Hmm... Ca part un peu HS ad persona vu que je vois pas en quoi mon trading BTC est contraire à ma vision révolutionnaire de la société? Ni le rapport avec le sujet.
Mais je vous en prie si ça vous fait plaisir de m'insulter je vous propose d'aller un petit peu plus loin. Vous vous contentez de me traiter de suce boule et mythomane, pourquoi ne pas en profiter pour ajouter des insultes physiques (ça marche toujours bien les insultes sur le poids par exemple)? De feignant aussi, on peut y aller avec le côté parasite, hypocrite et autre, ça marche toujours bien sur les gens de gauche. Ah et mettez un petit coup de racisme discrètement ça fait toujours du bien par où ça passe.

Je suis toujours ravi de servir de défouloir à des anonymes du net, si ça peut vous faire vous sentir un peu mieux c'est toujours ça

Ah donc questionner l'efficacité d'une méthode que tu étales à nos yeux et dont tu vantes les mérites en demander des preuves de son efficacité c'est "une guerre infantile".

Fort bien, merci de mettre à jour mon vocabulaire.

Oui moi aussi ça me fait chier de constater que les gains en USD ne suivent pas du tout les gains en BTC xD

Marrant comme ceux qui font de l'AF n'ont aucun problème à annoncer leurs chiffres quand ceux de l'AT sont en mode "noooooooooooooon mais c'est pas ce qui est importaaaaaaaaaaaaant"...

You're making one huge appeal to emotions here by making an enumerations of very specific facts, too specific. No other country has ever done this, not even USSR. Here if being a socialist country would mean all of this was true, then ONLY Nazi Germany would have been socialist. You see my point?

You're trying to put one single word on the broad concept of "government is heavily intervening in the economy". That's not possible or at least, that's not really usefull.
Sorry the answer didn't fit well in the last post.

No country has implemented a 100% socialist system I believe but it's the same for capitalism, no country is 100% capitalism and free market.

France is a good example with whole parts of the economy being totally socialist. The retirement and health systems were (they got nearly completely destroyed in the last two decades) under the direct control of the unions, which is MUCH CLOSER to direct control because we had hundreds of different unions all very locally implemented and managed. The results were extremely successfull because France had (still has in fact but things are changing) one of the best healthcare system in the world and one of the lowest poverty level of retired people while dedicating a very small part of its wealth to it. (for the healthcare it's 10% of GDP against 15% of GDP in a capitalist system like USA if I remember correctly).

Now with modern technology it would probably be possible to go even one step further in socialism by putting parts of the economy not under the control of the unions but directly under the control of the people, and blockchain could be a part of this.

So that's a good example of socialism. Until the last presidents, we had an important part of the economy that was not in the free market, but neither under the control of the executive government. It was owned by the unions which were owned by the people directly. Can we get rid of the unions and go for direct control? I'd say so.

Edit: I'd like to make my auto critic (very communist behaviour :p ) by saying that I'm not trying to say socialist is awesome here. You asked for an example and I gave you the French one, discussing the result would be discussing how effective capitalism/socialism can be and it's not the subject. Socialism has pros and cons and so has capitalism (mainly a question of freedom against justice). But socialism is a very specific social organization that has been experimented in just a few situations. Still, lots of people are doing exactly what you are saying here, and calling "socialist" what are simply dictatorships. In a dictatorship the government owns everything yes, but the government is one man, not the people.

Ah ben merde, on s'en fout de savoir si l'AT réussi à gagner de l'argent?
Zut alors, du coup c'est pour quoi faire?

Again, not my definition:


You're just like Trump, it's always hard to know if you're lying in bad faith or just being plain stupid.

So that was not my definition and I haven't changed it. Now could you explain how I'm using the word "socialism" in order to qualify what I feel is good and disqualify the rest before changing subject?

Because that was your last accusation even if as usual you try to change subject rather than answer with honest arguments.


No I'm not ignoring it, it's just that when you say "collectivization" it can be understood in two ways:
-either as "nationalized" which means a part of the economy must be owned by the government, and that seemed to be your meaning here
-either as "under control of the population" which would be my understanding of the word

If we go with the "nationalized" then yes Nazis were socialists that's just factual.

But what I'm trying to say is that it's not a very useful word if that's the case. Because if for you, any country where the government owns parts of the economy is a socialist country (I'm not going to be of bad faith, let's say "important parts of the economy" because obviously there can some exceptions) then:
-Iran is a socialist country
-Nazi Germany was a socialist country
-China is a socialist country
-USSR was a socialist country
-France is a socialist country
-India is a socialist country
-ISIS is a socialist country
-Lybia is a socialist country

So... You have all the right to use socialist in this meaning. It just seems a bit empty and useless when you can qualify France, Iran, ISIS and China by the same word.
Hell, by this meaning even USA might be called socialist, I don't know your economy well enough to be able to say so though.

I would lean towards the second meaning of the word socialist which is much more interesting and different. And under this meaning, Nazis were not socialist.

C'est pas de la polémique à deux balles. Californiaquail a raison.

On parle du truc le plus facile à mesurer au monde. C'est bien simple ta fameuse AT n'a QU'UN OBJECTIF: t'aider à gagner de l'argent.
Donc si ta fameuse AT est aussi puissante que tu le prétends, ça doit être simpliste pour toi de prouver qu'elle l'est. Montre nous donc ton trade history et tes gains, avec les analyses qui t'ont poussé à faire ces trades.

Moi je ne fais que de l'AF et je peux faire ça. Enfin si quelqu'un m'explique comment faire un export sur Kraken parce que je vais pas faire ça à la main faut pas déconner xD

Je suis passé de 1.72BTC déposé il y a 6 mois à 2.46BTC aujourd'hui soit un gain net de 43% grâce à l'AF.

