Topic: My bank account's got robbed by European Commission. Over 700k is lost. - page 6. (Read 408499 times)

What Esphere.in describes about the past (confiscation) will happen again and is already happening. It will become more blatantly visible, though.

You're talking about fighting back physically? With weapons?

That sux.

We have a better weapon: Bitcoin.

Just use it, hold it, spread it. Don't fight, work around.

Welcome to crony corporatism and political globalism.

The worst part of this all is that, while they'll take your money and give a small portion back to you, you're always going to have a harder time earning it back because the labour market is expanding through large movements of people or open visas (similar to what the have in the EU) and this means the individual is less valuable, even high-skilled workers, because a larger quantity exists.

And meanwhile you have the leftists, liberals, democrats, whatever, who campaign for this stuff. They support globalism and make the individual essentially worthless.

Also this thread is old, holy shit. Let it die. I know I'm not helping but necroing something that had been dead for a month?

The Cyprus government and EU imposed this, you need to make sure that you are placing the blame where it belongs - politicians who want money and power and will do pretty much anything they can to get it.  Look at Venezuela, North Korea, Brazil and many, many others who don't like freedom of capital and impose controls.  And who want to use inflation to silently rob their people.

Banks always does this .i have seen my friends lose their money through and the banks would not have recovered their money till now and they are trying till now .dont loose hope and i am very sorry to hear it from u .

Wow this thread just doesnt die. Well, given that banks are more and more prone to bankruptcy, i should have expected more bailins.

Its not just the past, its also the future.   Any depositor of any bank in the world becomes a creditor when they place money with that company, in theory there is guarantees and so on but ultimately you hope the bank survives to pay back the money.  
Its been that way for hundreds of years.

The majority of a population will always suffer over an elite because they represent the bulk of money in that country.   Any candidate who says, I'll just tax the rich or we'll take back power from those at the top is just playing with your perception of the world as unfair.   In a way Cyprus had little choice but to confiscate like this, really it should be done properly and bond holders lose but governments will not punish bonds because all western governments are heavily indebted and potentially bankrupt themselves.   Same kind of dynamic is going on in Greece, the people suffer to serve outside interests.   Its not capitalism, it relies on political intervention and they are biased to their own survival


We all know what to do, we just don't know how to get re-elected after we've done it
Jean-Claude Juncker

A real bullshit indeed, in this modern time you are still robbing people of their hard earned money kept in a safe environment and still calling yourself Government or commission,this is not possible in my own country because know our right and can fight back if that should take place.

If this is true this is one of the most fucked story in recent times, i have heard stories from my ancestors about how the government used to come to their house and loot gold and money during war times as financial aid and how they used to hide them and stuff,but this is plain bullshit to take over individuals wealth to cover a countries financial crisis 

There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think about this thread. I hear too many similar stories everyday around here, but this is one of the far worse stories and what happened in Cyprus wasn't really outed in the media (probably because it wasn't "worth it" for them ).

Fortunately we have Bitcoin to cope with the fear of having an account seized because our governments own money or accounts closed because "they feel like it".


Actually pretty curious as to what explanation they're giving this... Also curious if they have other broadcasters as their client. If so, why not shut them down too?

Exactly!

Thanks

People would eat beans and trade beans for other items they need. Beans are not fit to function as money not because they are intrinsically not worthless but for other reasons: because they can't store value well - perishable and supply can fluctuate a lot and suddenly.

Namecoin is a bad example. Few people use cryptocurrency for anything today, it may or may not change in the future. Bitcoin has some limited application in passing value over distances but just because it was the first, so let's not discuss cryptocurrency when we discuss money. Cryptocurrency has yet to prove itself as money.

Gold is a bad example, historically what we care about is what has been used the most. It's copper or silver, not gold. Peasants didn't use gold. Copper and silver have massive applications. All three metals are more or less durable, they beat beans and other food by a long shot in how they can store value and so they were chosen to be used as money. If beans were as durable as metals and their production could be limited not to exceed a certain yearly rate as it has been with most of the history of metals production, beans would be the king of money.

