Money Is Political, Not Technical

[randegibran]

Why not, money is political and not technical there, if you have much money you can make some altcoin price pump suddendly without have to learn about technical or chart, you can make much profit without have to understand about chart at support to buy or to sell because happen with some altcoin in exchange.

[1714193357]

1714193357

[1714193357]

1714193357

[1714193357]

1714193357

[dimonstration]

Money is considered as medium in anything. It might be acquired by technical analysis. Some from the political views. As a medium of doing transaction it's not necessarily by political only. Some people use money and don't give a damn in political issues. It's too wide to be just in political area.

[cutesgirl]

Money is political and not have technical, if you have big power you can make much money because you have everything what do you want to do, you can manage cryptocurrency if you have control with political when you have banned or legal bitcoin and altcoin to make price higher, maybe you can remember with John McAffe could make some coin price pump.

[julien hawari]

Money has always been a tool of politics first, and then the economy. So the invited elite of society always went into politics primarily in order to strengthen their economic, that is, financial position. On the whole, the issue of issuing money has always been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. Who controlled the issue of issuing money, he had real political power. Therefore, one should not be surprised if states continue to tighten the rules for cryptocurrency circulation and try to control it.

Yes, it's true. Politics and money have always been and will be inextricably linked. The meaning of political decisions is usually almost always aimed at strengthening the economic condition of society or its individual groups. There is nothing surprising here. After all, we live in our rough physical world, where the economy determines politics, and not vice versa

I tend to disagree with this view

If anything, it is politicians who determine the economic policy of a country and ultimately its fate, not economists. Politics has the upper hand in the economic matters, and to prove that is in fact pretty easy. Most wars turn out an economic disaster for the belligerent countries (it has been so for millenia), while the questions of peace and war are in the hands of a few people who may not have a damn clue about economics and how the economy works. In other words, it remains to be seen whether political decisions are actually aimed at strengthening the economic conditions of a country as it may well be to the contrary

Could those people actually end up having economic benefits from wars? Direct of indirect benefits?
Centralization of power and situation where economic operators are dependent on government to operate creates situations of monopolies, corruption, etc... 

[deisik]

If anything, it is politicians who determine the economic policy of a country and ultimately its fate, not economists. Politics has the upper hand in the economic matters, and to prove that is in fact pretty easy. Most wars turn out an economic disaster for the belligerent countries (it has been so for millenia), while the questions of peace and war are in the hands of a few people who may not have a damn clue about economics and how the economy works. In other words, it remains to be seen whether political decisions are actually aimed at strengthening the economic conditions of a country as it may well be to the contrary

Could those people actually end up having economic benefits from wars? Direct of indirect benefits?

This is certainly possible

Ultimately, it all depends on how successful these people are at warfare and ensuing dominion (remember, the winner takes it all, the loser's standing small). The most conspicuous example of this kind is the Roman Empire (first Republic, or how it was called before it became an empire). It led quite a number of successful wars through which it expanded its territory manifold and promoted economic wellbeing of its citizens

And when it finally collapsed, it was mostly due to internal corruption and discord, not wars of conquest as such. As a matter of fact, the Roman Empire even began to shrink near the end of its rule as it was no longer able to protect its lengthy borders due to continual economic and political failure of the state (e.g. Romans withdrew from Britain in the late 4th century about a hundred years prior to the fall of Rome herself)

Centralization of power and situation where economic operators are dependent on government to operate creates situations of monopolies, corruption, etc...

Well, technically, centralization of power doesn't necessarily mean centralization of economy through monopolies, etc. Although such centralization definitely creates certain incentives, you may still have a kind of monarchy with a properly decentralized economy

[doomistake]

I don't think money is entirely political. It started off as a technical solution - an abstraction of value from things themselves to things (coins) that represent value, all based on an understanding that everyone would agree that the coins represented a certain amount of value. Of course this is simplifying it, because coins were made of silver etc that already had an agreed value, but I think the basic point holds.

