailed out, by definition "sucks at banking!" I think people who suck at their jobs should lose them.

However, for every banker that needed to be bailed out, there are 10 more who are actually good at their jobs. If you make a histogram of bailed out bankers vs the universities they attended a pattern will become clear. Those who sucked at their jobs, tended to go to very prestigious often liberal universities. (Harvard, Columbia, Yale) Very few went to Iowa State, University of North Dakota, or other random state universities. There are plenty of bankers doing a good job of managing, loaning, and stimulating the economy using other people's money. They went to go to universities you've never heard of where you are sure that only mediocre people must go.

To big to fail banks are a really bad concept to implement.
The same is true when it comes assigning power to governments. Smaller competing societies are better and more stable than ostensibly optimized large ones. I'll put my democracy up against your democracy any day.

The will of the people you know is largely shaped by over 100 years of anti-leftist propaganda saturating every facet of American society.

So are you saying, enacting the will of the people is not so important. What is important is enacting the will of "the right people."  How would you differentiate that from tyranny?

Enacting the will of the people is important if it's genuinely their will. If they don't even know what to believe after a lifetime of lies, omissions, and indoctrination, education is a more important first step.

I can assure you this is genuinely my will. It is genuinely the will of the people around me. Quite frankly, most of the people around me deliberately left the people around you. Not because life would be easier out in the wilderness, but because their life would be better without people like you. It is quite disingenuous to question their "education" because they don't agree with you. My people aren't asking to rule over you. They are asking to be left alone by you.

You certainly didn't address any of my above comments about "education" above. It sure seems like "the proper education" doesn't correlate to actually being successful at the job responsibilities those bankers asked for. Why do your presume the same education would lead to success in those you wish to rule over me?

The thing about being left alone in today's society is that it's entirely impossible. And the things libertarians advocate in the name of being left alone are tremendously destructive to the rest of society.

And of course the person who readily consumes propaganda thinks it's his genuine will. It wouldn't be very effective propaganda if he didn't.

In American society's rush to the right, a lot has been left behind. For instance,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100528081434.htm

Was that their will? I'm sure every one of them would say yes, but does that make it so?

Touché.

The price will stabilize eventually, at least for a while. I see the next few months being fairly stable unless some big developments come up in the Bitcoin world that get us more demand. We're seeing a stabilization to $1 - $3 right now which is probably where it'll be until Bitcoin starts to fulfill its potential a little more.

This is a good thing for Bitcoin, now everyone sees it's extremely risky as an investment. It's better to focus on developing it as a currency and using it, instead of trying to get rich by investing in it.

Investing is fine but people need to understand it's very high risk, you need to know what you're doing.

This is why I think bitcoin will succees as a currency.  It requires no trust. Our modern sociopathic culture will embrace bitcoin until they realize that money does not build a society.

Um, how so?



What about addresses owned by people in other countries? Would all of their addresses have to be whitelisted? And if not, what would prevent someone from receiving illegitimate money, sending it to an account overseas, and then having that money sent back to their own whitelisted address? (i.e. money laundering) You can't blame someone who doesn't even belong to our legal system for not keeping track of "legal" vs "illegal" money, can you?

There are several different groups here:

Miners: Hash power lags price, so when the price is rising, miners make money; when it's falling, they're unprofitable.  Right now mining is useful to people who want to acquire coins without exchanges, or who just want to support the network.  Bitcoin is dead to for-profit miners, and will stay dead unless the price surges again, in which case it'll be profitable briefly.

Speculative investors:  A few got in early and aren't about to complain.  Most bought in above $10, and they're in the middle of a bloodbath.  The ones who say it's dead lost it all; the ones who say it's alive are trying to catch a falling knife.  Most will grab too early and get a handful of blade, but a few will get lucky and grab the handle.

Trolls:  Bitcoin was stillborn, is dead, was always dead, will always be dead, and anything it ever does is because it's a fucking zombie and we need to shoot it in the head.

Cryptoconsumers (My camp): We want to buy and sell things and don't care much about the exchange rate.  For us, Bitcoin is still in its infancy: there are still far too few places accepting it, and volatility is a real drag on acceptance; in my opinion a more stable altchain may eventually win for this reason.  But it (Bitcoin proper, and cryptocurrency generally) is still very much alive, and I have no reason to run away.

If your society can't get along without the libertarians, well I think you aught to give them a little more respect.
My society, however, gets along fine without liberals


Laughing my ass off at the use of propaganda phrases as if it's his genuine will!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100528081434.htm


They're autistic, fat and read Japanese comic books too. And when they gather in groups they tend to steal from one another (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/criminal_occupation_oh3CnKANUqYHrGPCaZaLRK) as well. So what's your point? It has been no secret since the sixties that hippies don't know how to raise kids.

But now with all you've given them, you want to take away their "free" will too?

And we drink more beer and look for ways to beat the man just so we can spend less time working for the man. And we cavort. And we post inane things on Bitcoin forums. Guess I should sign up to be a libertarian. Where's the official form to do that?

There's no form. Just a little kool-aid. No wait... There is a form (https://www.lp.org/membership)! Maybe they mail you the kool-aid.

