I would disagree that unions are a push back to decentralization it’s just a corporation in a corporation with special state protections. It’s socialism.
What do you think capital is?
You aren’t a slave to capital cause you have to work, you have to work cause that’s the state of nature. You work or you can’t eat. Capital is just accumulated work. Saved in some form.
If you have a communist system or no property. That means no money no markets. How do you plan to produce enough food to support 8billion people. Unless you have a magic new way to coordinate people across time and space you’re going to end up killing large swaths of them. Like how it’s always ended up.
Also I would argue if you’re just doing correlations there’s way more in common (hyper centralized powers) with communist states and facist states.
OK I think most of your post is incomprehensible gibberish but from what to can pull out is your argument that Nazism is an outcome of capitalism because they both oppose workers unions?
That american corporations have used political and military force to prevent worker unionization and that companies in Nazi Germany did as well?
Somehow this is a push back against decentralization?
Is that right?
I am not saying the us has a pure free market. Its a corporatist system. Increasingly so. What do you mean precisely by Nazism being the outcome of capitalism ?
Im not knowledgeable enough about anything to say that I know enough but I am making a principles based argument about the nature of markets. More precisely that manipulating the price signals of markets have to create inefficient outcomes. So the bigger the distortion the bigger the ineffiency although not linearly.
Just plotting the dots
OK you're not listening. I'm notsaying the us has it perfect I'm saying they are closer to a free market because at least they have historically respected one of the core requirements of a free market called property Rights. Not perfectly, but order of magnitude than Nazi Germany, China, USSR, and as far as I know most other systems. Now could there be some small tribe I don't know about. Probably. But on the order of magnitude of nation state im pretty ok saying that there's been a big gap. You can say communisms never been tried all you want but the only wya to implement it on a nation state level is by the way it's alwaysbeenn done by political force which is just veiled military force.
Its why I keep saying the outcome of both naziism and socialism and communism are basically the same cause the methods they all use end up the same.
Now America might also end up the same. Its heading in the less individual freedoms path eight now. But again the argument is it didn't happen because too much free markets existed. It's cause they moved away from it.
No I'm arguing they effectively do the same thing,inexplicityly used free market instead of capitalist because even the west "capitalist" governments do it too. Just to varying degrees. They all give themselves power and do things that distortnwhat a free market would choose. When I say socialist and communists are the same its cause if you plot it out those 2 dots are way off to the edge andsuper close to the Nazi dot in terms of how much they distort and otherwise are not respectful of individuals. For all the shit the US is, histocially its been a good space away from those in that sense.
I wish they would stop trying to move over to them but maybe its just not an option in the current monetary system.
Look at the outcomes as you said millions dead between both systems. Both used a totalitarian government to collect all the power to a central organization. Sure the stated goal might be different but they act like all other political organizations they collect power.
The argument you're making is like arguing protestants are anti catholics because they fought each other
Or Sunni and Shiites
The arguemnt against it is that it's all the same unless you do skmehting systematically different like free markets. Economic decisions aren't made by political methods. Not which flavor of political methodology is being used.
The rest is just theater.
I think the expectation is that it goes up higher but then finds some point where if the price is high enough others fewere people willing to pay for the bloxk. So you can move your bitcoin but if your utxo is too small it might be too small yo move economically
Because there's a limited amount of block space. As usage grows there's more people bidding to use it so the fees gonup to clear supply and demand
OK I'll bite. Explain exactly how they are different, not in the stated ideals, but in the actual outcomes as they have historically had. Granted Nazism has a n=1 but I don't really see the variance between most outcomes to be that big
Those are called laggards and you're not gonna convert them at this phase of adoption
Hmm ok gonna make it difficult for me
alright plebs, I have a puzzler for ya
let’s put my local township out of its collective misery and collect some relatively easy sats
our town’s radio station is running a contest to see who can guess the SFX below 👇
every wrong guess increases the honeypot by $25 CAD
- last we checked it’s around $5,000 🫠
If anyone can give a compelling guess, we will try to phone it in, and if we win I will buy sats with the proceeds, and split the sats 50:50, with proof of winnings/purchase
#plebchain
#asknostr
#SFX
📻📢🧡 https://video.nostr.build/3649e96e0a7d2551c61e958f741aee911507e9bd41c1ef8ab57977b3adb6d67a.mp4
Taking a shot in the dark sound like metal being hammered? Maybe?
Lookingbforward to more ai and bitcoin stuff on YouTube. Unless there's a better platform than YouTube
He’s making the argument from an economists perspective. Historically advancements in tech create more new jobs than they destroy. Why he makes fun of luddites. Is ai different this time? Dunno
Isn’t the issue also bandwidth and other limitations? Also smaller blocks would let even lower power devices run bitcoin. Seems premature to just compare costs to 2008.
Maybe I need you to define what the problem is in its current form.

