Socialism is an economic system in which the goods and services are controlled by the government which also known as decentralization system of government which is also the direct opposite of capitalism.
I prefer decentralized system of economy because it will create egalitarian society
Topic: Is decentralization to be feared? (Read 177 times)
Of course they are afraid of decentralization, the rich capitalist countries that control the IMF hate decentralization and they will use every means to put pressure on the countries that are trying to adopt Bitcoin and decentralization, the first of which is of course the IMF.
Personally, I consider the International Monetary Fund to be a game in the hands of the rich and capitalist countries in particular to manipulate the fate of the governments and peoples of the world by flooding them with debts and then controlling the policies of those countries by setting the conditions they want to give them loans. This is an old and well-known method that has been in use for a long time and now they are using it to pressure the poor country El Salvador to abandon Bitcoin adoption and decentralization.
Personally, I consider the International Monetary Fund to be a game in the hands of the rich and capitalist countries in particular to manipulate the fate of the governments and peoples of the world by flooding them with debts and then controlling the policies of those countries by setting the conditions they want to give them loans. This is an old and well-known method that has been in use for a long time and now they are using it to pressure the poor country El Salvador to abandon Bitcoin adoption and decentralization.
I totally agree with you. Although decentralization has its negative consequences but it would attract huge investment. El Salvador choose what's good for them as a sovereign nation. They are willing to pay for the consequences. IMF and World Bank just like other big banks are wolves in sheep clothing. They would always make policies that would favour their financiers ( The West). Take note, the rich wouldn't want the poor to be rich because the wealth of the rich comes from the poor.
People fear what the do not know but most of the time what they cannot control. This is especially true for those in power. In this case those that are in control of the global economy.
I don't exactly like China but I was somewhat glad they tried competing with the IMF and WB - not that they have fairer terms (99 Year Lease on Sri Lanka is just ridiculous) but simply having competition the IMF and WB might somehow start giving better deals. Even better of course if cryptos gain wider adoption. This would be an entirely new economy out of their hands, further weakening their power to dictate government policy for the developing world.
I don't exactly like China but I was somewhat glad they tried competing with the IMF and WB - not that they have fairer terms (99 Year Lease on Sri Lanka is just ridiculous) but simply having competition the IMF and WB might somehow start giving better deals. Even better of course if cryptos gain wider adoption. This would be an entirely new economy out of their hands, further weakening their power to dictate government policy for the developing world.
The banking system created a dept trap.. the intrest rates of loans are far higher than rate of interest on deposits..creating a net surplus for banks , more than this bank works on fractional reserve system which greatly enhances it's money utilizing power .. it keeps us poor and gets richer , in a way Bank also regulate inflation..
However in crisis bank put all the burden on us hits us the worst..
So trusting bank is a gamble..
Crypto gives us a alternate a alternate which never existed and now banks and funds are worried of their own position . So they are trying to dissuade customers.
El salvador gave away it's reliance on banking and placed it on market a model never seen before
.Bravo salavador. Your actions will go down the books of history
So
However in crisis bank put all the burden on us hits us the worst..
So trusting bank is a gamble..
Crypto gives us a alternate a alternate which never existed and now banks and funds are worried of their own position . So they are trying to dissuade customers.
El salvador gave away it's reliance on banking and placed it on market a model never seen before
.Bravo salavador. Your actions will go down the books of history
So
Of course they are afraid of decentralization, the rich capitalist countries that control the IMF hate decentralization and they will use every means to put pressure on the countries that are trying to adopt Bitcoin and decentralization, the first of which is of course the IMF.
Personally, I consider the International Monetary Fund to be a game in the hands of the rich and capitalist countries in particular to manipulate the fate of the governments and peoples of the world by flooding them with debts and then controlling the policies of those countries by setting the conditions they want to give them loans. This is an old and well-known method that has been in use for a long time and now they are using it to pressure the poor country El Salvador to abandon Bitcoin adoption and decentralization.
Personally, I consider the International Monetary Fund to be a game in the hands of the rich and capitalist countries in particular to manipulate the fate of the governments and peoples of the world by flooding them with debts and then controlling the policies of those countries by setting the conditions they want to give them loans. This is an old and well-known method that has been in use for a long time and now they are using it to pressure the poor country El Salvador to abandon Bitcoin adoption and decentralization.
I would say it's like switching from horse-drawn vehicles to the first motor cars. It totally upends the current system. Imagine all those pissed off carriage manufacturers, the horse breeder farms, etc.
It makes sense for those who are heavily invested in the status quo to reject developments that would make them possibly obsolete. Or at least they'll try to delay it for the time being while they prepare to dominate the new system as well, as we are seeing in whose buying cryptos now.
It makes sense for those who are heavily invested in the status quo to reject developments that would make them possibly obsolete. Or at least they'll try to delay it for the time being while they prepare to dominate the new system as well, as we are seeing in whose buying cryptos now.
