|
No, because BTC will not be mainstream.
|
|
|
|
|
Oil prices are falling because oil producing nations are not cutting supply. Supply is rising with demand remaining stagnant, and even dropping off some.
This has nothing to do with QE. Can you substantiate that claim with any evidence? Is there any hard numerical data to support your claim?
|
|
|
|
IF the US voters assembled they could vote to have very little to no taxes, of course that would result in the disappearance of all services we have, which would lead to some chaos pretty quickly.
That is false. The government has more than enough surpluses to eliminate taxation; this was mentioned and proven earlier in the thread. Oh good, a bunch of amateur Austrians on a random internet forum have solved the fiduciary problems facing the government. Now solve cancer! What a joke. |
|
|
|
|
Africa needs political stability and infrastructure. Not a digital currency only popular with a small segment of the richest nations.
|
|
|
|
|
It would have to be physical, and fiat. So it really makes no sense to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you think they want bitcoins? Source?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for the collapse? Everything sees to be going smoothly.
|
|
|
|
I have a spade in my garage. Calling it a spade doesn't mean that I hate it. Based on your response, it looks like I got your name right too...
A name is an implicit reference to an internal ideal (in the Platonic sense). That reference may be a "false form" in a philosophy class, but in the real world, most people would consider naming to be a useful tool.
Sure, but a spade does not connote anything beyond basic form. Using loaded terms like "statist" does. In the real world, people use loaded terms because they rely on them as proxy ad hominem attacks. From the victim's point of view, it doesn't matter a whole lot if I drive off the road and through his house during an accident, or if I intentionally burn it down during a criminal act of arson.
Sure, possibly. From a financial point of view, the cost of the destroyed goods would be the same. But a civil case could involve punitive measures stemming from malice, negligence, etc. I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with this one? There is a reason that you don't get the point. Probably because it's poorly constructed, or poorly explain. Can you clarify? Why do you favor mandatory car insurance*, but not "I'm a criminal" insurance? Or do you? In both cases there is "inflict incredibly costly damage" and "unable to make equitable relief".
Because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, and not a right. By agreeing to use public roads, operators can be compelled to play by rules that are mutually beneficial. In my mind, the shared cost of insurance mitigates the potential for catastrophic loss for any single person/family by essentially guaranteeing that equitable relief can be made. If Freedom Joe is driving drunk and has no insurance because he's gallderned free and the MAN can't hold him down and force him to get insurance because that ain't freedom, and he wipes out a family home but has nothing in the bank, that family is out of luck. With a system of insurance, and a tort component, that family has the ability to seek relief. Why does the family home not have insurance? Surely the owner understands that they face non-zero risks from many sources, not just your cliched redneck... Have insurance for what? Property loss? That's certainly possible, and makes sense. If the argument is that the driver must carry insurance because they might cause damage through accident or neglect, why does that not extend to making the driver also carry insurance to cover damage they might do through crime? By what principle do you draw the line?
Because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, and not a right. By agreeing to use public roads, operators can be compelled to play by rules that are mutually beneficial. In my mind, the shared cost of insurance mitigates the potential for catastrophic loss for any single person/family by essentially guaranteeing that equitable relief can be made. Logic always catches the unwary. If the potential to cause "catastrophic loss" is a reason to force a person to carry insurance, surely that should apply to all potential catastrophic loss, right? The loser feels the loss all the same, without regard to how or why the losee did it. Why must the losee make advance preparations to help the loser recover from one loss, but not the other?
The potential to cause catastrophic loss is not, by itself, reason to force a person to carry insurance. This is another example of an argumentative fallacy. Instead of making a distinct argument you're posting strawmen arguments, or false dilemmas. Because you don't have a robust counterargument, just a lot of attacks. May I suggest that your guiding principle may perhaps be that one is already common, so you support it, while the other shows the absurd conclusion to your arguments, so you deny it? I've seen this movie before. We all know how it ends.
May I suggest, as a counter, that your guiding principle is simply to be contrary to the status quo? I've seen a lot of movies, I can't remember how most of them end to be honest. Good tangent, though. Why can't the owner of the valuable thing purchase insurance to protect their assets instead?
So, you favor anti-criminal insurance? How does that work? That's shifting the burden out of pure idealism, which is both confusing and stupid. I have insurance that protects me against criminal actions done against my self and my property. Surely you do too, if you aren't homeless. If you find that concept confusing, perhaps you can use a nearby shiny surface to locate the source of the stupid. I am so happy for you; I still have no idea why you feel shifting compulsory insurance from one party to the other in your binary situation is an argument against compulsory insurance. You're just shifting the cost, with a similar end product. And lots of ad hominem attacks to make you feel better about yourself. |
|
|
|
You mean like making folks pay for insurance because they may kill someone or inflict incredibly costly damage, and be unable to make equitable relief?
Or maybe making folks pay for health insurance because the cost to society would be orders of magnitude greater if they utilized public facilities for major surgery while uninsured?
That image is an oversimplification. It's poorly reasoned, and flat out wrong.
Wow. Speaking of poorly reasoned and flat out wrong, have you read your own post? Hard to pack so much wrong into one sentence. The "health insurance" sentence, if you are wondering which line of statist bullshit you are repeating without thinking.  Yawn. The need to label arguments as statist is a crutch. People like finding something to hate, and they give it fake form through loaded terms like "statist". Such nonsense. By your implied logic, everyone should be forced to carry crime insurance that pays out if they commit a criminal act.
Nope. That's an argumentative fallacy. From the victim's point of view, it doesn't matter a whole lot if I drive off the road and through his house during an accident, or if I intentionally burn it down during a criminal act of arson.
Sure, possibly. From a financial point of view, the cost of the destroyed goods would be the same. But a civil case could involve punitive measures stemming from malice, negligence, etc. I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with this one? Why do you favor mandatory car insurance*, but not "I'm a criminal" insurance? Or do you? In both cases there is "inflict incredibly costly damage" and "unable to make equitable relief".
Because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, and not a right. By agreeing to use public roads, operators can be compelled to play by rules that are mutually beneficial. In my mind, the shared cost of insurance mitigates the potential for catastrophic loss for any single person/family by essentially guaranteeing that equitable relief can be made. If Freedom Joe is driving drunk and has no insurance because he's gallderned free and the MAN can't hold him down and force him to get insurance because that ain't freedom, and he wipes out a family home but has nothing in the bank, that family is out of luck. With a system of insurance, and a tort component, that family has the ability to seek relief. Why can't the owner of the valuable thing purchase insurance to protect their assets instead?
So, you favor anti-criminal insurance? How does that work? That's shifting the burden out of pure idealism, which is both confusing and stupid. * You don't come out and say it exactly, but I suspect that car insurance is what you are thinking of, being, by far, the most common form of insurance that people have to buy that protects other people instead of the purchaser.
I would guess it's a toss-up between liability insurance, car insurance, and health insurance. I don't know which wins by volume or total people, whatever metric is a good representation. |
|
|
|
You mean like making folks pay for insurance because they may kill someone or inflict incredibly costly damage, and be unable to make equitable relief? Or maybe making folks pay for health insurance because the cost to society would be orders of magnitude greater if they utilized public facilities for major surgery while uninsured? That image is an oversimplification. It's poorly reasoned, and flat out wrong. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is probably going to result in one of the largest redistributions of wealth in history.
Who knows, we may be the lucky few who got in early into this gold rush
Really? Come on. This is such fantasy |
|
|
|
RBE is also common sense. Did your parents charge you for room and board when you were a child? Would you charge your elderly and infirmed parent for such support? Just extend that concept and treat everyone as your family. It is much easier to understand when survival is a higher priority in situations such as total war.
No, it isn't common sense. That's why it isn't intuitive. A RBE economy is not analogous to the nuclear family situation, again that's a poor example and an extreme oversimplification. RBE is as simple as e=mc2 to describe and just as difficult to understand. All science is like that. Scientific truths are simple to demonstrate and nearly impossible to thoroughly explain. That's why scientists go through 6 or more years of college. That's also why science is not a debate and I will not engage in debate. Debaters use logical fallacies to cheat their way through arguments.
Except this isn't science, and your pedantic meanderings aren't proof of anything. Ask me a specific question about what you don't understand or be perceived as arguing through ignorance.
How aggressive. Why are you entering a discussion convinced you have all the answers? Isn't that the hallmark of ignorance rather than intellect? |
|
|
|
How to convince people that this system works without to test it first? I can't accept a theory without evidence. This is not the scientific way.
Have you tested to see if jumping off a cliff will kill you? What evidence do you need? RBE has a plethora of evidence. The difference is, it won't kill you if you try it yourself. Jumping off a cliff is a poor analogy, it's both intuitive and has been tested. Proof of concept is important. |
|
|
|
It's vastly superior because it is transparent (no fraud possible) and not restricted (no barriers). Economic wisdom prescribes that things will be done with the least friction possible: enter Bitcoin.
Really...no fraud? No Gox? No Moopay? Not restricted? You mean there's no legislation or regulation, no KNC/AML? Come on, at least try to live in the same world as reality. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, you're REALLY stretching here
|
|
|
|
Thoughts ? If they have been fined $4.33 billion, how much have they been into us for ? Does anybody know ?
How many billions in a trillion ?
Oh, BTW - one of the banks was RBS. RBS was kept afloat by the taxpayer - it was essentailly nationalised.
What a fuckin joke this farcical and corrupt excuse for democracy is turning out to be.
You know you can look up their profit/earnings, right? Like you can literally see if they were profitable, and how much, and where profit was made. |
|
|
|
i guess their profit was $ 500 billion
$4.3 billion is a joke for these banks. its all a joke. a sad one.
Got a source for that number? |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with your statement that "this 'majority' of holders doesn't have very much production and wealth coming from their countries" It does, you're just choosing to ignore it all as I expected and you clearly have an incorrect or very little knowledge of currency history. Explain it more to me, then. I would really like to see economic output statistics to back up your statement: "this 'majority' of holders doesn't have very much production and wealth coming from their countries" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