But trust me, if really want to spend "less time working for the man." Then when you go to parties, stick to the tea.

Let's examine this.

Say you have $100,000 at the end of the year. You can either send it to the IRS, or your can make a tax-deductible donation to a charity of your choice. In one case, $100,000 of funding goes to the Government, in the other case $100,000 of funding goes to charity.

It seems you'd rather let the government have it, instead of the charity. Now, you'll argue that much of what the government does is valuable "charity" work. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a whopping 90% of government funding goes to benevolent, wonderfully effective charity programs. The remaining 10% goes to war, bombs, killing people, subsidizing oil companies, paying massive farm corporations to sit on excess crops and burn them to raise prices, and paying foreign dictators to suppress and harm their people.

Alternatively, 100% of it could go to a wonderful private charity group, and 0% to war, bombs, killing people, and the myriad evils of government.  

Why is it that you choose to bomb and kill people with 10% of your money? And why do you think it's okay to force me to bomb and kill people? Please make the argument why that money isn't better given to the private charity that isn't killing people.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but your society includes quite a few liberals even if you live in the Deep South. I've lived there before, too, so I know.


I honestly have no idea how this line follows from what I wrote. Are you drunk? You went from assuming all of the protesters were overweight thieves based on a typically inflammatory article from the NY freaking Post and then took it a step further to assume that all college kids are like the protesters. Do I have that right? Also you seem to have assumed that the 18-year-olds today are the children of the 65-year-old hippies, which is... yeah. I give up.

You appear to be the one defending the totalitarian system of oligarchical rulership by financial centers and central banks.  I believe in the power of the people to rule themselves.


People not voting the way you want isn't tyranny. Did the people you know vote for Barack Obama and a Senate controlled by Democrats?  Those are the people you know?   The majority of the country will come around to the leftist point of view, conservative government and rulership by financial elites has not proven worthwhile.


I've linked a thread where I get more in depth on the details, it would be silly to go all over it in another thread when there is one still open with all that discussed.


Defense of the nation is a duty a Democratic government cannot ignore.  I am also a fan of our efforts in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya to overthrow authoritarian governments and replace them with the power of the people.  One of the greatest strengths of Democratic governments is the ability to triumph over the weaker systems of government in military conflict.

As for private charity, it is great and I do give some of my income towards it but governments are much better at total coverage.  Healthcare charity doesn't produce universal coverage of everyone in any country on Earth, only socialism does that.

You said, "And the things libertarians advocate in the name of being left alone are tremendously destructive to the rest of society." This pretty much implies that if you just let libertarians be, your society is somehow damaged.

What I mean is, the tea party isn't demanding that liberals join in their conservatism ELSE conservatism's plan fails. It means we leave liberals alone to be liberals. Our societal structure isn't damaged by liberals playing there own silly games off by themselves. Never once has a tea partier said, "No liberals! You can't pay more taxes! It fucks up society for the rest of us!"

However, every liberal argument starts with, "Everyone must do (X) or there's no chance (Y) can happen." Notice, most liberal arguments don't even imply that if everyone does (X), (Y) must happen. Only that we really really wish (Y) would happen and we are willing to demand any antecedent that pops into our heads.



You totally ignored everything I wrote about "properly educated" people failing miserably when given large scale responsibilities. Then you randomly switched the subject to not being "properly educated" as to empathy and that disqualifying people from having "free will". That was the lamest dodge ever. So I trolled you. Duh!

Either you tolerate every human's belief in their own free will. Or you don't get the courtesy of people like me respecting your right to declare your own free will. In no case do you get a free pass to declare there is a "proper free will" and a "delusional free will". That is a definition of tyranny.

If invading countries, toppling foreign governments, and bombing and murdering over a hundred thousands civilians is "defense of the nation," then such a nation is not worthy of defense.

Rarity - if you'd like to fund murder, please do it with your own money. Forcing me to pay for the murder of people around the world is abhorrent.

How are you defending America by bombing people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?

I'm quite certain my folks honored that election. And if you don't remember you folk had the House as well as the Senate. Then you fought amongst yourselves like children and failed to follow through on your own campaign promise. My folks then spoke loudly and took the House back. In a year, "we people" will speak loudly again and take back the Senate and the White House. The math already seem pretty clear on this.

And if it is hard for you to conceive, look no farther then the census. The people are voting with their feet, by moving to conservative states. Now there is a movement to "Occupy Detroit." My god people! You already OWN Detroit! There are no oligarchs left. All the conservatives are gone, the population has fallen by 50%. It's yours! Now fix it!

But don't try to tell me the left can't fix it without the right's help. We are already pretty clear on that.

Where are the 'efforts' of your Democratic government to overthrow authoritarian governments and replace them with the power of the people in places like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia? Just on the contrary, your efforts there are focused to preserve the status quo!

Hi folks, I know it can be hard to keep up with me sometimes so you really need to take a minute and carefully consider my words before jumping to conclusions.


The use of the word also here is to let you know I don't consider these two things to be exactly the same.  Overthrowing authoritarian terrorist supporting nations along with allies in NATO and at the UN is an act of defense of the world, not just of one country.

The murderers are the people like Saddam and Gaddafi and bin Laden, not the men and women who sign up to fight for justice and freedom in the armies of America and places like England and Germany and France.


