Money is an imaginary concept, but humanity is enslaved by it

[johnyj]

The sad thing is, most of the people do not care about bank's theft as long as there is no inflation. And after one or two generations they will discover that everything valuable in this country now belongs to banks or their subsidiary, and even so they will feel it is normal, because banks are supposed to be rich in their imagination

That's what I'm talking about. The system is flawed in addition to people being ignorant. Why should they care about potential problems when it is more important for them to have Facebook and such.
The printer shouldn't be getting rich. The people doing the hard work should be getting paid, but it is all backwards.

Exactly, human in general are short sighted, even if a few people understand the truth, the majority will still take what they feel most comfortable without thinking, there is a reason they have been ruled by money for hundreds of years

At mean time, they are also greedy, in order to let them accept a new system, they must get some benefit. Suppose that bitcoin's value doubles year over year, then nothing can stop people from adopting bitcoin as a new monetary system, the army will accept it first

[BillyBobZorton]

The sad thing is, most of the people do not care about bank's theft as long as there is no inflation. And after one or two generations they will discover that everything valuable in this country now belongs to banks or their subsidiary, and even so they will feel it is normal, because banks are supposed to be rich in their imagination

That's what I'm talking about. The system is flawed in addition to people being ignorant. Why should they care about potential problems when it is more important for them to have Facebook and such.
The printer shouldn't be getting rich. The people doing the hard work should be getting paid, but it is all backwards.

Exactly, human in general are short sighted, even if a few people understand the truth, the majority will still take what they feel most comfortable without thinking, there is a reason they have been ruled by money for hundreds of years

At mean time, they are also greedy, in order to let them accept a new system, they must get some benefit. Suppose that bitcoin's value doubles year over year, then nothing can stop people from adopting bitcoin as a new monetary system, the army will accept it first

Bitcoin needs to first start doubling its value year over year... for now the price is too unstable and only those that actually understand the technology support it, which benefits people like us.

[freeyourmind]

Bitcoin needs to first start doubling its value year over year... for now the price is too unstable and only those that actually understand the technology support it, which benefits people like us.

If Bitcoin doubles it's value year over year, that won't really represent stability, that will be incredibly volatile and speculative.

[Natalia_AnatolioPAMM]

Without money everything would be chaos, with money everything is chaos.

Who would make the clothes you're wearing right now for free, nobody, unless they're slaves.

that's pity no one realizes it

Without fiat money, people will quickly find other substitutes, be it gold, silver, or bitcoin, but will never use some thing that is produced out of thin air

thats sounds a bit utopian, doesn't it? whatever like this happens, it's not a revolution, it's a new era and no one knows what it would lead to

[johnyj]

Without money everything would be chaos, with money everything is chaos.

Who would make the clothes you're wearing right now for free, nobody, unless they're slaves.

that's pity no one realizes it

Without fiat money, people will quickly find other substitutes, be it gold, silver, or bitcoin, but will never use some thing that is produced out of thin air

thats sounds a bit utopian, doesn't it? whatever like this happens, it's not a revolution, it's a new era and no one knows what it would lead to

In fact we are living in utopian now, when money can be created out of nothing at will (Just like in game SimCity, you can hack the available budget money to several trillions and build what ever city you like).  Before 1971, under a gold standard, this is not possible. The ability to create money out of nothing has created the utopian as we know it today, and it does not feel that bad when there is no inflation. The system makes a few bankers the game designer and rest of us game player

[johnyj]

Bitcoin needs to first start doubling its value year over year... for now the price is too unstable and only those that actually understand the technology support it, which benefits people like us.

By design, bitcoin's value should double every 4 years if the number of users do not increase (reward halving), but since we are in early expansion phase, the number of users are increasing at 4 times per year, it should be easy to double the value each year. I don't think there are millions of active users like claimed, more likely one magnitude lower, there are plenty of room for growth for coming years

The previous two bubbles are caused by large shift in mining technology, but now when the technology has more or less stabilized, I don't think that we will have that kind of huge speculative bubble in the near future. A slow and steady rise is more likely, doubling the price each year

[BitRod]

Money should be just a token of exchange. But greed changes that. Bitcoin punishes the greedy.

[deisik]

Money should be just a token of exchange. But greed changes that. Bitcoin punishes the greedy.

And how does bitcoin punish the greedy? How many people can profitably mine bitcoin today? Ironically, the only viable way to obtain bitcoins right now is to buy them with fiat, so those who have more fiat are again privileged... What changed actually?

[lophie]

But come on without intermediary it is a pretty hard market to EAT with my software development skills out on the streets!

[BobK71]

There's nothing wrong with fiat money; it's just the method for creating money that can be a problem, and is currently a problem.  If FIAT had no monetary expansion as part of the policy, then it would be fine and would favour no one.

