Topic: A _new_ currency has to be fair - page 2. (Read 6240 times)

Good grief. Either you must be the most intelligent person ever, who's finally solved all the world's problems, or you've never read a book or newspaper in your life. You'd think 70 years of corrupt communists robbing, executing and torturing their citizens would give people pause before writing something as idiotic as "a new, moneyless, society." Apparently, there's an endless supply of stupid people who're willing believe in this ****.

There's never gonna be a moneyless society, dude. So stop wasting your time and go make some money. Money = proof of work. Bitcoin = proof of work. Even if you killed 99% of the people on earth, you'd still have to give the people who were left an incentive to do things for you, or for each other, because everyone works for themselves first. That's the Big Lesson of communism: No one wants to work for you or some other guy for free. The only moneyless society, ever, was Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. And they starved and executed 1/4th of their population and put the rest into slavery for a bowl of rice a day to make them work. Is that what you call a healthy society? The opposite of the "sick" one we live in now? Go to Cambodia. Go to the museum at Tuol Seng and look at the bones, and think about whether any state has a right to dictate to other people how their freedom and labor should be used.

I totally disagree with this.

Capitalism is the main root of the today world's most barbarous problems like: hungry, wars, diseases, poverty, pollution, waste, envy, competition, etc and etc...

I'm about to begin the end of capitalism. By starting a new, moneyless, society.

The Bitcoin / Litecoin / Namecoin will be heavily used during the transition of this sick society, to the new one.

Best!
Thiago

Because they made the rules, obviously. Of course, a sigmoid would have given better initial distribution, but nobody programmed Bitcoin with one at the time, so the makers could take more for themselves. Yes, this could have been distributed more evenly, but it's a thing of the past now.


Huh? Isn't this exactly showing that it does work out? The market became much more liquid, quite a few people sold their initial Bitcoin assets. The whole market liquidity is correcting things as we speak, and has been heavily for two months now. Volume can't rise forever, and so we end up with more stability.

And with each trade, Bitcoins end up with someone who wanted them, not for free years ago, but today at current price.

I'm agreeing with you. Read my whole post.

Yes. I believe the design led to disproportion in people with (much) more Bitcoins than they really want vs. people with less Bitcoins than they really want.

I’m afraid it’s not working very well though (perhaps the market cap is too low and it’s too easy to corner now?), because the selling volume is actually increasing, leading to this huge 380k volume spike to 1.99.

I guess this will go on as long as people haven’t made up their mind whether they want BTC or USD.

The president of my company was once an engineer and moved up.  One of the engineers in my company was once a factory worker.  In fact the engineering department lately has brought on another factory worker that taught himself CAD.  If a factory worker can become an engineer and then teach himself business and become the president where does that leave your point?

The crux of the argument lies in peoples' definition of "fair".  Fair isn't a universal absolute, it isn't tangible and is only as real as it is in the mind of the individual, like "good" and "bad".  As an extreme example let's take a mentally challenged person.  Does he deserve to make as much as the highest paid member of our society?  From one perspective you could argue that he produces/offers less worth to the society and it would be unfair for him to have the same access to resources as others that contribute more.  Conversely you could also argue that it wasn't his fault that he was born mentally deficient and as such should, in the name of fairness, earn the same as everyone else.

In nature the weak get weeded out.  Our "civilized" manners in modern society is but a thin veil covering the true animal reality we all still live in.  If things being "fair" were what was needed to survive and progress that would be the cornerstone of our history, but it's not.

He doesn't fucking want it. He doesn't care.

Okay let's make this simpler...

Two cave men. One which is good at making straight spears out of wood. The other is good at making arrowheads out of rock. If they only use their own skills, both of them starve to death because the spear is incomplete.

However, a simple trade makes them both measurably better off.

Now, why do you still say that one of them is getting ripped off, that one is made worse? Please explain, because it seems quite clear to me that by trading wealth is being generated and both are made happier for it.

Yes, but they are not on the same level. The worker does not have the power to make company wide decisions, does he?

Don't forget, in the factory worker case, the CEO has more to gain and less to lose then the worker does.

The working class is those people who work to earn a living. This is compared to the poor, who cannot work for a living, and the monied class, who do not work because they have so much money they just live off the interest it generates.

The boss-worker relationship is a transaction. They both enter into it because they have something to gain from each other.

Again, please don't go off topic and make this personal. Im not going anywhere and if I am wrong I will gladly admit to it.
Your attempt to make my feelings hinder my point of view will not work. These immaturities do not affect me.


Honestly, I dont care how you feel lol. I know nothing about you, nor do I care. The only reason we are conversing is because of this current discussion.


Yes, exactly. I think we may be speaking about something different at this point.

I was responding to what Erik said, which had more to do with the Worker--Boss relationship and the classes in our current society.
Your points are more on the transactional basis, which forgive me, I dont know enough about to to make an accurate decision wether to agree or disagree with you.

I hope you were not insulted by me and can continue have this friendly discussion 

This is really interesting... Do you think the large sell offs on the way down were the "markets" correcting for the faulty design?

You see, now you feel this exchange will cause you to sacrifice. You leave. You're not going to allow yourself to get shorted.

However, I feel you might be better off still talking to me. That doesn't really mean anything, does it?

In the end, you only know the fair price. You only know what's best for you. There is no objective value.

heh, ok if thats what you believe then come work for me!



No need for name calling buddy, were have a friendly discussion. Cool?
If your gonna make this personal and be emotional, we lose the value of our discussion. Thanks

No, you don't feel they are compensated equally. Somebody feels 2 dollars an hour if good enough for his work. You don't. It's only your perception of equality. It's not objective.

...and, no, the Marxist theory of value is not objective either.

Unfortunately, our system does have class. The factory work and his CEO boss are not in the same class. You couldn't have a factory worker without a CEO and a CEO without a factory worker.  

True, for arguments sake lets agree that all men produce, trade, and negotiate to their best of their ability however, all men are NOT compensated equally for their work, and thats the beautify of capitalism right there.

I am not mistaken. You think somebody got the better deal. Why does your perspective have any say over somebody elses desires? There is no objective value. If anything, you're delusional.

You may think the money is worth more but that is only your perspective. It is not infallible, it is not objective. The fact is Bob wanted the candy bar over the money. He did not sacrifice. He only feels more pleasure and that's his damn right.

Ah thats were your mistaken my friend. They both may have 'thought' they are getting the better deal, but reality says someone had to have gotten the upper hand, even if they didnt know it.

A capitalist system does not have "classes."  It's a fallacious term applicable to other systems of social organization but not to capitalism.

And what is "working class?"  That term is thrown around but it means nothing. I dare say the CEO earning $500,000 per year and working 16 hrs a day is more aptly labeled "working class" than most who ascribe that title to themselves.

All men must produce, trade, and negotiate to their best of their ability. The fact that some are less successful than others, or run across worse circumstances than others, does not discredit those who are more successful or run across better circumstances.

So long as one is not lying, cheating, stealing, or hurting his neighbors, he is behaving fairly and morally, and a system which enables men to behave fairly in that way becomes a capitalist, or "market based," system, inevitably.