Même si contrairement à toi, je ne prétends pas que c'est la méthode qui est responsable de ce gain. Je pense qu'elle aide, mais je crois aussi que je tiens plus du gambler que du trader et que la chance y est pour énormément dans ce succès.

Mais toi Yaplatu tu nous dis pratiquer l'AT depuis des années et tu nous dis aussi que nous sommes idiots de ne pas vouloir s'éduquer dessus, montre nous donc ton succès grâce à l'AT.

C'est fou quand même que l'AT soit aussi utile et pourtant que les pro AT ne soient pas tous devenus riches depuis le temps non?

Now if that's not a black or white logical fallacy then I don't know what it is...
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

You know it's possible to have a non governmental organization managing parts of the country while not being the government?
That's what the unions were doing in France until very recently for example. They were "just" managing the whole retirement funds. 14% of the GDP, nothing big of course...

The government is the group of people managing the executive power. I don't see why you couldn't have a non executive organ directly controlled by the people managing parts of the economy, which is exactly what Marx called collectivization.

Ok this is so purely factual that even the biggest Trumptards won't be able to deny it. I'm still putting it in self mod because you never know what TECSHARE is able of though...

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/01/politics/donald-trump-category-5-hurricane-dorian/index.html

So in a speech Trump says that he's not even sure that he heard about a category 5 hurricane like the Dorian one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVB6fqr4SFI

Ok, why not? After all you don't have to be a scientist to be POTUS and it's a good way to say "wahou it's an unexpected unprecedented event that we have to deal with" so why not.

The problem is that he said THE EXACT SAME THING ALREADY THREE TIMES!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeVCka26BTE

He said exactly that already for the 3 other category 5 that have hit USA while he was in office.

So that's at least 3 times where the guy is lying to his whole country. But why?

My theory here is that he'd rather appear as a moron that admit that such extreme meteorological events are happening more and more which could mean that climate change might not be a Chinese invention.

You see another reason why he would be lying in such obvious way?

My bad I didn't know that giving a definition and applying it to something was pathos, but using an obvious logical fallacy was logos.

It's amazing the amount of double standards that you're able to hold as one single individual!

Ok so for you a socialist country is any country where the government owns part of the economy that's it?

If that's your definition then yes Nazis were socialists indeed.


I'm more interested into digging your vision of the word, I have no intent to make a political campaign here ^^


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Sure, do you want me to give you my account so you can directly write down what I should be saying? That's would be even easier.
I've never changed the definition I give of socialism so I don't see how the hell your false accusation is anything but a shitty rethorical trick to make me look like I'm incoherent.

Sorry who are this "they" you're using?

Again, the only person owning the means of production in Nazi Germany was Hitler, the only person owning the means of production in USSR was Staline.

That's collectivisation for you?

BAM!!!

StarenseN qui vient de remettre tout le monde à sa place avec le gros bias bearish en ce moment!

Moi je dis que ça commence à sentir bon, je ressors plus de là. Ca tombera peut-être à 6k oui oui mais peu importe, on descend gentiment jusqu'au moment où ça va vraiment péter.

Very happy for the British.

I think Brexit is a shitty idea and will not have nice outcomes for the British, but that was their choice and it should be respected. Those fuckers were really trying to deny the most democratic procedure we have in the West and I'm glad they were beaten like the assholes they are.

Better die the way you chose that living the way you're told.

None, that's more or less the point you know?

What's funny is people making fun of the argument "it's not real socialism" while it's not the argument at all, the argument is "it's a dictatorship, not socialism".

And what's even funnier is to see people like you or TECSHARE giving a definition of socialism, not being able to apply this definition to said country and still wanting to put the word socialism on it xD

That's not difficult science, you have a definition with precise criterias, you apply it to a situation and see if the situation fits the definition.

What is socialism? Collectivisation of means of production, it means the factories (at least) are owned and controlled by the population.

Was it the case in USSR? Is it the case in China? Or in Nazi Germany?

No.

So those countries are not socialist countries unless you have another definition of socialism. But contrary to what TECSHARE is lying about, I'm not the one with a bizarre definition of socialism, you were the one giving this definition.

Wahou, a dictator admiring another dictatore, that must mean they are both dictators no?

How so?

Never changed the definition of the term.

Socialism is when you have a society where means of productions are collectively possessed.

That's all. I don't see a debate here. Only you and iluvbitcoin trying to fit the Nazis inside this definition, which is obviously difficult yeah ^^

Exactly. And who was "the German government" under the Nazis?

Were they the people? Was it the population?

No, the government was Adolf Hitler and anyone he gave power to. The means of production were not collectively controlled they were controlled by one man.

That's not collective control of means of production hence not socialism.

Wtf? You're completely out of your mind xD

HK protests are not against China they're against life conditions in HK at the moment. People are getting more and more poor it's more or less the same protests than in Europe right now.
And China never shot live munition on HK protests for the very simple reason China hasn't done anything there yet, it's one HK police officer who panicked and shot live munition.

What's happening in HK is just a population getting tired of the inequalities and cost of life that's all. And their government suppressing them.

haven't you seen that in all the Western world governments are using more and more force against their own people? If HK protestors should be "person of the year" as you say then what about the Europeans fighting every week? What about Chile?

It's just that USA put the spotlight on HK to blame China. Nothing more.

You already explained why Nazis aren't socialists.

You said Socialism is the collective control of large scale production.

Was there a collective control of large scale production under Nazis rule?

Answer is no. Thus they are not socialists.

I don't understand why you're not even seeing your own contradiction honestly Oo