If there is a Great Reset.

The european union, international monetary fund, world health organization, united nations, china. All groups and organizations funded by banks, and their left wing allies, will push for something resembling a centralized one world government.

On the opposition side, we might see #brexit, catalan independence. All major independence, populist, movements occurring around the world in opposition to centralized authority figures like the european union would likely prefer decentralization.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies would likely be utilized to push cashless society and financial engineering MMT ventures IMO. It may also be utilized to help banks and other financial institutions improve the efficiency of their financial networks as well as hold crypto as intrinsic value collateral aka gold 2.0.

Volatility would mainly affect businesses who hold akoin. Exchanging akoin for another more stable currency shortly after transactions would protect against volatility if it became a concern. A few years ago, uganda implemented a "social media tax" where ugandans were taxed for using social media platforms like facebook or instagram. Their banking industry is structured similarly with usury level fees. Enough so that african crypto exchanges like golix were always willing to pay 20%+ more for bitcoin, in contrast to crypto exchanges in other regions of the world. They wouldn't necessarily struggle to liquidate akoin. Crypto is in high demand there due to it being a far more efficient and cost effective system than banking platforms africans normally deal with.

IIRC the wage in some african regions is as low as $30/month. While this is being hyped as a multi billion dollar project. It could be implemented with a smaller price tag, on a grassroots level.

The real question is whether banks and governments would view it as a "threat" to their monopolies in the area.




The DNA of all currently living people has been traced back to a single woman who lived in africa more than 100,000 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

It would seem that's where modern man descended from. Although there are some who do claim differently.

This is social security

• Taxes are collected to fund SS
• "Surplus" SS tax revenues are diverted towards the pockets of the rich, war in the middle east, feminist marches, transgender beauty pageants and other dubious special interest causes of the rich and powerful
• After decades upon decades of diverting "surplus" revenues, to redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich, the program is catastrophically underfunded
• The media says the problem with social security is old people are living too long, there isn't enough money being collected, taxes must be raised higher(essentially identical to what europe says about their failing universal healthcare)

UBI would undoubtedly be the same as the public has not learned the necessary lessons, or researched the minimum amount of information to prevent history from repeating.




...

• UBI is funded by tax hikes on workers and employers
• Said UBI tax hikes cripple the ability of small businesses and employers to create jobs and employ workers
• This leads to more tax hikes being necessary to fund programs like UBI, which then go on to kill more jobs and make it harder for small businesses to create jobs or employ workers

How did Donald Trump achieve record low unemployment and record high job creation BTW?

Was it through tax hikes and massive spending programs like UBI. Or simple and affordable tax cuts.

Since Trump assumed the Presidency in 2016, the united states has closed 50 coal fueled power plants. Meanwhile in china, plans were recently announced to construct 700 new coal power plants. The Paris Accords heavily punish the private sector and economy of nations like the united states for "destroying the environment". While giving nations like china a free pass to pollute and destroy the environment and planet as much as they like. Draw whatever conclusions you choose from this.

The main sector of the US economy which is not "environmentally friendly" is the military. I doubt you'll ever see a proposal for american military vehicles, ships or planes with a lower carbon footprint improved fuel mpg. Range, lower maintenance and fuel economy are some of the main advantages chinese and russian militaries enjoy over america's armed forces. Its not an advantage they would want mentioned or would likely plan on abandoning anytime soon.

Africa has become known for financial and economic instability stemming from fiat currency hyperinflation, resource and economic mismanagement and assorted systemic faults. Whether we're discussing the dark history of the zimbabwe dollar. Or africans paying $20,000+ for 1 bitcoin in 2017 when the price of BTC was $16k in other parts of the world, on greatly elevated demand. A dire need for economic and financial stability in the region, could make akon's proposed city in senegal viable. It could shield residents in the region from fiat hyperinflation, providing consumers with greater options to protect wealth. Free market competition introduced by akoin could incentivize banks in the region offering better terms and rates. All of which could boost job markets and economies. Leading to elevated wealth, freedom and standard of living.

In 2018 many were disappointed to learn there was no wakanda in africa. Black Panther was making its rounds in theaters. Africa being the acknowledged birthplace and cradle of human civilization. It seems to intuitively follow africa could have a high tech city of enlightened principles and superior technology to show for their culture being ranked amongst the most ancient on the planet. It has captured imaginations so that some have announced proposals to build their best version of a city like wakanda from the movie. Akon is not the first to make such a proposal. Like James Lebron of NBA fame founding his own private school which in ways is superior to state run public schooling. Perhaps Akon can improve conditions and standards through initiatives like this one, if their implementation reflects fundamental needs of the people.

It all comes down to details and implementation IMO.

UBI is identical to SS in that both payout benefits derived from tax hikes.

If a person had a choice of pension plan and their options were social security, 401k, IRA roth or a basic savings bank account. No one would choose SS. It pays negative returns. Its the worst investment on top of being the worst managed and structured system.

