I've been dabbling with cryptocurrency since ~2013, but this recent spike has my eyes wide open. I've heard recently that ethereum and ripple are two coins to watch because banks are getting behind them. Is this the widespread thinking or just people supporting altcoins they're vested in?
Anything the Bankers touch, they corrupt. Totally agree. An unproductive capacity that leeches value from productive capacity. I have however heard that Ripple is supported by the banks...still need to get a better understanding of this cryptocurrency in general, but do you know of any opportunities for banks to corrupt it? One thing I do like about Ripple that I don't about Ethereum is the finite total supply. |
|
|
|
Maybe this idea wont be accomplish but when this idea will be came true some of the staffs in the world will just try to corrupt bitcoins and use their power to manipulate it in order to accomplish their own greed.
Also when bitcoin came as a new world central bank the bitcoins value will slowly to rise up cause many people are depending on it.
Bitcoin cannot be the new world central bank. If bitcoin will be the new central bank many economy will suffer due to the super volatility character of bitcoin. Bitcoin is not stable and a world central bank must offer stability other wise it means big problems on the financial sector and economy. So to make bitcoin a new world central bank we must make its price stable just like gold. The volatility that Bitcoin experiences is because there is no fixed demand for it. There are almost no instances where we are forced to use Bitcoin. In most cases, the opposite is true in that you couldn't use Bitcoin to make simple purchases even if you wanted to, as it's not widely accepted. If it was used throughout the world, it would be very stable as people would need it for day to day activities rather than a speculative investment. Even with that stability however, it would never become a central bank. It will be an alternative currency at best. |
|
|
|
You can't issue more paper gold than traders are willing to buy
This is a rule of thumb which derivatives markets (i.e. exchanges) typically follow. Indeed, you can claim that you can buy all this paper gold yourself via phony traders at lower prices (thus driving the price of both metal and paper gold down), but this is a very dangerous endeavor for you since by artificially lowering prices you may cause a massive run for physical metal (i.e. sell more physically-settled futures than in you have gold in your vaults). And if you can't fulfill your obligations following from these contracts, you risk going bust and sued in courts for violation of your promises. This is not so when you bid the price up (i.e. artificially raise the price), therefore paper gold may actually contribute to higher gold prices overall quite contrary to what gold bugs are typically claiming
From what I understand, it is possible to do a naked short sell, meaning you are selling gold that you do not have. That definitely does influence the price of gold. Especially when you can sell an unlimited amount. And yes I agree if there becomes demand for physical deliveries, the whole gold pricing system would collapse. But in the same way when a US dollar was backed by gold, no one requested to take delivery on the gold, and the bank note was enough...it continues to be that way with gold paper contracts. Perhaps if there's a massive currency crisis, it would expose this. There are individuals that buy and store physical gold and silver, but a very small % of the population Have you ever heard about the Nixon Shock? The shock part of it basically came down to the cancellation of the US dollar convertibility to gold. Why do you think the Nixon part of the shock chose to divorce gold from the dollar? Because whole countries (France was the first) demanded the US government to redeem their dollars for genuine gold. It is the same with naked shorts, you drive the price down, and, quite naturally, demand goes up. It is possible to see how many contracts are open, and you can fool no one with naked short sells. Apart from that, short selling can kill you pretty fast since your possible profits are limited while losses are virtually unlimited (in effect, until you run out of money to support your position) Well Nixon chose to come off the gold standard...I haven't heard of the term "Nixon Shock" though. He wanted mass stimulus before the election to be re-elected, and that type of monetary expansion I guess wasn't possible with the gold reserve they had at the time. It wouldn't be an individual with naked shorts taking losses. It would be coming from the banks and federal reserve, since the price of gold is an indicator of the strength of the US currency. The banks and federal reserve have an almost unlimited money supply...and losing even a couple billion on gold contracts is worth preserving the health of their bullshit fiat currency, which they can create out of thin air. |
|
|
|
|
There are many factors that artificially increase the demand of fiat. Most salaries are paid in the national currency, without an opportunity to switch to a cryptocurrency unless you own your own business. Store accept national currency, taxes must be paid in the national currency. USA forces the world to purchase oil only in US dollars. These things stabilize fiat currencies through forced transactions. At best, cryptocurrencies will be an alternative that runs alongside fiat currencies. All special interests and the banking cartel that benefit from a central bank will stand in the way of cryptos taking over and rendering fiat worthless. As inflationary fiat currencies though, they will always continue to be devalued with time.
|
|
|
|
Guys what do you think about that multiplier auto-bet that whenever you lose you double your bet? Is it working? How much btc do you need in order to be safe(not to lose 20-30 times in a row) I'm sorry if someone else asked that.
That's the martingale betting strategy. Basically putting your entire bankroll on the line to win a small bet with a very high % of winning. But depending on how many losses are required to go through your entire bankroll, although the odds are very small, there is a chance that you will lose. Mathematically, with a high number on bets it does become likely that you will eventually hit a string of losses in a row and lose. That being said, all the best. |
|
|
|
|
Still trying to educate myself on Ethereum. I like that the calculations done can be used in a useful way. But since there isn't a finite amount of total Ethereum to be mined...does anyone know what dictates the creation/mining of Ethereum?
|
|
|
|
While people invest in alts and tokens, many treats BTC as 'stable' investment. For example, many ICOs make ESCROW in 40% BTC and then other coins.
Do you think BTC unwittingly took the role of the central bank in relation to other coins (detail, consumer 'banks')?
A central bank dictates the monetary policy of a currency, so Bitcoin would not be a central bank. It's an alternative currency for the world to use if they wish, but it is decentralized. In terms of Bitcoin being a stable investment...not sure about stable with the volatility we're seeing, but I think it will be something to add to someone's diversified investment portfolio. I think it becomes even more attractive for countries that have particularly weak currencies and problems with inflation to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
Hi, I'd like to joint in this signature campaign.
Btctalk name: freeyourmind
Rank: Sr Member
Current post count: 426
BTC Address: 1BoyLjCVeiM6gX712BUA8sQqLmgL4MTHTK
Wear appropriate signature: Will switch upon acceptance
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Silver and Gold are both being used in Industrial applications (silver mostly) but they also have a value of storage. (hedge against the FIAT system)
Copper or Iron don't have that storage value unlike gold, they are only being used as Industrial materials. So, average people don't buy copper/iron coins and bury them in their yard. (not to mention, they are common as fuck)
But, Average people demand gold/silver. Industry also needs it. This huge combined demand alone should skyrocket gold/silver prices to the moon. But it is not. Why?
Because the prices are being manipulated by the derivative markets. If they become too valuable for the industrial purposes, factories may run out of business. Can't let that happen. So they want us to believe that they ain't worth shit. Most of us clever enough to see that it's not the truth so we take advantage of their stupidity and buy PM's.
I agree with you. The price of precious metals are dictated by paper contracts. Meaning you can influence the price of gold or silver without having any. And the paper contracts represent far more gold and silver than what physically exists. Unless people demand their gold and silver in physical delivery, the true value will not be reflected in the price You can't issue more paper gold than traders are willing to buy This is a rule of thumb which derivatives markets (i.e. exchanges) typically follow. Indeed, you can claim that you can buy all this paper gold yourself via phony traders at lower prices (thus driving the price of both metal and paper gold down), but this is a very dangerous endeavor for you since by artificially lowering prices you may cause a massive run for physical metal (i.e. sell more physically-settled futures than in you have gold in your vaults). And if you can't fulfill your obligations following from these contracts, you risk going bust and sued in courts for violation of your promises. This is not so when you bid the price up (i.e. artificially raise the price), therefore paper gold may actually contribute to higher gold prices overall quite contrary to what gold bugs are typically claiming From what I understand, it is possible to do a naked short sell, meaning you are selling gold that you do not have. That definitely does influence the price of gold. Especially when you can sell an unlimited amount. And yes I agree if there becomes demand for physical deliveries, the whole gold pricing system would collapse. But in the same way when a US dollar was backed by gold, no one requested to take delivery on the gold, and the bank note was enough...it continues to be that way with gold paper contracts. Perhaps if there's a massive currency crisis, it would expose this. There are individuals that buy and store physical gold and silver, but a very small % of the population. |
|
|
|
This post is the gift that keeps on giving. I'm not sure what my favorite part is: the fact that the OP had a post count of (1) at the time, or the fact that the market cap of Ethereum today is 3X that of bitcoin at the time of original posting.
