Economic Devastation

[CoinCube]

Please put a pause on all your well-intended but rather useless (never ending) noise (drivel) about derivatives, what the government should do, evil of central banks, evil of debt, etc and all these superfluous issues that you can neither change nor which will determine the direction global society is headed. Let me have your undivided attention please. (RealBitcoin et al just please STFU for a while please since you won't grasp the relevance of the following)

Getting back to my writings (written in 2010 - 2012) which were the main theme of the OP of this thread back in 2013, and based on a recent paradigm-shift revelation on the markets for the crypto currency I am working on, I have now seen the light of how specifically the Knowledge Age I've been predicting will take form.

And glorious it is our future.

The key insight is that I now see how Knowledge Age producers (workers) will be paid digitally directly by Knowledge Age consumers, and the middle man can't exist (because the competition will be to remove him). I am not yet going to tell you exactly why this is so and all the mechanics because I need to retain this a secret for the time being while I am implementing this.

So what this means is that anonymity was never the way we were going to restructure government and fix society. Instead it is the coming social media metaphorsis of commerce such that there can't be a middle man which the government can expropriate. This is a critical distinction from the game theory in which the world operates now, because when the government can take on debt, promise everything to the masses, and then charge the costs of the taxes and/or end game regulatory capture to the large corporations (rich and upper middle class), then the majority (masses) are in no way incentivized to resist. This game theory is summarized in Some Iron Laws of Political Economics. CoinCube has also discussed this game theory upthread and I have some where in AnonyMint's archives better summarized and justified the Iron Law of Political Economics (I think the Dark Enlightenment thread and/or possibly upthread in this Economic Devastation thread).

So what happens when the majority earn their income and are paid directly by the consumers of the produced Knowledge Age work, is that the government can't charge the cost of the end game collapse of debt to any one! It is when the government can steal from the minority and buy off the majority with debt financed socialism, that the government power grows without bound until the minority is depleted and a Dark Age is entered. Luckily throughout history technology usually (but not always which is why there have been 600 year Dark Ages where only food was money) rescues society and the majority is able to recover its ability to earn income more directly. Examples of such past technological innovations would be soil management technology for agriculture, the spread of knowledge via the printing press, etc..

When the majority is directly earning the lion's share of the income in society, then the government will find it politically implausible to steal from the majority to redistribute, because the majority will refuse. It is only by appeasing the majority making them dependent on socialism and then stealing from those middle men who aggregate the capital, that the elite at the top are able to fool the majority into stealing from the minority and handing all the power to a super-minority elite. Without a minority to expropriate, the governments' debt collapses (this also includes the expectation that crypto currency can be redesigned to remain decentralized and thus the government won't be able to simply turn it into fiat again and print money out of thin air which steals from everyone and this also includes that even if they could, they will no longer be able to use that funny money to aggregate middle man controls... the entire paradigm of the Iron Law of Political Economics hinges on the existence of middle men extracting rents...this was a key epiphany)

Anonymity is entirely unrealistic and doesn't address the political-economic structural issue (that is why I have recently admonished Monero to look at anonymity as a way to make public block chains RELIABLY private, End-to End principled, and efficient but not for the purpose of avoiding taxation and encouraged them to look at making simple scripting private not just currency and thus I assert they need Zerocash/zk-snarks and not Cryptonote nor RingCT). Whereas a new way of thinking about social media and microtransactions does. Stay tuned for the second coming of Satoshi has arrived. And this will be the real deal.

Ha ha you do know how to make an entrance TPTB. I agree with your economic arguments above.

I would only add that it is not polite to tell people to STFU
As I have felt that your focus on anonymity was holding you back I definitely look forward to seeing where you go from here.

[sidhujag]

Btw, I am banned for 3 days for speaking the truth about Ethereum.

Well STFU is very impolite, but I also get annoyed that when I try to stay on our original theme RealBitcoin doesn't seem to understand it and he buries it immediately in posts that don't really address or comprehend what I was getting at. Any way, yes of course it is impolite. Hopefully I can stop communicating in forums so that I don't have to scream over the voices of other people and choose who I want to interact with daily in a calm intellectual setting.

The new plan is quite solid. I am confident any venture capitalist would pat me on the shoulder for having a solid marketing strategy and realistic to implement.