Banks are under the Government, the government is the one who make the call on what to do about the fiat that is being printed when it is needed. For me money is entirely political because they are the ones who is controlling it, they are using the banks to make it compact and well organized while citizens are using it on their everyday lives that keeps the economy moving, just my opinion, you don't have to believe it.

[iv4n]

I don't think money is entirely political. It started off as a technical solution - an abstraction of value from things themselves to things (coins) that represent value, all based on an understanding that everyone would agree that the coins represented a certain amount of value. Of course this is simplifying it, because coins were made of silver etc that already had an agreed value, but I think the basic point holds.

Banks are under the Government, the government is the one who make the call on what to do about the fiat that is being printed when it is needed. For me money is entirely political because they are the ones who is controlling it, they are using the banks to make it compact and well organized while citizens are using it on their everyday lives that keeps the economy moving, just my opinion, you don't have to believe it.

Its more then your opinion, banks need to follow the rules, rules set by government. Every country is different, in some countries banks have more power, in others less, point is that they have a deal with government. For example interest rates are different everywhere, in some countries citizens are protected until some level, in others banks can have power to do what they like, of course with the deal with government.
Money is political, and banks are politicized. In my country the Governor of the National Bank is a politician. That speaks for itself.

[ropyu1978]

that's a reality that recently a few people realize, maybe there will be bad thoughts about it
for example they actually don't make decisions according to conscience and the impact caused but money is a priority

[julien hawari]

What are your thoughts on Financial Capitalism vs Industrial Capitalism?
In in those different approach the use of money and the impact of Crypto.

[Btcvilla]

How smart you are without money you can manage anything and you are not have power in political, by money you can doing what do you want and you have power full and do not need technical if you have money, like in cryptocurrency you can make price higher if you have much money without have skill for technical.

[Pearls Before Swine]

True, the US is not Zimbabwe, or Venezuela, but is a bright person like himself not aware that a dollar or pound is worth a small fraction of itself decades to a century ago? 

Can't argue with that, but for example the U.S. dollar has been off the gold standard for decades.  And I would point out that wages have been increasing for at least as long as we've been off the gold standard.  The inflation therefore hasn't been nearly as bad as some would suggest.

On the other hand I fear for future generations if the money printing continues unabated.  This kind of thing cannot go on indefinitely, and the U.S. cannot maintain its dominancy if the federal reserve keeps churning out the money.  They're extremely short sighted and I have a feeling they just don't care about future generations having to clean up their economic mess.

Christ this country is fucked.  (United States, that is).

[julien hawari]

True, the US is not Zimbabwe, or Venezuela, but is a bright person like himself not aware that a dollar or pound is worth a small fraction of itself decades to a century ago? 

Can't argue with that, but for example the U.S. dollar has been off the gold standard for decades.  And I would point out that wages have been increasing for at least as long as we've been off the gold standard.  The inflation therefore hasn't been nearly as bad as some would suggest.

On the other hand I fear for future generations if the money printing continues unabated.  This kind of thing cannot go on indefinitely, and the U.S. cannot maintain its dominancy if the federal reserve keeps churning out the money.  They're extremely short sighted and I have a feeling they just don't care about future generations having to clean up their economic mess.

Christ this country is fucked.  (United States, that is).

That has been the case because the dollar is the world reserve currency. It gave the Fed a free ticket to print as much as it wants. Can this be sustained with China and Russia moving away from the existing status quo? If this is not sustained inflation will go up the roof in most developed countries and gold and bitcoin will become the safe heaven to store your money. One can be confiscated the other not. 

