Off-Topic discussion about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.

richardyot

@dendy said:

@dendy said:
Problem is. We both have stored money in The Bank. And you're friend with The Bank CEO, so he prints every year new money and just adds them to your account. Which means next year you have 102$ but i have still just $100. So i can't afford to buy same amount of potatoes from you.

Where do you get this from? It's just plain conspiracy theory. Show me an example where this wasn't considered criminal.

it was oversimplification like your example. In reality new printed money are NEVER distributed equally to all players, they are always given to some (typically private banks but now also to big private companies) and only then they slowly leak to rest of market. So somebody has always advantage of being first.

How is money created in the current system? It’s pretty straightforward:

• Private banks create money when they make loans to customers
• The Central Bank creates notes and coins that are distributed to private banks who then issue them to customers at ATMs
• The Central Bank creates reserves that the banking system uses to clear interbank payments. These are offset by private bank assets
• The Central Bank creates money in the QE programme to buy bonds from financial institutions, this is a straight asset swap (bonds for cash) that leaves the private sector net worth unchanged

There is no mechanism there that allows for money creation to somehow unfairly favour private companies.

Banks do have the ability to issue money in the form of credit, which allows them to charge interest, but they have to bear the risk of customer default so it’s not a free lunch.

richardyot

But to get back to deflation: when firms are starved of sales, we know from centuries of data that the first thing they do is not to lower prices but to lay people off. It’s what happens in every recession and depression - you don’t see prices going down, you see unemployment going up. It’s what Keynes called “sticky prices” and is the reason why arguments in favour of deflation fall flat.

Arguing for deflation is essentially arguing against capitalism, because capitalism depends on sales to thrive, a capitalist economy is driven by demand.

richardyot

@dendy said:

here I'm afraid you're missing the point: by spending less, you bought fewer potatoes, some of my inventory went unsold.

that's problem with oversimplifications.. in real world there are not 2 players. You always find somebody who will buy rest. In keynesian world you're the winner, you got new money first.

Again this is not what happens when demand falls: firms don’t reduce their prices until all inventory is sold, in many cases they end up stuck with unsold inventory. Only if the firm collapses completely will they liquidate everything at lower prices, but in the majority of cases they will lay people off long before that happens.

u0421793

Some years ago I was somewhat interested in the notion of a universal basic income enabled by automation and robot productivity increases. A nation would be able to feed, clothe, house and provide money for the citizens despite jobs no longer existing, because robots do all the work.

Needless to say, it could never be that simplistic. Who would own the robots – are they to be nationalised, or private? Would starting your own business and employing people become illegal? What about disparities across nations of the world – surely they’re not all going to dive into this at the same time. Given this scenario, if it worked, would money itself simply die out eventually, simply giving people the stuff or things they’d otherwise want the money for. Would some few outlying individuals try to game the system (can’t imagine that)?

ervin

@u0421793 said:
Some years ago I was somewhat interested in the notion of a universal basic income enabled by automation and robot productivity increases. A nation would be able to feed, clothe, house and provide money for the citizens despite jobs no longer existing, because robots do all the work.

Needless to say, it could never be that simplistic. Who would own the robots – are they to be nationalised, or private? Would starting your own business and employing people become illegal? What about disparities across nations of the world – surely they’re not all going to dive into this at the same time. Given this scenario, if it worked, would money itself simply die out eventually, simply giving people the stuff or things they’d otherwise want the money for. Would some few outlying individuals try to game the system (can’t imagine that)?

Indeed it's tricky when you start from the economic principles. But it's also interesting to start from a social aspect, because it offers a different perspective.

Let's say it's 2060 and almost every job is done by robots (it doesn't matter how likely we think that is, this is a thought experiment). If there is no universal income of some kind, people go hungry because most of them can't earn money by working. But they still have the votes. What's the political outcome of that? I don't see how you can avoid either introducing a way to pay people for simply existing, or say goodbye to democracy in order to be able to oppress them. Obviously this is quite a bit of simplification, but I do think the main question is valid. What if robotization simply reaches critical mass and society needs to react to it?

colonel_mustard

Can the robots be made of ocean plastic and fatberg?

Gavinski

@ervin said:

@u0421793 said:
Some years ago I was somewhat interested in the notion of a universal basic income enabled by automation and robot productivity increases. A nation would be able to feed, clothe, house and provide money for the citizens despite jobs no longer existing, because robots do all the work.

Needless to say, it could never be that simplistic. Who would own the robots – are they to be nationalised, or private? Would starting your own business and employing people become illegal? What about disparities across nations of the world – surely they’re not all going to dive into this at the same time. Given this scenario, if it worked, would money itself simply die out eventually, simply giving people the stuff or things they’d otherwise want the money for. Would some few outlying individuals try to game the system (can’t imagine that)?

Indeed it's tricky when you start from the economic principles. But it's also interesting to start from a social aspect, because it offers a different perspective.

Let's say it's 2060 and almost every job is done by robots (it doesn't matter how likely we think that is, this is a thought experiment). If there is no universal income of some kind, people go hungry because most of them can't earn money by working. But they still have the votes. What's the political outcome of that? I don't see how you can avoid either introducing a way to pay people for simply existing, or say goodbye to democracy in order to be able to oppress them. Obviously this is quite a bit of simplification, but I do think the main question is valid. What if robotization simply reaches critical mass and society needs to react to it?

It's very interesting and disturbing when we think that it won't be truly universal. Poor countries will be left behind, their labour won't be worth anything so they won't have the chance to catch up with developed countries the way China did. We will end up with something like a zombie movie, or like Children of Men, (or even like the situation with Syrian refugees today trying to get into Europe) where the disenfranchised are desperate to break into the gilded palaces of the lucky ones.

ervin

@Gavinski said:

where the disenfranchised are desperate to break into the gilded palaces of the lucky ones.

To bring this back a bit closer to the original topic: THAT (when the first "Eat the rich" posters appear outside their mansions) will be the moment when those swashbuckling bitcoin millionaires will suddenly develop an enormous interest in having a protective state after all

richardyot

To be fair people have been saying for over 200 years that machines are going to replace people in the workforce, but that's not how it pans out. What happens is that as new technologies emerge we find new jobs to go with them.

One hundred years ago there were no computer programmers or air traffic controllers - as technology displaces people from some jobs it simultaneously creates new ones.

Personally I don't think there will ever be a world where there is no work for humans to do. We will always find new ways of working.

Gavinski

@ervin said:

@Gavinski said:

where the disenfranchised are desperate to break into the gilded palaces of the lucky ones.

To bring this back a bit closer to the original topic: THAT (when the first "Eat the rich" posters appear outside their mansions) will be the moment when those swashbuckling bitcoin millionaires will suddenly develop an enormous interest in having a protective state after all

Yes! Much as I share Dendy's enthusiasm for Bitcoin, my politics are probably a lot closer to Richard's. Then again, I didn't grow up in a socialist state like Dendy did. I can understand someone who grew up in 70s Russia, Poland, Slovakia etc not being very enamored of socialism

richardyot

@Gavinski said:

@ervin said:

@Gavinski said:

where the disenfranchised are desperate to break into the gilded palaces of the lucky ones.

To bring this back a bit closer to the original topic: THAT (when the first "Eat the rich" posters appear outside their mansions) will be the moment when those swashbuckling bitcoin millionaires will suddenly develop an enormous interest in having a protective state after all

Yes! Much as I share Dendy's enthusiasm for Bitcoin, my politics are probably a lot closer to Richard's. Then again, I didn't grow up in a socialist state like Dendy did. I can understand someone who grew up in 70s Russia, Poland, Slovakia etc not being very enamored of socialism

Well just to clarify I’m not really a socialist, more of a social Democrat.

It really depends on how you define socialism, but strictly speaking socialism is a centrally planned economy, which we know from the experience of the Soviet Union is not viable.

I believe in a mixed economy: the market to provide goods and services, and the state to provide infrastructure, including education and healthcare. Essentially what we have now, although my ideal model would be closer to the post-war era when states pursued policies of full employment.

So basically it’s a mixture of capitalism and socialism, but I am very much in favour of free markets where appropriate (ie in the private sector where they belong).

dendy

Well just to clarify I’m not really a socialist, more of a social Democrat.

basically same thing just with different name in my experience ... same ideology, same principles, same methodology, same mindset of people with power - centralise economy to hold full control over it in hands of goverment, redistribute money from people who are successful mostly because they are ready to sacrify something, into hands of people who are not successful because they are waiting that somebody (gov) will take a care about them, willing to pay for this by own freedom.

we had 40 years of socialisim until 1989.. we had so called "social democrats" from 2006 to 2020 (with 1.5 year exception). It's same shit. Only difference is in socialism you risked going to jail when you expressed you don't like goverment, now nobody gives a shit when you are talking. Rest is same.

Actually i think "social democracy" is pretty much oxymoron 🤣 More "social" is state, less democratic it is.

