No. The discourse on inequality has replaced the discourse on poverty. Until not so long ago the problem was poverty, but as poverty in the world has been drastically reduced and that discourse no longer works, now the same ideology talks about inequality.


It's just that you're positing an isolated thought experiment that has no correspondence to the real world and is based, again, on seeing wealth as a pie, so we take it away from the rich and give $1k extra to workers, and it doesn't work that way. For starters, the rich usually have that money in investments, in Amazon stock, for example, so that money is not sitting idle.



In Victorian England, there was that tendency, in modern societies with open economies and full employment, employers have to provide good working conditions to fill vacancies. Apart from that, there are exceptions, of course, but they are not the norm.


If you give examples, we can analyze it.


This is what usually happens, simple socialist measures end up producing the opposite effects of what they said they were going to produce.

It's not a cake. Wealth is potentially much greater than could have been imagined a few centuries ago, and that's just taking into account physical wealth. If you take into account intangible wealth it is potentially infinite.

Do we agree on defining wealth as the bundle of goods and services?

If so, think of the goods and services that have been created so far with the Internet. There is no limit to what can be created.


Again, I don't agree with this. This is the same vision of the cake. Wealth is created, not just transferred from some people to others.


Yes, it's potentially infinite as I've explained above.


It's clearly nonsense to say that poverty is increasing in the world if we change the concept of poverty.The poor until relatively recently did not have enough to eat, and today we consider people who are fat to be poor.


In reality, we are back to the same thing. For me, the best way to solve the problems of those people is with a system that fills their countries with rich people and not thinking that we have to take from one to give to others, as if it were a cake.

Does he really believe that? I find it hard to believe that an intelligent person would think that. And I don't know why the guy in the example has to be white, by the way. Maybe if he was the son of a black billionaire, the Mexican would feel less oppressed.


That is a false dichotomy. It is the classic false dichotomy of socialist ideology (not to mention your trigger word) that considers wealth to be analogous to a cake, so that if the evil rich get richer, there is less of a piece of the pie left for the rest. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I quite agree with what he says, although the world in general seems to be going in the opposite direction lately.

What I miss is for you to comment on something or provide some conclusion other than providing his quotes.

Do you know what a fallacy is?

Hitler believed that the earth is round.

I believe the earth is round.

Therefore I am a Nazi.

That's what you're doing.

It's not too wise asking others what to do with your money and posting it in the wrong place on the forum in your first post.

I hope you have cash left over to buy food, at least. If you buy Bitcoin compulsively but have your basic needs covered, it's OK.

When you reach that number, those who have not purchased:

1) will buy to sell losing money at the lowest FUD.
2) will continue to say that it is a bubble that is going to burst, a scam etc.

It's the same thing that happened when the price went to $1, $10, $100 etc-.

I understand that there are people who like it, because they play video poker like those who play roulette or slots. In my case, I pass. It is much more EV+ to play against other players instead of against a machine.

It's not a lottery ticket if you have done your research.

If you buy Bitcoin because you follow the trend, it's like buying a lottery ticket. If you have informed yourself about what it is, what it can bring to the future of humanity and you buy for it, then you are investing.

About the DCA, many times it serves simply to psychologically withstand price swings. If you are able to withstand it, you can invest everything you have at once. Another thing is that you do not have enough and you are forced to invest little by little because your finances do not allow more.

These posts of yours would look a lot better if you put up proof of the money you are gambling by selling/going short on Bitcoin. What happens is that you won't post it because you're just a big mouth.

Of course you can progress economically and become richer than you are. To think otherwise puts you in the mindset of a victim who expects some politician (usually a socialist or worse) to come to your rescue.

A poor person buying $100 in Bitcoin years ago would have made a lot of money. What happens is that being poor he could not have held the investment for long without selling. When he reached $10K, for example, he would have been tempted to sell, but he could always have sold only a part of it and continued to invest. Or think about getting another $100 to invest.

The one who has a rich mentality (the one who buys assets, who makes money work for him) ends up getting richer.

I too think the analogy doesn't work, as others have commented. For me that the OP usually thinks in philosophy and then tends to set up philosophical analogies to understand everything.

To me it is not relevant what bitcoin is as metaphysically speaking and whether that entity is different from how it was created. What matters to me is its function, the role it plays vs central banks and the role it plays in the future of humanity.

The being and nothingness thing we leave to philosophers.

For me it's just walking. But without carrying my cell phone or not looking at it during the whole trip (with some exceptions, if I am waiting for an important call for example), walking aroud the city is OK, but better in natural environments and looking at the maximum possible distance, where there are no barriers, the sky, the clouds or the horizon.

Sorry that I'm the only one so far who doesn't see the enlightement anywhere.

You are simply talking about price rises and falls and making money, or not losing money by selling early. If you talked about the intrinsic properties of Bitcoin, what it can bring to the future of humanity, etc. maybe I would see the enligthement, but I only see greed.

LOL. Of course prayers don't work.

Prayers are a primitive way of relating to natural phenomena, halfway between animals and scientific thought. Those who bet and pray lose as much money as the rest, because casino games are EV- in the long term, even though in the short term they have positive results. Those who understand scientific thinking, understand what I have just said, the rest are still gambling, praying and losing.

Can you explain this? He lost the election, but I don't understand why you say that. Precisely Trump knows how capitalism works and by removing regulations and lowering taxes he made the American economy work like it hadn't for a long time, which I know are not the kind of measures you like, but I don't see the point in saying that he failed at capitalism.

I don't care if they call me a conspiracy theorist or not, I try to see the truth.

I remind you that if in 2003 you believed that the Iraq War was fought for oil instead of the alleged weapons of mass destruction, you were called conspiracy theorist.

The problem I see with this case is the censorship that has been mounted around it. Youtube videos and social media articles have been censored for saying things that Fauci said in his emails (although he publicly denied it): he questioned the effectiveness of surgical masks, claimed that asymptomatic people rarely infect other people, etc.


Brilliant. Sorry that I'm out of merits. The problem I see with respect to what you say about science is that its name is being used to avoid debate, when science should be just the opposite: open to debate. I believe that it is not that in general we distrust scientific institutions, but that there are some cases that serve as another mechanism of the established power.

I don't know what will happen, as I don't have a crystall ball but I'll perceive nothing.


The meaning of life is biological; living beings are programmed to try to perpetuate our genes. From a more philosophical point of view, life has the meaning you give it. But to wonder about the meaning it has afterwards makes no sense.

Many months ago, I heard the theory that COVID-19 had been created in that institute that had received funding from Fauci among others.

Then I kind of forgot about it, because you hear so many theories nowadays that in the end you don't know what to believe. Now, some emails made public from Fauci himself, point to this hypothesis, although he and others downplay it and say it is a conspiracy theory.

What the emails do seem to make clear is that Fauci lied: "Dr. Anthony Fauci was warned that the coronavirus had possibly been “engineered” and appeared to be taking reports about it seriously — at the same time he was publicly downplaying the notion of the virus being created in a lab, according to his emails."

I don't know about you, but to me the fact that the greatest expert against COVID has funded the institute where he supposedly came from, and that he has tried to hide it smells bad to me, and it seems to me that he is a fox guarding the hen house.

No, thanks, but it doesn't. Actually what I think is that people believe in Gods because that makes them feel better. The idea that we are going to die and that there is nothing is too hard to digest for us humans. Creating an imaginary God is a self-defense mechanism.