Today I stumbled upon a very intersting (but also lengthy) blog post discussing currencies (crypto and fiat).
Thought provoking.
I definitely recommend reading it.
If anyone has any opinions on what is being said I'd be interested to hear them.
I'm not entirely sure what to make of the article, but points out a lot of interesting things which might be very relevant now that trump was elected.
@serapath "If you want to compare Bitcoin to something else, compare it to fire, the number zero, the wheel, the printing press, or electricity." Sorry this is just hilarious
I agree that this is a rather funny comparison.
The main idea for it - i assume - is that there is no central issuer, it is decentralized and limited in supply. That has never been achieved in history, even if you wanted, nobody could create such a mechanism.
I think it could end capitalism
@serapath @powersource you cannot end capitalism without ending capital, i.e., private property. Changing the rules of money which have no inherent value changes nothing if the ability to exclude people from using the real assets of the world remains unchanged.
In lieu of that, the ability to conduct monetary policy with fiat money is one of the few tools we could use to loosen the hold that billionaires have over us - if we dared. Part of that would be to change the rules of credit.
@joelving @powersource
i disagree.
houses exist. streets exist.
somebody owns it.
maybe a rich billionaire.
maybe "the city" (e.g. controlled thrn by whoever governs it) ..like a republican major... trump... some rightwinger, maybe some left winger... but some small group of folks controls it.
maybe a small community owns it, and defends it against outsiders.
accountants will write it into books.
the ability to exclude people gets reduced dramatically if we end niney printers.
no more mkney to print to pay exorbitant police and military.
no more money printer to buy up all stuff and inflate other peoples wealth away so they wouldnt be able to have access any ire because they cant pay
@serapath @joelving @powersource The rich do not get rich through printing money. They get rich through exploitation.
@joepie91 @joelving @powersource
the rich get rich through money printing which is the exploitation.
they hire the poor and give them pieces of paper for their labour.... and they can because they print it
@serapath @joelving @powersource ... no, that is not how it works, and that is not where the power dynamics are. If it were that simple, you could simply decide not to use their money and the problem would be solved. The fact that that hasn't happened should tell you that there's more going on here.
@joepie91 @joelving @powersource
no i think that IS EXACTLY the case.
stop using their money and problem solved.
the issue is. it is a nash equilibrium society is trapped in. a prisoner dilemma.
everyone would neex to stop.... but the grocery stores, the hair dressers, the bakery, the sports club, the plumber, the doctor, the bus driver... literally everyone needs it every say so they have to earn it.
IT IS HARD to stop using their money
@serapath @joelving @powersource And why is it hard?
@joepie91 @joelving @powersource
Because i can stop, but if everyone else does not stop at the same time to switch to something else... i will still need money to pay rent, pay for groceries, and everything else in life and those peoppe who charge me are in the same situation and need that money to pay for their bills as well
@joepie91 @joelving @powersource
we would need to collectively reach consensus.
we would need to koordinate at the same time to switch to a new alternative way of doing things.
that seems impossible unless you create a shelling point. something everyone can promote and convere to and agree on and then make up a date to switch collectively...
without such a schelling point, people are neither aware nor can they agree on what to even do... hence stay trapped in the status quo
@serapath @joelving @powersource Why do we "need to collectively reach consensus"? Why can we not simply gradually change over to another currency, exchanging between the two in the process during the transition period?
I want you to really *think* about this question.
@joepie91 @joelving @powersource
i am up for it, but tell me how.
what do you propose?
bitcoin is just an interesting phenomenon and i can see some pros and reasons why it could be an imorovement over the status quo.
i cant see any other proposal that will lead us collectively out of capitalism as we know it.
do you have anything in mind?
@joepie91 @joelving @powersource
maybe we could, but it is really really tough.
bitcoin is already and still a niche phoenomenon and only gradually switching.
i am not saying you cant gradually switch, but how?
how do you create such a decentralized neutral mechanism that does not discriminate so that everyone can switch?
if a group of ppl starts it... then other groups wont adopt it, because they are team red and not team blue or whatever other politics and tribal games and who controls