Just ignore those that keep reggurgitating thr same useles information that 16 yr olds tell you today that watched a youtube video like debt is money or zeitgeist.. Instead just focus on the positive things you can change,,, i do agree with anonymint on removing middle men, hence me making a decentralized marketplace in syscoin, if you let two people trade goods and set value without intervention you allow for true prosperity and not fake shadow gdp stats the govt tells you. I just dont understand what took him so lomg to get where the rest of us have realized, while he was clunking away about anon coins being bitcoins killer app, even naming himself anonymint in the process... Seems hes come back full circle and realizes the truth now, decentralization.

[kennyP]

Btw, I am banned for 3 days for speaking the truth about Ethereum.

Well STFU is very impolite, but I also get annoyed that when I try to stay on our original theme RealBitcoin doesn't seem to understand it and he buries it immediately in posts that don't really address or comprehend what I was getting at. Any way, yes of course it is impolite. Hopefully I can stop communicating in forums so that I don't have to scream over the voices of other people and choose who I want to interact with daily in a calm intellectual setting.

The new plan is quite solid. I am confident any venture capitalist would pat me on the shoulder for having a solid marketing strategy and realistic to implement.

Just ignore those that keep reggurgitating thr same useles information that 16 yr olds tell you today that watched a youtube video like debt is money or zeitgeist.. Instead just focus on the positive things you can change,,, i do agree with anonymint on removing middle men, hence me making a decentralized marketplace in syscoin, if you let two people trade goods and set value without intervention you allow for true prosperity and not fake shadow gdp stats the govt tells you. I just dont understand what took him so lomg to get where the rest of us have realized, while he was clunking away about anon coins being bitcoins killer app, even naming himself anonymint in the process... Seems hes come back full circle and realizes the truth now, decentralization.

damn_the_truth was permanently banned from the forum.

Agreed it is time for me to STFU, lol. Action matters. Talk is useless after a certain level of attempt has been made. It is interesting that I told a prospective investor yesterday in a PM that I wanted to stop wasting time posting and he encouraged me to continue posting the truth, because he said it was wise marketing to the astute readers. I agree up to some limit, but again talk won't code software.

Feel free to quote this before it gets deleted by the mods and ban_the_truth gets permanently banned. What a childish game these mods play. I guess they still watch Tom & Jerry. I am the mouse. They are the cat. Lol.

Doesn't Theymos understand that you can never silence a person who knows he is just and correct. A person will fight to the death when they know truth is on their side. And will eventually win. Those who try to obscure truth will always eventually lose.

I can't believe you got banned, that's ridiculous, so sad that free speech isn't respected here!!!

Keep up the good fight TPTB

[CoinCube]

It is time for a post on censorship.

Two recent posts from by TPTB_need_war were deleted from this thread by moderators. This is a very unpleasant first.
Until now this thread has been a contentious but censorship free back and forth about economics.

These deleted post appear to be collateral damage.  Yesterday there were several (at least 4) repetitive posts in the altcoin forum promoting Ethereum. TPTB took a contrarian position and posted counterarguments against Ethereum in all of them.

I read these posts which do not interest me as I own no Ethereum. They contain typical Anonymint confrontation but are overall pretty tame. I certainly saw nothing that would explain or justify widespread censorship and mass deletion of posts. I cannot help but wonder if there was a financial interest behind this. It is odd and represents a break from an otherwise laudable and hands off moderation policy.

I am a guest here on this forum. I do not pay the bills or expect to make the rules. However, it is well within my rights as a guest to point out when the host is being inhospitable.

I have sent a private message to our host theymos with a link to this post. I appreciate his hospitality in providing this free space to discuss bitcoin and economics. However, I want to let him know that I would strongly prefer a more hands off and censorship free approach be applied in the future if not forum wide then at least in this thread.

I would invite anyone who feels as I do to send a similar message.

[OROBTC]

...

Hear, hear CoinCube.  + a billion.

I know SQUAT about alt-coins and have no interest in them.  But, TPTB (AnonyMint) is clearly a very smart guy, informed in BTC matters, as well as knowledgeable on a host of other subjects.

They should not ban him, nor delete his posts.  After all, Bitcoin is "the financial equivalent" of free speech.  It's beyond irony that TPTB would be banned for honest (though indelicate) discourse.