UBI is identical to SS in that its a big government, big tax, big spending program that would payout negative returns. Surplus tax revenues collected from UBI would be redistributed towards war in the middle east, free healthcare for illegal immigrants and other dubious special interests.

Over the long term, UBI like social security, doesn't solve real problems. It only creates worse ones.




Heavy.com disables comments by default to further close their publication to honest peer review. If you read that quotation carefully, you might notice it makes no sense.



Read the 2nd half of the quotation above, carefully.


Here Milton Friedman criticizes programs like UBI. What "makes it costly for employers to employ people"? UBI does exactly that through tax hikes on businesses and workers utilized to fund UBI. What increasingly taxes work, to subsidize non work? UBI does. Even if Milton Friedman doesn't mention UBI by name, we can clearly see he would be against the program.




Commentary on UBI normally doesn't amount to more than political propaganda.

Claiming that UBI is popular with the right is the same as saying Jesus supports socialism/communism.

UBI is like strapping windmills and solar panels on top of a tesla electric car. Expecting the additional energy generated to compensate for the added weight. There's a law of diminishing returns which applies here that proves it won't work even before its attempted.

But some are determined to --try it-- anyway.

Maybe it is due to them not comprehending basic logic/science.

Thoughts on the above?

Programs like UBI have existed for decades (if not centuries) and been commented upon by famous economists like Milton Friedman.



Image link in case embed doesn't work:  https://i.imgur.com/weKszn4.jpg

• The first part of the quotation describes how to solve long term unemployment
• The second part of the quote describes how increasingly taxing work to subsidize non work is the opposite of everything he described to fix unemployment

People discuss programs like UBI as if they're new. When in reality, they're virtually identical to social security. Which has existed for awhile now.

What we're lacking is honest and educated commentary upon how effective and efficient these types of programs have been from a historical perspective.

The silence of real commentary on the issue is deafening.

This illustrates where the concept of the rich not being taxed enough came from originally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOwaMWewGY


This was before Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and many others shifted their stance on this topic 180° degrees.

Many large corporations like google started out with mottos like "don't be evil" which they later put aside and did the opposite of.

Warren Buffett admitted he was taxed at 17% of income years ago. That was without exploiting tax loopholes or resorting to any of the commonly utilized methods of tax avoidance utilized by the rich. Many americans pay 30% to 50% or higher of taxes on income.

That's the origins story behind where the idea of the rich not being taxed enough* comes from.

Sen. Sanders proposes one-time tax that would cost Bezos $42.8 billion, Musk $27.5 billion

Source:  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/06/sanders-billionaire-tax-bill-would-cost-bezos-musk-zuckerberg.html


....


Isn't it strange how chinese billionaires, EU billionaires and asian billionaires are not attacked this way.

Only billionaires responsible for creating jobs and innovation in the american economy are attacked.

The same precedent applies to anti trust laws and monopolies. American corporations are exclusively targeted by them. Unionization and tax hikes on the private sector likewise reserved for american business only. Journalists and media publish a highly disproportionate amount of hate pieces intended to influence the public into hating Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. Why.

The question is why. Does anyone have an explanation for american business being treated unfairly in global markets. What does everyone think.

Imagine that you live in a world where homeless populations are swelling in numbers off of the working class being screwed 24/7.

Imagine that CEO's gave themselves the raises that were supposed to go to the working class over the past 4 or 5 decades.

Imagine that a campaign is being pursued to replace human workers with robots. Workers are under attack and have been for a long time to an indifferent and apathetic public that remains asleep and has not noticed.

...

Now imagine that one day those responsible for these anti worker policies came to you and said "let's give workers more power by eliminating powers traditionally held by CEOs or shareholders".

Would you believe they care about workers after they spent the past 50 years killing jobs, killing wages and otherwise attacking the prosperity of the working class to such a ridiculous degree that homeless populations were significantly growing in size?




I bet china won't adopt this. The EU won't adopt it.

Its a USA only proposal. Innovation and progress are what makes america's economy and gdp great. Marxist professors aren't proposing this because they want capitalism to succeed, their goal is and always has been the opposite.




Socialism routinely throws trillions of dollars at untested ideas with no proof of concept.

Capitalism demands both testing and proof of concept before throwing even a million dollars at ideas.

Chinese billionaire Jack Ma was forced to step down from Alibaba.

One might say he stepped down so that the chinese communist "workers party" could take control of it, indirectly.

This is happening right now to existing companies in various forms.

One might say the SEC tried to do this to Elon Musk utilizing different methods to reduce the control and influence he has over tesla.

The media is also trying to do this to amazon to some degree. Trying to force amazon to utilize unions and accept other measures to whittle away the control Jeff Bezos has over it.

The goal isn't to improve status quo for workers.

Its to strip majority share holders like Jeff Bezos(amazon) and Elon Musk(tesla) of control of their own companies. (And there are worse implications.)

Remove intelligent and competent leadership. Replace with unqualified puppets. Innovation and progress stalls as a result.