Fiat (centralized) money is a very important part of economic policy. By adopting BTC as legal tender, El Salvador is aiming to get money mainly from tourism, but as a consequence they're relinquishing control over their own economy (or part of it), and leaving it at the will of the market.
So it's not that "decentralization is bad", but it's inconvenient in this case. As appealing as the news can be for us, El Salvador's move was a dangerous one.
It makes sense that the IMF won't want to lend money to a country that can't control its own economy. It'd be like playing russian roulette with a lot of money.
So it's not that "decentralization is bad", but it's inconvenient in this case. As appealing as the news can be for us, El Salvador's move was a dangerous one.
It makes sense that the IMF won't want to lend money to a country that can't control its own economy. It'd be like playing russian roulette with a lot of money.
What control was relinquished here? The USD/SVC exchange rate was fixed anyway, so not much control left there. Apart from that, BTC was adopted as an _additional_ legal tender.
Obviously organizations like the IMF which are driven by global elites don't want decentralized finance to exist in this world https://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/imf-says-crypto-boom-poses-challenges-to-financial-stability/2380657. They don't want their control over global finance to be compromised by the presence of decentralized finance like Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.
Also, the continuous lending of money to the "poor countries" weakens their economies even more. It's just a vicious cycle that a common person does not see. If you keep living on handouts, there is no way you can develop. So IMF can go fuck themselves if they don't want to lend money to El Salvador.
I see it as away of trying to take back control, which they (IMF) and all those centralized corrupt organizations feel they are losing.
I see it as away of trying to take back control, which they (IMF) and all those centralized corrupt organizations feel they are losing.
Yeah, to a point. We have to remember most (if not all) developed countries are also in debt, and it doesn't affect them.
The problem countries like El Salvador (and Argentina, my country, among many others) have is they keep asking for loans to finance deficit, instead of financing growth.
Making BTC legal tender is a dangerous move, and the IMF is bound not to like it (no lender ever would like something like that). I hope it pays up. However, I don't see El Salvador giving the IMF the finger over this. Most likely, they will make some noise, and they will eventually come up with some sort of arrangement that works for both parties.
Fiat (centralized) money is a very important part of economic policy. By adopting BTC as legal tender, El Salvador is aiming to get money mainly from tourism, but as a consequence they're relinquishing control over their own economy (or part of it), and leaving it at the will of the market.
So it's not that "decentralization is bad", but it's inconvenient in this case. As appealing as the news can be for us, El Salvador's move was a dangerous one.
It makes sense that the IMF won't want to lend money to a country that can't control its own economy. It'd be like playing russian roulette with a lot of money.
Also, the continuous lending of money to the "poor countries" weakens their economies even more. It's just a vicious cycle that a common person does not see. If you keep living on handouts, there is no way you can develop. So IMF can go fuck themselves if they don't want to lend money to El Salvador.So it's not that "decentralization is bad", but it's inconvenient in this case. As appealing as the news can be for us, El Salvador's move was a dangerous one.
It makes sense that the IMF won't want to lend money to a country that can't control its own economy. It'd be like playing russian roulette with a lot of money.
I see it as away of trying to take back control, which they (IMF) and all those centralized corrupt organizations feel they are losing.
Decentralisation as much as it could be the answer to a lot of persons that uses various networks over the web, it is also a pain in the azz for a few others that have been benefiting largely from centralised systems. Persons or organisations with a need to always be in control over how a thing works or is done and affects other persons/users.
Defining exactly which are you gives you a course for few or not. So, if you aren't the government, you've got literally nothing to few from decentralized systems.
In the context of the thread, in other for there to be a perfect system, there have to be a merger in the sense that, one (decentralisation or centralization) won't have to apply in total. So many cryptos are decentralized and most of it still operates on centralized systems, like the exchanges.
Defining exactly which are you gives you a course for few or not. So, if you aren't the government, you've got literally nothing to few from decentralized systems.
In the context of the thread, in other for there to be a perfect system, there have to be a merger in the sense that, one (decentralisation or centralization) won't have to apply in total. So many cryptos are decentralized and most of it still operates on centralized systems, like the exchanges.
Fiat (centralized) money is a very important part of economic policy. By adopting BTC as legal tender, El Salvador is aiming to get money mainly from tourism, but as a consequence they're relinquishing control over their own economy (or part of it), and leaving it at the will of the market.
So it's not that "decentralization is bad", but it's inconvenient in this case. As appealing as the news can be for us, El Salvador's move was a dangerous one.
It makes sense that the IMF won't want to lend money to a country that can't control its own economy. It'd be like playing russian roulette with a lot of money.
So it's not that "decentralization is bad", but it's inconvenient in this case. As appealing as the news can be for us, El Salvador's move was a dangerous one.
It makes sense that the IMF won't want to lend money to a country that can't control its own economy. It'd be like playing russian roulette with a lot of money.
So, now it's necessary to pressure countries from outside (https://nypost.com/2022/01/26/el-salvador-urged-by-imf-to-drop-bitcoin-as-legal-tender/) if they embrace decentralized finance?
Jump to: