Why does bitcoin hate fiat money so much?

[Gabi]

Because it can be hyperinflationed at will, just by printing tons of it. Printing more money=stealing the value from what i have. And i don't like someone stealing value from me.

[1714778699]

1714778699

[1714778699]

1714778699

[1714778699]

1714778699

[Come-from-Beyond]

Because it can be hyperinflationed at will, just by printing tons of it. Printing more money=stealing the value from what i have. And i don't like someone stealing value from me.

Printing more money = indirect tax. Taxes is a good thing. Unfortunately, most of people are selfish, they don't like this, they call this stealing.

Bitcoin doesn't allow to print more money, it even helps to evade taxes. It's the biggest disadvantage of Bitcoin.

[TippingPoint]

Because it can be hyperinflationed at will, just by printing tons of it. Printing more money=stealing the value from what i have. And i don't like someone stealing value from me.

Printing more money = indirect tax. Taxes is a good thing. Unfortunately, most of people are selfish, they don't like this, they call this stealing.

Bitcoin doesn't allow to print more money, it even helps to evade taxes. It's the biggest disadvantage of Bitcoin.

☑ Printing more money = indirect tax
☐ Taxes is a good thing
☑ most of people are selfish
☑ they don't like this
☑ they call this stealing
☑ Bitcoin doesn't allow to print more money
☑ it even helps to evade taxes
☐ It's the biggest disadvantage of Bitcoin

[DPoS]

Because it can be hyperinflationed at will, just by printing tons of it. Printing more money=stealing the value from what i have. And i don't like someone stealing value from me.

Printing more money = indirect tax. Taxes is a good thing. Unfortunately, most of people are selfish, they don't like this, they call this stealing.

Bitcoin doesn't allow to print more money, it even helps to evade taxes. It's the biggest disadvantage of Bitcoin.

☑ Printing more money = indirect tax
☐ Taxes is a good thing
☑ most of people are selfish, they don't like this, they call this stealing
☑ Bitcoin doesn't allow to print more money, it even helps to evade taxes

problem with taxes is that everyone of them gets abused before the ink dries - yes we need everyone to pitch in for certain things to keep going but its like 90% BS these days and getting deeper everyday

that is why there is fiat..  so they can keep overspending.   Instead of waiting to collect taxes, they just go ahead and spend 3 years worth and worry about getting the money later..   paying taxes is more of a control tool in the USA now anyway.  They spend a trillion more than than collect each year now so what's the point?  The point is to control and scare people

Time is money, but money is freedom.  They don't want everyone to sit on a stash of cash since it is a lot harder to get those people to kiss their boots for loose change

[JoelKatz]

Printing more money = indirect tax. Taxes is a good thing. Unfortunately, most of people are selfish, they don't like this, they call this stealing.

It's an indirect tax only on people who hold money though. If you tax windows, people will want fewer windows. Taxes that burden people in some kind of a just way are one thing, but taxes on specific, avoidable things cause people to dislike those things. Hidden taxes are even worse because they undermine the Democratic process that's supposed to control taxation and spending. Inflation is the worst type of tax -- one that is hidden, burdens the poor more than the wealthy (because they need to get raises in their salary just to keep it the same), but is avoidable by those who understand it.

[crumbs]

Printing more money = indirect tax. Taxes is a good thing. Unfortunately, most of people are selfish, they don't like this, they call this stealing.

It's an indirect tax only on people who hold money though.
...

Err...  Those are called "rich people."  You would like to tax the people who *do not* hold any money, the dirt-poor?  Other than being pretty hard to do, also seems a bit nasty, no?

[JoelKatz]

Printing more money = indirect tax. Taxes is a good thing. Unfortunately, most of people are selfish, they don't like this, they call this stealing.

It's an indirect tax only on people who hold money though.
...

Err...  Those are called "rich people."

No, they're called suckers. Rich people are smart enough not to hold money, which they know loses value. Instead they hold things they expect to gain value, such as real estate, stock, art, gold, and so on.

