Only Fabian PC faggots call them Roma, which is actually a kind of firm, tasteless tomato. Everyone else calls them Gypsies and is tired of their mooching, violence, disgusting lack of sanitation, and antipathy towards education or any other form of cultural/individual betterment. But you keep demanding 'More Free Shit' for them, and calling any who object Nazis. Meanwhile, we'll get some nice, warm ovens ready for you and the rest of the socialists, Marxists, and fellow travellers.  So you're racist and homophobic... If Hitler was still alive he'd be proud that there are people like you still gracing the world with our presence. |
|
|
|
On infrastructure: the philosophy works as follows: if it's something we need, we will naturally pay for the luxury. If we don't need it or don't want it, we'll naturally not pay. Lets say there's a bridge we often cross to get from our side of town to work; we need this bridge, for without it, we might have to drive way the fuck around into another city to get to our place of employment; we'd waste more gas this way than we would if we chipped in to collectively own and take care of the bridge, and so it makes more sense to take care of the bridge so we have it, than not; likewise, only people who liked the bridge would want to pay for it, since everyone else in the city who didn't ever use the bridge would not be subject to pay for what they'd never use. Alternatively, the bridge could be owned and operated at a profit to the owner, who would have a vested interest in ensuring his bridge remained both in service and in repair; I personally don't like toll bridges but I especially don't like them when they were built with my tax money. Anyway, ultimately, people would have to become more interested in the world around them for this to work; as it stands, you could live in a bubble, and the roads would still be fine. Freedom isn't cheap, but at least you'll know your cash went to roads and dams and bridges, and not social security and interest and an already bloated military. We could take this whole system a step further and simply hire a guy to worry about our roads, and make sure he gets paid and gets enough cash to pay the people who fix the roads; but as with all payments, so long as we're not forced to have him around through the process of taxation, we'll be better off, I think. If your neighbor gets upset that you're not paying for his road that you don't drive on, tell him to fuck himself; if you wanna donate, go ahead; but I don't believe having our money stolen for our own good is the best possible system to ensure out infrastructure stays intact.
The thing is, bridges and roads are not cheap. If there really were no taxes, I'm sure that there would be a bunch of people that would say "screw that" and never pay for the bridges and roads even if they used them. That's why tolls exist in the first place. You may say that people would think logically and say "we need this bridge", but the reality is, they wouldn't. In my city, at least, when anything is built and it costs more than a dime everyone complains. Given the option to not pay a lot of people wouldn't. Plus, the people who don't live on main roads (pretty much everyone) are SOL because they won't be able to afford their roads, at least inexpensively. On scholarships: that's just how it is. If I only want to give my money to a low-income middle-eastern female who scored at least B's in school, then I may be both racist and sexist, but it's still my money. I have no idea why someone would care about skin color or gender in regards to educational donations, but that's the society we live in. On federal grants and subsidized "community" colleges, however, I'd rather there be actual jobs in the market for me to go through even if I got a degree, than for schools to be cheap. Schools just don't look worth it anymore. Low income and scoring at least B's is not what I meant. I'm talking about how you can get a scholarship for being black, or hispanic. It doesn't matter if you're a genius or an idiot, you pull the race card and the money starts flowing. To be fair, I am white as snow and yet because my father is technically hispanic (he was born in Venezuela and his family's Spanish) I got some extra financial aid for being a minority. Also, it's not just community colleges. One of my friends who's Indian goes to Dartmouth, and while he is a genius so I don't believe he should have been denied there, the admissions office admitted that part of their decision was because he's dark skinned... You're right about terrorism, but the point being made is thus: terrorists strive to achieve political goals through violent means, which governments see and attain more power over their people with the promise of security, and so the means of terrorism to achieve their goals becomes easier as the power is shifted from the individual to a very small minority; if this small minority feels different than the majority, it wouldn't matter, as it's up to them to make decisions. Ultimately, if a terrorist's goal is to instigate war, then there is no easier way than through their mere existence; it's easier for a nation to go to war when you have a handful of people making this decision, especially in the case of America (and I'm sure other countries whose politics I'm ignorant of) where one, single man can make the decision between war and peace. In the case of smaller government, or no government, where declaring war is much more complex than one man in a "yes or no" situation, it becomes more difficult for terrorists to achieve political gain. It won't stop the terrorist acts, but it dampens the effect, and won't lead us further into a hole. A handful of people do not decide whether or not we go to war. Much as the public would like to blame the president of congress or whatever scapegoat they can find, public opinion is what drives the war machine. The people decided to go to Afghanistan and Iraq, and we decided when we would pull out. The people may be influenced by