It's both. My favorite part is both.
OP was ahead of his time haha I am still pretty new to Ethereum and the actual technical differences between it and Bitcoin aside from the popularity contest. As long as cryptocurrencies becomes fairly liquid (in terms of fiat) I think that there will be a revolving door of what is popular at the moment. Right now it's not particularly easy for the average dude to get cryptocurrencies...you definitely have to go out of your way to do it. |
|
|
|
Silver and Gold are both being used in Industrial applications (silver mostly) but they also have a value of storage. (hedge against the FIAT system)
Copper or Iron don't have that storage value unlike gold, they are only being used as Industrial materials. So, average people don't buy copper/iron coins and bury them in their yard. (not to mention, they are common as fuck)
But, Average people demand gold/silver. Industry also needs it. This huge combined demand alone should skyrocket gold/silver prices to the moon. But it is not. Why?
Because the prices are being manipulated by the derivative markets. If they become too valuable for the industrial purposes, factories may run out of business. Can't let that happen. So they want us to believe that they ain't worth shit. Most of us clever enough to see that it's not the truth so we take advantage of their stupidity and buy PM's.
I agree with you. The price of precious metals are dictated by paper contracts. Meaning you can influence the price of gold or silver without having any. And the paper contracts represent far more gold and silver than what physically exists. Unless people demand their gold and silver in physical delivery, the true value will not be reflected in the price. Now with crytocurrencies available as an alternative to fiat in the event of a currency collapse or something along those lines, which is usually when the price of precious metals would rise in the past, I am doubtful that precious metals will skyrocket in the future. |
|
|
|
I don't think so if the ethereum is the future of crypto. Because as I can see now ethereum was not in the half price of bitcoin. But there's a possibility I think it takes time to happen it. Maybe it depends to the fluctuation of both coins in the market.
The market cap of ETH is more than 50% of bitcoin now. LOL. What are you talking about? It is clearly that Bitcoin marketcap is higher than ethereum. Take a look again please. Do not try to make yourself as a fool here Bitcoin market cap is currently at $39.8 billion USD Ethereum market cap is $17.4 billion USD So the market cap of Ethereum is 43.7% of Bitcoin. Not that far off from your friend's approximation above. |
|
|
|
I do not necessarily lose bitcoin because Im researching all the details before I gamble to some Investments and trading. We all know that education with the steps that you will do will lessen the risk of having a lose in bitcoin. educate yourself to be rich and have a lots of profits in the trades and invetment that you will do.
You are thinking that you want to become rich with bitcoin through gambling and trading investments? I would suggest that don't keep on gambling because that will only lead you to lose more and your dream of becoming rich in bitcoin will fail. Education is riches and you need to apply that properly. true! better to focus more on trading and be equip with knowledge about the certain coin you are playing or investing with.. moreover, batang_bitcoin is right. dont try to focus more on gambling because most of it, you will lose more than what you have earned. lucky if you still have profit, some are just so unlucky that they have lost everything rather than achieving what they want to be rich. I have a bad experience with gambling in the past though I'm still gambling. I found out that when you want to earn good amount, it's not the amount you are earning but it's the way you are going to save your bitcoins. You need to regulate on how you are going to spend your bitcoins or else you will feel sorry about it. I certainly understand your pains In the past, when I have been enrolled in the PrimeDice signature campaign I used to waste the payment on gambling too. Right now I don't gamble much (I just don't have time), though it is still fun to gamble with a few coins just for enjoinment sake. Treating dice as a source of income is a losing game apparently, though gambling addicts may think different as well as those who were lucky to hit the jackpot (and then run away with their spoil) It's very difficult to stop while you're ahead...that's what I found as well. I didn't waste a significant amount of bitcoin...pretty much only what was generated through faucets. That way I didn't feel like it was my own personal investment that was lost. I remember gambling up to 0.02 Btc before losing it all. Regret is a terrible thing to have, but being bullish on bitcoin in the long-term, I didn't invest any of my own funds into it (this was around the time when bitcoin was worth about $200 USD and the price was pretty stagnant at that time). |
|
|
|
Buying Drugs with Bitcoin is already running many years by the Silkroad, almost all of kind of drugs in the world is there and it is using Bitcoin as a payment in all of it plus It also have a hit man job in exchange of bitcoin also. But it is shutdown now by the FBI but someone made a Silkroad 2 but I think it is not running anymore.
I'd say bitcoin is used for a very small % of the "illegal" drug market. Total illegal drug market is estimated around $400 billion a year (10x bitcoin's current market cap), and most of that will be done in traditional fiat. It would be interesting to know what % is done in bitcoin though. |
|
|
|
Yah, I don't know why people love drugs ? is there mind aren't functioning well ? there are many ways they can do to avoid drugs like give some time to earn in bitcoin so their life can have a finance and forget about what happened on past, people taking drugs more on because of past problems than for medicine, you can buy legally drugs for medicine if you have sick but if not can't, my point is no need to use bitcoins to use as your dummy or anonymous. bad habit for those who use drugs for f****ing get high and just to forget what happened on past.  If you don't know why people love drugs, then you're not going to know how people can avoid drugs. Your idea of drugs looks like you're referring to opiates. There are many different types of drugs with different effects. Some are physically addictive and will give withdrawal symptoms and some won't. The opiates that you speak of relieve pain and are desensitizing. Many opiates are legal and you can get them from a doctor (morphine, oxycontin). There are stimulants, depressants, psychedelics, etc. All of which have very different effects. Psychedelics increase sensitivity and are not physically addictive. In fact psychedelics can be used to resolve opiate addictions. Many of them grow in nature and have been used for thousands of years. These are also illegal, even through they can be helpful if used in the right way. Not everyone using drugs is "running from their problems" and "bad". Check this out: Caffeine is a drug that increases productivity at work, so the government says this is okay. Tobacco/cigarettes 480,000 American deaths in 2013 - this is also okay with the government and legal. Alcohol 29,000 American deaths in 2013 - this is also okay with government and legal. All other drugs combined (herion, prescription opiates, benzo, cocaine) 4,200 American deaths in 2013 - government is okay with the prescription drugs. Marijuana 0 American deaths. This is a Schedule 1 drugs (highest penalty) and medicine at the same time. Government is not okay with smoking weed, although individual states are legalizing. Prisons filled with pot smokers and sellers. Maybe this will put some of your ignorance in perspective. Government doesn't give a fuck about your health and that's not why drugs are illegal. |
|
|
|
Interesting.
There is a human component to build the robot and program it to function in a certain way. But the human component is decreasing. You already have robots that make robots, programmed by human. But AI will likely be here this century, which would mean there doesn't need to be any human input at all. You don't need to pay robots, they don't need breaks or holidays...so they generate value that can either go to the owners (like in our current economic system), or to be for the benefit of civilization, or a combination of both.
I don't insist on that notion of obligation, but I feel like humanity will likely move in that direction. The old and present model of being paid money for hours of human labour...I feel will need to change with automation. Think of taxi drivers and alternative paid transportation like uber...imagine how it will be affected by driverless cars with autopilot and gps. There are many other industries that will get affected similarly and those jobs will go away over time. It's even in the best interest of rich people, to have a middle class. If it's only super rich and poor, then it can become unsafe for a rich person.
Look at Elon Musk for example...he is voluntarily trying to make a positive impact on the environment through sustainable energy (solar), battery storage and electric cars. I think there will be more people that take that model of work, where they are super smart, understand how to acquire huge resources, and the use those resources to innovate technology that will help humanity as a whole, even though it is for profit...the impact is positive.
But in terms of what will humanity do in return for having their basic needs provided...I'm not sure. Society would be very different if the extreme struggle associated with fulfilling basic needs was completely removed. I think people would be two ways to go. The lazy people can just chill, and be content. And others would follow their passions, which may result in some type of mastery and contribution back to society. Personally, if that was the way society was at the moment, and my basic needs were taken care of, I would follow my passions and dedicate myself to get as good as I could possibly get. And maybe if I get good enough, I can produce a good or service that people would enjoy. Actually sounds like a communist approach...but a very technologically advanced execution lol.
