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

[Anonymous]

The free market relies on what people desire and what they are willing to pay for it. It's my damn birthright to solicit trades as I please for whatever value that is dictated in said trades. You think you have a better system to determine the prices?

I think the free market ideal for determing prices. The difficulty is that the free market "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

I generally advocate a mixed economy. I have no problem with natural monopolies being under state control since any corporation in charge of such a monopoy would have government powers anyway.

Only individuals are capable of valuing and desiring things. Only the people with their earned wages in their hand can determine what something is worth. Yes, I advocate this as an absolute: I know what's best for myself and so do others. You argue against this and propose slavery as the solution. You propose that people cannot correctly value things and that only the state can?

A natural monopoly does not possess government powers unless its one on force and people do not willingly grant businesses a monopoly on force; that would be against their best-interest. If people do not grant it, it's assault and aggression.

Facebook is a natural monopoly. Do you see it "coercing" people?

[1714103194]

1714103194

[1714103194]

1714103194

[1714103194]

1714103194

[1714103194]

1714103194

[Elwar]

Anyone who has a Bitcoin is part of that .1% of the world's population that holds Bitcoins.

The true elite.

[evoorhees]

Interesting point. The problem is that even leveraging automation, it is impossible for the blue-collar worker to out-produce the CEO because the CEO is deemed to be responsible for all of the production of the workers under him or her. Sometimes CEO bonuses don't even seem to rely or performance measurements.

I like when they get a huge bonus for making the company extra money by cutting worker salaries and benefits or shipping jobs across the world. It takes a true visionary to come up with a plan like that. That's scarce value right there. And if you somehow fail at that, hey, golden parachute.

Why should a company pay more than it has to for labor?  When you go to the grocery store, and you see $5 bread, do you willingly pay $6 for it? Or speaking more directly of labor - if a gardener charges you $50/hr, would you pay $60/hr to his competitor for the same work?

If not, then you're acting in the same rational self-interest which compels a company to reduce labor costs whenever it can.

And why shouldn't a company hire overseas, if the workers there are willing to work at lower cost? Are Americans so wonderful that they deserve the job even when a foreigner will do it more efficiently? You seem so concerned with the plight of workers and their salaries, but it seems you care only for the American worker and his salary - happily sacrificing the opportunities for poor foreigners so that the people around you can be paid an artificially high wage.

How do you justify these opinions you hold?

[Anonymous]

Interesting point. The problem is that even leveraging automation, it is impossible for the blue-collar worker to out-produce the CEO because the CEO is deemed to be responsible for all of the production of the workers under him or her. Sometimes CEO bonuses don't even seem to rely or performance measurements.

I like when they get a huge bonus for making the company extra money by cutting worker salaries and benefits or shipping jobs across the world. It takes a true visionary to come up with a plan like that. That's scarce value right there. And if you somehow fail at that, hey, golden parachute.

Why should a company pay more than it has to for labor?  When you go to the grocery store, and you see $5 bread, do you willingly pay $6 for it? Or speaking more directly of labor - if a gardener charges you $50/hr, would you pay $60/hr to his competitor for the same work?

If not, then you're acting in the same rational self-interest which compels a company to reduce labor costs whenever it can.

And why shouldn't a company hire overseas, if the workers there are willing to work at lower cost? Are Americans so wonderful that they deserve the job even when a foreigner will do it more efficiently? You seem so concerned with the plight of workers and their salaries, but it seems you care only for the American worker and his salary - happily sacrificing the opportunities for poor foreigners so that the people around you can be paid an artificially high wage.

How do you justify these opinions you hold?

Man, look, there's like guys who just sit on their ass and make money. Then there's those poor people who sweat to make money. It's not fair. They deserve to sit on their ass just as much. So, like, we should enslave a little bit of the lazy guys labor and give it to the poor people so they can sit on their ass more. It's only fair.

If a worker doesn't have the ability to sit on his ass for at least an arbitrary amount of hours a day, he is being coerced.

So you're telling me you hate poor people because you like to be entitled to your full value? Faggot.

[rainingbitcoins]

Why should a company pay more than it has to for labor?  When you go to the grocery store, and you see $5 bread, do you willingly pay $6 for it? Or speaking more directly of labor - if a gardener charges you $50/hr, would you pay $60/hr to his competitor for the same work?

If not, then you're acting in the same rational self-interest which compels a company to reduce labor costs whenever it can.

And why shouldn't a company hire overseas, if the workers there are willing to work at lower cost? Are Americans so wonderful that they deserve the job even when a foreigner will do it more efficiently? You seem so concerned with the plight of workers and their salaries, but it seems you care only for the American worker and his salary - happily sacrificing the opportunities for poor foreigners so that the people around you can be paid an artificially high wage.

How do you justify these opinions you hold?

The end game of your race for efficiency leaves us all making a dollar an hour in miserable conditions while the richest few hoard the lion's share of the wealth. You forsake the human factor entirely in favor of productivity, but what good is that if most of the people are suffering? I support higher wages and better working conditions for workers everywhere.

Man, look, there's like guys who just sit on their ass and make money. Then there's those poor people who sweat to make money. It's not fair. They deserve to sit on their ass just as much. So, like, we should enslave a little bit of the lazy guys labor and give it to the poor people so they can sit on their ass more. It's only fair.

If a worker doesn't have the ability to sit on his ass for at least an arbitrary amount of hours a day, he is being coerced.

So you're telling me you hate poor people because you like to be entitled to your full value? Faggot.

What the fuck are you talking about? From that little Braveheart speech to this, you're sounding further and further from sanity with each post.

[phillipsjk]

And why shouldn't a company hire overseas, if the workers there are willing to work at lower cost? Are Americans so wonderful that they deserve the job even when a foreigner will do it more efficiently? You seem so concerned with the plight of workers and their salaries, but it seems you care only for the American worker and his salary - happily sacrificing the opportunities for poor foreigners so that the people around you can be paid an artificially high wage.

The problem is that goods are allowed to freely move across borders (due to free trade), but people aren't. It is not easy for a foreigner to come to America to take advantage of artificially high wages, conversely, it is not easy for an American to go overseas to take advantage of lower unemployment rates at lower pay.

If I really believed in the free-market, I would be advocating "free migration" where countries compete for workers over who has the best system. Some people may prefer Communist states, other may prefer Capitalist states. Many would prefer to stay near the place of their birth. The free market should be able to decide which system is best.

[Anonymous]

Why should a company pay more than it has to for labor?  When you go to the grocery store, and you see $5 bread, do you willingly pay $6 for it? Or speaking more directly of labor - if a gardener charges you $50/hr, would you pay $60/hr to his competitor for the same work?

If not, then you're acting in the same rational self-interest which compels a company to reduce labor costs whenever it can.

And why shouldn't a company hire overseas, if the workers there are willing to work at lower cost? Are Americans so wonderful that they deserve the job even when a foreigner will do it more efficiently? You seem so concerned with the plight of workers and their salaries, but it seems you care only for the American worker and his salary - happily sacrificing the opportunities for poor foreigners so that the people around you can be paid an artificially high wage.

How do you justify these opinions you hold?

The end game of your race for efficiency leaves us all making a dollar an hour in miserable conditions while the richest few hoard the lion's share of the wealth. You forsake the human factor entirely in favor of productivity, but what good is that if most of the people are suffering? I support higher wages and better working conditions for workers everywhere.

Man, look, there's like guys who just sit on their ass and make money. Then there's those poor people who sweat to make money. It's not fair. They deserve to sit on their ass just as much. So, like, we should enslave a little bit of the lazy guys labor and give it to the poor people so they can sit on their ass more. It's only fair.

If a worker doesn't have the ability to sit on his ass for at least an arbitrary amount of hours a day, he is being coerced.

So you're telling me you hate poor people because you like to be entitled to your full value? Faggot.

What the fuck are you talking about? From that little Braveheart speech to this, you're sounding further and further from sanity with each post.

Life is not a zero-sum game. Nobody can hoard all the wealth in the world. They have no incentive to. It would get pretty boring fast to have piles of gold sitting and doing nothing. Even then, gold would lose all value and people would begin trading in something different and life would move forward. The wealthy would soon go broke.

It's in their best-interest to invest and pay people with the value they require to get actual value in return. Nobody gets value from money sitting idly, especially more than they will ever need.

It's just today's wealthy elite invest their money towards eugenics, coercive governments and coercive monetary systems.

[Anonymous]

And why shouldn't a company hire overseas, if the workers there are willing to work at lower cost? Are Americans so wonderful that they deserve the job even when a foreigner will do it more efficiently? You seem so concerned with the plight of workers and their salaries, but it seems you care only for the American worker and his salary - happily sacrificing the opportunities for poor foreigners so that the people around you can be paid an artificially high wage.

The problem is that goods are allowed to freely move accross boarders (due to free trade), but people aren't. It is not easy for a foreigner to come to America to take advantage of artificially high wages, conversely, it is not easy for an American to go overseas to take advantage of lower unemployment rates at lower pay.

If I really believed in the free-market, I would be advocating "free migration" where countries compete for workers over who has the best system. Some people may prefer Communist states, other may Capitalist states. Many would prefer to stay near the place of their birth. The free market should be able to decide which system is best.

This problem is due to the lack of sovereign states. All countries are united under a central banking regime that makes the rules. Whoever controls the money makes the laws and they only make them towards their interest. They put populaces in debt and collect the interest through taxation thus making them wealthier. If you want to see competition on a political level, we have to end the central banks and allow people to truly choose their state and the money they keep their value in.

The first-world is under one government right now and, again, the government consists of the banks and their wealthy shareholders.

[Rassah]

The end game of your race for efficiency leaves us all making a dollar an hour in miserable conditions while the richest few hoard the lion's share of the wealth. You forsake the human factor entirely in favor of productivity, but what good is that if most of the people are suffering? I support higher wages and better working conditions for workers everywhere.

Actually, in reality, exactly the opposite has been happening. Instead of the race heading to the bottom, wages in outsource countries like India and China have been skyrocketting. It's actually a bad idea to outsource to India now, with employees expecting 9% annual raises, and China is having major issues with labor shortages, with factories being forced to pay more and more to competitively hire.
Really, the only options we have are either A) get rid off the minimum wage and have salaries drop to be competitive with the rest of the world, then have them slowly increase again as the world catches up to Western levels of income, or B) keep doing what we are doing, and suffer severe unemployment problems until the rest of the world catches up and we are competitive again. A keeps everyone employed, but many poor, B keeps most as middle-wage earners, but many competely broke. Theres no option C

[phelix]

Religion and superstition is a disease.

The only true god is the free market.

...and the free market is the desires of the people. Yes, what the people want is god. Now you're getting it.

The free market relies on the price system. It imperfectly approximates the desires of the population. It ingores externalities that are not easy to price. To blindly honour the free-market is just as dangerous as blindly following any other religion.

Oh and you are so wise and virtuous that you know what perfect is.

The free market relies on what people desire and what they are willing to pay for it. It's my damn birthright to solicit trades as I please for whatever value that is dictated in said trades. You think you have a better system to determine the prices? You think somebody knows better than we do? What you are saying is that I and other men don't know what's best for ourselves and that you or some other leader does! You say we aren't smart nor good enough to trade among ourselves!

Externalties? So, you're saying regular people can't measure these supposed coercions and only "special" authorities can and are capable of stopping them. Again, man is an irrational animal to you and only your whims know best!

To hell with you! You make me want to vomit!

To blindly follow the whims of a central regime or man is slavery! That is what you advocate! Slavery!

I swear on my life that I will not follow your whims, morality nor authority! I live for the right for every man to own himself and what he produces! You will not take what I produce away from me nor anybody else as long as I can help it!

I spit on your entire idea of tyranny.

what about the majority as authority?

[Anonymous]

Religion and superstition is a disease.

The only true god is the free market.

...and the free market is the desires of the people. Yes, what the people want is god. Now you're getting it.

The free market relies on the price system. It imperfectly approximates the desires of the population. It ingores externalities that are not easy to price. To blindly honour the free-market is just as dangerous as blindly following any other religion.

Oh and you are so wise and virtuous that you know what perfect is.

The free market relies on what people desire and what they are willing to pay for it. It's my damn birthright to solicit trades as I please for whatever value that is dictated in said trades. You think you have a better system to determine the prices? You think somebody knows better than we do? What you are saying is that I and other men don't know what's best for ourselves and that you or some other leader does! You say we aren't smart nor good enough to trade among ourselves!

Externalties? So, you're saying regular people can't measure these supposed coercions and only "special" authorities can and are capable of stopping them. Again, man is an irrational animal to you and only your whims know best!

To hell with you! You make me want to vomit!

To blindly follow the whims of a central regime or man is slavery! That is what you advocate! Slavery!

I swear on my life that I will not follow your whims, morality nor authority! I live for the right for every man to own himself and what he produces! You will not take what I produce away from me nor anybody else as long as I can help it!

I spit on your entire idea of tyranny.

what about the majority as authority?

I prefer no authority at all besides the individual over himself.

[Rarity]

So you're telling me you hate poor people because you like to be entitled to your full value? Faggot.

Wow, what the hell is with the totally unnecessary homosexual slur?  Grow up, kid.  If you want people to treat your opinions seriously you need to try and make an effort to talk like an adult instead of a 5th grader.

In the end the free market is just an expression of the will of the people, when the people use the Democratic or Revolutionary process to demand socialist or communist reforms it will just be the market at work.  

[Gabi]

Free market is like communism, it exists only in words.

[Anonymous]

So you're telling me you hate poor people because you like to be entitled to your full value? Faggot.

Wow, what the hell is with the totally unnecessary homosexual slur?  Grow up, kid.

In the end the free market is just an expression of the will of the people, when the people use the Democratic or Revolutionary process to demand socialist or communist reforms it will just be the market at work. 

It's just a word that can take on various meanings.

A vast act of aggression to achieve political ends is not the voluntary will of the people if it includes those who did not consent.

[Rarity]

Those who do not consent to live in a Democratic country with rule of law are free to leave it.

It's just a word that can take on various meanings.

The chief use is as an insult based on negative connotations of homosexual sexual orientation.  Used as an insult, as you just used it, that is pretty much the only meaning.  I know you're a kid so you think using bigoted speech that hurts people is edgy and cool, but it isn't, it just makes you sound tasteless and hateful.

[Anonymous]

Those who do not consent to live in a Democratic country with rule of law are free to leave it.

That's the thing: none of us live in a democratic country. We have little choice in our political systems since we're subject to the whims of the international central banking system.

[Rarity]

Those who do not consent to live in a Democratic country with rule of law are free to leave it.

That's the thing: none of us live in a democratic country. We have little choice in our political systems since we're subject to the whims of the international central banking system.

There are plenty of places where you can move to live off the land as a farmer and have no contact with the outside world.  Humans have lived that way through most of human history.  That is your choice to live off your own labor.

If you want to live in a society though, there will always be degrees of coercion involved in any interaction you have with fellow people as we balance our competing needs and desires.  Central banking represents one layer of that coercion, and I agree it must be eliminated, this is why I am into Bitcoin in the first place.  Once the banks are gone the degree of coercion will be far less and Democratic Marxist societies can be created once that greater degree of freedom is assured.

[Anonymous]

It's just a word that can take on various meanings.

The chief use is as an insult based on negative connotations of homosexual sexual orientation.  Used as an insult, as you just used it, that is pretty much the only meaning.  I know you're a kid so you think using bigoted speech that hurts people is edgy and cool, but it isn't, it just makes you sound tasteless and hateful.

It was a word used in sarcastic parody.

If people are hurt by words from random people on the internet, they probably have low self-esteem. They don't need my acceptance to be happy.  

[Anonymous]

Those who do not consent to live in a Democratic country with rule of law are free to leave it.

That's the thing: none of us live in a democratic country. We have little choice in our political systems since we're subject to the whims of the international central banking system.

There are plenty of places where you can move to live off the land as a farmer and have no contact with the outside world.  Humans have lived that way through most of human history.  That is your choice to live off your own labor.

If you want to live in a society though, there will always be degrees of coercion involved in any interaction you have with fellow people as we balance our competing needs and desires.  Central banking represents one layer of that coercion, and I agree it must be eliminated, this is why I am into Bitcoin in the first place.  Once the banks are gone the degree of coercion will be far less and Democratic Marxist societies can be created once that greater degree of freedom is assured.

We all live off our own labor. When we produce value, we get equitable value back in exchange. There is no sacrifice. There is no need to sacrifice. Nobody is taking from anybody nor necessarily dependent on anybody.

The equation is skewed when a tax comes in to take from what we have rightfully earned. However, we are only arguing policy that should be decided on a local level. I just want the banks gone.

[Rarity]

It's just a word that can take on various meanings.

The chief use is as an insult based on negative connotations of homosexual sexual orientation.  Used as an insult, as you just used it, that is pretty much the only meaning.  I know you're a kid so you think using bigoted speech that hurts people is edgy and cool, but it isn't, it just makes you sound tasteless and hateful.

It was a word used in sarcastic parody.

If people are hurt by words from random people on the internet, they probably have low self-esteem. They don't need my acceptance to be happy.  

It was neither sarcastic or parody, it was a petulant insult at the end of a post in which a child was losing his temper.  Insults are intended to hurt and express derision, there is no other reason to use them.  If you don't think they will be effective, don't pollute the friendly dialogue of the thread with your bigoted speech.

We all live off our own labor. When we produce value, we get equitable value back in exchange. There is no sacrifice. There is no need to sacrifice. Nobody is taking from anybody nor necessarily dependent on anybody.

There are certainly dependents of various forms in our current society.  The Democratic process has determined they should be supported.  This is why we all pay taxes to support them and to develop our communal resources such as infrastructure and defense.