[deisik]

Christ this country is fucked.  (United States, that is)

We need a proper perspective on the situation

For example, the US may be fucked but it doesn't matter if the rest of the world is even more fucked up. So if the elites (world government, aliens, etc) keep things this way, the US is essentially okay. Regarding excessive money printing, it doesn't in the least affect the future generations, and for two good reasons

First, whatever insane amount of money gets printed, it is almost instantly balanced out by prices. Rising prices are a sort of knee-jerk reaction which resets the balance at a new level. And second, a new generation can just reset the currency itself (and start printing new money like never before)

[BobK71]

For example, the US may be fucked but it doesn't matter if the rest of the world is even more fucked up. So if the elites (world government, aliens, etc) keep things this way, the US is essentially okay. Regarding excessive money printing, it doesn't in the least affect the future generations, and for two good reasons

This really boils down to the imperial system.  The system makes sure that all countries are financially more unstable than the current imperial seat (which is the US today.)  Any government that doesn't implement policies that support this financial hierarchy (or the imperial command structure required to maintain it) is subject to negative propaganda, economic or financial destabilization, or regime change by coup, assassination, up to invasion.  (This hierarchy ensures that capital will flow up, and pain will flow down, thus stabilizing the system from the bad effects of money printing by the imperial elites.)

Perhaps the 'mildest' case of this imperialism in action was forcing Western Europe to inflate under the Plaza-Louvre accords of the 1980s in order to support an orderly deflation of the dollar bubble of the US's own making.  If the Europeans hadn't complied, proposed US protectionist policies would have devastated their exports, their economies, and the political futures of their leaders.

Among the bloodier cases of imperialist action must be sending money and arms to 'rebels' in Syria in 2011 to overthrow 'dictator' Assad (who had dared defy the empire,) ending up with hundreds of thousands of deaths in the civil war that followed.  We also have to mention the 1953 CIA-operated coup that overthrew the democratically elected prime minister of Iran and restored the Shah to power who became legendary for using torture and killing to protect his regime before he was popularly booted from power in 1979.  Granted, the Shah was OUR dictator.  See the expose by a US deep-state insider, 'Confessions of An Economic Hit Man,' for more of the same, over the mid-to-late 20th century.

First, whatever insane amount of money gets printed, it is almost instantly balanced out by prices. Rising prices are a sort of knee-jerk reaction which resets the balance at a new level. And second, a new generation can just reset the currency itself (and start printing new money like never before)

This view is problematic if you look at the last 30 years in the West.  The printed money only went to the lucky and the rich, so the general average inflation has been mild.  Crazy money printing and generalized reset by inflation are not at all what the Western elites want as a first choice, since it gives a bad rep to the money their print.  But it might be a last resort, right before the angry mobs are about to physically take the power from them.

Because of the imperial structure mentioned above, this last scenario has seldom, if ever, occurred in countries at the top of the system.

[Searing]

I don't think you can complete divorce money as political vs the techincal in that the change in how democracy and incumbents get $$$ now below.

That is the issue. As an aside to the above, problem-solving at the congressional level is now dead. Say both sides agree to fix a problem. In the past, the problem is

agreed upon (hard to do now) but say you get past that point. Say you want to improve the social safety net in these hard times. The right wants private the left wants

public. Both don't trust others only one or the other positions. In the past, you would work around this by checks and balances on both a public/private solution that both

parties could agree with. Now with unlimited money in politics and this allows both sides to break on whatever policy of their party with impunity. Why should I as a

Does the legislator do the above? No votes on 600-800 bills in the Senate that I have to show a position on that might put me at odds with my outside donors and my


constituants..no vote no responsibility as a representative..ie easy election. Indeed the harder I push and stick to my position, however extreme it may be in either a right

or left viewpoint..the more $$$ I will get from out-of-state donors for such and have even MORE autonomy from my own party, whichever it may be. So no incentive to

have a position say in the Senate as a moderate of either party (no vote allowed) and it is all stacked to gridlock. So from an exchange of ideas point of view above..this is

not a good trend to get anything done, if your party, whoever it is, can't herd their own cats and now has no incentive to be bi-partisan if it will get you kicked out of your

party at the primary.

So from a technical view of how consensus and such is supposed to work in the USA and the legislatures...etc. This can become an issue for BTC/Crypto in that

powers that be of banking/govt/large corporations/etc will try to bend blockchain and political regulations and laws to a more 'centralized' view than 'decentralized' IMHO.