You would like to tax the people who *do not* hold any money, the dirt-poor?

Dirt poor people don't receive a paycheck? They don't have bank accounts? Inflation doesn't tax the dirt poor because the dirt poor have no value to take. It hits people just above that level the hardest.

Other than being pretty hard to do, also seems a bit nasty, no?

You have it completely backwards. Inflation disproportionately burdens the poor, particularly by eroding the real value of their paychecks and secondarily by eroding their savings.

[crumbs]

Printing more money = indirect tax. Taxes is a good thing. Unfortunately, most of people are selfish, they don't like this, they call this stealing.

It's an indirect tax only on people who hold money though.
...

Err...  Those are called "rich people."

No, they're called suckers. Rich people are smart enough not to hold money. Instead they hold real estate, stock, art, gold, and so on.

You would like to tax the people who *do not* hold any money, the dirt-poor?

Dirt poor people don't receive a paycheck? They don't have bank accounts?

Other than being pretty hard to do, also seems a bit nasty, no?

You have it completely backwards. Inflation disproportionately burdens the poor, particularly by eroding the real value of their paychecks.

Let's see what you've done here.  You've shown that rich people don't hold any money because they invest it, and i'm afraid poor people don't hold any money because, by the time they get their paycheck, all the bills are due -- they pay those off and run up that evol CC & get 1% cash back.  So according to you, inflation doesn't hurt anyone.  

As far as eroding the real value of (the poor's) paychecks, that's what raises are for, JoelKatz.  Even the minimum wage gets bumped up once in awhile.  

The Moar U know, JoelKatz.

[JoelKatz]

Let's see what you've done here.  You've shown that rich people don't hold any money because they invest it, and i'm afraid poor people don't hold any money because, by the time they get their paycheck, all the bills are due -- they pay those off and run up that evol CC & get 1% cash back.  So according to you, inflation doesn't hurt anyone.

Perhaps by "poor people" you mean people who are extremely poor. But there are plenty of poor people who save up to put a down payment on a car. There are plenty of poor people who save to put their kids through college.

As far as eroding the real value of (the poor's) paychecks, that's what raises are for, JoelKatz.  Even the minimum wage gets bumped up once in awhile.

If salaries stayed the same in real terms, employers would have to negotiate reductions in salary to reduce salaries in real terms and every time an employee got a raise, it would be a real increase in their salary. But inflation games the system such that employees have to get regular raises just to stay put. This gives a huge advantage to the employer because he wins if no deal is struck.

The more your job pays and the more educated you are, the more likely that you can negotiate regular increases in your salary to keep up with inflation and even outpace it. The less your job pays, the less educated you are, and the more you are replaceable by others who do the same job, the less likely you can get your salary to keep up with inflation. Lawyers, CEOs, and professional athletes don't have much trouble, but cashiers, fast food cooks, and farm workers find it a bit more difficult.

And, of course, if you're talking about a pension or social security, you cannot negotiate a raise.

[danystatic]

I believe:

Bitcoin represents people together supporting an ideal.
People who will one day represent a chapter in history books.

Fiat money represents Debt, and the increase of the same Debt.

Bitcoin is not money, as a Banana is not money but only a Banana.

and you can eat and trade the Banana. get it?

if you didn't get it:
Fiat money is only paper and coins, and you can not eat paper or coins, at least not if you want to live healthy
and yes, you can trade your papers and your coins, but your papers and coins are worth the value the Banks, the Government wish it to be.
They can print paper and coins, and buy mansions and yatchs. If you print fiat in your printer, you will not only face jail time, but also be named 'the dumbest man of the day', oh but 'they' can print fiat money as much as they want, even if you don't want. Yes you can trade your papers and coins for Bananas, but one day you will need more papers for a Banana.

And the day will come that no one will give you a Banana for your papers and coins.

[coolbeans94]

Legally, Fiat money has no value:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx

How can you be taxed on something that has no value?

[Lethn]

Printing more money = indirect tax. Taxes is a good thing. Unfortunately, most of people are selfish, they don't like this, they call this stealing.

When people don't go to jail for not paying their taxes then you can tell me that taxes are a good thing and isn't stealing, it always amazes me the way government loyalists come here to lecture Bitcoin users about paying their taxes.

[kokjo]

society is sick of debt money.

no, the society is built on it. and you thinks its sick.

another point, if you live in the states, just look at ever increasing national debt - does anyone sane think it's healthy?!

unfair question, as must of this forum thinks that the definition of sanity depends on ones standpoint on macro economics.
which makes the answer to the question no, as any sane person by this forums collectively unwritten definitions does thinks its unhealty.

@OP:
i don't hate fiat money, there are many pros and cons in the bitcoin vs. fiat debate, i use and like both.

But this forum is filled with screaming libertards wanting to go back to the good old days of the gold standard, and feels unfairly treated by most of the society as they live under an evil regime called democracy.

[BurtW]

But this forum is filled with screaming libertards wanting to go back to the good old days of the gold standard, and feels unfairly treated by most of the society as they live under an evil regime called democracy.

I don't see how you can call it a democracy until ever single person has the right to vote!

What about all those poor unfortunate corporations?  Sure, it has been ruled that as persons they have the right to spend as much money as they want in any election - but this entire class of "persons" still, even in this modern day and age, have not been granted the right to vote.

I don't think you should be throwing around the word democracy so lightly.

[crumbs]

Let's see what you've done here.  You've shown that rich people don't hold any money because they invest it, and i'm afraid poor people don't hold any money because, by the time they get their paycheck, all the bills are due -- they pay those off and run up that evol CC & get 1% cash back.  So according to you, inflation doesn't hurt anyone.

Perhaps by "poor people" you mean people who are extremely poor. But there are plenty of poor people who save up to put a down payment on a car. There are plenty of poor people who save to put their kids through college.

Lolz, "saving up for a car down payment"?  Just how many years do you think these "middle-of-the-road poor" spend saving up to buy a car?  If it's less than 2 years, the last 2 years would have devastated their savings by ~3 percent (unless they put all the money in their mattress (savings accounts pay interest) at the start of the first year, in which case they're simply stupid -- they should have bought the car two years ago).  I don't reach for contrived examples, so stop, pl0x.

As far as eroding the real value of (the poor's) paychecks, that's what raises are for, JoelKatz.  Even the minimum wage gets bumped up once in awhile.

If salaries stayed the same in real terms, employers would have to negotiate reductions in salary to reduce salaries in real terms and every time an employee got a raise, it would be a real increase in their salary. But inflation games the system such that employees have to get regular raises just to stay put. This gives a huge advantage to the employer because he wins if no deal is struck.

This is simply absurd -- you're saying that the employer wins when his workers quit?  If you feel that it's more profitable to search for, interview, train & risk new employees than it is to offer a 2% yearly raise, you should learn more about economics and the real world -- both will be full of surprises.

The more your job pays and the more educated you are, the more likely that you can negotiate regular increases in your salary to keep up with inflation and even outpace it. The less your job pays, the less educated you are, and the more you are replaceable by others who do the same job, the less likely you can get your salary to keep up with inflation. Lawyers, CEOs, and professional athletes don't have much trouble, but cashiers, fast food cooks, and farm workers find it a bit more difficult.

Awesome incentive to get an education/ become skilled labor?  The poor always get screwed, but they get screwed more in a deflationary system.  Much more.  OOdles more, JoelKatz.

And, of course, if you're talking about a pension or social security, you cannot negotiate a raise.

And, of course, this is an entirely unrelated issue.  If inflation rates skyrocket, your pension is worth much less than you expected it to be.  This shows that *escalating* inflation rates are bad, but says nothing about inflation as a whole.  That's why economy is like a beauuutiful garden, JoelKatz -- too little water, and it withers, too much -- it rots.  That's why my gardener lives so well  

[crumbs]

I believe:

Bitcoin represents people together supporting an ideal.
People who will one day represent a chapter in history books.

