Not only this but the things that get into the way of government they generally kill it , government is corrupted to the core and once they saw bitcoins taking over , people having some freedom , people moving from the traditional investments to the bitcoins , they started shutting it down and what's more , they are now thinking of getting out their own digital currency and trust me this is whole so sick when you think about it , they are literally forcing people in their own make digital currency .
Politics and the big bankers are what controls the decisions , long gone are the days when we used to study in civics that the government is to the people , for the people and by the people
Tell me one governmental body that we can be proud of and take as an example in the present time.
Topic: Money Is Political, Not Technical - page 5. (Read 16269 times)
The article has expanded my knowledge a lot. I think this article should be shared widely and especially for those who want "bitcoin" to become a common currency. 
Money is a tool for managing the life of an individual and society as a whole. Money is a document that gives the right to receive any life goods and property. It is always near the person. We all depend on it, and first of all, now, money (especially huge sums) is a political tool. Unfortunately, today the winners are known beforehand -- win those, who initially have much.
Most of the political motives involves money and that is what most politicians want. Some might be on the side of making their constitutes comfortable but mostly on politics is corrupt so I don't mind generalizing those officials.
This is the reason why they want money to be part of their decisions.
Politicians would always try to protect money - fiat currencies - and every other decision that is related to it. This is what makes them to have a job, otherwise their decisions would be senseless.
Money is political we can say that it is true, if we talk about in the other sense it is also called dark money; refers to fund is donating to non profit organization. .
According to me, political money is not a technical money.
According to me, political money is not a technical money.
The people who need money, I know they’re being manipulated, I wonder why modernize human being need money so badly when their ancestors could just survive without a single USD, and for so many thousands years, and I’m seeing millions blaming can’t survive without money in the public, they’re so foolish.
What are you talking about? People could survive without USD but they had some other forms of money like gold, silver and copper coins. Probably the most well known were Talents, like the Homeric Talent known in ancient Greece. Sure, human beings could live without money... in the stone age. Do you want to go back to that?
The people who need money, I know they’re being manipulated, I wonder why modernize human being need money so badly when their ancestors could just survive without a single USD, and for so many thousands years, and I’m seeing millions blaming can’t survive without money in the public, they’re so foolish.
times are always changing, and development is natural. humans can not be spared from the development of the age, and must follow it, if previously people could live without money, different from now. Can you live without money nowadays?I could try but it’s kinda difficult, not impossible through, time didn’t really change the people, it change the technology, and the technology create a new type of wants and needs, a phone was created, we used to want it, I think it slowly become a mixture of want and need, and some technology get obsoleted too, fax machine, cassette vhd tape, but hey, they all used to be a needs too in the past, but it all changed, is it the money too will experience the same cycle of behavioural change from want to need to want to finally obsolete? Idk, but I always try to live without money, especially after going through all the chaos, the inflation, the rising cost of living, moving money from cash to new form of store of value seem to be the trend, and yes, keep moving the money, that’s sound stupid but if we don’t keep up with the trend, it would be the same as holding a bag full of garbage, loss aversion could be the most scary nightmare to most people, they quickly become over panic overnight, but it didn’t work the same for winning, people will just chill.
The people who need money, I know they’re being manipulated, I wonder why modernize human being need money so badly when their ancestors could just survive without a single USD, and for so many thousands years, and I’m seeing millions blaming can’t survive without money in the public, they’re so foolish.
What are you talking about? People could survive without USD but they had some other forms of money like gold, silver and copper coins. Probably the most well known were Talents, like the Homeric Talent known in ancient Greece. Sure, human beings could live without money... in the stone age. Do you want to go back to that?
I hate to say this, but try make an argument with any women, they’ll always prioritise money to anything else, money is everything they could think of, and they can tell you how hard they would be without money, they can’t buy all the necessities for their everyday needs, of course I bet to differ, but I can’t seem to win them in these debate, they’re basically willing to do everything just to make money, bend the rules or betraying anyone. Going back to Stone Age? I think it isn’t too bad, people has much lower lifespan and they will surely spend their time more wisely, and wouldn’t have aging population and debt and medical care for the aging retiree, btw I think many people decide to migrate to other less developed countries, they might know it much earlier, that’s also why they move to new countries and revoke their nationalites.
The people who need money, I know they’re being manipulated, I wonder why modernize human being need money so badly when their ancestors could just survive without a single USD, and for so many thousands years, and I’m seeing millions blaming can’t survive without money in the public, they’re so foolish.
What are you talking about? People could survive without USD but they had some other forms of money like gold, silver and copper coins. Probably the most well known were Talents, like the Homeric Talent known in ancient Greece. Sure, human beings could live without money... in the stone age. Do you want to go back to that?
The people who need money, I know they’re being manipulated, I wonder why modernize human being need money so badly when their ancestors could just survive without a single USD, and for so many thousands years, and I’m seeing millions blaming can’t survive without money in the public, they’re so foolish.
legendary
Activity: 2884
Merit: 1115
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
Money in every state is an integral part of this state. Given the fact that the state is the political attitude of society, its money is always part of the policy of this state. Counterfeiting state money has always been considered a serious political crime and only the state always determines the rules for the circulation of any money on its territory. Therefore, although money works in the economy, it is always part of the politics of any state.
What about Euro 💶? EUR cannot be regulated by single states. It's used by 19 EU countries plus some others like Monaco, Andorra. And they can't determine the rules for their own currency. However politics still plays vital role regarding supply, monetary policy and so on.
Money in every state is an integral part of this state. Given the fact that the state is the political attitude of society, its money is always part of the policy of this state. Counterfeiting state money has always been considered a serious political crime and only the state always determines the rules for the circulation of any money on its territory. Therefore, although money works in the economy, it is always part of the politics of any state.
Money determines how much goes to the elites and their allies, and how much goes to everyone else. In the service of the political goal of maximizing benefits for the former, all things tend to get distorted. Not only is the economy twisted into producing too many luxuries for the beneficiaries by providing unstable employment to the rest (because, after all, luxuries are bought, or not, at the whims of the lucky.) All the mainstream commentary we hear, somehow, only reflects what the elites want us to think.
According to what we now have to call mouth-pieces of the elites, somehow, people always chase bubbles, and always get hurt, because they're irrational, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Central-bank money creation is *never* a driving factor. No, never.
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.
I think that you are a bit out of topic in regards of your tiittle. The elite is in control of the money, this is nothing new. This is just plain trivial, elite is elite because they have money, they also have power. US is one of the countries where this is very clear because of the clear loby.
Can you explain more, what do you mean by
Central-bank money creation is *never* a driving factor. No, never.
?How this is connected to power of money and politics in your opinion ?
Well written post this article change the perception of money in terms of news events happening in day to day social-political events
Most of the political motives involves money and that is what most politicians want. Some might be on the side of making their constitutes comfortable but mostly on politics is corrupt so I don't mind generalizing those officials.
I agree, starting from our entry into politics, we need a lot of money, and when we become politicians, all the policy actions that we make, will affect the nation's economic fundamentals, and technical tools are just a tool to facilitate us in reading the market
Most of the political motives involves money and that is what most politicians want. Some might be on the side of making their constitutes comfortable but mostly on politics is corrupt so I don't mind generalizing those officials.
Money has always been a tool of politics first, and then the economy. So the invited elite of society always went into politics primarily in order to strengthen their economic, that is, financial position. On the whole, the issue of issuing money has always been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. Who controlled the issue of issuing money, he had real political power. Therefore, one should not be surprised if states continue to tighten the rules for cryptocurrency circulation and try to control it.
That's likely the only point that I agree with
However, that is not my point at all. If we take the power of (creating) money away from the elites, we should offer something else instead, right? And that's the crux of the matter (and point of discord). While credit money (I'm specifically using this term to avoid using fiat as in your eyes it is synonymous with centralization) is made bad by the powers that be ("the elites") by debasing it via excessive money printing (like QE's), Bitcoin is simply not suitable for the purpose credit money plays in the economy. I mean money as a currency, not as a store of value
However, that is not my point at all. If we take the power of (creating) money away from the elites, we should offer something else instead, right? And that's the crux of the matter (and point of discord). While credit money (I'm specifically using this term to avoid using fiat as in your eyes it is synonymous with centralization) is made bad by the powers that be ("the elites") by debasing it via excessive money printing (like QE's), Bitcoin is simply not suitable for the purpose credit money plays in the economy. I mean money as a currency, not as a store of value
I would agree this maybe the crux of the matter.
The trouble with your argument is, who are WE? As in 'WE should offer something else.' Of course, in the eyes of the elites, 'WE' means them -- ie what is in their best interest, in reality
There's no trouble
If we are going to take the power of printing money from the elites, we simply cannot be them, right? To get a perspective, think of "us" as a god of economics whose purpose is to facilitate the economic growth and development by means available to humans (i.e. without godly intervention). Simply put, it is not "us" what matters here but rather a purpose or goal to be achieved which is of primary importance in this concern
Precisely what form money/currency will take, and whether any scheme will be sufficiently useful for the economy, is not for you or me or anyone to decide. The free market should
There is no agreement on this, either
The examples you brought forth (like the Italian Renaissance) are too far away (in terms of both time and economic development) to make any definitive conclusion regarding this matter. In fact, it is not even decided yet whether the state-free money in particular and laissez-faire economy in general are actually sustainable in the long run. In other words, some government intervention in the monetary matters may be required after all (see below)
If there's an economic need for it, the market will come up with credit money
It had been tested and it didn't work out. I refer to the so-called free banking era in the US (somewhere between 1830 and 1860) when banks were free to create as much credit money as they wanted. It didn't end well, mildly speaking
The fruits of this unnatural growth is time poverty leading to all kinds of unhappiness, addiction and mental illness. And this is among the lucky. The unluckiest of the world get their family members and homes blown up by bombs because the system incentivizes the elites of the dominant imperial countries to use wars and 'regime change' to force other countries to support the system, directly or indirectly
Well, you can't actually expect people to be any different. As they say, charity begins at home (just in case, Bitcoin is no exception to this rule of thumb)
True, the only way for real change to happen is that we realize 'you can't expect people to be any different,' and take the power of money away from the elites. (What role Bitcoin plays in this is actually not very important.)