So the technical aspects of decentralized Bitcoin may be a thread in the idea that 'money is political' not for the money reason, like in most politics and above, but

also in the actual decentralized use of money (BTC) that is beyond the reach of such corruption and manipulation ..this is aside and above the above usual

political $$$ in money and how consensus does not rule anymore. So can you convince both sides of the political realm that Bitcoin is a store of value and not as

a threat to one camp or the other? Time will tell I guess. But not cut and dried. Also, the more BTC in its decentralized nature can just take off and do its own

thing and not linked to bonds/stocks/currencies or gov't policies like traditional money and along with the rest of the above...there will be more FUD on the horizon the

The faster we get ATH's the more FOMO and of course the knee-jerk reaction by traditional centers of money and power above to FUD and slow down adoption. So longer

Bitcoin/Crypto exists and the more decentralized it is the more technical governments will try to regulate and nit-pick IMHO. So it goes.

Brad

[mamiko]

money is both a political and a technical issue. the two are related together. I think one cannot be without the other.

[inoes]

is it true that money is a political tool and the goal of political victory? whereas the purpose of creating money is to make transactions easier for humans.
but I agree on that. from ancient times money was used to finance war, the conversion of European money into dollars, and now there is the slogan "time is money". money has changed its function and purpose

[drlukacs]

Good post but I think you are concentrating too much in the way things work now, if you look at the past you will see that the asset which was selected as a form of money was the one that had the best characteristics, this is why in ancient times gold and silver were chosen by many independent cultures as their form of money, but this has been distorted in recent times, bitcoin is just a way to try to go back to those times in which the superior asset became dominant.

I think Dr. Steven Englander's point is correct, money is political and it should not be replaced by Bitcoin or any other asset class.

Not only does fiat money represent the value of each nation, but it also represents political power in countries. If fiat money were meaningless, then there would be no differentiation between currencies across countries. All have its reasons.

Although Bitcoin has the ability to reduce inflation, it is very volatile, which is also one of the factors that makes it impossible to be a universal currency. We are talking about the macro and don't bring the microscopic factors for comparison.

[Searing]

Well, there is 'always' going to be some kinda push back from 'centralized' entiities with something as decentralized as Bitcoin. Indeed, I 'foresee' more than a 'bit' of

backlash against Litecoin (LTC) if and when they ever get Mimblewimble

https://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-gets-bullish-speculation-at-last-as-upgrade-approaches

which says, I quote:

"The upgrade will put in effect a “privacy protocol” known as Mimblewimble, which is supposed to help shield the identities of holders of senders and recipients of litecoin tokens while also improving the network’s ability to scale to handle more transactions."

Because the Founder Charlie Lee, is 'known' and the simple act of 'breaking' with Bitcoin Core Developers that decided in the past to NOT add Mimblewimble protocol, well,

that seems ripe for regulation by a centralized govt to ban the protocol. Not saying it will happen, but with Litecoin (LTC) past historical path of following Bitcoin Core and

suddenly doing this, it 'might' be enough for regulators to 'single this out' and slap it down. Indeed the USA government is currently this little bit below includes Bitcoin

Lightning Network.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/the-irs-offers-a-625-000-bounty-to-anyone-who-can-break-monero-and-lightning

So there ya have it, govt and centralized wealth and power HATE decentralized crypto and/or power...it seems they are drawing the line or trying to inch by inch

stopping what they see as decentralized anonymity with decentralized crypto in these cases.

Which I find hilarious, because a person can take any crypto and convert to cash first and then use such anonymously instead.

So it goes, first comes ATH then comes FOMO then come panic by centralized power/wealth and influence or FUD

rinse/wash/repeat

Brad

[GeorgeJohn]

I agree with you because is obvious that politics is money because no activity concerning politics that does not required money that is while politician's spend what ever they have in order to occupy a political position with any dimension or strategies to assume office and when them do no one can control them because them use money to buy political position, I know that pattern of politician across the countries is one and it can't change.