the government, but if they're so easily influenced as to attack an innocent country then they are weak minded and there's no helping them. The US is one of the few countries on this planet to not force people into the military. The fact that we still have the second largest military (after China) shows exactly how much the American people love war. Think about how much soldiers are glorified. A soldier is "braver" than a firefighter, even though both risk their lives but only one kills people. This reminds me of the quote by Voltaire (paraphrased): "Killing another man is a sin, and thus murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." The American people are perfectly capable of going to war with or without a government. There would still be poor people, but they wouldn't be made poor; when there is more wealth circulating in a nation, being spent back on the nation, then there are more jobs to be had. At that point, if jobs were entirely abundant, and you were still miserably impoverished, I would hope there would be at least the notion that there is a chance to pull oneself from this condition, than to simply resort to crime as a way of getting ahead. I have no doubt, however, that organized crime will always remain; I hope it will never evolve into the case of government again, but I'm positive there will always be people who want to place themselves into a position of power through the use of force. Again, there's no such thing as a utopia, and I can only really speak for people who want to help other people by helping themselves; for the hardcore criminals among us, they'll continue to operate with or without a king, and we'll have to defend ourselves as a society, just as we always have. Even in the richest countries there is still poverty. It's simple logic: not everyone can have money. If everyone has something, no one has something. If we all are millionaires, then 1,000,000 is worthless. There may be more jobs, but that doesn't matter. You can have a job and still be poor. And the more jobs, the lower the wages as there's more competition. I've never been in the middle-east, so I'll have to take your word on that; in the same vein as before, I could say, a king might behead someone for thievery, but if you're debating death or death with a chance of living if you don't get caught, you generally go with the risk of crime than moral highness and starvation. First off, you weren't beheaded for stealing. The hand-cutting punishment does still exist, and the courts reserve the right to use it, however usually a thief would get a caning. There wasn't much of a threat of death. And how many thieves are stealing in a life or death situation? The biggest thieves do not steal food. If everyone can find work under communism, then the work was always there; what matters is what the work is for; communism can create jobs with the snap of a finger by going to war; we can also create jobs for peaceful means, especially true in the arts and sciences. On the other hand, I'm most curious as to how we'll handle the automation of our labor through improved machinery. No system of society seems to be prepared for a post-scarcity economy, but that's another conversation all together. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I will say this: natural monopolies are known to have the lowest prices of all, since they have to ensure their competition cannot compete by providing a product that is of the highest quality for the absolute best price; OTOH, the coercive monopolies (oligopolies?) of today instead use political means to ensure their competition cannot compete. The only difference between the two is one has a central source of power to manipulate, and the other doesn't. I really think you should look up Kowloon. It is a perfect example of a free market. It's also a perfect example of a dystopian society (thought I'd note that word tried to correct "dystopian" to utopian  ). I don't believe clearing up the pedophilia laws will necessarily help; we must still assume that, if we make something illegal, people will stop doing it. We've shown that people keep on doing what they'd like, no matter what is illegal, if they like it enough. There's still the problem of mixing morality with law; nobody can agree what age is right for sex but the person consenting. Otherwise, if the person is not consenting, it's always wrong; so, a child who has not yet hit puberty cannot consent to what they have no desire for, and thus this would be a clear standard for what constitutes as CP. But I'm certain people won't find this adequate, as many of us would still believe 12, 13, 14 years old is still much too young for consenting sex with a 30+ year old. Even if we went with the "puberty" standard, people would be all over the place about what their children do and with whom and if they do it at all. Just an odd thought: if a society of pedophiles lived in the same space and had children...? Certainly clearing up pedophilia laws will stop putting innocent people in jail. Like I said, there needs to be a difference between a 40 year old screwing a 12 year old and an 18 year old and 17 year old in a consensual relationship. You're right about me not doing drugs (I don't even drink, at that  ); I have considered the possibility that people do it just for the fun of it, and this is precisely why I feel it's better for people to decide on their own what they're capable of; if we refuse to outlaw alcohol, which, when coupled with cars, have resulted in many, many deaths, what difference does it make, then? We still drink and don't really care what happens, and complain if we try to take it away. That's why I said education is key. Don't force people. Just explain to them why certain drugs are bad. I also think that responsibility should be taught. If people (especially kids, teenagers, and young adults) were taught "You can do drugs, just do it where you're comfortable and don't drive" as opposed to "IF YOU DO DRUGS YOU'LL DIE INSTANTLY" they might actually