Fiat money represents Debt, and the increase of the same Debt.

Bitcoin is not money, as a Banana is not money but only a Banana.

and you can eat and trade the Banana. get it?
...

I can't eat bitcoins either, can u?
Bitcoin is neither money nor a banana, learn shapes & colorz pl0x.

[crumbs]

Printing more money = indirect tax. Taxes is a good thing. Unfortunately, most of people are selfish, they don't like this, they call this stealing.

When people don't go to jail for not paying their taxes then you can tell me that taxes are a good thing and isn't stealing, it always amazes me the way government loyalists come here to lecture Bitcoin users about paying their taxes.

When people don't go to jail for not paying their taxes for the car they stole, Lethn, you'll have a point.  Till that happy day?  You gots none.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Let's go back to the topic.

If fiat doesn't die, Bitcoin won't survive. IMO.

[BurtW]

Let's go back to the topic.

If fiat doesn't die, Bitcoin won't survive. IMO.

Don't see it.  Bitcoin and fiat can both exist at the same time.

[Mike Christ]

Printing more money = indirect tax. Taxes is a good thing. Unfortunately, most of people are selfish, they don't like this, they call this stealing.

Bitcoin doesn't allow to print more money, it even helps to evade taxes. It's the biggest disadvantage of Bitcoin.

"Good" is subjective; we can argue, night and day, that killing the people of another nation with the missiles government purchased with your tax dollars is good or bad.  However, the one thing we can agree on is that saying taxes are good is completely dependent on the individual; since government cannot reasonably represent the people, then, people would be better to represent themselves, as they are a much better candidate to being represented than by a complete and total stranger who cannot possibly understand everyone's desires.

In the example of bombing other nations, if we, the people of country X, agree we should bomb the nation Y, then we would be throwing our money at whatever businesses are going to make those bombs and take care of shipping them off head-first to whatever other plot of land we don't like.  However, if that's not what we want, then the businesses taking care of that cannot go through with it, nor would people want to buy from those businesses again (in response to their own morals.)

Likewise--what you're likely only thinking about is the roads and the hospitals and the ambulances etc.--if we, the people of country X, would like those things, we would willingly pay for them.  To assume that people are so incredibly selfish that they--and I mean the majority of a nation's people--would live in complete filth and disarray to save a buck, unless someone pointed a gun to their heads and told them to live well, then what argument do we have for most people enjoying the very same services they're forced to pay for?  Obviously, we like these services, and we've purchased far more useless things than roads, and hospitals, and ambulances.

Is it selfish to not want to be robbed?  If so, why do we punish the mugger?  We actually like this; we like it when the people who rob us are punished.  Is this selfish?  It's possible to argue such a point; perhaps the mugger was very hungry, and if he didn't rob you at gunpoint, he would've starved the next day--how could you be so incredibly selfish to deny a man of money so he can buy himself a meal?  Of course he robbed you; you deserved to be robbed for having so much more money than him.  So, you see, this person mugged you for a noble cause, and you're being selfish by calling the police on him.

However, I don't believe it's possible to be selfish when you cannot also be charitable; the man with the gun did not ask you for money, he demanded it.  In this case, even if you wanted to give that man money, he would've taken it from you anyway; even if you planned on giving him money anyway, it isn't charity.  You aren't being charitable by giving the government money when it demands it with threats of violence.  You cannot be selfish by saying "no" when you have no other option.  Even now, though I don't agree with taxation, I pay taxes on my every purchase.  I would gladly pay for the roads, the hospitals, the ambulances, the firefighters, security, and it wouldn't even be charity, but an exchange of my money for their business; however, I would not pay for SS, unjustifiable and endless wars, or the salaries of every politician, and that's why you're told that taxation is, no matter the circumstance, good.