If he succeeds at what he is up to, then bitcointalk.org will be lessened by kicking out a revolutionary who saw the future.

[smooth]

I read these posts which do not interest me as I own no Ethereum. They contain typical Anonymint confrontation but are overall pretty tame. I certainly saw nothing that would explain or justify widespread censorship and mass deletion of posts. I cannot help but wonder if there was a financial interest behind this. It is odd and represents a break from an otherwise laudable and hands off moderation policy.

Usually if one post is deleted (for example the pro-Ethereum posts may have been deleted for spamming), then replies that quote the deleted post will also be deleted. As you say, it is likely an example of collateral damage. I have no idea how that turned into a ban though.

[dloghwak]

Btw, I am banned for 3 days for speaking the truth about Ethereum.

Well STFU is very impolite, but I also get annoyed that when I try to stay on our original theme RealBitcoin doesn't seem to understand it and he buries it immediately in posts that don't really address or comprehend what I was getting at. Any way, yes of course it is impolite. Hopefully I can stop communicating in forums so that I don't have to scream over the voices of other people and choose who I want to interact with daily in a calm intellectual setting.

The new plan is quite solid. I am confident any venture capitalist would pat me on the shoulder for having a solid marketing strategy and realistic to implement.

Just ignore those that keep reggurgitating thr same useles information that 16 yr olds tell you today that watched a youtube video like debt is money or zeitgeist.. Instead just focus on the positive things you can change,,, i do agree with anonymint on removing middle men, hence me making a decentralized marketplace in syscoin, if you let two people trade goods and set value without intervention you allow for true prosperity and not fake shadow gdp stats the govt tells you. I just dont understand what took him so lomg to get where the rest of us have realized, while he was clunking away about anon coins being bitcoins killer app, even naming himself anonymint in the process... Seems hes come back full circle and realizes the truth now, decentralization.

damn_the_truth was permanently banned from the forum.

Agreed it is time for me to STFU, lol. Action matters. Talk is useless after a certain level of attempt has been made. It is interesting that I told a prospective investor yesterday in a PM that I wanted to stop wasting time posting and he encouraged me to continue posting the truth, because he said it was wise marketing to the astute readers. I agree up to some limit, but again talk won't code software.

Feel free to quote this before it gets deleted by the mods and ban_the_truth gets permanently banned. What a childish game these mods play. I guess they still watch Tom & Jerry. I am the mouse. They are the cat. Lol.

Doesn't Theymos understand that you can never silence a person who knows he is just and correct. A person will fight to the death when they know truth is on their side. And will eventually win. Those who try to obscure truth will always eventually lose.

I can't believe you got banned, that's ridiculous, so sad that free speech isn't respected here!!!

Keep up the good fight TPTB

The permanent ban is due to ban evasion, it's a well known bitcointalk rule. I guess the first ban wasn't a permanent one.

[thaaanos]

Productivity is not a virtue that brings entitlements to wealth, productivity is a zero sum game within the pareto boundary, for one to produce more some one else needs to produce less, therefore increasing ones productivity comes with a cost to someone else.
...
I think the crux is that Productivity is in most cases a zero sum game and only certain events increase productivity ie Industrial Revolution, Computer Revolution, Genetic Revolution and in my mind the individuals involved in those events that increase standards of living and total production capacity have a well deserved wealth.

The rest and more common people simply compete over who will take a piece of a fixed amount of productivity, this is showcased by never actually reaching full employment. If total production capacity was not fixed, ie not a zero sum game then there would be no unemployment.

But unbounded Total production capacity "impossible" due to the fact that production must balance Demand and that would be that Demand would be unbounded.
Planned obsolescence, ponzi real estate growth, black holing production are tricks we have played over time to keep Demand and thus Production up but eventually a plateu is reached.

The real argument though that plagues economy discussion and from which all arguments stem is: Demand drives Production? or Production drives Demand?. Me I think its like EM waves, They are entangled in a lockstep and this is why economy behaves in a wavelike pattern. Differential equations have not yet reached the minds of economists, math is too hard I guess.