I look forward to revolutions in these countries as well, their time will come.  Egypt proved the West doesn't always have to intervene. As powerful as the West is they can't save everyone at once.  Say what you will about Iraq and Libya but ridding the world of those dictators is a far cry from the status quo.  


Oh, your people are Republicans?  Oh, well I'm sure this time they will get it right and the tax cuts will fix the economy and we will be back to the paradise Republican rule left to Obama in 2008!

I can tolerate everything else you say. However, when you hide and/or defend murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians (practically genocide), that's when I draw the line. I am extremely disturbed by your undeterred patriotism and reverence of the state, Rarity.

If you find yourself in a position of power one day, may god (if he exists) help your subordinate's souls.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

You're defending the murders of over 100,000 people caused by the US's invasion. I can't even support that as an equitable opinion. It's disgusting.

Hiding murder of civilians, eh?  You seem very eager to forget Bush only acted because of the murder of thousands of American civilians in New York.  I guess a peacenik hippie like you would let that slide, but some of us have friends and family who live in New York and worked in or around those buildings.  

I guess hippie Atlas doesn't care about the millions of children who starved under the UN sanctions regime in Iraq.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/105/effects-of-sanctions

Life is never as simple as it seems through the lenses of simple ideology, leaders must make tough choices.  If people must die, it's better they die for freedom than to starve for nothing like you want Atlas. 

Destruction and vengeance builds nothing. It only destroys. We aren't even defending our interests anymore. We are only giving them more incentive to hurt us. We're the enemy now.

Anyways, the losses of 9/11 could of been prevented if the government acted on previous information. The government knew about the attacks before they happened! This could of all been avoided.

I guess hippie Atlas doesn't care about the millions of children who starved under the UN sanctions regime in Iraq.

Blind violence isn't an effective solution.

If being a hippy means not compromising when it comes to individual human lives, I'm a hippy.

And now you sweep away the guilt of the terrorists who murdered thousands and put the blame on Americans, the victims of the attack.  

Damn right, I am blaming the US government. The facts is they didn't do their job. They didn't do what we pay them to do and that is to defend our sovereignty in face of potential threats.

The terrorists were wrong but so was the government. They practically acted together.

Surely John McCain couldn't have done worse handling the responsibility. But yes, I'm looking forward to a return to paradise!

Look, I know it must have been a very scary day for little seven year old Atlas, but some of us were actually adults at the time and have looked in detail at the attacks.  You are espousing a fringe conspiracy theory without any actual basis in fact. One day I hope you can grow up, find The Bridge to Total Freedom like I did, and find some spiritual peace with yourself and the world.

When you falsely tell the murderer the government was his accomplice, you are defending him.  Stop it, it's offensive to the survivors.  They may have not seemed real to you, as a little kid watching this unfold, but they were.

There was never a paradise to begin with. The American government has been declining since 1913. The Clinton surplus was just shifting funds from social security to priorities.

Wake up people!

Controlling the flow of dwindling energy resources creates a situation where we can extort other nations into supporting our monetary structures.  By 'we', I mean largely the US, but other Western countries can ride along so they can (and do) help pull the wagon.  While there is some 'collateral damage', I doubt that that is the extent of the story...brutalizing and murdering occupied populations is a time-tested and often effective way of maintaining control.

I believe that it is appropriate to label our actions as 'defensive' and that lacking them we would have been forced to 'retreat' from our position on the world stage.  I believe that our actions are also highly unethical...and one of the more valid arguments for weaseling out of paying one's fair share of taxes.

You want facts; I'll give you facts. See you this evening at the P&S parking lot.

LOL!!
Yeah, by sending more americans to their death then the 911 attacks.
And it's still nothing compared to the deaths of local people in those countries.
It really is appalling and bush realy is a war criminal.
But he clearly stated that he rejects the international tribunal.
Go figure.

By freeing millions of people from tyranny and beginning the dismantling of Al Qaeda that Obama is finishing.  America's soldiers and allies knew exactly what they were getting in to, and don't need you to spit on their accomplishments.

You mean the Al Qaeda that was trained and weaponized by the US to fight for them against the russians?
That Al Qaeda?
...
I know, it's good that the US is cleaning up their shit.
But why so late?

It's like I am actually experiencing a news announcement from a telescreen after Two Minutes Hate.

Um, actually, when it came out that the CIA was cherry-picking evidence and sometimes outright lying, turns out not so much...

That has been slightly overstated.  Osama himself never directly received any funds from Americans.  Most of the funding for the fighters came through middlemen in Pakistan, and that is the country to look towards for training and weaponizing Al Qaeda, as if the fact that they sheltered  Osama for ten years after the attack was not evidence enough for that.  Again, the world is complex, sometimes reality just doesn't fall into the neat little anti-American storyline you wish it did.  It may be satisfying to hate on America, but when you ignore Pakistan you are again giving the true criminals a free pass.


Are you saying Al Qaeda was an imaginary threat?  Again, the thousands of people they murdered around the world might take issue with that.  In Atlas world I guess they just stop murdering on their own without need for military action because he was going to give them a flower or something.