Brw. when it comes to word "social", it always reminds me biggest ponzi scheme of all times - social insurance :-)))

dendy

don't get me wrong.. i have social feeling, i'm actually giving to charity.. and i understand people who like socialism (or social democracy of you want use his term). I understand why they like it, especially when they really don't especienced it in full power with all it's disdvantages.

Still, i will fight agains this plague for rest of my life, becuse just base on my life experience this is just bad ideology, which is keeping away freedom as price for some basic level of social securities. For me freedom is most important untouchable right, above all other rights.

Gavinski

@dendy you said 'redistribute money from people who are successful mostly because they are ready to sacrify something'. Im sorry, this is a very naive view of why people are successful. Growing up in a rich family, having access to good schools, private tuition, mindset of parents etc are all things that make things unequal already from a very young age in poor vs rich families.

richardyot

It’s just the old “moochers and doers” argument so beloved of Ayn Rand fans. 🤷‍♂️

NeuM

@Gavinski said:
@dendy you said 'redistribute money from people who are successful mostly because they are ready to sacrify something'. Im sorry, this is a very naive view of why people are successful. Growing up in a rich family, having access to good schools, private tuition, mindset of parents etc are all things that make things unequal already from a very young age in poor vs rich families.

We are born (relatively) equal, but the rest is up to each of us as thinking, productive, creative individuals. It’s not the job of government to foist disadvantages on the skilled, privileged or otherwise advantaged in order to benefit others with lesser circumstances. The job of government is to set the table so people may use their every advantage available to them (be that skills or connections or wealth) and not harm others in the process. One person’s success is not another person’s loss.

https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2871-how-most-millionaires-got-rich.html

espiegel123

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:
@dendy you said 'redistribute money from people who are successful mostly because they are ready to sacrify something'. Im sorry, this is a very naive view of why people are successful. Growing up in a rich family, having access to good schools, private tuition, mindset of parents etc are all things that make things unequal already from a very young age in poor vs rich families.

We are born (relatively) equal, but the rest is up to each of us as thinking, productive, creative individuals. It’s not the job of government to foist disadvantages on the skilled, privileged or otherwise advantaged in order to benefit others with lesser circumstances. The job of government is to set the table so people may use their every advantage available to them (be that skills or connections or wealth) and not harm others in the process. One person’s success is not another’s loss.

People in most countries are not born nearly equal if one includes access to resources. The resources to which you have access as you grow up hugely impacts your future. People born with poor access to nutrition and education and medical care are are at a severe disadvantage.

This talk of "foisting disadvantages" etc is political hyperbole and totally mis-states the aims and mechanisms of social democracy.

One can't treat a competition as among equals when there actually huge inequalities.

NeuM

@espiegel123 said:

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:
@dendy you said 'redistribute money from people who are successful mostly because they are ready to sacrify something'. Im sorry, this is a very naive view of why people are successful. Growing up in a rich family, having access to good schools, private tuition, mindset of parents etc are all things that make things unequal already from a very young age in poor vs rich families.

We are born (relatively) equal, but the rest is up to each of us as thinking, productive, creative individuals. It’s not the job of government to foist disadvantages on the skilled, privileged or otherwise advantaged in order to benefit others with lesser circumstances. The job of government is to set the table so people may use their every advantage available to them (be that skills or connections or wealth) and not harm others in the process. One person’s success is not another’s loss.

People in most countries are not born nearly equal if one includes access to resources. The resources to which you have access as you grow up hugely impacts your future. People born with poor access to nutrition and education and medical care are are at a severe disadvantage.

This talk of "foisting disadvantages" etc is political hyperbole and totally mis-states the aims and mechanisms of social democracy.

One can't treat a competition as among equals when there actually huge inequalities.

It’s up to the people in the so-called “most countries” to overthrow their authoritarian and/or socialist system of government and demand protection of individual rights (such as those spelled out in the Bill of Rights in the US, for starters). Social democracy is a socialist philosophy. I don’t support any socialist notions.

And the entire bit about “inequality” is a wholly Communistic. There is no such thing as real equality because each person is an individual, not an egg that fits in a box to be sold by the dozen.

Gavinski

I fully agree with @espiegel123 but don't see much point in trying to convince you @NeuM, and definitely have better things to do.

NeuM

@Gavinski said:
I fully agree with @espiegel123 but don't see much point in trying to convince you @NeuM, and definitely have better things to do.

I vehemently disagree with espiegel123 and all efforts to convince people of the false benefits of socialism. Better things would include getting this thread back on track… or making some music!

espiegel123

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:
I fully agree with @espiegel123 but don't see much point in trying to convince you @NeuM, and definitely have better things to do.