I disagree. Events like the industrial revolution are massive strides forward and increase the standard of living in an obvious manner. However, small gains in productivity also increase the standard of living. Your distinction between “types” of productivity is undefined and appears entirely arbitrary.  

Not only is productivity not zero sum misclassifying it as such risks the promotion of terrible public policy. Let’s examine a hypothetical society and try to find these zero sum interactions.

Imaging for a moment the mythical society of Shoetopia. It is a stagnate society with limited technological progress a more or less stable population (ideal setting for zero sum conflicts). In Shoetopia there is a demand for 100 new pairs of shoes a day and each shoemaker requires a full day of labor to make a pair of shoes. Shoetopia therefore has 100 shoemakers working on an average day. Now along comes Bob. Bob is the shoe genius of his time and due to exceptional hand eye coordination and self-discipline Bob can make 2 pairs of shoes in a day.  

Depending on the dynamics of the market one of two things will happen. 1) The price of shoes will drop until the price is low enough to that customers are willing to buy the excess shoes (consumers benefit) or 2) Some of Bobs less of efficient competition with shift their activity to some other market with the end result being less man hours of labor required for the production of the same number of shoes. If Bob is a one hit wonder his benefit to his society will be transient. If his shoe talent breeds true then his descendants will take over the shoe market and soon Shoetopia will only need 50 shoemakers allowing everyone in society more leisure time or freeing up 50 laborers to explore new markets or find something more interesting to do.

The last statement simply describes unemployment, and there is no sugar coating for it. 50 shoemakers having invested time and resources and will behind a lifetime of making shoes will not feel happy. They will think that Rob has robed them off their profession and stole their income. The last statement simply displays that Bob will not expand the market by his increased productivity, nor increase the Total aggregate productivity of shoes. One could argue that instead the 50 unemployed now shoemakers will exit the shoe market completely! Both as shoe consumers as they will produce shoes for own consumption, as well as shoe producers , making total market worse off. And Bob will be damned as the Bane of Shoetopia. The only remedy is for them to reenter marked with a different role, they might not be happy about that so reeducation camp” may be needed. So what did Bob succeed? a restructuring of the market.

Now if on the other hand Bob's genius instead on focusing on increased productivity was focused on innovation, he could create the "Athletic Footwear". Now Shoetopia will add to the 100 new pair of shoes the Demand of 100 extra athletic shoes, that only Bob provides and his wealth and fame will be well deserved and he will be hailed as Hero of Shoetopia. What did now Bob succeed? The Creation of a New Market.

The toxic idea that personal productivity does not entitle one to the fruits of one’s own labor is an indirect argument for massive statist intervention in the economy as that is the only way to enforce such a prohibition. In the case of Shoetopia anti Bob laws would need to be passed either selectively taxing him of 50% of his earnings, directly seizing his shoes for “the public good”, or perhaps banning him outright from the shoemaking profession. Bob might not be happy about that so “reeducation camp” may be needed.    

Toxic as it may sound Bob could be simply under quota and allowed to only produce as much as any other shoemaker, taking full claim to the fruits of his own labor. And protecting him from his self, by allowing him to transform his talents of increased productivity to more leisure time or freeing up 50% of his time to explore new markets or find something more interesting to do.

[thaaanos]

Body count I would use it more as evidence of evil which is funny as most probably the most deadly Idea is "God"
…
The notion of "God" and the Ideas around it has generated countless heated religion wars since the dawn of time. One may argue that the real reasons for war have been imperialistic but "God" has been used as a vehicle to motivate the masses and instrument the war, so the body count gets awarded to "God". Thankfully as science and the instruments of war advanced in efficiency, the religious passion waned. But if you normalize by total Human population I think it will be number 1.
Mormons are not a representative sample, they are generally a "new" dogma, so they don't provide anything to the discussion

Ignoring for a moment the fact that you must project forward as well as look back and thus the Mormons cannot be so easily dismissed you also fail to consider the number of lives saved inter-group due to the strictures of religion. Christianity’s influence, in the west, set into motion the belief that man is accountable to God and that the law is the same regardless of status.

http://crossandquill.com/journey/the-influence-of-christianity-on-western-civilization/

Take the conflict between the Christian emperor Theodosius the Great and St. Ambrose. It happened in 300 A.D. when some in Thessalonica rioted and aroused the anger of the emperor who overreacted by slaughtering approximately seven thousand people, most of whom were innocent. Bishop Ambrose asked the emperor to repent and when Theodosius refused, the bishop excommunicated him. After a month Theodosius prostrated himself and repented in Ambrose’s cathedral.

Ambrose readmitted the emperor only after several months of penance and when he promoted a law, which in the case of death sentences would allow a thirty-day lag before the execution would be enforced. One can only speculate how many other massacres were avoided throughout history by the mitigating influence of a religion who's commandments include "Thou shalt not kill"

Yes this is why I argued that "Lives Saved" is a better metric for Ideas than "Kills", "Kills" is easier measured but lacks insight. "Lives Saved" is impossible to quantify, and everyone assess it at will, which is why Ideas get debated and accepted anyway despite their murderous nature. Its a trolley problem.

IE Imagine the Lives Saved by 1bn Chinese missing the Industrial Revolution, and not becoming a consumerism society, does communism now look as bad?
...
Simple Aggregate CO2 production per capita in China had been consistently lower than in US or Europe, only recently China took the lead.  Had the Chinese followed the US paradigm and drive V8 cars instead of Bikes where would we now be?

Please tell me you are not arguing that the decimation of the Chinese people by Communism was all good because it lowered CO2 emissions. I don’t even know how to reply to that one so I will leave it to Wikipedia.

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

Great Leap Forward Famine, was the period in the People's Republic of China between the years 1959 and 1961 characterized by widespread famine.

Estimates vary, but scholars have estimated the number of famine victims to be between 20 and 43 million.[3] Historian Frank Dikötter, having been granted special access to Chinese archival materials, estimates that there were at least 45 million premature deaths from 1958 to 1962. Chinese journalist Yang Jisheng concluded there were 36 million deaths due to starvation, while another 40 million others failed to be born, so that "China's total population loss during the Great Famine then comes to 76 million."[6]The term "Three Bitter Years" is often used by Chinese peasants to refer to this period.

The great Chinese famine was caused by social pressure, economic mismanagement, and radical changes in agriculture... Mao Zedong, chairman of the Chinese communist party, introduced drastic changes in farming which prohibited farm ownership.

Mao was a fool, he hurriedly tried to restructure the Agricultural Industry to divert Productivity to Industry (out of envy) by "innovative" techniques, That's what happens when you skip beta testing and pilot rollout. It was to be expected as the political science of central planning was/is still young. Note however that this failure didn't recur so this failure cannot attributed to communism or central planning but to poor implementation,  in short not a "systemic" failure so I don't award those "kills" to Communism but to Vanity.
Contrast this to "systemic" inequality in capitalism that allegedly kill our children

The argument though that central planning restrained liberal resource consumption in the overpopulated eastern hemisphere I think stands.

If it was a simulation game I would played it as it happened. One sector focused on innovation in a free market and inefficiency in resources allowed, while the larger one focused on sustainability in a central planning and cross transfer resources for tech breakthroughs. Choosing only one or the other I think will lead to either explosive burn-out or slow burn-in

[THX 1138]

Dmitry Orlov The Future is Blivets:

"If you have been paying attention, you may have noticed that the global financial markets are currently in meltdown mode. Apparently, the world has hit diminishing returns on making stuff. There is simply too much of everything, be it oil wells, container ships, skyscrapers, cars or houses. Because of this, the world has also hit diminishing returns on borrowing money to build and sell more stuff, because the stuff we build doesn't sell. And because it doesn't sell, the price of stuff that's already been made keeps going down, lowering its value as loan collateral and making the problem worse.

One solution that's been proposed is to convert from a products economy to a services economy. For instance, instead of making widgets, everybody gives each other backrubs. This works great in theory. The backrub industry doesn't generate an ever-expanding inventory of backrubs that then have to be unloaded. But there are some problems with this plan. The first problem is that too few people have enough money saved up to spend on backrubs, so they would have to get the backrubs on credit. Another problem is that, unlike a widget, a backrub is not a productive asset, and doesn't help you pay off the money you had to borrow to pay for the backrub. Lastly, a backrub, once you have received it, isn't worth very much. You can't auction it off, and you can't use it as collateral for a loan.

These are big problems, and one proposed solution is to create good, well-paying jobs that put money in people's pockets—money that they can then spent on backrubs. This is best done by investing in productivity improvements: send people to school, invest in high tech and so on. It's an intuitively obvious idea: productive workers are easier to employ than unproductive workers, because the stuff they make ends up cheaper, and people can afford to buy more of it. Whether they do buy more of it is debatable, especially if there is more than enough of it already and nobody has any extra money saved. Still, the theory makes sense.

But this theory doesn't seem to be working all that well: no matter how much money we put into automation—robotic assembly lines, internet-based virtualization, what have you—the number of unemployed workers isn't going down at all. And it's even worse with driverless cars. In theory, they are great: if the driver doesn't have to do the driving, then she can spend the time giving her passengers backrubs. But no matter how much money we throw at driverless cars, the number of unemplyed drivers, or unemployed massage therapists, isn't going down.

But even if we give up on trying to stimulate demand through job creation and just let everyone starve, we can still put our faith in rich people. There are people who are as rich as entire countries! Surely they can spend and consume on everyone else's behalf, and make the economy boom. But it turns out that it's very hard for just one person to consume as much as an entire country. To make that happen, it's necessary to pay people to consume on one's behalf. But if other people can spend your money just like you, then that defeats the purpose of being wealthier than everyone else, and all that hard work of swindling people and of gaming the markets would turn out to have been in vain.

* * *

But here is a solution that is so stunningly simple and elegant that somebody must have thought of it already. Alas, make a note: I am the first!..."

http://cluborlov.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/the-future-is-blivets.html

[st0at]

The permanent ban is due to ban evasion, it's a well known bitcointalk rule. I guess the first ban wasn't a permanent one.

CoinCube acknowledges that he is only a guest here but then apparently balks at the concept that the forum has absolute rules. If you've been banned for a cooling off period for any reason, and you attempt to circumvent the ban such as by creating sock puppet accounts as apparently AnnoyingMint did, it is possible to be permanently banned. Sheesh it appears Theymos had to ban his AnonyMint account before as well. Then he creates numerous new accounts as acknowledged on his signature. I am surprised it was tolerated and he was allowed to carry on with his insults and arrogant know-it-all attitude. Finally apparently the moderators had enough of his disrespectful attitude and his posting in 3 threads simultaneously with large red bolded single sentence, was over the limit of acceptable tolerance. My guess is that many Ethereum, Dash, and Monero supporters were demanding that the moderator take this action, because AnnoyingMint had offended and attacked the vested positions of so many. Come on it doesn't take a genius to see that every venue has politics. Live or die by the politics.

It doesn't matter that he was responding to his claim of Ethereum spamming the Altcoin Discussion forum with "5 or 6 new threads". It doesn't matter that he was banned for 3 days such that he would no longer be able to provide an opposing opinion during Ethereum's shockingly rapid move higher in price. The jealousy is palatable as is his self-important narcissism. It doesn't matter that he has 3 year history in these forums and claims to have provided 15,000 posts of content and helped to increase readership of this site to Theymos's benefit. Yeah right!   The audacity!

No. The rules are absolute and unambiguous. If a moderator decides you are banned, then you are banned. Circumvent and you are likely permanently banned. Take it or leave it. This is not a decentralized forum. This forum owns our data and can set the rules. Respect that political slavery or leave. This isn't a democracy. It is a business and it is not owned by CoinCube nor AnnoyingMouse. The advertising profits for our efforts here are paid to the owners of this site, not to us. This is not a commune.

[CoinCube]

Ha ha ha wow that newbie account provided my comic relief for the evening  

Ethereum is of course a scam.

I am doubting you have proved that.

There is no need to prove the obvious.

Thanks for confirming my doubt.

Can you not copy my username please?

Feel the sensual cl0seness between us in 0ur mutual selfless unwavering dev0ti0n t0 Ethereum br0.  

L0ve yu0 s000 much. Mwhaaa.

Welcome back. Comic gold and truly creative.
Nevertheless let's keep the games out of this thread shall we.
Now excuse me for a moment while I go chuckle some more.

[Yakamoto]

Well said. I'm so tired of mindless drones launching silly attacks on capitalism despite that it brought billions of people out of poverty and into prosperity. Sadly, that era is drawing to close. Capitalism is under a vicious attack.

Capitalism has already died a long time ago, but the final blow was in the 70 after the removal of the last gold standard, and making fiat currencies tradeable thin air packages.

So i`m not mad at those that bash the current economy, but they really need to get their terminology correct. When most people think about capitalism, they think about huge corporations and shady CEO's, which is not what it's about.

Too bad nobody is alive from the 1800's to tell the real story about how free the economy & society was in that era.

4 days late to the reply, but better late than never.

I agree that it is a far stricter market now, and I agree with the sentiment that it was better in the past, and that it is currently far more corporate that is based on giant companies making the big decisions. Maybe we should refer to current capitalism as corporatism?

[RealBitcoin]

I agree that it is a far stricter market now, and I agree with the sentiment that it was better in the past, and that it is currently far more corporate that is based on giant companies making the big decisions. Maybe we should refer to current capitalism as corporatism?

It's corporatocracy.

[thaaanos]

I agree that it is a far stricter market now, and I agree with the sentiment that it was better in the past, and that it is currently far more corporate that is based on giant companies making the big decisions. Maybe we should refer to current capitalism as corporatism?

It's corporatocracy.

true.
But another factor is that capitalism had long enjoyed a privileged immunity from prosecution in the west. All you now see is Capitalism taking its fair share of criticism.

[thaaanos]

The permanent ban is due to ban evasion, it's a well known bitcointalk rule. I guess the first ban wasn't a permanent one.

CoinCube acknowledges that he is only a guest here but then apparently balks at the concept that the forum has absolute rules. .... This is not a commune.

I reserve the right to complain when butthurt.

[st0at]

The permanent ban is due to ban evasion, it's a well known bitcointalk rule. I guess the first ban wasn't a permanent one.

CoinCube acknowledges that he is only a guest here but then apparently balks at the concept that the forum has absolute rules. .... This is not a commune.

I reserve the right to complain when butthurt.

AnnoyingMint was butthurt? So you are saying he is not insane but rather he is jealous?

[st0at]

The error in this Communist manifesto is that it can't account for the fact that there is no such omniscient perfectly objective being who can make all these decisions without creating more harm than good. And that is not even accounting for the natural incentive for corruption in any top-down control. Only Adam Smith's Invisible Hand can anneal the free market.

It is however pointless to argue with a Communist. It is not even educational because it is all lost in the sea of a 120 page thread that nobody will bother to read.

We are here to speculate with our lunch money, not to fix what can't be fixed with words.

Capitalism has already died a long time ago...

The Invisible Hand never dies. The actors and mechanisms shift. You are focused on remnant artifacts that do not reflect the shift in free market activity hence.

That is if the definition of capitalism is the free market. Whereas, if the definition of capitalism is stored claims on future production, then yes the free market is shifting away from the usury model to social media gift culture.

[thaaanos]

The permanent ban is due to ban evasion, it's a well known bitcointalk rule. I guess the first ban wasn't a permanent one.

CoinCube acknowledges that he is only a guest here but then apparently balks at the concept that the forum has absolute rules. .... This is not a commune.

I reserve the right to complain when butthurt.

AnnoyingMint was butthurt? So you are saying he is not insane but rather he is jealous?

Commenting on your comment on Coincube on your general tone of accept the ruling or GTFO. Sorry me no take

[thaaanos]

The error in this Communist manifesto is that it can't account for the fact that there is no such omniscient perfectly objective being who can make all these decisions without creating more harm than good. And that is not even accounting for the natural incentive for corruption in any top-down control. Only Adam Smith's Invisible Hand can anneal the free market.

It is however pointless to argue with a Communist. It is not even educational because it is all lost in the sea of a 120 page thread that nobody will bother to read.

We are here to speculate with our lunch money, not to fix what can't be fixed with words.

Capitalism has already died a long time ago...

The Invisible Hand never dies. The actors and mechanisms shift. You are focused on remnant artifacts that do not reflect the shift in free market activity hence.

That is if the definition of capitalism is the free market. Whereas, if the definition of capitalism is stored claims on future productive, then yes the free market is shifting away from the usury model to social media gift culture.

the error is you dismiss an omniscient perfectly objective being, while accepting an immortal Invisible Hand