But the real problem is: Government can not print money, only central banks can, government is as poor as some jobless people who have to borrow a lot to spend Now that's a silly statement. Central banks can print money because the Governments say they can. |
|
|
|
IT'S NOT THAT HARD
Ex of how the economy gets fixed:
Minimum wage skyrockets, bigger than it ever did during bushes administration (ex: $12-15)
Job creators are forced to open their banks, sell stocks, etc (stop hording)
The market flows, but inflation strikes... Job creators want more money now that they have to pay more
BUT THEN the government taxes more (not enough to counter the minimum wage increase), but enough to start to put a dent in the national debt
Job creators freak out and start hoarding again
Inflation eventually stops, and the dollar stabilizes. Due to the hoarding.
Can we call this "Shaggian Economics"? "Cannabis School" |
|
|
|
I'd thought that the "gun control" conversations got heated and rude. Who'da thought there'd be way more rudeness about computer OS's, eh myrkul?
Well, maybe Tonko is Bill Gates. Would explain a few things. |
|
|
|
|
Many people, when faced with the reality of personal responsibility, prefer to let magical sky beings take responsibility for the difficulties in their life.
That's cool, to each their own. Just as long as they don't try to push those beliefs on me and mine.
As to the OP, Bitcoin is not the "one currency to rule them all" from Revelations. I'd be more worried about RFID chips, frankly. Those things are going to be showing up everywhere pretty soon.
|
|
|
|
Closed source = small number of brains working on problems.
Open source = large (potentially as large as the user base) number of brains working on problems.
I know which I'd rather have.
That such a PC fairyland, I'm embarrassed at myself replying. Well, I'd hardly call that a "reply," so I guess you can save your embarrassment. |
|
|
|
Or because they know that as soon as a bug is found, people get to work on fixing it, and it gets sent up and down stream as soon as someone's fixed it?
I mean, that's why I prefer Linux.
That it's free is a bonus.
That is as idealized as "Navy, the Global Force for Good". Yes, they do something but probably don't really know what are they really doing. That needs brain, not zillions of fixes to JS libraries. Closed source = small number of brains working on problems. Open source = large (potentially as large as the user base) number of brains working on problems. I know which I'd rather have. |
|
|
|
I know russians. They use libertarian propaganda to destabilize USA society. Russian goals are not libertarian in long terms but you know everything goes for them as a tool of manipulation.
So let me see if i understand your theory. they are threatening the us government with mutually assured destruction by threatening to unleash a libertarian philosophy bomb? i like this theory! Whole cold war there was a operations by both sides to introduce dissent in enemy population. Hmm... Do no actual Russians watch RT? And if the US came crashing down, and an AnCap society replaced it, wouldn't that kinda spell the doom for Russia, too? |
|
|
|
Yes, some MS stuff is very efficient, but most people like being able to apply patches to broken things themselves, and to not have to wait for MS to fix it. That's why so many people like Linux/JS/Python.
I myself use Linux.
Most people can't fix anything in the first place because they don't know how to write code. They use Linux and JS/Python because they are dirt poor and at best have some technical education, so they can dream about themselves being coders. Cheapo startups also like the same crap because investors are cheap, wanting cheap labor. Or because they know that as soon as a bug is found, people get to work on fixing it, and it gets sent up and down stream as soon as someone's fixed it? I mean, that's why I prefer Linux. That it's free is a bonus. |
|
|
|
but those are similar:
- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.
both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.
the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.
So... Given the choice between a stable economy and hyperinflation, you'd prefer to have Zimbabwe? why do you assume there will be hyperinflation? Let me ask you something. If you could pull an infinite amount of money from your wallet, every purchase could be covered just by reaching into your pocket, would you voluntarily limit the price and quantity of things you bought? Or would you have a gold-plated toilet, just because you could?
http://www.scragged.com/articles/yes-virginia-a-298-hammer-really-costs-our-government-100Because inflation is addictive, and just like heroin, once you get started, it takes more and more to get the same effect. |
|
|
|
but those are similar:
- in both you dont pay taxes directly
- you have to pay for services in first case using inflation to government which is responsible for delivering them and in the second case pay for services directly.
both cases i like because they are simple and don't require hiring hundreds of people (we have to pay for) who are operating everything tax related and most importantly they don't waste my time on bureaucracy.
the biggest difference would be what currency will be used with anarchy: inflationary or deflationary. at last we can choose.
So... Given the choice between a stable economy and hyperinflation, you'd prefer to have Zimbabwe? |
|
|
|
What does the cheque do?