Your example with cars is out of whack with the topic of worth(+/-less)ness of money.

@ObscureBean,

Actually it isn't. The "I want more money" does nothing at all, because money has no use on its own, so the economy is what matters not the money. Money as a mean not as a target. When you "send money to the starved" for an instance, you're not expecting them to use the bills as lettuce, but for someone to produce and sell food accordingly.

@freshman777

No, money can't have use, or such use will be restrain due to the tendency to hoard and accumulate. In the example people wouldn't eat beans anymore.
Actually the historically more used as money metal is the most worthless of them all, gold has little application and the only feature it has is to resist oxidation, but is a lousy thermal and electrical conductor. Normally is used to plate exposed contacts.
A fair example on this ecosystem is Namecoin. Nobody uses it for "buy domains", an intrinsic feature of it, but to trade.


Let's set an example of linear IO here. Let's say we're in a close environment with 10.000 people where the only good is cars, there're 1000 cars and 1000 dollars. Each car cost 1 dollar.
At some point appears some Hugo Chávez around and decide to increase the money to 10.000 dollars so everyone can have a car. The issue is that we still have only 1000 cars, so each car will cost now 10 dollars. In other words all you did was to change the ratio of money:goods, but 9 out of 10 people won't have a car. Everybody will have "more money" but it doesn't change a thing.

This logic is flawed and doesn't make sense. What happens if you use beans as money, but you need to get warm clothes for the winter or some other food? You exchange a thousand beans for one fish or one scarf. Beans as we see can serve as money. The problem with beans is they can serve as money over short timeframe, because beans are perishable. Hence money must be somewhat durable. Beans are actually not the worst sort of money, you can store dry beans for a couple of years. The problem is when a neighbor farmer grows too many beans, then your beans become of less value. This takes us to the "limited supply", but limited supply must be limited in a smart way, not just limited, otherwise economy may be deflated to the point of contraction.

In short, money doesn't have to be intrinsically worthless to function as money. Money should have other traits to function as money, intrinsic worthlessness is not one of them.

Surely by "people", you don't mean everyone? You do realize that all the comfort/goods etc that you say people should strive for instead are made possible only through accumulation of money, in other words through "I want more money"? So there is an actual need for at least a portion of the population to want more money. But then how can you decide who should accumulate money and who should strive for simple material things?

Quite interesting, and I'm a huge fan of Games Theory.
However I was talking on a more close to the Earth issue, the definition of money itself and its desirable properties. On other words and the stupidity of run after money itself instead of what it represents;

- money has to be intrinsically worthless. - If, for an instance, we use beans as money when we get hungry we could simply boil the money and eat it. And this also explains why those "with some feature added alt coins" are a concept failure to use as money.
- money has to be somehow on a limited supply. - When you increase the amount of money circulating, you're actually lowering its value as you're using a bigger number to represent the same amount of real-life items (usually we call it inflation).

In simple terms, I'm not against money at all and I think of it as a great way of ruling human trade, regulate the resources and so on, but you need it food, a car, a house, comfort, etc. And this is what people must learn to think of, instead of a simple "I want more money", specially when it may mean the very same or even less (look at cases like Venezuela or Zimbabwe) amount of goods.

@akhavr

Were you thinking of this?

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/reciprocal-altruism-in-the-theory-of-money/

Perhaps it's because more useful term would be "monetary behavior".  There was a good publication on the subject, but I've failed to google it fast enough.

I believe the problem is that most people can't define money to start with. Money is naturally worthless - no mater what you use for it -, just an abstract representation of goods and resources, so the problem starts when people "want money" instead of goods and resources and its management.

"The money you believe is money"... also an illusion, really.

Every media outlet is someone's propaganda machine. The point is illustration of who really controls money in a bank, the money you believe is yours but it's an illusion.