If anyone cared about the implications, they could test this on a small scale, on a trial basis to collect data on how it performs.

When people propose implementing wide sweeping measures that have never been utilized or tested before on a large scale. Isn't it a tiny bit suspicious?

If someone proposed building a house, using a radical method that had never been tried or tested before. Would it sound like a good idea to risk everything on a one shot solution people know nothing about.

Would people be willing to gamble the stability of their economy and job markets on a "solution" that was never vetted through a testing process.

The united states has done the same for decades.

Its everywhere.

Timeline: europe and asia were hit hard by the virus, before any confirmed cases were announced in the united states.

Geographically they are located nearer to the epicenter of the pandemic. They were hit by it first. Which could mean their economies will naturally recover before america's does.

I see the US President tweeting now & it is strange that neither he nor his advisors seem aware of this.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1289397528639791104

I still think the best method to curb disappointment in governments is to rely on them less.

• Grow food
• Produce water
• Generate electricity
• Build and fix things
• Share knowledge and information
• Improve coordination and communication between communities

If we're able to do these basic things, it gives governments less power and control over us.

As far as corona virus goes.

• Some herbs, plants and fruits carry anti viral properties which can be effective against viruses like corona
• Chloroquine which was affordable and available worldwide is effective in treating it
• Masks are also effective deterrents

The philippines could be in a difficult situation with china over the south china sea conflict. That could be one more thing to take into account.

Imagine chinese communists sitting around a boardroom table. Smoking weed and brainstorming ways to convince americans to destroy their own economy. So that china can emerge as the #1 global power.

....

"Americans love democracy. Let's convince them granting unqualified, uninformed, uneducated and undisciplined workers executive power to make key business decisions is a good thing."

"Would they fall for that?"

"We spent decades lowering their educational standards. Feeding them unhealthy GMO food to stunt their intelligence. Bombarding them with cultural garbage like the kardashians in an effort to diminish their cognitive capacity and common sense. There is a chance it could be successful."

Imagine if the US mint reduced fiat production capacity by 50% today. And by another 50% four years from now. Similar to bitcoin's halving reducing rewards for miners. Halving introduces scarcity which could promote long term HODL growth.

One of the questions with bitcoin volatility is to what degree mining dumps cause it. Miners have a steady stream of crypto which could allow them to set price. If they coordinated to dump high or dump low they could move the price and determine volatility. Crypto mining being centralized in china, could give them some control in determining not only price but also its relative stability over time.

Reward halvings could diminish this capacity, which could reduce volatility as mining dumps gradually became smaller in scope.




Scaling doesn't guarantee the cost of fees will decline.

In the past, miners produced blocks that were only 10% to 50% full to create artificial scarcity in transaction capacity. To drive the cost of transactions up. Similar to how metals industries like aluminum manipulate supply in markets. They also create artificial scarcity to drive prices up.

Bitcoin charges "6-7 dollars" for transactions, that banks and others would charge $20 to $50+ for BTW.

Attempt at better defining this topic.

Most long term investments are defined in terms of low daily volatility and incremental long term growth. As opposed to the polar opposite of those things.

Long term holdings are usually not attached to merchant solutions allowing for thousands of transactions per second like credit cards. You'd likely never expect to hear a HODL'er of real estate, gold or 401K's complain about not being able to utilize their long term holdings to buy a cup of coffee, due to a lack of real time transactional speed.

To some degree the "bitcoin must scale" paradigm claims btc should become more like a short term traded asset, with higher short term transactional volume and greater volatility. Which might be comparable to implementing a credit card scheme off of a 401k account.

Bitcoin's deflationary model however could be better suited towards producing value through lower volatility and a lower transactional volume. Which could be more appealing to long term investors who prefer investing their capital in safer markets defined by lower volatility rates.

In a sense, bitcoin tries to be a jack of all trades. When it might be better suited to being a specialized HODL master of one. With a profile closer to what one would expect from long term HODL assets. There's a counter argument here which says bitcoin's long term emphasis is a best of both worlds, a benefit rather than a hindrance. I'm not trying to prove things one way or the other. Only interested in hearing what others might say on the topic.

Basic premise

• Bitcoin HODL may have no reason to scale
• For the same reasons 401ks, roth IRAs, precious metals and other HODL investment vehicles are not structured to accommodate thousands of ATM convenient fund transactions per second

....

High volatility, instability and price fluctuations are more strongly correlated with day traded FOREX assets which can be utilized to buy a cup of coffee. In contrast to the polar opposite.

Long term investment vehicles, tend to prefer lower average volatility coupled with balance locking virtually identical to crypto staking. Or limited options for withdrawal, with some time based penalties for early fund access.

There may be a fundamental conflict between being a high volume day traded asset which can be utilized to purchase daily goods and services. And being an optimized HODL asset. Which in traditional finance is geared towards lower volatility, less volume and reduced access. A conflict which is seldom acknowledged.

I think this is an interesting discussion topic for crypto. What do you think?