Topic: Bitcoin, Capitalism, Democracy and Decentralisation - page 2. (Read 294 times)

There can be leaders in decentralized communities/networks... It won't be a centralized leadership though, they will be monitored by both the network members and their representatives. So, a leader in a decentralized network can print money under certain circumstances if the law allows it, but again it will be done according to the law else the community removes/penalizes the leader.

The problem with Centralized control is that it runs contrary to the ideals of decentralization ... It'll likely not encourage transparency, censorship resistant, accountability, permissionless, etc.
Leaders should be accountable to the people, that's probably why they have to speak to an assembly of the people before important decision are taken in ancient times. They need concensus from the crowd, and the crowd can't do much if the leader is following the law... the best they can do is to offer better alternative that isn't contrary to the law and the leader will need to accept the alternative if it has little/no fault


In regards to Tesla, it can work effectively as a decentralized company if the leadership is transparent, bounded by set rules/principles (which participants in the company can judge the leadership with), etc. So, in this case the leaders at tesla wont have unrestricted powers or powers to do what they want.

The reason why the regulators have been reluctant to give the green light to digital currency all the way is because they are worried that the digital currency market will be manipulated and become a tool for certain institutions and individuals to plunder everyone’s wealth.

This is a stage where Bitcoin must go in its growth path. I personally think that the essence of Bitcoin's decentralization is to establish a balance and trust mechanism. I know a principle: Existence is justified, not without reason.

What's terrible about hyperinflation is that the people who suffer most are those who are already most vulnerable. The riches tend to remain rich even during the economic crises because the govs bail them out or because they lose a lot of money but still have more left than most can make in a lifetime. Then again, I agree with you that centralized control is required to manage everything efficiently, it's just that there should be less power in the hands of the authorities and more mechanisms of controlling what they're doing by the people.
With Bitcoin, I don't think that printing money would have been necessary, as it recovered quite quickly during the pandemic and then started growing a lot. So people could benefit simply from the increased purchasing power this way, but that's merely hypothetical because there are many things that could've gone wrong (extremely high fees the merchants raising the prices a lot, among other things).

The central bank’s slogan of stimulating the economy’s monetary release is essentially a kind of wealth plundering of other people or other countries.

They compare the large-scale outflow of funds to a large amount of money in the trading market for no reason. However, the corresponding products have not increased. Therefore, the result of this is inflation.

As the US dollar is currently the world’s most widely used reserve currency, is such a release unfair to other currencies with which it is exchanged? Yes, it is unfair. This is because as long as the government and the central bank make the decision to print money together, they can exchange it with other countries. They are equivalent to being able to exchange huge wealth without capital. This is a naked robbery!

The idea of stimulus was nice, but it was definitely used the wrong way. There were a lot of holes and issues with the system and it didn't really help in general the people who were hit the most when they lost their jobs. Not to mention that the security with regards to the pandemic was handled quite badly ngl, not to mention the Karens that kept popping up, they even protested at one time iirc.

As for the question of centralization and whatnot, it isn't bad as you say imo. It brings convenience, regulation, rules, and other stuff that makes life a lot easier IF implemented right. Sadly, it isn't most of the time. It has both it's merit and demerit as you said, but having the option of being able to choose a decentralized and centralized option seems to be the better option.

Take my uncle’s pizza restaurant, which closed all stores after the pandemic. Although his savings are enough for his son and his grandson to lead a superior life, he faces the crisis of the epidemic. , He completely retired, and the family’s main business came to an end.

Then, if there will continue to be disasters, and continue to print banknotes, the uncle’s money will continue to depreciate and lose money.
So even if Bitcoin becomes the standard, what should our government do if it encounters such a disaster? How should it be solved?

A crapton of that printed "stimulus" money was laundered away by various criminal groups masquerading as fake American citizens so yeah, they could've done by with much less money printed since a lot of it just ended up being stolen (or wasted on leisure by real claimants) anyway.

I doubt a bitcoin standard could've changed anything about this, especially considering nobody enforced lockdowns or vaccines harshly enough (I mean come on, it's a pandemic we're talking about not some different strain of influenza).

Governments should never hand out money ever, facing pandemic or not. That is the recipe for disaster in the future. Look at what most people did with the money they received. A lot of them invested it in something including bitcoin.
If they want to solve people's problem then solve the problem instead of creating more problems. For example we say people can't afford to pay for groceries during pandemic so open a line of credit for certain people in big grocery stores so that they can only go there and purchase groceries. Then the government can handle the payment with that store in some way without having to print more money. Like not taking taxes from them for a year.

Keep in mind that you can't use the current market state as an argument. So far bitcoin market has been very tiny despite all the growth it had and prone to manipulation which is why the "crashes" happen. In a bigger market with mass adoption it won't happen like this ever.

Definitely not an economics expert, but yea I think this pandemic is one of those "events" where money printing is actually justifiable. But idk, maybe they're doing it a bit too much? If I understand it correctly the stimulus money is for the jobless lower class to have money to continue living; but then I've been hearing statements about people refusing to get jobs because they receive money "for free" anyway.

Governments have copped a lot of flack ever since the start of the pandemic, with gasps and finger-pointing as they printed trillions of stimulus.

Is the idea of money-printing by centralized authority bad? When does it make sense to have a centralized leadership and when doesn't it? And more importantly, if the world was on a bitcoin standard when the pandemic started, what could have been done better? These are some of the questions I want to discuss.

The argument against money-printing is that it can lead to monetary mismanagement and currency debasement, both of which are bad for the general public. However, if we are faced with an emergency (such as global pandemic), what's the alternative? Let the markets sort it out? Let the general public decide how fiscal spending should be allocated? Allow the general public to decide and vote on outcomes via a Decentralised Autonomous Government? Give power back to the individuals and hope they can decide what's best in the midst of all the chaos? I just don't see how that's any better to be honest.

Sometimes there are merits to centralized control. For example, what would happen if Tesla was a Decentralised Autonomous Organisation and didn't have a central authority? Would the general public be able to create self-driving electric cars with their token votes? That just seems ridiculous.

Unpopular opinion, but I think the same applies to government. Yes, there are some shady people there (with their own incentives), but again what's the alternative? Under a bitcoin standard, you can argue that incentives are more aligned to general public. Ok so what does that mean? Well, we allow markets to crash and let markets do their thing and things will naturally sort themselves out. We have more wild swings in the cycle. Is this better than the current system which artificially smooths things out? It's hard to say. It's sort of like home insurance. Most of the time you pay premiums and your house s fine, but when your house collapses, then with insurance you're at least got a safety net. But over time, the insurance premiums will eat away at your savings (just like how money-printing will eat away at your savings over the long term).