That's likely the only point that I agree with
However, that is not my point at all. If we take the power of (creating) money away from the elites, we should offer something else instead, right? And that's the crux of the matter (and point of discord). While credit money (I'm specifically using this term to avoid using fiat as in your eyes it is synonymous with centralization) is made bad by the powers that be ("the elites") by debasing it via excessive money printing (like QE's), Bitcoin is simply not suitable for the purpose credit money plays in the economy. I mean money as a currency, not as a store of value
I would agree this maybe the crux of the matter.
The trouble with your argument is, who are WE? As in 'WE should offer something else.' Of course, in the eyes of the elites, 'WE' means them -- ie what is in their best interest, in reality.
Precisely what form money/currency will take, and whether any scheme will be sufficiently useful for the economy, is not for you or me or anyone to decide. The free market should. History has shown that state-free money works very well, thank you very much, as under the Italian Renaissance and the Scottish Enlightenment (and indeed today in a simulated sense in small but advanced economies,) without the elites looking over our shoulders, nervously worrying about doing the very best for the public good.
If there's an economic need for it, the market will come up with credit money. The state-managed credit money has been a disaster of theft, deception, and murder, over the centuries.
Ultimately, money is religion. It is an objective social good (because it avoids bartering,) but its value is also faith based, no matter how you do it. What we need is a separation of church and state. Let people congregate around whatever they believe in, and leave them alone.
The fruits of this unnatural growth is time poverty leading to all kinds of unhappiness, addiction and mental illness. And this is among the lucky. The unluckiest of the world get their family members and homes blown up by bombs because the system incentivizes the elites of the dominant imperial countries to use wars and 'regime change' to force other countries to support the system, directly or indirectly
Well, you can't actually expect people to be any different. As they say, charity begins at home (just in case, Bitcoin is no exception to this rule of thumb)
True, the only way for real change to happen is that we realize 'you can't expect people to be any different,' and take the power of money away from the elites. (What role Bitcoin plays in this is actually not very important.)
That's likely the only point that I agree with
However, that is not my point at all. If we take the power of (creating) money away from the elites, we should offer something else instead, right? And that's the crux of the matter (and point of discord). While credit money (I'm specifically using this term to avoid using fiat as in your eyes it is synonymous with centralization) is made bad by the powers that be ("the elites") by debasing it via excessive money printing (like QE's), Bitcoin is simply not suitable for the purpose credit money plays in the economy. I mean money as a currency, not as a store of value
Well, the world had been running on the gold standard for many millenia (this is not to say that we should get back to it), so we can't in fact promise the bankers too much (let alone give them back the whole world). Especially when we are going to strip them off of their money printing monopoly (or rather arbitrariness of it)
Bitcoin is a great store of wealth and an excellent means of taking your money out of the economy as a whole, which in and of itself can be very important, but you're right when you say that Bitcoin can't fulfill the same purposes fiat does. You just have to find a way to play the game without relying on fiat and "beat the system", I guess
Actually I don't disagree with this view
But when when you start (or stop) to think of it, you inevitably catch yourself thinking about some form of centralization. For example, we want a cryptocurrency that would change the supply of coins which would make the economy function without a lot of friction under the current conditions, and then you somehow come to think about a sort of Gosplan (the agency responsible for central economic planning under the Soviets)
The fruits of this unnatural growth is time poverty leading to all kinds of unhappiness, addiction and mental illness. And this is among the lucky. The unluckiest of the world get their family members and homes blown up by bombs because the system incentivizes the elites of the dominant imperial countries to use wars and 'regime change' to force other countries to support the system, directly or indirectly
Well, you can't actually expect people to be any different. As they say, charity begins at home (just in case, Bitcoin is no exception to this rule of thumb)
True, the only way for real change to happen is that we realize 'you can't expect people to be any different,' and take the power of money away from the elites. (What role Bitcoin plays in this is actually not very important.)
That's likely the only point that I agree with
However, that is not my point at all. If we take the power of (creating) money away from the elites, we should offer something else instead, right? And that's the crux of the matter (and point of discord). While credit money (I'm specifically using this term to avoid using fiat as in your eyes it is synonymous with centralization) is made bad by the powers that be ("the elites") by debasing it via excessive money printing (like QE's), Bitcoin is simply not suitable for the purpose credit money plays in the economy. I mean money as a currency, not as a store of value
Bitcoin is a great store of wealth and an excellent means of taking your money out of the economy as a whole, which in and of itself can be very important, but you're right when you say that Bitcoin can't fulfill the same purposes fiat does. You just have to find a way to play the game without relying on fiat and "beat the system", I guess.
Jump to: