Avatar
roll_the_dice
ea81a7f14d20107dea6a968f97121c567faa6c43878fe72bae6b57235427eb12
The greatest trick the bankers ever pulled was convincing the world their debts were money.

They are getting so desperate, the had to put Christine Legarde on the Daily Show to try and get Americans to remember that the euro exists.

Replying to Avatar Beautyon

Jürgen and Ulrich in their paper start with a fallacious premise; the Straw Man Fallacy.

The original promise of the Bitcoin Network was to replace the fraudulent Fiat Dollar (and by extension, all fiats, including the Euro) with an incorruptible money that was auditable by the user..

The means of payment part is a superimposition by followers on who saw Bitcoin (which is a form of money with all money's utilities, one of which is means of payment as well as saving) as one thing, whereas it is in fact not money at all, but a database.

Using the phrase "promoters" is a backhanded insult in a flagrant and pathetic attempt to smear Bitcoin users as sellers of a Ponzi Scheme. The authors are beneath contempt for this.

The Appeal to Authority rears its disheveled head when they invoke, "Most Economists believe..." as if that is a pretext for anything, given the woeful state of the global fiat economy running by their strictures. Completely ridiculous.

The price of Bitcoin cannot rise forever. Once fiat dies and all prices are measured in Bitcoin, it will have no price in US Dollars, imbeciles. It is like claiming Bitcoin has a price in Wermacht Marks or Zimbabwe Dollars. Surely, surely, no one can be this stupid. Apparently they are, and they're working in the ECB!

The purpose of money is not to increase the productive potential of the economy; innovation and work do that; and since money is half of all transactions there must therefore be a distribution of money to everyone so that economic activity can continue. There is more than enough Bitcoin to facilitate this.

What the authors expose in their fear that people are going to get rich in a system mediated by Bitcoin is their repugnant socialism, and a fear that it is not their anointed that will be the super rich in a world where Bitcoin is the only money.

Also bear in mind, that if their scenario this unjust accumulation takes place, Bitcoin will have become money just as we predict it will, and the fiat system will have died and Bitcoin will have won, as will have all of humanity.

Bitcoin holders do not become more wealthy at the expense of anyone, since no one is cheating in Bitcoin, unlike in the fiat system, where the first users of the money are ACTUALLY getting wealthy off of the creation of money and inflation.

Jürgen and Ulrich think you are stupid!

Bitcoin cannot impoverish anyone; what it actually does is accurately measure the work and the value of goods of all people in the economy. Such an accurate measure is anathema to Jürgen and Ulrich, who have appointed themselves as god over the economy.

Bitcoin does not redistribute wealth; it measures wealth accurately.

https://medium.com/@beautyon_/bitcoin-is-the-c-of-money-dce63ce8e37a

Jürgen and Ulrich are the scum of the earth with their ECB paid for lies and Keynesian nonsense. They will be proven absolutely wrong by Bitcoin absorbing all the fiats, leaving them and their paymasters exsanguinated and forgotten.

https://x.com/Beautyon_/status/1847625816689041801

They are scammers of the fiat system. They create no value, but are paid through the devaluation of everyone else's Euros via ECB counterfeiting. Talk about unfair distribution!

Replying to Avatar thoughtcrimeboss

What to do with people who are solely dependent on welfare is one of the most interesting problems with a hypothetical Libertarian or Voluntaryist revolution. This would be a revolution in which the state is either dismantled completely or rebuilt from the ground up as a very limited night watchman style organization.

However, the very act of dismantling the welfare system could be seen as an act of aggression against those who are dependent on it for their survival, which would violate the non aggression principle (NAP) which is the entire basis of a voluntaryist society. It wouldn't violate the NAP to punish and stop the state actors who steal the money (via taxation and seizure) that funds the welfare because they themselves have already aggressed against everyone they have stolen from, but the legitimate welfare recipients haven't stolen anything, they have just been given stolen funds and were born into a system that made them dependent on welfare. Taking those funds away could mean they are going to potentially starve or die because of lack of medical care.

You can't start a voluntaryist society with an act of mass aggression against all welfare recipients, but you also can't have one in which the state is stealing money to redistribute. A potential solution to this would be to set up parallel systems first in which people can opt out into on an individual basis as we gradually try to reduce people's dependence on welfare.

If you opt out of the state's system and began to participate in a parallel economy rather than using fiat currency and paying taxes, to prevent any potential harm to welfare recipients that would result from you no longer paying taxes, you could donate the same percentage of your income that would of previously gone to welfare. If you donate it to non profits or even give it directly to people in need, you will end up helping welfare recipients more efficiently than the state ever could. People could gradually be convinced to opt out of welfare and instead accept charity from others who have opted out until which point they are self sufficient, if ever.

This would produce change from the ground up on a voluntary basis rather than a top down act of aggression.

Currently, people on disability welfare in the United States are incentivized to not find a way to earn money despite their disability even if they may want to and be capable of doing so. This is because once you make some money you are penalized in how much benefits you receive, so you would have to be earning a significant amount before it would be worth it to do so. This encourages disabled people to just give up and collect a check for the rest of their life's and is not a good system, especially in today's age of remote work in which it is easier than ever for disabled people to work. Disability is of course not the only form of welfare, all of them have their own issues. The main problem though, is it is funded with theft.

That's like saying not allowing people to force an experimental vaccine into your body viotates the NAP.

Stopping people from stealing from you does not violate the NAP.

Is there an Auckland nostr meetup?

It should be compared to base money rather than bank credit. I think it's #5 at the moment compared to fiat base monies (notes + coins + bank reserves)