Remember, we hate America for its 'freedom'.

Whether they are imaginary or not, I don't know. However, they were a good excuse to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians in the name of corporate and banking interests.

Nick Berg knows.  Sorry, knew.

History fail.
I was talking about the US seeding Al Qaeda during the cold war.

And i think the world is indeed complex, just much much more complex than your media screen allows you to see.
One of the privileges of living outside the US is seing the whole propaganda machine spin up and do it's work.
The real question about pakistan is why is it a problem in the first place.
Down the rabbit hole you go..

The terrorists who blew up the Twin Towers are at fault for their actions. The US Government which has been occupying, invading, and interfering in the Middle East for decades prior to 2001 is at fault for its actions.

You seem to think this conflict started ten years ago... the fact is that bin Laden attacked the US specifically because he opposed US actions in the Middle East. Read bin Laden's letter which was released shortly after the attack. Or do you only read the information the US officially puts out?

It is the US Government's policy which led to the attacks in 2001. The lesson we learned was, interfere even further in the Middle East, and waste trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives in the process.

And you, Rarity, want to steal my money to pay for that. Pretty uncivil of you.

And yet, despite the continuing wars, Bitcoin still continued to go up in value over the last two years (don't know how they are related, just trying to steer towards the OP)

So am I, you are the one who is ignorant of history and especially the long history of interference in Afghanistan by Pakistan.  Please educate yourself before attempting to engage on this issue any further.  Start at the most basic of Google searches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden#Mujahideen_in_Afghanistan

The ISI was and is the problem.  America's direct involvement in Afghanistan was limited, they used Pakistani middlemen and they funneled in the aid.  


The Unabomber wrote a bunch of stuff too, but in the end psycho terrorists who intentionally aim to kill civilians are just psycho terrorists.  They will find any excuse.  bin Laden did not speak for the people of the Arab world, as the Arab Spring has made very clear.


And YOU want to let psycho murderer religious nuts kill my family and get away with it without any response.

Yes, so because US used pakistan to fund a war, pakistan is the problem?
You don't see it as a problem that the US is manipulating countries to do their dirty work and when it all collapses they go out ans shoot some more themselfs?
:/

Rarity, for being a Londoner, you sure do care a lot about dead 9/11 Americans and America's wars... Why is that?

If the discussion is about creating and weaponizing Al Qaeda, yes, Pakistan was and is the problem.  America didn't let him live by one of their military bases for ten years, American agents didn't hand him weapons.


I'm originally from Clearwater, Florida. I just work here. :P

People in England do care about 9/11 though, English people died in the attacks and London has not forgotten the 7/7 bombings either.

Have some sympathy for people who lost ALOT of their hard earned money.

We don't need any sympathy. We'll make it back.

For once we are in agreement here.  Bitcoin will inevitably be going back up in price.  As long as you don't sell out now you haven't lost anything in the long term.

Ponder on those two statements for a while, Rarity. Many of the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by the fact that US military forces had blown up their family members.

Why is it okay for you to go abroad killing innocent people to avenge your family, but it is not okay for a Muslim to do the same?

3,000 innocent Americans were killed in the 9/11 attack. Tens of thousands of innocent Muslims have been killed in retribution.

Perhaps you'll realize some day that murdering a civilian is never okay, regardless of the skin color of the murderer.

Cite this claim.  Which of the hijackers?  Where and when did their family die?
-

Regardless, the US military does not target civilians and when civilians die the problem is investigated.  There is some collateral damage, often brought on by terrorists hiding in civilian areas intentionally or dictators intentionally creating a propaganda coup, but it is never the goal of US to intentionally target civilians to make a political point.  It is deeply offensive you compare the US Military who fights for the freedom of the world every day to cold blooded murderers.

Let me guess, you get your war news from this guy?

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

For those people the sky has already fell. The only ones talking about the sky falling are likely the ones that have no investment in Bitcoin, nor interest in it succeeding.

Of course, their time will come. We have to only wait for their oil fields to dry up... But I'm not sure which one will be first, the revolution in Saudi Arabia or the revolution in the US?

Egypt proved you have no idea what is happening now in Egypt. The censored media won't show you burning churches and dozens of dead bodies of Coptic Christians as the military crushed a Christian protest recently.

I'd suggest you start freeing millions of people from tyranny in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Start bombing, send missiles there and bring democracy! Keep the troops in the region. Bringing troops home is dangerous for it will further deteriorate unemployment situation and probably create the military wing of the OWS movement?!

Not necessarily, they could be just spreading fear because they profit from the current fiat money system and don't want to see Bitcoin become a success.

Are you saying Obama and his troops better not cross the Rubicon?

9/11 is a lie! The survivors and the relatives of the victims are amongst the most vocal critics of the official version of events and support a new investigation.

Either would be fine with me, it's time for the people to take back our economies.  


I am aware of these issues, they have in fact been reported in the media despite your conspiracy theory there.  The transitional government is seeking to end the tension.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/08/egypt-copts-muslims-clash-cairo

I also remember Muslims and Copts protecting each other while they prayed in Tahrir Square.  A minority of hardliners burning churches do not represent the people of Egypt and their struggle for freedom.


I would be happy to support freedom for all people.

I expect some of them are actually anticipating an up-turn in the price of Bitcoin, eventually, and wish to take as big a position as possible.

If such an up-turn in Bitcoin occurs it will be kind of fun to see how many of the same people will come back and crow about how smart they were and how much the guided the herd over the cliff.

In fairness, certain of these people have been consistent and vocal in their warnings about the decline in Bitcoin prices demonstrating that it is good practice to listen to and weigh all perspectives.  Another fraction, however, seem to be more of the Johnny-come-lately type riding the down-wave and hoping they look clever.

I'm not sure if that will be better and I'm not sure if Obama still has troops. I'm sure though the new government will try to keep all those troops far from home - Uganda, Upper Volta, Ivory Coast or whatever. It doesn't already matter if there is oil there or not. The important thing for the Wall Street government is to keep troops far from home. Yes, this is where the US government resides now. This is why people protest on Wall Street not in front of the White House in Washington! Coup d'etat took place in 2008 and the US government moved from the White House to the Wall Street. The so called QE's done by Fed are just ransom money paid by the fake government (at the expense of taxpayers) to the real government body on Wall Street.

Things don't seem to have changed much in my absence over the last couple of months.

Oh hey, we've got a "ignore user" feature now, that's cool!

Any they are experts...why, exactly? Cause they were there? If that's the case, I gotta find some better employment, cause I am pretty sure by those standards I can run the Fermilab particle accelerator; I went on a tour there once.

One would presume that those who lost family members are 'experts' on the details the 'official version' of 9/11 and how the report was generated because they would have tended to have paid more attention to these details than the average Joe.

But almost all of them took quite a generous settlement from the US Government on the condition that they forget it and move on as I recall.

It's not just the libertarians, who are relatively few, but the people who would take advantage of, say, the ability to not have to pay social security. You make stuff like that voluntary and it turns into a massive mess. You get rid of it entirely, and suddenly millions are trying to find affordable health insurance on the private market at age 70, when poor people these days can't even afford it at age 30.


They're demanding the defunding of just about every social program out there, so yes, that's exactly what they're doing. I've never had to use a social program in my life, but I'd rather know they're there in case I need them.


I'm sorry you seem to think this is 1700, but the world doesn't work like this anymore.



You mean that claptrap about the evil liberal universities? I had to shut it out of my head because the stupid was starting to hurt.  The difference between your two lists of universities isn't political, it's monetary. You listed a bunch of small state schools next to the most expensive, elite private universities in the U.S, and then acted surprised that the biggest banks in the country are controlled by people who graduated from the richest schools. Seriously?

You also randomly confuse liberals, socialists (me), and people trolling as pro-U.S. Imperialism Marxists, suggesting that, like most conservatives, you see the whole spectrum of left-wing political thought as one giant grey blob.

Which makes things really confusing when you see quotes like:


Every publisher in our totally-free-we-promise country decided to cut that quote off after the word "totalitarianism" on book jackets to protect you from the influence of anything even vaguely leftist. Which is kind of exactly the type of misleading censorship that Orwell warned us about, but oh well.

I think there's a pretty close correlation between the price of a Bitcoin and the currency's popularity.  Assuming that the wealth of the average Bitcoin user is roughly constant over time, we can assume that there is a more or less fixed amount of value V per user that the average user wants to keep in BTC form.  Suppose there are U users, and the Bitcoin price is P, and the number of coins outstanding is N (currently about 7.5 million, and growing slowly and steadily).  The total value of all Bitcoins in existence can then be expressed either as V*U (number of users times average value stored per user), or as P*N (price per coin times number of coins).  Thus, we have that V*U = P*N.  

Rearranging this equation, we find that the price P = U*(V/N), and thus we can see, the Bitcoin price P (measured in stable currency units) at any given time is directly proportional to the number of active users U at that time, given that V/N changes only relatively slowly over time.  Past users who have given up on BTC and cashed in all their coins don't count as "active users."

Since the price has been falling pretty steadily for a while now, and by quite a large amount, this tells me that more people have been giving up on Bitcoin and abandoning it, for various reasons, than are being newly drawn into it.  Thus, I'd say it's pretty fair to state that it is dying, at the moment.  

(Caveat: This situation could change pretty quickly if there were some emergent crisis in the traditional sovereign currencies, and lots of people were suddenly desperate to find someplace else to put their money.)

The problem is you see social security and health insurance as mandatory because unlike you, other people are too stupid to save for retirement or pay their own medical bills. What I'm telling you, is my retirement and my medical bills aren't your or anyone else's problem. I've relieved you of the burden of worrying about me. Now either ask for my help in taking care of "you" or go take care of yourself.

But don't randomly declare there is an entire class of "special" people who are entitled to me taking care of them. Without need even for them to ask me for help. That is the part of socialism that fucks things up for everyone.


Woot! You pay your own bills. But for some reason you feel warm and fuzzy thinking maybe one day you won't have to.


Sure it does. They are off protesting to themselves happy as clams. I drove past them the other day. I didn't run them down or throw tomatoes. But I didn't bother to go over and offer them free soup either. They're not homeless. They're camping.


The point was not the folks from the most elite highly respected universities run the biggest banks. The point was these folks of the most elite, most respect, most highly educated order, ran them into the ground. The point was those barely educated folks from middle America, turned out a shit load more ethical and competent at banking than the highly educated elite.

If we are going to "help the needy" the last thing we should do is but some Ivy League fuck head in charge of a massive government bureaucracy with highly implausible goals. The salvation army will get there faster, the food will be better and they won't require you to believe in their cause is just.


I don't confuse them at all. My maternal grandparents left Europe to get away from the Communists. My paternal grandparents left Europe to get away from the Socialists. And my parents left the East Coast to get away from the Liberals. It's really not that complicated. Each time we build something, you folks show up wanting it.


Quite frankly I never liked Orwell. Didn't really like Huxley either. Dystopias are for whiners.

Yes, some guy who works two minimum wage jobs just to put food on the table and has nothing left at the end of the month is too stupid to save for retirement. That's clearly the problem, not the fact that he doesn't have anything extra to save. I'm sure he'll have an awesome time trying to pay for private insurance as an elderly person.

Even if you blessed the whole population with incredible ambition and great education, we still have a massive service sector with jobs that need to be done no matter what. Those people work hard (even McDonald's is harder work than you'd think), but apparently they don't deserve any kind of decent standard of living or health care. You don't want a government to redistribute your money, but somehow you think billionaires do a good job of it?


How do you look at a 9% (effectively closer to 20%) unemployment rate and say something this stupid? Those people who have applied for hundreds of jobs and found nothing? Lazy. The ones who work jobs that pay so little that they qualify for government assistance? Also lazy. The fact that when you adjust for inflation, worker salaries have actually gone down over the past 30 years even though productivity soared and CEO salaries went up by an order of magnitude? Probably also the fault of lazy workers.


I have no idea what this means in the context of half the population of America. I guess when you don't know anyone with views to the left of Limbaugh, it's easy to argue against what you imagine their beliefs to be. Or what AM radio told you their beliefs are.


Where did I say that Ivy League educations were superior? I just said we needed more education. And a whole lot of those small college guys are corrupt, too - it just doesn't make national news. And of course bailout money didn't only go to the biggest banks. Over 1,000 banks took bailout money, and over 100 of those have since failed.


Your personal opinion of Orwell isn't the issue. The fact that we censor him and use him to indoctrinate kids against all leftist thought, when he was both a leftist and highly opposed to censorship, is. It shows that your free country ain't quite as free as you think, but hey, it looks like you're fine with that.

The problem I have with Liberals (and I guess Socialists too) is they never ask for anything that solves the problem.

Why don't we raise the minimum wage to a level where everyone can pay for their own health care, and can save for their own retirement. Why do we need to build government bureaucracies to get in the way? Certainly you can't think the government saves money through efficiency.


I don't have to look at the 9%. I am one of the 9%. But I still pay my own bills. Therefore, I'm entitled to say it.


If a CEO gambles millions of dollars of stock holders money on new machinery so that three workers can do sitting down what twenty workers used to break their backs over. And the gamble pays off by lowering expenses and increasing production. And his gamble both pays back the capital investment and returns extra profit. Then who deserves a reward? Who would take the fall if the decision turned out badly?

Don't give me abstract CEOs get rich. Workers get poor. Plenty of CEO's got fired. Plenty of workers started their own companies and became CEOs. In between, lots of workers stopped getting chewed up by antiquated machinery.

Nobody ever was lazy. But you don't earn what you want. You earn slightly more than what you can be replaced for.


It means I deliberately don't live with those people. It is a fallacy that conservatives don't understand the view of the left. We do. We often have the same goals. However, we think the mechanisms you propose for meeting our shared goals, are wacko. Most of us are too busy to talk to wackos.


There is a general liberal pattern that goes, 1) we have a problem. 2) find the smartest guy. 3) believe he'll save us. 4) everyone must do exactly as he says.

The results are invariably. 1) we still have the problem. 2) the smartest guy was the wrong choice. 3) the left blame the right for the failure because they didn't believe strongly enough. 4) the right blames the left because they made everyone do stupid shit that didn't solve the problem.


Really, this is a prime example of the point I'm trying to make.

It is not enough that we make every damn teenager in the country read Orwell. Now you want to piss and moan because we are not demanding he be read for the right (oops) left reasons.

This is an unreasonable demand. You will never have enough intel on anything as an ordinary citizen, it's just about insight (e.g. Why do you think they committed a murder-suicide?). I could ask the same question to you about all the non-existent and made up intelligence you have, that made you attack secular dictatorships to make them become religious shitholes. If you were so interested in fixing the region, why did you use Iraq against Iran, why did you stand by while your vehicle of destruction killed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians and used chemical weapons against them? Despite the fact that you were fully aware of the chemical weapons used by Iraq, you decided to shift the blame to Iran instead. And when they made peace with Iran, you attacked Iraq because they used chemical weapons? How convenient is that? And tell me when did peoples of these two nations ever were a threat to your security? Sorry, but you have been gamed.

These examples can go on and on, and are not at all specific to the US. Is it too hard to comprehend that there has been an increasing amount of people that would sacrifice themselves in order to harm you? Are those the ones that are being gamed?

I witnessed (sort-of, I was always in the next building or next block) a couple of suicide bombings myself, some were nationalistic (mostly left-oriented) and some were Islamic terrorism (interestingly enough, Islamic ones not only target synagogues, but also banks, so this is not entirely off-topic). In both cases, the common denominator was that the attackers were totally hopeless regarding their goals. This theme is almost universal in suicide bombing cases. Granted, the bombers themselves could be misled by their leaders, but they aren't the only responsible party here.

Don't get me wrong, I don't sympathize with violence at all. My point is, the threat of "religion" or "brainwashing techniques" are imaginary. Leaders of both sides use nationalism, religion, patriotism or whatever to orient their subjects to attack the other side for their own interest. Don't you at least agree with this?

Back to the previous layer of discussion, financing these wars is not something I want to work for. That's why I think taxes are not fair. I should be able to donate my money to whatever cause I choose. I guess libertarian way is to vote with your money, and it makes sense to me. It's not the only way of course. There could be an amalgamation of public not-for-profit services and private businesses, but the State is a no-no for me.

Back to Bitcoin? I guess it's very tangential. Bitcoin still helps if you have a socialist agenda, if only with banking cartels, unless you specifically want to prevent all free business.

Anyway, feel free to delete my post if you find it off-topic.

Hey, I'd love to see a raise in the minimum wage. Try to find a Republican politician who agrees with me. Many of them these days are calling the very idea of a minimum wage unconsitutional (nevermind that the Supreme Court rejected that argument 70 years ago).

Of course, you'd have to do a tad bit more than raise the minimum wage to afford a $100,000 operation on a minimum wage salary that's currently closer to $14k a year.


With what? Family money? Savings from previous jobs? Savings that would be impossible for someone who never had a good job to begin with? Family money that doesn't exist when your family has none?


How many workers get a severance package that's 20 times more than what an average worker makes in a lifetime? Because that's what CEOs are getting these days. Is it really that much of a risk if your punishment for failure is a lifetime of being a multi-millionaire who doesn't have to work? If so, where can I sign up for this horrible risk?

A CEO's worst failure is a common man's Powerball Jackpot. This is the system you're defending.


Again, this is what you imagine things to be. There is a range of opinion on the left, even in America. Meanwhile, politicians on the right are all taking scores of "purity tests" to ensure they all have exactly the same views. Which one sounds more like a rigid, unquestioned orthodoxy to you?

I hate having to even defend Democrats because they're nearly as corrupt as the Republicans, but it's a simple fact that their base represents many more diverse points of view than the Republican base.


Actually, I'm saying you shouldn't be twisting authors' messages and lying about their beliefs to fit your own agenda. Nobody on the left is trying to posthumously turn Ayn Rand into a liberal.

If you believe in my right to rule myself, then you should agree that I decide whatever to do with my life, what includes the result of my labor, i.e., my money. And if I decide not to give my money to an armed group that I don't approve, that's nothing more than I ruling myself.

But I've read other of your posts in this thread, and no, you don't believe in the right of people ruling themselves. You support direct, brutal violence. You're a sociopath. I was correct when I said people like you are the reason totalitarian governments ever came to be. Your other posts make it even more clear.

I earned my money. My money is my business. But feel free to feel sorry for me if you want. I'd give you a Bitcoin address for donations, but hey I'm not a leftist!



I googled for you. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States)
The median annual earnings for a CEO in the United States were $140,350.
The Wall Street Journal reports the median compensation for CEOs of 350 major corporations was $6,000,000 in 2005 with most of the money coming from stock options.

Notice the part that says from stock options. That means the compensation comes directly from folks who buy the stock the CEO sells. It does not come out of the pocket of employees. Stock options mean, employees have the option to buy stock at the same price as the day the option was granted. If the CEO does well, he benefits. If he does poorly, he doesn't. As for golden parachutes. That is really between the stock holders and the board of directors. They have to pay those bills.



That is because there is a lot more ways to be wrong than there are to be right!



I didn't say squat about Orwell except that I didn't enjoy reading him. If he couldn't get his own message across in all those pages, please don't mandate I read the cliffs notes as well!

Ayn Rand...  Now that was a Utopia in Dystopian clothing!  I hope you read Atlas and are not just babbling on about it.
Can you imagine the outcry if we tried to make Atlas required reading! You liberals are really quite lucky Ayn made John Galt an atheist! (Which I am by the way. Yes, that's right. An educated southern conservative atheist. Us Republicans are all the same!)

Anyway, It's been fun pushing your buttons. I'll leave you to your dark dreary delusions, and I'll get back to my bright cheerful reality. :)

In other words, ignore my question, ignore my point, ignore the poor. You've actually ignored just about everything I've said about the poor in my last couple posts. More compassionate conservatism, I guess (lol, how long did that phrase last before you guys couldn't keep a straight face anymore). Fuck you.

It is worse than that. It is coming from taxpayers! And if your employees are taxpayers, yes, it does come out of the pocket of employees!

