Topic: Money Is Political, Not Technical - page 11. (Read 16269 times)
I absolutely agree with your statement that money is a political and economic instrument but mostly it is political one and as you correctly have noticed that cryptocurrencies will not change typical money because government lose the control of emission in this case and it is a collapse for them because it the most powerful and strong instrument of govern.
If we take a look back, money wasn't political since almost all had mutual respect, whenever someone paid in gold or silver coins, but it only becamse political when the powers had understood what power money can do for them as well as those who not in power but posses a lot of money, thus the reason why we have corrupt offices today there are those want to be in power so they can have more money to give them more power, this is true if you check out the bankers, since they have money, they can support the candidates and political parties that they want to win, and in turn the favor will be more on their side and the cycle just goes on and on.
But somehow it can be both but most of the time it is due to political reasons and that's why a lot of people are suffering because of their selfishness that leads them to become a greedy person. How on earth did they manage to eat or sleep like that when everyone is suffering?
It is true indeed. Maybe durimg the ancient times its purpose was purely for exchange or payment for services. But now, how the people view money changes, its both technical and political. 
In the end, all currency holds its value because both parties in opposite sides of the transaction believes it has value. Nothing holds it together but the community. As long as the community needs bitcoin it will have value. Power is political and money is fuel to power. I guess that's how things would work until the end of time.
While both sides believe that the crypto currency has value - it will exist. Everything depends only on people. Their perception of this money.
That is what the market system says. But the reality is that the elites hold enormous power here. If they buy Bitcoin, it will go up (and they can claim it's because people want it.)
The main point of the OP is that there is no free market in money.
Well, what conclusions can we draw from this article that we need to continue to buy bitcoin or it's time to sell?
Good post but I think you are concentrating too much in the way things work now, if you look at the past you will see that the asset which was selected as a form of money was the one that had the best characteristics, this is why in ancient times gold and silver were chosen by many independent cultures as their form of money, but this has been distorted in recent times, bitcoin is just a way to try to go back to those times in which the superior asset became dominant.
Totally agreed. I've written many times about natural vs. chemical drugs. The US government (FDA) has known that cannibis (marijuana) is a harmless pain killer, but is only now slowly rolling back the bans against it, after popular demand has become irresistible. The drug lobby and politicians prefer us to use chemicals with side effects and addiction issues, because those give them wealth and power. (Politicians and regulators need to step in and 'protect' the public, and that effectively gives them a share of the profits.)
It's the same with money.
Of course money is just political!
Money is just a tool to measure the reciprocal relationship of power: actually money is a kind of potential that I have: more money, more potential.
And of course, if I had enormous quantity of money, I had a correspondent level of power.
And politics it's nothing more that power management.
Money is just a tool to measure the reciprocal relationship of power: actually money is a kind of potential that I have: more money, more potential.
And of course, if I had enormous quantity of money, I had a correspondent level of power.
And politics it's nothing more that power management.
Saya tidak berpikir seperti itu. Saya pikir uang itu tidak politis. karena bukan untuk tujuan itu uang dibuat. hanya saja dengan uang banyak orang bisa membayar apa saja sehingga politik dapat dikendalikan oleh orang yang punya banyak uang atau politik untuk mendapatkan sejumlah uang.
Money buys attention. Attention sometimes exposes the candidate as the second best choice. As mentioned elsewhere, the voters now have many ways to get unfiltered news and evidence of a candidates actual behavior and views. I don't think voters will believe everything a campaign ad says any more than they'll believe everything a skin lotion ad says. We're just too sophisticated to make that kind of mistake at this point. Finally, I can assure you that a million paid telephone calls and two million pieces of direct mail will be extremely ineffective in countering a half million conversations among voters. If you have your supporters talking you up in any setting, whether meet and greet house parties, door to door, or just at work around the water cooler, you can beat anyone with unlimited money.
Money in politics is symptom of the real problem. In the West, voters are just too busy/obsessed/unaware/short-sighted to keep politicians honest. Having money to run ads is thus important to a politician. This is basically due to the voters' status as 'beneficiaries' of the world money system, where money is created out of thin air and a good part of it goes to them to keep them 'happy.' They don't really have to grow much personally to enjoy a good life. Outside the rich world, we don't even have democracy, so naturally money rules all policies.
The solution is to remove the power of governments to manipulate money.
But that kind of solution would really be somehow an impossible thing to be removed unless if a certain country do have federalism type of government then pure manipulation would really be lessen or isnt likely to happen. Money in politics is already a normal thing nowadays it do really have always the involvement and as being part of this sad reality those people who are on position would really take advantage for those people below.The solution is to remove the power of governments to manipulate money.
One practical pathway I envision is to have like-minded people form a separate country, small at first. This country would need all of the following (in addition to the obvious -- a prohibition against the government getting involved with money and finance in any way):
- Ability to defend itself militarily (because, trust me, the empire will attack)
- Ability to grow and make everything it needs (because of the following)
- Trade only with countries that are free like itself (ie no trading partners, initially)
The last one is the most controversial. But if the country doesn't shut off trade with the mainstream world system, it's doomed, objectively. Trade is often the route by which the imperial power, which controls what is deemed 'money' by most of the world, to distort the economies of smaller countries, addict them to demand by the imperial system, and gradually force them to abandon any monetary freedom. Switzerland is a prime example.
All the OP is good, but the last sentence beats all the rest. Because the problem is nore really the money, which is just an instrument. The problem is the control of the narrative. Once you have the control of the (mainstream) narrative, you have the control over reality. And of course it's all a lie, but the lie goes much deeper than the argument of money alone. And as for people awakening from this mega-lie, have no illusions. Only a catastrophe of enough magnitude will be able to act as a wake-up call.
Thank you!
So, to take in the big picture, what happened to the idea of an independent press to hold the government accountable? What happened to academic freedom? Why does it require people like you and me to point out what should be obvious to the experts, economists, and financial journalists?
You would think, any individual of these groups would want to make themselves famous by saying something novel and shock the public ('the system is really rigged -- there is no free market.')
Yet when Peter Schiff went as far as saying the housing bubble was unsustainable, back in 2007/8, he was almost laughed off the stage by his fellow commentators.
So is there a sinister conspiracy that is much better coordinated than we know, or incentives just work a certain way to shape the mainstream narrative into a grotesque version of the truth, when the public is incapable of really understanding money? That would be a good question to think about.
We're living in a lie, and the earlier we wake up to it, the better. What officials and mainstream media and academics tell us must sometimes be dismissed with: it's just politics.
All the OP is good, but the last sentence beats all the rest. Because the problem is nore really the money, which is just an instrument. The problem is the control of the narrative. Once you have the control of the (mainstream) narrative, you have the control over reality. And of course it's all a lie, but the lie goes much deeper than the argument of money alone. And as for people awakening from this mega-lie, have no illusions. Only a catastrophe of enough magnitude will be able to act as a wake-up call.
Yes I agree,,
politics now is money, there is no real politics of conscience.
want to be a president, also need money very much.
in many worlds like that. there will be no prosperity for the people.
politics now is money, there is no real politics of conscience.
want to be a president, also need money very much.
in many worlds like that. there will be no prosperity for the people.
The solution to this problem is to give the state as little power as possible. The state should only take care of the protection of life and property, and the enforcement of contracts.
Any 'extra services' offered by the elites are for their own benefit, and set up situations where even more 'extra services' will be needed.
Yes I agree,,
politics now is money, there is no real politics of conscience.
want to be a president, also need money very much.
in many worlds like that. there will be no prosperity for the people.
Yes i agree,Money is the centralized for being a politics without money they cant move and do anything in politics.Almost politician are using money so that they will win to their position,but some politician will not win even they are using Money,even not technical but some people or voters also are sage,they just want the money but not the person who was running a politician. politics now is money, there is no real politics of conscience.
want to be a president, also need money very much.
in many worlds like that. there will be no prosperity for the people.
Many liberals believe that bitcoin carries the vision of a libertarian.
Decentralized technology, BTC is central bank and currency!
This has led to a hatred of BTC by central Banks.
Decentralized technology, BTC is central bank and currency!
This has led to a hatred of BTC by central Banks.
Right, the most famous two narratives (which together account for how the vast majority of people think) about state-free money are: (1) it's a limit on the power of central banks and other elites, and therefore it will be suppressed, rightly or wrongly, depending on your political view about state power; and (2) it will eventually win since the elites will always abuse and destabilize their own issued money.
But how about a third narrative? It acknowledges some truths of both conventional narratives but lives somewhere in between: the top elites really understand (2), but of course they also want their own money to be the standard means of exchange and unit of account. So they make use of non-state money by pegging their own money against it, either explicitly (as under the gold and silver standards) or implicitly as they have done with gold after 1971, with the flexibility of devaluation against gold from time to time (but most of the time, suppressing it so not too many people think it's a real store of value.)
I think the third one is the closest to the truth, if you really pay attention.
Maybe it's true. Or maybe not. In any case, we can verify this if we visit in the future. A limited number of people will benefit from these operations. But from a psychological point of view, bitcoin exists, but not physical.
Many liberals believe that bitcoin carries the vision of a libertarian.
Decentralized technology, BTC is central bank and currency!
This has led to a hatred of BTC by central Banks.
Decentralized technology, BTC is central bank and currency!
This has led to a hatred of BTC by central Banks.
In the end, all currency holds its value because both parties in opposite sides of the transaction believes it has value. Nothing holds it together but the community. As long as the community needs bitcoin it will have value. Power is political and money is fuel to power. I guess that's how things would work until the end of time.
While both sides believe that the crypto currency has value - it will exist. Everything depends only on people. Their perception of this money.
People will dictate on every value of any coin or commodities, the demand for it will tell how much it should be. Money will stay for good because this is what we believe that most needed instruments to have power, therefore bitcoin will stay as long as there's a demand though its only a digital currency, those who support this will not let this things to die.
agree, money is a concept to "tie" people and push them to "commit" into something such as job or state, so money is equivalent with power, the source of power is manipulating people through political system, and that is when money come forward as a win win solution of "slavery system"
In the end, all currency holds its value because both parties in opposite sides of the transaction believes it has value. Nothing holds it together but the community. As long as the community needs bitcoin it will have value. Power is political and money is fuel to power. I guess that's how things would work until the end of time.
Totally agreed, but there is an extra dimension that most people don't think of.
In the modern world, the elites issue their own money and use their power to give value to this money. This is very powerful, at the beginning. People will trust a money that the government supports.
But over time, the power to issue and support their own money also tempts the elites to abuse that power, and cause their own money to lose value.
This is, ultimately, the reason for holding non-state money like gold and Bitcoin.
In the end, all currency holds its value because both parties in opposite sides of the transaction believes it has value. Nothing holds it together but the community. As long as the community needs bitcoin it will have value. Power is political and money is fuel to power. I guess that's how things would work until the end of time.
While both sides believe that the crypto currency has value - it will exist. Everything depends only on people. Their perception of this money.
Jump to: