0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED!

[Anonymous]

States don't compete nor truly fail in our current environment. They are constantly bailed out and subsidized by the centralized banking entities. There is no true sovereignty at the moment and that's the problem. The people control the money control us.

You sure about that? Because not too long ago, I heard some workers revolted, got rid of their CEO, and found a new one.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go listen to Bohemian Rhapsody while making some Free Tibet signs.

There's bigger men and powers than some rinky-dink CEO.

[rainingbitcoins]

They used monopolies on force. That's not capitalism.

You really take No True Scotsman to brave new heights, don't you?

[Anonymous]

They used monopolies on force. That's not capitalism.

You really take No True Scotsman to brave new heights, don't you?

The fallacy doesn't apply in this case. Capitalism is about voluntary trade among individuals. When significant force enters the equation, it's no longer a free-market.

[evoorhees]

Actually, you can. You prove your experience and skills, solicit investors and in a free-market you can facilitate the construction of a oil company; anybody can if they have the desire for the required knowledge.

And when the private army of Monopoly Inc. murders you for trying to horn in on their profits, there's nobody to punish them for it. Presumably the people will get very angry and boycott Monopoly Inc. just as soon as they read about the murder in the newspaper, which is also published by Monopoly Inc.

There is no example in history of a monopoly forming and harming its customers - except in cases where that monopoly was granted to the firm by government protectionism.

The idea that a company could get so large and powerful that it no longer responds to the preferences of consumers is a fallacy. It has never happened, and can never happen, unless a government precludes competitors from the industry.

[ParrotyBit]

There's bigger men and powers than some rinky-dink CEO.

CEO Mubarak is a bigger man than you!

But his company going under new management and forced merger of Tibet by China are only part of the free market of the world.

[Anonymous]

Actually, you can. You prove your experience and skills, solicit investors and in a free-market you can facilitate the construction of a oil company; anybody can if they have the desire for the required knowledge.

And when the private army of Monopoly Inc. murders you for trying to horn in on their profits, there's nobody to punish them for it. Presumably the people will get very angry and boycott Monopoly Inc. just as soon as they read about the murder in the newspaper, which is also published by Monopoly Inc.

There is no example in history of a monopoly forming and harming its customers - except in cases where that monopoly was granted to the firm by government protectionism.

The idea that a company could get so large and powerful that it no longer responds to the preferences of consumers is a fallacy. It has never happened, and can never happen, unless a government precludes competitors from the industry.

...and if a company reaches such power, it's no longer a company. It is a state.

[Anonymous]

There's bigger men and powers than some rinky-dink CEO.

CEO Mubarak is a bigger man than you!

But his company going under new management and forced merger of Tibet by China are only part of the free market of the world.

There's a bigger world than business. The true power lies in the people who print and control our money.

[Gabi]

I see not-governments cartel everywhere, especially when the governments doesn't regulate them.

And slavery is not a fair exchange. Guess what? Governments stopped slavery.
Why a capitalist should free a slave if he can exploit it?

Heh, government hasn't stopped slavery.

A slave can produce more with an illusion of freedom. Chattel slaves are horribly inefficient. I get a whole lot more by taking a cut off his labor through a tax. In fact, I can enable this form of slavery in large populations through positive-reinforcement through entitlements. Happy, happy, happy slaves and more money for me.

Workers that fight for their rights and form unions and what else aren't very efficient.

That's why a lot of industries moved to china or other poor countries (now they are moving AWAY from china, since it's no more so poor), to exploit their cheaper workforce with less rights.

[Anonymous]

I see not-governments cartel everywhere, especially when the governments doesn't regulate them.

And slavery is not a fair exchange. Guess what? Governments stopped slavery.
Why a capitalist should free a slave if he can exploit it?

Heh, government hasn't stopped slavery.

A slave can produce more with an illusion of freedom. Chattel slaves are horribly inefficient. I get a whole lot more by taking a cut off his labor through a tax. In fact, I can enable this form of slavery in large populations through positive-reinforcement through entitlements. Happy, happy, happy slaves and more money for me.

Workers that fight for their rights and form unions and what else aren't very efficient.

That's why a lot of industries moved to china or other poor countries (now they are moving AWAY from china, since it's no more so poor), to exploit their cheaper workforce with less rights.

You totally missed my point.

Anyways, China has a cheaper-cost-of-living and thus has lower wages. Workers will choose and willingly work for less. China is just more competitive.

[rainingbitcoins]

When significant force enters the equation, it's no longer a free-market.

And when the threat of government force is removed, corporate force won't replace it with the same shit they've been pulling under the government's eye for the last century and everyone will live happily ever after in a power vacuum.

There is no example in history of a monopoly forming and harming its customers - except in cases where that monopoly was granted to the firm by government protectionism.

Here it is again. Since every corporation ever has existed under a government, they're all "government-enabled" and therefore a corruption of the one true free market, bless its holy name.

[evoorhees]

Workers that fight for their rights and form unions and what else aren't very efficient.

That's why a lot of industries moved to china or other poor countries (now they are moving AWAY from china, since it's no more so poor), to exploit their cheaper workforce with less rights.

All people in a marketplace seek the lowest price for a given good. You don't pay more for bread than you need to. A company will not pay more for labor than it needs to.

So long as a corporation is not enslaving workers at its factory (preventing them from leaving if they so choose) then there is no moral problem - and indeed one should realize that the corporation is providing the best option for employment. If a better option existed, the workers would pursue it.

You use the term "exploit" - but companies aren't exploiting workers any more than you exploit the baker whose bread you buy.

[rainingbitcoins]

So long as a corporation is not enslaving workers at its factory (preventing them from leaving if they so choose) then there is no moral problem - and indeed one should realize that the corporation is providing the best option for employment. If a better option existed, the workers would pursue it.

Is this a moral problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_slavery

Because history has shown that the less regulation we have, the more of that we get.

[evoorhees]

So long as a corporation is not enslaving workers at its factory (preventing them from leaving if they so choose) then there is no moral problem - and indeed one should realize that the corporation is providing the best option for employment. If a better option existed, the workers would pursue it.

Is this a moral problem?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_slavery

Because history has shown that the less regulation we have, the more of that we get.

If the person voluntarily agreed to be bound by X terms, and X terms are followed, then there is no moral problem.

However, the practice of bonding a child to the debts/obligations of a parent is morally wrong, and such a contract is not valid. In the US, we call this phenomenon Social Security.

[rainingbitcoins]

If the person voluntarily agreed to be bound by X terms, and X terms are followed, then there is no moral problem.

Except that this only happens in situations where prevalent working conditions in a society are so bad that they are effectively forced into slavery. Either that or starve to death. Well, it's technically a choice, right?

Libertarian ideas of "freedom" are scary as fuck.

[ParrotyBit]

If the person voluntarily agreed to be bound by X terms, and X terms are followed, then there is no moral problem.

However, the practice of bonding a child to the debts/obligations of a parent is morally wrong, and such a contract is not valid. In the US, we call this phenomenon Social Security.

So who feeds the child born to two parents in debt?

Hey, debt can be transferred, right? Cool. Old guy, you're about to die, so take my debt for me? Kthx.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't let a child die on the street. I would take it in if nobody else would. It's a shame people are so naturally horrible that I would the only one with the decency to naturally want to care for it. 

[evoorhees]

If the person voluntarily agreed to be bound by X terms, and X terms are followed, then there is no moral problem.

Except that this only happens in situations where prevalent working conditions in a society are so bad that they are effectively forced into slavery. Either that or starve to death. Well, it's technically a choice, right?

Libertarian ideas of "freedom" are scary as fuck.

And what is your solution? To not allow desperate people to make the choice in the first place?

What exactly is the alternative you are advocating?  When a sweat shop is closed... who is helped?

[Anonymous]

If the person voluntarily agreed to be bound by X terms, and X terms are followed, then there is no moral problem.

Except that this only happens in situations where prevalent working conditions in a society are so bad that they are effectively forced into slavery. Either that or starve to death. Well, it's technically a choice, right?

Libertarian ideas of "freedom" are scary as fuck.

And what is your solution? To not allow desperate people to make the choice in the first place?

What exactly is the alternative you are advocating?  When a sweat shop is closed... who is helped?

Free food, free healthcare, free housing by redistributing the money from those capitalists. We just need to share more. If the producers of society weren't so greedy with the value they earned, everybody would be better.

[Gabi]

I wouldn't let a child die on the street. I would take it in if nobody else would. It's a shame people are so naturally horrible that I would the only one with the decency to naturally want to care for it. 

But, this go against the profit.

[nighteyes]

You guys realize that at least 2-3 of those are stolen from Mybitcoin,  MtGox's hack,  the polish exchange hack,  bitcoin7 hack, the guy that had 25,000 coins taken right from his desktop...   literally you are staring at a criminal's bank account and can't do anything about it.

Bitcoin is a tea party dream....   and look how it worked out in those instances.

I love how no one replied to that one.

I still suspect one of the major holders is MtGox....anyways it doesnt matter who is holding them as much as the fact that they are hoarding it. So not only does the bitcoin economy have to produce $$$ for new coins, there is a 50% tax to give to these lazy hoarders....well the true tax is probably 90% because the other 99% is just holding onto them as well....it all adds up to a STRONG SELL on the value of the bitcoin vs USD IMO.

Its just something no one saw coming. What forces anyone to work in the bitcoin economy? Nothing....the volume will slow and eventually these types lose interest in the get rich quick scheme....they will sell part of their holdings...watch.