Tax payers pay for all newly printed money that the Fed gives to banks and different plunge protection teams that constantly and massively intervene in the stock market to not allow it to fall and go where it deserves to go (and keep market above option strike price. otherwise options will be worthless). This is the way people and their pension savings are robbed nowadays. This state of the economy is also known as biflation - During Biflation, there's a rise in the price of commodity/earnings-based assets (inflation) and a simultaneous fall in the price of debt-based assets (deflation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biflation

Yes, some people are poor. What makes them poor is they have less money then the middle class. Who are middle class because they have less money than the rich. I'm in that chain well below rich.

If you fall on hard times, your family helps, your friends help, your neighbors help, your local community helps. You do what you can to be productive and help the people helping you. If they seem to be doing well while you are mysteriously unsuccessful you take their advice and quit fucking up. Yes, sometimes you lose your shit. But unless you are a real fuck up, you always have your family, friends, neighbors, and community. If you are such a sorry fuck that none of those people will help you. Then you ask a church for help. And when people who have pledged their eternal souls to helping those in need give up on you. Well then... Why the fuck should I give a fuck about you!

Most every argument I've ever had about such things tends to come down to dignity. "Why should I have to lower myself to ask for help?" Isn't the fact that "I'm in need" enough?

NO! It's not fucking enough! Ask for fucking help when you need fucking help. If no one will help you, it's not because the rest of the world is a bunch of bastards. It's because no one sees value, for you, in the path you've chosen for your life, AND you are not even attempting to provide any assistance to others. If nobody will help you, then they are giving you advice. Take it. Change your ways. Be decent. Be useful to someone. And quit fucking whining.

You know what's great about common people? They can only fuck up in minor easily fixable ways.
You know what's scary about leftists who give organizations nationally critical responsibilities? They fuck up in massively catastrophic ways.

The fuck ups have ZERO to do with motivation or belief in the right cause. It has nothing to do with absolute power corrupting absolutely.

The folks that fucked up the mortgage situation really were trying to help those who didn't own a home to buy a home. Those people were elected democratically by the people to work for the people, and they were. They were honestly trying to do that job in the way they saw as most helpful. They created massive bureaucracies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They promised *all us citizens* would guarantee repayment of mortgages defaulted on by random anonymous needy citizens who didn't have to convince their neighbors of their need or even shared commitment to the community. All they had to do was fill out a government form and "poof" they were in need. It is a dignity thing. People in need shouldn't have to publicize their need. They should just magically get the help "they need". And they did.

And how many needy but too dignified to ask people did there turn out to be? A SHIT LOAD!

It wasn't wanting to help that fucked things up. It was changing a need into an entitlement solely to preserve the dignity of the potential needy that fucked things up. It was using anonymous bureaucrats evaluating forms by well defined but ill conceived rules. It should have been folks with a vested interest looking other people directly in the eyes.

For christ sake people got loans for 9X their annual salary with no money down. Terms that didn't even required them to pay the full interest on the loan! Your folks (leftists/liberals/socialists) made me guarantee these anonymous "sweet heart" loans.

Now the needy but too dignified to ask for help are defaulting on their loans. Why? Because without the prospect of others getting even better "sweet heart" loans, no one is left to buy their home and relieve them of the debt that YOUR FOLKS made me entrust to them.

And you are asking me to feel sorry for the defaulter you shouldn't have given the loan to. And the builder you shouldn't have started building. And the real estate agent you shouldn't have started selling. And the home depot guy you shouldn't have started improving. Fuck yeah all of these people used to be doing great! You were giving them my money for free!

---

The moral of the story is, don't trust ANY body or ANY organization with the power to fuck things up for EVERYBODY. Not Republicans. Not Democrats. Not even fucking God. Because whoever is given that responsibility will eventually fuck things up for everybody.

Spread the responsibility around even at the risk of non-optimality and non-conformance. Evolution shows that works best over the long term. Individuals will fuck up. We can fix individual fuck ups. Even leftists. But gather them all together and put their brightest in charge... That is a fuck up we cannot fix.

---

So you want to know why I'm out of work?

Because I don't feel like fucking working. I quit. I live off of my personal savings from having been productive and having delayed personal gratification. Now I get to smile and be happy. I do what I fucking want (including trolling web forums). I pay my "fair share" of taxes, which thanks to your folks was actually negative last year. Yes, I quit work out of spite, and your folks gave me an earned income credits. (Woot! Go Left!)

And you know what? I'm not going to pay off the loans you made me guarantee. Nope. Not a penny.

You see, there's this valley in Colorado...
well that's another story.

Anyone who lost their hard earned money investing/speculating/mining Bitcoins did so of their own free will.

Anyone crying about it now and blaming it on manipulators/speculators/early adopters/the Bitcoin "rich" or anyone other than themselves needs to take some personal responsibility.

I started accumulating around the time that Mt. Gox was down, and in a relatively hurried manner because I was concerned that it would become harder to do for regulatory reasons, and also was worried about the price going up.  I've been wrong about both, and am obviously deeply in the red.  Nobody should feel the least bit of sympathy for me since I was fully aware of the risk and even the developers warned strongly of the possibility when they mentioned it at all.  If anything people should be snickering at my condition and that is perfectly fine with me.  If anyone loses money going the other way, you can bet I'll be doing so.

But that why there are companies like bit-pay.