take the educations seriously, and make educated choices. I do believe that there has to be some regulation on the age, as you can't have 9 year olds drinking and doing lines of coke. However, if people are free to do it in their own homes, at their own pace, with no fear of getting arrested, they have more time to be responsible. I'm guessing that most underage drunk driving is due to people having nowhere to go and being "forced" to be mobile. See, I like the second one better, because the first implies that we must solve a problem through force (but I've never heard of a law that was designed not to be enforced.) I guess it would technically be through "force", but that would only be if someone fought back. And if someone is fighting over a heroin needle I think it's safe to assume that it would be healthier for them to give it up. I understand pot, shrooms, ecstasy; it's just fun. I'm nitpicking but ecstacy is methamphetamine and MDMA mixed together. It's both kinds of meth in one powder cocktail. It's not on the same level as mushrooms or weed. But I can't see someone taking heroin for fun for long, after we know what happens to a person after continued use. We cannot ban knowledge, you see; we know how to create these drugs, and to ban them would be as effective as banning guns; we know how to make those too, and at home. We can make a drug out of anything; my sister snuffed freon from an A/C unit outside when she was a kid and got high for a minute or two that way, although it was poisonous. She doesn't do it anymore, of course, or so I think. Point is, if it's lethal enough, we'll know not to use it, or at least weed out the population in the process of people who think they can deal with it. You'd think that we'd know if something was lethal enough, but we don't. And this is mostly because of misinformation. If you look at a high school DARE class, they basically say the same thing about every drug. Weed kills. Alcohol kills. Tobacco kills. Meth kills, Heroin kills, etc. The thing is, meth and weed are not on the same level. And kids will end up trying weed anyways, and find out it's not bad at all. They'll get braver, and move on to hallucinogens. They'll see that these were lied about too. You aren't seeing unicorns on acid (unfortunately ) At this point, they won't trust any information that they've been taught. And this is a problem, because while weed won't kill you, heroin and meth certainly will. But if meth and heroin are treated the same as weed, and one of those isn't bad at all, how are people supposed to know what's actually bad and what's fine? That's why I think (truthful) education is key. No one should be huffing freon, they have medicine for that . I've seen the insane things people do while on the harder drugs, but those are already banned, and such things still happen; the money spent on attempting to combat this went to a lost cause. Beside that, if people know what they're doing and want to feel good, I feel absolutely no desire to make criminals out of them for simply having the stuff. Of course, what crimes they may commit while under the influence of drugs is something else entirely.
Most "insane" things are done because that person is crazy. They'd do it with or without drugs. Not to diminish their danger, but meth and heroin have less of an effect on the thought process than something more benign, such as shrooms. I agree that they shouldn't be made criminals. But I also don't think that people should be running around shooting dope. That's why I think that all non-addictive substances should be legal, and all addictive substances should be at the least decriminalized while still illegal. The best option I think would be to regulate the supply of addictive substances, so that people can't hurt themselves even if they try. If for example, one company owned heroin and they limited you to 100 mg a week, people could not get as addicted as some are now. |
|
|
|
This isn't about immigration, but:  Yes, that's right. Desiring referendum on UK EU membership makes you a Nazi. And objecting to Gypsies illegally entering the land of your ancestors to beg, rob, squat, litter, stab, shit, and piss in public makes you literally worse than Hitler.  /Godwin > "objecting to Gypsies illegally entering the land of your ancestors to beg, rob, squat, litter, stab, shit, and piss in public" > Not racist. > Not similar to Nazis, who expelled/killed "Gypsies" (They're called Romani, the term Gypsy is negative and not even accurate) I think Hitler worded it much better but you sure do have the gist of it. |
|
|
|
Bribery: The easiest way to prevent bribery is to stop allowing special rights to specific citizens. If no one person is allowed control over other people (who do not want to be ruled, at least), then bribery ceases to be a large scale problem. At such a point, bribery becomes a highly ineffective way of attaining what you want; there's no central person to bribe, and so you would be forced to bribe many people, and if you wanted to go this route, you'd be better off playing fairly to begin with. At some point, bribery becomes too expensive to be worth it. There will always be someone to bribe. Someone will always have power. Even if it's as simple as paying someone so I can walk across their land we will always have to pay someone for something. Unfair elections: Basically the same as above; all elections are unfair, in my opinion, since I have every option except "no one". I don't disagree with this. Tax: The solution to the problem of taxation, and thus any problem following taxation, is to allow the individual to decide where and how much of his money he will allocate to his surroundings, to his security, to his infrastructure, and his other charitable donations. This is the entire point of capitalism, anyhow. If you were given the option to not pay for infrastructure, would you take it? I don't think infrastructure could stay together without taxes. Financial aid: We agree, welfare is bad, and with my proposed solution