The problem with paper money is that the incentives for the powerful elites to create ever more money (and associated assets) are built-in.  Since economics is not an exact science and economic signals are fairly uncertain most of the time, you can always make a case that loosening is good public policy.

The history of the unending series financial crises around the world also bears this out.  Most of the economic pain from monetary creation is ultimately borne by developing and other countries that have some kind of weakness.  Wars and terrorism are also the results, ultimately, of what is essentially a modern imperial system.

[BobK71]

Without fiat money, people will quickly find other substitutes, be it gold, silver, or bitcoin, but will never use some thing that is produced out of thin air

thats sounds a bit utopian, doesn't it? whatever like this happens, it's not a revolution, it's a new era and no one knows what it would lead to

The sad truth is that if the US government didn't ally with bankers to create money and debt and enslave the world, some other government would.  In a more-or-less well managed paper money system that is well-defended by its beneficiaries, the "virtuous" cycle of financial and military power reinforcing each other and creating a global top dog can last a while (and historically this "while" has been measured in decades, if not centuries.)

The imperial system also distributes its benefits wider than we might imagine.  Every person in the imperial power (currently the US) and its close allies benefits from the exploitation.  The middle class and other productive members of the real economy in these countries benefit even more.  The elites in developing countries are also major beneficiaries by working with the empire (in effect, selling out their own people -- but who would know?)  There is an entire ecosystem of defenders of the status quo.

The real victims of the system are the masses in poor and developing countries, and those in rich countries who fall prey from the social diseases that are the natural consequences of "free" wealth -- addiction, mental illness, alienation, etc.

So what we seek is not revolution but a gradual popular awakening.  If it takes centuries, it would be fundamentally better than a violent change that would replace one set of masters with another.  We have to do all we can to facilitate this process.

[BTCevo]

Without money everything would be chaos, with money everything is chaos.

Who would make the clothes you're wearing right now for free, nobody, unless they're slaves.

that's pity no one realizes it

Without fiat money, people will quickly find other substitutes, be it gold, silver, or bitcoin, but will never use some thing that is produced out of thin air

Yes I agree on that people will never use something like or may be you can say that produced of thin air but how about if our era is going there and so many people are trading using bitcoin? no matter what they do people will use it as fiat money, it can't be denied in so many ways. And now the new era is coming and people must admit it they must follow if not they will be oudated

[sdmathis]

Without money everything would be chaos, with money everything is chaos.

Who would make the clothes you're wearing right now for free, nobody, unless they're slaves.

that's pity no one realizes it

Without fiat money, people will quickly find other substitutes, be it gold, silver, or bitcoin, but will never use some thing that is produced out of thin air

A good example of that is the prison system. In most US prisons, possession of fiat money is not allowed (except on your books), so inmates use stamps, envelopes (with postage), and even soups as money.

[johnyj]

Without fiat money, people will quickly find other substitutes, be it gold, silver, or bitcoin, but will never use some thing that is produced out of thin air

thats sounds a bit utopian, doesn't it? whatever like this happens, it's not a revolution, it's a new era and no one knows what it would lead to

The sad truth is that if the US government didn't ally with bankers to create money and debt and enslave the world, some other government would.  In a more-or-less well managed paper money system that is well-defended by its beneficiaries, the "virtuous" cycle of financial and military power reinforcing each other and creating a global top dog can last a while (and historically this "while" has been measured in decades, if not centuries.)

The imperial system also distributes its benefits wider than we might imagine.  Every person in the imperial power (currently the US) and its close allies benefits from the exploitation.  The middle class and other productive members of the real economy in these countries benefit even more.  The elites in developing countries are also major beneficiaries by working with the empire (in effect, selling out their own people -- but who would know?)  There is an entire ecosystem of defenders of the status quo.

The real victims of the system are the masses in poor and developing countries, and those in rich countries who fall prey from the social diseases that are the natural consequences of "free" wealth -- addiction, mental illness, alienation, etc.

So what we seek is not revolution but a gradual popular awakening.  If it takes centuries, it would be fundamentally better than a violent change that would replace one set of masters with another.  We have to do all we can to facilitate this process.