I vehemently disagree with espiegel123 and all efforts to convince people of the false benefits of socialism. Better things would include getting this thread back on track… or making some music!

I never said anything about socialism. Do you consider social democracy as practiced in most of the western world as socialism?

What are examples of what you consider to be acceptable economic or political systems?

You rhetoric here strikes me as fairly extreme.

NeuM

@espiegel123 said:

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:
I fully agree with @espiegel123 but don't see much point in trying to convince you @NeuM, and definitely have better things to do.

I vehemently disagree with espiegel123 and all efforts to convince people of the false benefits of socialism. Better things would include getting this thread back on track… or making some music!

I never said anything about socialism. Do you consider social democracy as practiced in most of the western world as socialism?

What are examples of what you consider to be acceptable economic or political systems?

You rhetoric here strikes me as fairly extreme.

Social democracy is socialism by definition, friend. (Definition: “a political system that combines the principles of socialism with the greater personal freedom of democracy; a country that has this political system of government”)

No system which incorporates socialism is acceptable to a free people. And since you were so kind to bring it up, your rhetoric strikes me as extreme.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2020/03/16/socialism-the-failed-idea-that-never-dies/?sh=554d1ea923cc

From the linked article: “Socialism is always democratic and emancipatory in its aspirations, but oppressive and authoritarian in its actual practice.”

richardyot

@NeuM said:
No system which incorporates socialism is acceptable to a free people.

What if they vote for it?

NeuM

@richardyot said:

@NeuM said:
No system which incorporates socialism is acceptable to a free people.

What if they vote for it?

Then they’re voting for enslavement and consequently lose their freedom.

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” —Benjamin Franklin

richardyot

So by virtue of living in a country with a public healthcare system, I’m a slave?

I don’t think we have quite the same definition of slavery.

But show me just one single successful civilisation in the whole of human history that was fully privatised, with no shared resources at all. I’ll wait.

NeuM

@richardyot said:
So by virtue of living in a country with a public healthcare system, I’m a slave?

I don’t think we have quite the same definition of slavery.

But show me just one single successful civilisation in the whole of human history that was fully privatised, with no shared resources at all. I’ll wait.

The synonym of enslavement is “subjugation.”

You are literally a royal subject in your country, right? Do you have the ability as a citizen there to vote to kick out the Royal Family?

espiegel123

@NeuM said:

@espiegel123 said:

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:
I fully agree with @espiegel123 but don't see much point in trying to convince you @NeuM, and definitely have better things to do.

I vehemently disagree with espiegel123 and all efforts to convince people of the false benefits of socialism. Better things would include getting this thread back on track… or making some music!

I never said anything about socialism. Do you consider social democracy as practiced in most of the western world as socialism?

What are examples of what you consider to be acceptable economic or political systems?

You rhetoric here strikes me as fairly extreme.

Social democracy is socialism by definition, friend. (Definition: “a political system that combines the principles of socialism with the greater personal freedom of democracy; a country that has this political system of government”)

No system which incorporates socialism is acceptable to a free people. And since you were so kind to bring it up, your rhetoric strikes me as extreme.

I am sorry, this statement "No system which incorporates socialism is acceptable to a free people. " is factually false. Your definition of socialism has been adopted by pretty much every democracy.

I ask you again to name a country present or past that implemented the political and economic system you believe is acceptable.

AudioGus

richardyot

@NeuM said:

@richardyot said:
So by virtue of living in a country with a public healthcare system, I’m a slave?

I don’t think we have quite the same definition of slavery.

But show me just one single successful civilisation in the whole of human history that was fully privatised, with no shared resources at all. I’ll wait.

The synonym of enslavement is “subjugation.”

You are literally a royal subject in your country, right? Do you have the ability as a citizen there to vote to kick out the Royal Family?

Eventually yes. The reason the Royal Family have remained is because they’re popular, or at least the Queen is. There is a clear majority that support her.

espiegel123

The notion that one can (as some have done in this thread) argue from a select few examples of failed countries that call themselves socialist to all possible implementations of social democracies is not empirically sound. Why not treat Sweden or Germany as the models of socialism?

It is like selecting brown-haired individuals you don't like and insisting that all brown-haired people are like them.

The sort of autocratic implementations of "communism" and "socialism" people have mentioned tell us more about the failings of anti-democratic authoritarian systems than about "socialism" or social democratic system.

p.s. socialism was conceived as a democratic system.