You make great comparison with communism - Ive lived through it. You know where that lead to? Very, very small group of people (politbyro, but you can call them papacy aswell), who knew each other held responsibility for redistribution of wealth (social justice, but could be called salvation) in the name of the state (god). It is called democratic centralism and is still practiced by Peoples republic of China. These men were very close to historical definition of demi gods. Tasked to administer collective means of production and development, since private property was not really an option. At different time periods taking or protecting lives seemingly at whim. Democracy, that westerners taky for granted is quite fragile thing, tied intimately to the relationship between means of production and its owners. Take common men out of this equation and their role in the political system will diminish aswell. You are right, you would be probadly well fed and clothed in such system (as it will be obligation of upper class in such social contract), however ultimately you would lead a life of pet in a nice cage. I am not forcing this view on you, just sharing my experience and perhaps hoping it will make you think. Good points and discussion. I have not personally lived in a communism system, and from what I have heard about it, it was not well executed. I think any economic platform, whether it be communism, socialism or capitalism, needs to be executed properly. I don't see any examples of any of them with good execution. They all involve either government corruption (acting with self interest over the public's interests) or a complete disregard for the environment. Historical examples of communism don't include high civil liberty...but it can in theory. In terms of the politburo...the key would be to not have politicians...but the actual technological innovators and scientists. Politicians are a complete waste and unnecessary. Once you have internet and people have connectivity, I don't see the point in having "representatives". Western democracy is weird as well. There is a lot of corruption in the process of selecting candidates, and having corporate interests fund them. That election had Trump vs. Clinton. These are not ideal leaders by any means, but they are able to do whatever it takes politically to navigate through the system and satisfy their own self interests. Actual leaders don't seem to get involved with politics. This is simply a thought that has nothing to do with our reality. For it to ever get to that point, we would need a conscious population...with a hive mentality. Similar to how a bee does what is needed for the hive, and not himself or herself. There is no personal interest outside of the success of the hive as a whole. It will take some time before we get there, if we can ever get there before destroying ourselves. |
|
|
|
...
Defense spending is the most controversial of them all. For example, the majority of the American taxpayers remain opposed to spending the tax revenue on reckless invasions of third world nations, such as Iraq and Libya.
The money spent invading Iraq could have bought cheap housing for 90% of America's homeless, and still be money left over to feed 10 million hungry people in the 3rd world for 10 years. Pulled those numbers out of my ass but they are probably close. A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year. US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe. And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil. Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure). But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs? War is a business where some die for others to make money. Arms manufacturers, military contractors, construction companies that are in charge of post-war reconstruction works, oil companies, etc. War is disguised of ideals such as peace or democracy but in reality itīs just a business, this is why wars are made in countries with oil or other natural or geostrategic resources. Something similar happens with hunger and poverty. Hunger and poverty allow large companies to set up their factories in these countries for a wretched salary, hunger and poverty serve to have weak countries whose natural resources can be easily dispossessed and also serve to create the kind of baldness that generates civil wars, which are also a business. I completely agree with you. When the military industrial complex was starting out, Eisenhower warned about the situation we're in today, in 1961. Can't spend $700 billion to prepare for war and not have wars. But going back to taxation, this type of industry is only possible with a massive budget that is funded by tax payers. Although some tax payers are in favour and would support it, there is a significant part of the population that doesn't, but is still forced to fund it. FREEYOURWALLET from taxation.  I'm with you dude. Especially with the type of government our current taxes fund. If the "state" was run by benevolent scientists and innovators...maybe I'd voluntarily contribute...but current politicians...no bueno I think my buddy Jacques Ellul...a french sociologist, had it right..."There are no political solutions, only technological ones; the rest is propaganda." |
|
|
|
A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year. US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe. And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil.
Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure). But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Awad_bin_LadenThis man fathered a total of 56 children by 22 wives. Who's going to feed all those beautiful babies? What if you were one of those babies? Possibly the same resources that are being invested into building a bomb? I'm not going to defend that man in anyway though...and maybe the point is many would take advantage of the handouts given...which I agree with. But with technological advancement, at the end of the day...machines or robots will be doing more and more work which will replace human labour and income. The world will have to go in a socialist direction because of this anyways, or you will have to deal with a massive population that cannot support themselves, which will make the aggregate standard of living lower. How happy will you be as a wealthy person getting into your ferrari when there are 10 people starving outside your front door? You make a valid point with ever increasing population being essentially fed by ever decreasing group of people. However, keep in mind, that the actual work is not done by robots. But by those behind them. Capital holders (owners), technicians, engineers etc... robots are merely muscles. If you insists on the notion - very noble notion, that this small group is obliged to feed the inactive rest, how are you going to compensate those pillars of humanity? Lets cut the BS and talk actual bussiness. What will the rest of humanity gives in return for being caretaken by minority of dedicated specialists and share holders slaving away for its welfare? You cant offer them immortal salvation, only faith in God can do that. So what then?Interesting. There is a human component to build the robot and program it to function in a certain way. But the human component is decreasing. You already have robots that make robots, programmed by human. But AI will likely be here this century, which would mean there doesn't need to be any human input at all. You don't need to pay robots, they don't need breaks or holidays...so they generate value that can either go to the owners (like in our current economic system), or to be for the benefit of civilization, or a combination of both. I don't insist on that notion of obligation, but I feel like humanity will likely move in that direction. The old and present model of being paid money for hours of human labour...I feel will need to change with automation. Think of taxi drivers and alternative paid transportation like uber...imagine how it will be affected by driverless cars with autopilot and gps. There are many other industries that will get affected similarly and those jobs will go away over time. It's even in the best interest of rich people, to have a middle class. If it's only super rich and poor, then it can become unsafe for a rich person. Look at Elon Musk for example...he is voluntarily trying to make a positive impact on the environment through sustainable energy (solar), battery storage and electric cars. I think there will be more people that take that model of work, where they are super smart, understand how to acquire huge resources, and the use those resources to innovate technology that will help humanity as a whole, even though it is for profit...the impact is positive. But in terms of what will humanity do in return for having their basic needs provided...I'm not sure. Society would be very different if the extreme struggle associated with fulfilling basic needs was completely removed. I think people would be two ways to go. The lazy people can just chill, and be content. And others would follow their passions, which may result in some type of mastery and contribution back to society. Personally, if that was the way society was at the moment, and my basic needs were taken care of, I would follow my passions and dedicate myself to get as good as I could possibly get. And maybe if I get good enough, I can produce a good or service that people would enjoy. Actually sounds like a communist approach...but a very technologically advanced execution lol. |
|
|
|
...
Defense spending is the most controversial of them all. For example, the majority of the American taxpayers remain opposed to spending the tax revenue on reckless invasions of third world nations, such as Iraq and Libya.
The money spent invading Iraq could have bought cheap housing for 90% of America's homeless, and still be money left over to feed 10 million hungry people in the 3rd world for 10 years. Pulled those numbers out of my ass but they are probably close. A couple years ago, I heard that the cost of eliminating world hunger was $30 billion a year. US "defense" spending is at $700 billion currently I believe. And lol @ using the word defense, when it none of it takes place on US soil...everything is initiating offence on foreign soil. Not sure how many people aren't getting adequate food and water, but one year without making guns, bombs, tanks and fighter jets...would give approximately 23 years of food and clean water...and probably a sustainable infrastructure that could provide it for even longer (water filtration + farming infrastructure). But who needs that when you have the mother of all bombs? War is a business where some die for others to make money. Arms manufacturers, military contractors, construction companies that are in charge of post-war reconstruction works, oil companies, etc. War is disguised of ideals such as peace or democracy but in reality itīs just a business, this is why wars are made in countries with oil or other natural or geostrategic resources. Something similar happens with hunger and poverty. Hunger and poverty allow large companies to set up their factories in these countries for a wretched salary, hunger and poverty serve to have weak countries whose natural resources can be easily dispossessed and also serve to create the kind of baldness that generates civil wars, which are also a business. I completely agree with you. When the military industrial complex was starting out, Eisenhower warned about the situation we're in today, in 1961. Can't spend $700 billion to prepare for war and not have wars. But going back to taxation, this type of industry is only possible with a massive budget that is funded by tax payers. Although some tax payers are in favour and would support it, there is a significant part of the population that doesn't, but is still forced to fund it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