Senbon ninja'd me, but yeah, it's a transferable paper wallet. |
|
|
|
well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea.
they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one  If I presented you with a system that is demonstrably better than either of those two options, would you consider it? you are asking me like i can decide which one we will use hehe  sure im open for anything Good. Then we can end this thread with a simple link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalismNo taxes, no inflation, and best of all, no jack-booted thugs. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. |
|
|
|
I've [...] reported myrkul.
How very anarchist of you. Your shirt is looking very neat and ironed and black. Don't you mean brown? |
|
|
|
well maybe i missed it somewhere but i dont see anybody coming with a better idea.
they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one If I presented you with a system that is demonstrably better than either of those two options, would you consider it? |
|
|
|
they will break, exactly my point: if both systems are bad then i choose the simpler one If I presented you with a system that is demonstrably better than either of those two options, would you consider it? |
|
|
|
The natural result of that train of thought is that economies of scale, left alone, will result in monopolies for everything. Yet, we don't see evidence for this in the real world. Standard Oil, the poster child for this kind of thinking, had, at it's peak, only 88% of the refining market. By the time the regulation came through, they were down to 61%. How to explain this? I don't know whether this is true, since you didn't provide any source, but even if it is - and it might very well be - I don't think this example says anything. People are still discovering new oil today, so the market was not saturated yet, like it was in my corn fields example. I'm guessing this was the case in your example. Somebody just found new oil. At one point the market would be saturated though. You didn't read, did you? They didn't have 88% of the drilling. they had 88% of refining. That means the people who found new oil came to them to refine it. (I misremembered, btw, it was actually 64%, not 61% when the regulation came through.) As for the source, here you go: http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Standard_Oil You can track down the references yourself, if you have a mind to. And even if this was not the case, a monopoly or cartel might have still been the end result. It wasn't exactly the end of history, was it? Bitcoin dropped 10% today. Given your flawless logic I assume you've sold all of it, and are not gonna buy back in, right? Surely the trend could never reverse again.
Uh... what? I take this to mean that you assume that they could have gone from 64% back up to 88% or more? Also, it's astonishing how the biggest corporations on planet earth seem to have no problems with these economies of scale you are mentioning, isn't it? Even though that flawless theory is based on such elaborate research:
Well, they have government to regulate their industry, and keep competition from horning in on their business, don't they? They still suffer from diseconomies of scale, but with the competition kept out of the market, their inefficiency doesn't limit their size. If not for the regulations raising the barriers to entry, they could never expand beyond their "ideal" size. I'm sorry about the sarcasm, but you're argumentation is a joke. You cherry pick your sources with the sole intention of reaffirming your own preconceptions, and are not really interested in any other point of view except for debunking it (and doing a bad job at doing so). And the worst part is that you have a very supercilious way of doing it. Your personal incredulity of the science of economics does not mean that I am failing to debunk your fallacies, or even doing a poor job of it. It just indicates that you are unwilling to examine any other point of view. |
|
|
|
Technically, im always online with my Xbox anyway, but the fact that my kinect needs to watch me while we are watching a movie or have sex on my couch is kind of annoying.
 |
|
|
|
yes but this examples doesnt factor two things:
- cheaper country which have way less officials
- different economy that is free from taxes
besides i dont know what they were doing with money they printed... bought stocks?
Let me ask you something. If you could pull an infinite amount of money from your wallet, every purchase could be covered just by reaching into your pocket, would you voluntarily limit the price and quantity of things you bought? Or would you have a gold-plated toilet, just because you could? |
|
|
|
Would it be possible to create our own Bitcoin COUNTRY, where it is self-sufficient and dependent on bitcoin?
Well, the simple answer is no. But if you think about it, we're already in that country. It's called "The internet." |
|
|
|
What if government would just stop collecting taxes. Imagine how simpler life would be. No bureaucracy, no vat, way less officials, nobody fighting money laundering, way simpler economy and businesses without traps. In exchange government would simply print as much money as they need and spend for education, health care and everything they wish. Its that simple. What do you think?  What about inflation? (Zimbabwe, they printed too much money) well they are printing anyways? now they have more public debt and they are fighting people who avoid taxes, if there would be no taxes then nobody would have to avoid them and inflation would hit everybody equally everything can be calculated: how much it cost to collect taxes, how much is lost because people are avoiding them and what inflation printing would make I'm going to drop some names. Wiemar Germany Zimbabwe Chile Nicaragua Greece Hungary Those are all examples of why this is a bad idea. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