to the taxation problem, it will be a non-problem; nothing has ever stopped scholarships from working, which is another way of saying, "a charitable donation for use with school". Financial Aid is a joke. If you're a minority you automatically get favored. If scholarships and aid were based purely on how hard you worked, then I would believe in them. Terrorism: With no central head of a state, terrorism becomes a tricky thing to do; it's simple to influence a government, where power is allocated to the few, but try influencing millions of people with little individual power; you'd really need to pull off something grand to piss everyone off enough to get your way. Anyway, there's not a lot you can do about the terrorists; some people don't like you and want to kill you, but it's really a non-problem, at least in regards to government, which has a higher death count by leagues when compared to any terrorist group, and even all terrorists combined. Terrorism can still be done with or without a government. Look at Somalia. There's no centralized power and that doesn't stop Al-Shabab from blowing up civilians. And why would it matter if millions of people have the same amount of power? They still are going to think somewhat similar. Remember that our government's actions are representative of the will of the people. After 9/11 the government did not choose our war; the majority of the people thought "hurr 'Murica let's go get the A-rabs" and that's why we got involved. Crime: As for crime, the solution is to prevent crime, not stop it after the fact. To prevent crime, you would need to build a society in which there is little reason to commit crime; as most crime is a matter of "he's got what I don't and I need it", This make sense. then, it seems, free trade is the grand peace keeper; if people have enough capital to grow on, they can produce enough work for other people to grow on, on and on, and crime, so I predict, will sharply decrease (but I doubt will ever completely go away.) This does not. In a completely free economy, some people will be dirt poor with no hope of ever improving their situation. I'd like to bring up Kowloon as an example. If they can make a market of sunlight, they will. I do not recommend "carrying a big stick", because that does not deter the thief when he is hungry; you could pass a law that stated, stealing under any circumstance results in the death penalty, and still there would be crime--and a lot of dead people. There was a common law in the middle-east where, if you stole something, you got your hand cut off. Unsurprisingly, thieves just innovated their methods so as not to get caught. Have you actually lived in the middle east? That law worked pretty well, at least in Saudi Arabia. People would leave their cars running with the keys in (since it's so hot you'd burn yourself if you left it in the sun) and I never saw any get stolen. A hand was not worth attempting to steal something, since you'd almost surely get caught. We see here, then, that it is not the threat of violence which stops violence. However, if the thief had ample opportunities for well-paying work, he would not be bothered to commit crime, for he would be able to buy all the things he needed. This wouldn't stop the thrill-seeker who steals just for the high, but it would stop most violent criminals. It is impossible for everyone to be satisfied in a free market economy. If every single person can afford something, then businesses will raise the price so as to make more money. A society in which everyone (supposedly) receives well-paying work is communism, which is impossible to implement outside of the imagination. Porn: A complete non-problem; we like sex, even when there's no one to have it with, and, hopefully, for posterity, nothing will change that. Now, in regards to CP, this is a very serious crime, and there's nothing Bitcoin, the dollar, or any law will solve; pedophilia, much like heterosexuality, or furry, or name whatever other thing people are into, is something ingrained into certain people; we like what we like, and pedophiles are unfortunate enough to enjoy what they like. Much like guys who cannot help but be a fan of the man ( ), pedophiles like children, and want to satisfy their desires--of course, none of us want this to happen. It's an unfortunate aspect of us, and I can offer no solution which can change human preconditions. I know there is art of child pornography, which I have no objection to, since it does not involve a real person; however, actual depictions of child porn are simply inevitable, so long as there is a demand for it. Similarly to my thief reference, pedophiles figure out more secure methods to share their exploits to avoid the hand of law, no matter how severe or lax it is. I think that clearing up pedophilia laws could help with this. Statuatory Rape should be better defined. If an 18 year old has sex with their willing 17 year old partner, why should the 18 year old go to prison, and have the same "rapist" label as a 40 year old man who raped a 12 year old? I'd rather people have absolute control over what they put into their body; drug dealers wouldn't have to resort to shady means of business if they weren't treated as criminals. Not so sure about this. An opium or crack dealer will never not be shady. After all, they have to deal with people that literally need their product. If people want weed, crack, meth, and whatever else they desire, they should be allowed to attain these items as safely as possible, since we have proven, time and time again, that if somebody wants something, they will get it, even if it's illegal; the only thing a ban accomplishes is turning innocent people into criminals. I somewhat agree with this. Read my next paragraph. It's not up to you or I to police the drug addict; it's up to them to decide when and if they want to improve. As with all my other solutions to our problems, the solution is understanding the cause and eliminating that, instead of beating the shit out of the