Actually nowadays people have the right to elect the government, however they don't have the right to elect central bank, therefore central bank is called dictatorship by some protesters

The interesting thing is, this dictatorship is not enforced by violence, but by ignorance and no knowledge about money creation. People can think it is important to select a government that supports gay marriage, while they don't think it is important to select a central bank without printing more money (thus they become the slave)

Central bank only need to setup a Nobel price of economics and tell people: If they don't print money then economy will fall into recession.  Then people will accept it. Money creation is a topic that is too far from average Joe's life, and although long term wise he is affected by it, in a couple of years' time frame he will not feel any difference between two different monetary policy

[GreenStox]

Actually nowadays people have the right to elect the government, however they don't have the right to elect central bank, therefore central bank is called dictatorship by some protesters

The interesting thing is, this dictatorship is not enforced by violence, but by ignorance and no knowledge about money creation. People can think it is important to select a government that supports gay marriage, while they don't think it is important to select a central bank without printing more money (thus they become the slave)

Central bank only need to setup a Nobel price of economics and tell people: If they don't print money then economy will fall into recession.  Then people will accept it. Money creation is a topic that is too far from average Joe's life, and although long term wise he is affected by it, in a couple of years' time frame he will not feel any difference between two different monetary policy

They expect the elected "public servants" tyrants to do something about it. The voters have this crazy delusion that they think the people control the government, when in reality the people are just tagged slave sheeps ruled by cunning tyrant wolfs.

[freeyourmind]

Actually nowadays people have the right to elect the government, however they don't have the right to elect central bank, therefore central bank is called dictatorship by some protesters

The interesting thing is, this dictatorship is not enforced by violence, but by ignorance and no knowledge about money creation. People can think it is important to select a government that supports gay marriage, while they don't think it is important to select a central bank without printing more money (thus they become the slave)

Central bank only need to setup a Nobel price of economics and tell people: If they don't print money then economy will fall into recession.  Then people will accept it. Money creation is a topic that is too far from average Joe's life, and although long term wise he is affected by it, in a couple of years' time frame he will not feel any difference between two different monetary policy

They expect the elected "public servants" tyrants to do something about it. The voters have this crazy delusion that they think the people control the government, when in reality the people are just tagged slave sheeps ruled by cunning tyrant wolfs.

The voters do hold the power, but it's a power that goes unused because the awareness isn't there.  With a majority ignorant population, voting loses its power.  With a more aware/conscious population, you'd have more philosophers as leaders, rather than politicians.

Here's one of my favourite quotes, by a French philosopher whose name I forgot lol - "There are no political solutions, only technological ones; the rest is propaganda"  Until voters understand that, the right type of leader will never stand a chance against propaganda.

[GreenStox]

Actually nowadays people have the right to elect the government, however they don't have the right to elect central bank, therefore central bank is called dictatorship by some protesters

The interesting thing is, this dictatorship is not enforced by violence, but by ignorance and no knowledge about money creation. People can think it is important to select a government that supports gay marriage, while they don't think it is important to select a central bank without printing more money (thus they become the slave)

Central bank only need to setup a Nobel price of economics and tell people: If they don't print money then economy will fall into recession.  Then people will accept it. Money creation is a topic that is too far from average Joe's life, and although long term wise he is affected by it, in a couple of years' time frame he will not feel any difference between two different monetary policy

They expect the elected "public servants" tyrants to do something about it. The voters have this crazy delusion that they think the people control the government, when in reality the people are just tagged slave sheeps ruled by cunning tyrant wolfs.

The voters do hold the power, but it's a power that goes unused because the awareness isn't there.  With a majority ignorant population, voting loses its power.  With a more aware/conscious population, you'd have more philosophers as leaders, rather than politicians.

Here's one of my favourite quotes, by a French philosopher whose name I forgot lol - "There are no political solutions, only technological ones; the rest is propaganda"  Until voters understand that, the right type of leader will never stand a chance against propaganda.

I `m not sure our predatory species ever had a philosopher as leader. We only chose from 2-3 tyrants that are currently available, and then support the consequences. Even if voters would honestly want a great leader, the problem is there is none available. The political class if filled with warmongers and powermongers that are thirsty for more power and control. Every single law they pass reflect this.

I`m not sure what ideal leader you want but for me, I just dont want any, i want to be left alone from their silly game, and let the fools play it.

[freeyourmind]

I `m not sure our predatory species ever had a philosopher as leader. We only chose from 2-3 tyrants that are currently available, and then support the consequences. Even if voters would honestly want a great leader, the problem is there is none available. The political class if filled with warmongers and powermongers that are thirsty for more power and control. Every single law they pass reflect this.

I`m not sure what ideal leader you want but for me, I just dont want any, i want to be left alone from their silly game, and let the fools play it.

Well when have we ever had a majority aware/conscious population?  It goes hand in hand.

I think there are many great leaders, but they don't end up in politics, nor should they.  Their talent would be wasted in politics.  Current politics is based on manipulating the population, and chronic dishonesty is a job suited for a sociopath.  So it's the sociopath that can look into the camera and blatantly lie to millions of people, and then sleep fine at night that ends up at the top of the political chain.

All of the current lobbying and large corporations that fund government campaigns will never side with a philosopher because the game would come to an end.

The awareness of the world is increasing, but still far from being a majority.

Sounds like you are looking for an anarchy type system.  I would prefer that as well, but it needs to happen one step at a time.  Big government and centralized planning is a few major steps from anarchy.

[GreenStox]

I `m not sure our predatory species ever had a philosopher as leader. We only chose from 2-3 tyrants that are currently available, and then support the consequences. Even if voters would honestly want a great leader, the problem is there is none available. The political class if filled with warmongers and powermongers that are thirsty for more power and control. Every single law they pass reflect this.

I`m not sure what ideal leader you want but for me, I just dont want any, i want to be left alone from their silly game, and let the fools play it.

Well when have we ever had a majority aware/conscious population?  It goes hand in hand.

And you will never have one, maybe perhaps 10-15% at most, most people are just born ignorants. So thats why any "majority rule" based democracy is an insane concept.

I think there are many great leaders, but they don't end up in politics, nor should they.  Their talent would be wasted in politics.  Current politics is based on manipulating the population, and chronic dishonesty is a job suited for a sociopath.  So it's the sociopath that can look into the camera and blatantly lie to millions of people, and then sleep fine at night that ends up at the top of the political chain.

I dont think the leader itself is a good way of organizing society in peace. Now in war or emercencies it might come in handy to organize people by force for their own survival, but in peace times , which are not that many lately (central banks feed wars) a leader is generally not needed, people can organize themselves voluntarly or defend themselves from agressors.

Besides most sociopathic rulers are so charming that it can easily fool any people who is not a expert on this. I`ve seen sociopaths infiltrate in the freedom movements too just to lurk there, gain power and then become the next tyrant.

Sounds like you are looking for an anarchy type system.  I would prefer that as well, but it needs to happen one step at a time.  Big government and centralized planning is a few major steps from anarchy.

Yes but based on capitalism, where the forces would be so decentralized that really these sociopaths would not have more power than a few men.

I want a competition so big that by default prohibits anyone from gaining too much economic/political or military power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

[freeyourmind]

I `m not sure our predatory species ever had a philosopher as leader. We only chose from 2-3 tyrants that are currently available, and then support the consequences. Even if voters would honestly want a great leader, the problem is there is none available. The political class if filled with warmongers and powermongers that are thirsty for more power and control. Every single law they pass reflect this.

I`m not sure what ideal leader you want but for me, I just dont want any, i want to be left alone from their silly game, and let the fools play it.

Well when have we ever had a majority aware/conscious population?  It goes hand in hand.

And you will never have one, maybe perhaps 10-15% at most, most people are just born ignorants. So thats why any "majority rule" based democracy is an insane concept.

I think there are many great leaders, but they don't end up in politics, nor should they.  Their talent would be wasted in politics.  Current politics is based on manipulating the population, and chronic dishonesty is a job suited for a sociopath.  So it's the sociopath that can look into the camera and blatantly lie to millions of people, and then sleep fine at night that ends up at the top of the political chain.

I dont think the leader itself is a good way of organizing society in peace. Now in war or emercencies it might come in handy to organize people by force for their own survival, but in peace times , which are not that many lately (central banks feed wars) a leader is generally not needed, people can organize themselves voluntarly or defend themselves from agressors.

Besides most sociopathic rulers are so charming that it can easily fool any people who is not a expert on this. I`ve seen sociopaths infiltrate in the freedom movements too just to lurk there, gain power and then become the next tyrant.

Sounds like you are looking for an anarchy type system.  I would prefer that as well, but it needs to happen one step at a time.  Big government and centralized planning is a few major steps from anarchy.

Yes but based on capitalism, where the forces would be so decentralized that really these sociopaths would not have more power than a few men.

I want a competition so big that by default prohibits anyone from gaining too much economic/political or military power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Well the main challenge really is increasing the awareness of humans, but there are so many forces that benefit from having an ignorant population.  We have a bullshit education system that maintains that ignorance, where the values and grading system are almost upside down.  Look at a group of ultra successful people - it's interesting to see how many dropped out of school, likely because they didn't see value in it.  Even look at kids with ADHD.  They are usually totally obsessed with a few things in life, which are not mainstream, and that obsession allows them to be amazing at it.  Instead of seeing that talent, we start drugging them out at the age of 7 on ritalin and adderal because they don't give a shit about what their grade 2 teacher is writing on the blackboard??  That kid is the aware one.  Internet is helping a lot, as localized ignorance is being shed with exposure to other parts of the world that couldn't be accessed before.

With a conscious population, where humans are treated as humans and people don't segregate into national/racial/religious teams, there wouldn't be wars.  We're not there yet, but it's improving slowly.  Not too long ago, there were slaves and people were burned alive for "witchcraft".

Sociopaths are usually very charming.  But they lack the ability to feel or express genuine emotion.  People that communicate with emotion will feel a void there, and the rest won't suspect anything.

Decentralization just goes back to reducing the size and power of government.  It's amazing how much money and resources go to the government when it's well understood that any government entity will be the least productive.