effect with hopes of seeing results later. I believe the cause of drug addictions stem from a want to escape reality, and coupled with all the problems outlined above which nobody wants to actually fix, but merely prolong, then it's a surprise there aren't more drug addicts; if not for the ban against drugs, they'd probably be a lot popular. Being someone who does drugs I'd like to say that I do not do them to escape reality. I'm not depressed or anything, and I hang out with a ton of people who've been my friends my entire life. I'm not addicted to anything, but I have done some of the harder stuff (Molly/Meth and many different opiates) a few times, knowing that doing these regularly is unhealthy. While subconsciously my body was telling me I should do it again, I consciously knew that ultimately the risk of death or addiction is greater than the reward, so I don't do them often. There is really not one reason why people do drugs. I've done the drugs I've done simply because I thought they would be fun. I feel like this reasoning never is understood by people who don't do drugs, but believe it or not we are not all depressed. Just how like normal people go drink at parties or at the bar with friends (and alcohol is the most dangerous drug!) some people do acid, cocaine, shrooms, smoke weed, etc. Now, there are people who actually do do drugs because they are depressed. But in this case, it's the depression and not the drugs that cause problems. I don't think anyone should have to be in a situation where they think that drugs are a necessity to feel good. That being said, this is why I do believe that there needs to be a ban on certain drugs, because some people will abuse them and they will hurt themselves. Some people can handle hard drugs fine, and never get addicted, and know how much to dose and such. But the majority of people do not. Krokodil, Heroin, PCP, and Meth should not be readily available to anyone. These drugs should not be legal, but they shouldn't be criminalized either. Instead, we should educate people on why they shouldn't do these kinds of drugs, and give help to those who need it. |
|
|
|
The older members here will surly remember Esperanto.
It was a mix of the most popular languages geared towards simplicity.
It failed miserably because those in power are always old farts that dont want to learn anything new.
Older members? How old? That language was started in 1887. What i meant was when during the 90s there were serious attempts to adopt it in Europe, havent heard a word about it since then. I think it was most serious during WWII, when Stalin and Hitler thought it was such a threat that they sent Esperantists to the gulags or concentration camps. And also, that other post I quoted inspired me starti lernas la lingvo. |
|
|
|
The older members here will surly remember Esperanto.
It was a mix of the most popular languages geared towards simplicity.
It failed miserably because those in power are always old farts that dont want to learn anything new.
Older members? How old? That language was started in 1887. |
|
|
|
I remember during last boom, I read some talk from a chinese bank official, he said that in order to control the speculative effect of bitcoin, so that it does not hurt the economy when it has grown too big, they would like to acquire a large amount of bitcoin at hand as reserve. So they could cool down the market frenzy when necessary
Of course this talk is non-sense, because he would need to cool down the frenzy all over the world with his little reserve, but that talk at least showed that it is possible that someone from the banks already started to accumulate coins since 2 years ago. If some entities have already accumulated more than 5% of total coin supply, then essentially they could corner the market, this is a well-known practice in central bank's forex intervention
Keep in mind that if bitcoins get popular enough, even one bitcoin will be a huge sum of money. That banker was not talking nonsense. Right now there are 11.5 million bitcoins. That means if everyone got into bitcoins there would only be enough for everyone to have .0016 each if they're distributed evenly. At the market cap we will each be able to have .003. Keep in mind that some people have thousands, which means that people who get in late will get less and less bitcoins as more are spread around. So even if that man has only 100 bitcoins, his "little" reserve is not so little. |
|
|
|
To me it seems that language is a huge factor here. It serves to bond people together, they share knowledge, and it also limits contact between different languages. Part of the US' dominance seems attributable to the fact that their main language is English (sort-of ) which allowed them to piggyback on the strength of Britain's earlier imperialism. All they really had to do was promise a nice environment to attract foreign scientists and entrepreneurs (freedom, New World, lack of world wars, etc) and they were all set. Language and the fact that oil is traded for dollar, and dollar is the "world's currency", not bitcoin  But I must say,that I hope someday we all will speak one language. There are better and worse languages, technically speaking, I would choose between english as it's dominant already, or japanese, as it's very "practical and economical". If the whole world except USA would suddenly use some other language (russian, mandarin, you name it) it would certainly be fun to see how it has to keep up with the rest. I think it would make more sense to use a Cyrillic or Latin alphabet with arabic numerals than Japanese. Most Asian languages are hard to learn to write for non-natives. My personal vote would go for Spanish, since it's easy to speak and is more orderly than English. |
|
|
|
It annoys me that those 3 are mentioned (and zuckenberg should not even be mentioned at all). They are founders of their own companies, they had X of the shares, they could set whatever salaries they want, even work for free as a gimmick. We need better examples.
Why are these bad examples? Because they prove my point? I've listed 5 CEOs that have major companies, and their companies would not succeed let alone exist without them. And for the record, Jobs and Zuckerberg have (had in Jobs' case) salaries of $1 per year, in order to maximize profits. Most successful CEOs use this method in order to make sure that the company can succeed, which in turn will increase the value of the stock that they hold (although Jobs' wealth was based mainly in Pixar, not Apple). |
|
|
|
I'd say, use other payment methods as well, but give a discount or benefits to those that pay with bitcoins. That would probably promote bitcoin the best.
Who is going to subsidies that discount? After all, if you can buy an car for a discount with bitcoins, who's going to cover that spread? I believe others answered that already. It mostly depends on the business model, it doesn't have to be an expense for you necessarily, as bitcoin has really low fees and quick transactions. I'm not sure how BTC has low fees and quick transactions, at least on the buyer side. I could pay with a debit card and get charged nothing extra and the transaction is instant. On the seller's side, I'm guessing you get charged somehow? But exchanging BTC to fiat and then withdrawing must have some fees. |
|
|
|
|
Well the problem with Pascal's wager is that there's a greater chance of being wrong if you believe in a God.
If there's a 50-50 chance of there being a God, then atheism will incorporate a 50% chance of being correct, and being religious will also incorporate 50%. However, there is not one religion, while there is "one" atheism. So really, if you believe in the Christian God, you probably have a less than 1% chance of being correct. And if say Allah is the true God, you're going to hell. If you're an atheist you're going to hell too, but at least you had a greater chance of being correct.
In terms of cryptocurrencies, it's better to be an "atheist" or "agnostic" and be skeptical at all times. Following a "religion" (which could be each individual currency such as BTC, LTC, Ripples, etc) gives you a tiny percentage of being correct. It's better to be very cautious, and make informed decisions rather than blindly follow bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
There is no max ammount i would say.
I won already 70 BTC <3
I won 21,000,000 BTC guys! It's legit! an lol will suffice here. I wasn't kidding though. See proof:  |
|
|
|
Not really sure about this reasoning, gold for example has almost quit the circulation and no one accept payment in gold coins/bars, it still gained quite a lot in exchange rate because of the fiat money inflation
Gold has a high value only in fiat as a sort of physical stock. In terms of what you can actually buy with it, there's not much. For bitcoin, supply is fixed, and the demand for bitcoin could be just driven by two simple facts:
1. The exchange rate always rise quickly, at least 4x per year
2. You can always exchange it back to your local currency You can't prove that BTC will increase 4x a year forever. And the difference between the maximum value and current value is much larger than the difference between the minimum value and the current value. BTC has lost more value than its gained, if you get what I'm saying. These two conditions are enough to keep the exchange rate rise at least 4x per year, so it is a self-sustainable loop once started. And during this loop, there will be more and more business accept payment of bitcoin, just because these two facts Those aren't facts. You have no idea what will happen to bitcoins next year. They could be worth 4x more (one could hope) or they could be worth nothing. Before, any kind of fast rise in price of anything will eventually crash, because the supply will increase to cope with a fast appreciation of price, even the gold is no exception, if price rise fast enough, there will be many gold mines start to operate to expand production. But bitcoin's supply is fixed, this is the fundamental difference Gold's supply is fixed too. That does not make it invincible. However I think the main problem is that you're supposedly arguing for BTC's value yet you measure it in fiat. The value of a USD is not measured in another form of currency's value. It is measured by the products and services it provides. If I gave you $100,000 you would think it's a lot because you can buy a lot with it. You can buy a house, a car, food, anything you want. With 100,000 BTC, what is it worth? Most people would immediately think "that's 10,000,000 dollars". That is its worth- for now. Currently bitcoins are less of a currency and more of a stock or commodity. Their value as a currency is significantly less than their value in fiat. |
|
|
|
I was on about tax evasion and having undeclared income from gambling / scamming / perfoming shows on skype for money is it legal to pimp your self out were he is ?
I think the one I added was the road austin chose to go after him. Not sure if it's still in progress, though. any income he gets and doesn't declare can get him in trouble with the IRS Tho this IS one angle of attack, it appears that Joey is the worst gambler in history so it might actually earn him a tax credit. Except that, as people pointed out, gambling benefit money seems illegal in itself. Pizzas & taxis are fun things to send to his house but it would be more amusing if there was something/someone which wouldn't leave so quietly No, he is free to do whatever he wants with the benefit money. He's not free to scam people. I've said it like ten times before, but someone should sue. Exactly!!!!!1 My disability money is mine to do with what I want with it. Only restriction is with the food stamp card which can't be solfd for cash or used for alcohol, etc..But if I wanted to I get my food stamps in cash instead of food stamp card, cause Ohio law lets you get cash instead of food stamps if you are disabled or elderly...but we use all our food stamps. As for suing me...go right ahead, cause it would just be a lifetime judgment...me and my mom already ahve a ton of judgments against us anyway...but you can't garnish disability money. I don't believe that you can have so many judgements and not have to pay them. You own a house, a computer, and who knows what other assets. Based on that you're richer than me (though you waste your money) and if I got sued there would be nothing I could do to prevent it. |
|
|
|
Just did a small transaction .5 BTC he sent fast thanks!
Sorry, you are not a trustworthy example of a successful trade. |
|
|
|
I was on about tax evasion and having undeclared income from gambling / scamming / perfoming shows on skype for money is it legal to pimp your self out were he is ?
I think the one I added was the road austin chose to go after him. Not sure if it's still in progress, though. any income he gets and doesn't declare can get him in trouble with the IRS Tho this IS one angle of attack, it appears that Joey is the worst gambler in history so it might actually earn him a tax credit. Except that, as people pointed out, gambling benefit money seems illegal in itself. Pizzas & taxis are fun things to send to his house but it would be more amusing if there was something/someone which wouldn't leave so quietly No, he is free to do whatever he wants with the benefit money. He's not free to scam people. I've said it like ten times before, but someone should sue. if they sew him they would have to admit to illegal loans I don't think so. How are these loans illegal? |
|
|
|
Your conspiracy theories about how banks control the world and about how "the man" is going to get us is not evidence. You necroed this post just to bring up the same evidence you had years ago, which is nothing. I have not only proven that a war with Iran makes no sense, but I have also proven that the US is no more a warmonger than any other country.
Also, how do the banks profit from the US' demise? Did the Weimar Republic's banks benefit from WWI?
The allies were hit with demands from the bankers who funded Germany. That is the rule in warfare. The winner pays the bills of the loser, else the banks will fund their destruction as well, just as Rothschild did for England and France which ended at Waterloo, where Rothschild manipulated the market with the first intelligence of the battle outcome from his network of spies. You see, the banks funded both England and France, but they funded England more so they had a better chance of winning. In weimar/germany, the allies needed to recoup because they were already poor from depression and war, so we overtook all industry, forcing massive taxation and inflation. Took wheelbarrow-fulls of cash to buy a meal. People would get paid at lunch and take off work immediately to spend it all because the value of their paper was decreasing exponentially, daily. The german banks benefited by being the conduits that wealth flowed through back to the bankers who funded the loans for the war, which the allies were not responsible for, plus all that nice juicy high interest on the loan (25%-35%). Thats the basic cribnotes version, but the same thing happened many times before then, and still does to this very day. Heck, its how cash we have in our pockets is created, but instead of a loan for war, its a treasury bond - a loan on the full faith and credit of the nation wanting to print it. Here's what I know of the war and the aftermath: The German banks gave out a ton of loans during the war to pay for weapons and such. The government did not tax the people very much extra during the war because they believed that they would win in the end, and that they could get reparations from the Triple Entente when the war was over. Of course, even if militarily the Germans were winning, they conceded to the Entente and thus had to pay reparations. This caused those loans to backfire, because they were so excessive that the people could not afford to pay both the Entente and the banks.* The Germans had been relying on their victory, which while stupid, is to be expected as they had won on the eastern front and were "winning" on the western as well. * Now, there's debate on whether or not Germany could actually pay back these loans. The Entente gave three categories for repayment: A, B, and C. C by far had the most money owed, but it didn't matter because the Entente did not expect the Germans to be able to repay it. It was more propaganda for the French public. A and B were a combined total of 50 million marks, 1 million less than what Germany had wanted to pay. With the loans there is an extra burden, but it should not have been as hard as the Germans made it be.Germany refused to have high taxes on its people (due to the people and the government's refusal to believe that they lost), and for the most part, was paying its reparations (while industry increased, even under occupation) until 1922, when the French pulled out of Dusseldorf. With no incentive to keep paying, Germany defaulted on reparations or simply paid less, causing the value of the mark to plummet as Germany's credit took a hit. The hyperinflation still had not taken effect, although it was in the works. Instead, it was the occupation of the Ruhr which caused Germany to not care, and the government began printing money to pay off of the "expenses" of the occupation (even though there was barely a change in profits). Germany never repaid those reparations until fairly recently (they paid back WWII reparations before WWI reparations) so it's safe to say that those banks did not get their money back. TL;DR-German banks make loan -People default/can't pay -German government screws the mark -German banks lose Also, when you say "Allies" do you mean the Triple Alliance? Or are you referring to the Entente by the name they would have in WWII? |
|
|
|
I was on about tax evasion and having undeclared income from gambling / scamming / perfoming shows on skype for money is it legal to pimp your self out were he is ?
I think the one I added was the road austin chose to go after him. Not sure if it's still in progress, though. any income he gets and doesn't declare can get him in trouble with the IRS Tho this IS one angle of attack, it appears that Joey is the worst gambler in history so it might actually earn him a tax credit. Except that, as people pointed out, gambling benefit money seems illegal in itself. Pizzas & taxis are fun things to send to his house but it would be more amusing if there was something/someone which wouldn't leave so quietly No, he is free to do whatever he wants with the benefit money. He's not free to scam people. I've said it like ten times before, but someone should sue. |
|
|
|
Looks like I missed the point? Maybe you can argue that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs sat around twiddling their thumbs, and just by chance they made billion dollar companies, but Zuckerberg made Facebook. Without him, it would not exist. So how could Facebook make a dollar let alone millions if it never existed?
I see two points missed. First, no, you can't argue that either Bill Gates or Steve Jobs sat around twiddling their thumbs. I know that wasn't your point but it should be said. It's easy enough to demonize Bill Gates as the monster behind the Microsoft monster or whatever, but the guy wrote BASIC for the 8080 without having a 8080. And Jobs didn't become a marketing guy until after he and Woz built computers from his garage. All this misses the point doubly, however, as all three examples are or were not just CEOs but founders. Anyone who claims you don't need a genius idea and the technical chops to make it happen is a fool. But there is a long way between saying that Gates/Jobs/Zuckerberg deserve to be billionaires and saying that most corporate executives bring anything at all to the table. There is a huge difference between starting with no guarantee of a salary and using one's vision to build something and taking on a multimillion dollar job with a multimillion dollar golden parachute, making a few decisions and then taking credit for the short-term success of the company which, if it can be directly linked to that persons actions, are usually because that person did long-term harm to the company. There are a thousand James Taggarts for every one Dagny. I picked those examples because I could think of them off of the top of my head. But I fail to see why they don't count. Because they were founders? So what is your point, then? That if a CEO comes out of nowhere (which doesn't happen), and sits there doing nothing at an already established business he doesn't deserve the money? I agree, and so will the board of directors when they fire him and get him replaced. CEOs have to do something beneficial. And since they run the company their decisions and actions are going to million dollar decisions. It doesn't matter whether they were founders or not, or whether they can cover losses from the beginning. If Zuckerberg had had a "million dollar parachute", but still came up with Facebook, would he not be deserving of money? Why is it a prerequisite that someone be poor (Zuckerberg wasn't poor anyways)? If an individual already personally makes millions, why can't they make their company millions? Take Elon Musk. Using the success of PayPal, he has founded SpaceX and co-founded Tesla, using partly his own designs. He had a safety net, but SpaceX's success (which is groundbreaking) and Tesla's would not happen without him. If that pneumatic train idea works, he will have yet another successful business. Heck, even Donald Trump who's no doubt an ass personality-wise still has made a ton of money for his various companies. He also started with a safety net. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
