Who's REALLY in charge of this country?

sunnankar

legendary

Activity: 1031

Merit: 1000

Quote from: punningclan on February 15, 2012, 08:20:12 PM

Interestingly we have monopoly laws against industry but none against the those who monopolize the flow of wealth???

Why do you think Anti-Trust law was created? To breakup any potential competitor, like Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc., to the Money Trust before it gained enough size or power that it could possibly compete.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: evoorhees on February 15, 2012, 10:10:41 AM

Don't confuse power and influence with "being in charge." Big tech companies have power and influence, sure. But to say that "they are in charge" is a wild stretch. And even to say that anyone is "in charge" is a bit misguided. We live in a complex economy, with many interests pulling in many directions - governments, banks, financial companies, tech companies, influence groups, on and on. And even within these subsets, they don't always agree. Banks fight with each other, tech companies fight with each other. There is no monolithic power structure - though there are many powers to be fearful of.

of course the "in charge" is more of a headline grabber than reality but otoh Wall St needs a story to push when selling stocks. w/o people are buying the Nasdaq, the stock pushers make money; when they aren't selling stocks then they don't, at least legitimately. the tech giants are rolling in the printed money and fattening their war chest; look at Apple. in this sense, they are "in charge" and can call some pretty big shots if they want, as in SOPA.

Quote

On your other point, about a tech company buying a stake in Gox, I'm sure they will do such a thing when they wish to. There is no need for Tux to pursue these people, and doing so only makes Bitcoin look desperate for attention. Further, it is highly unlike a company like Google would mess around with the grey area legality of the Bitcoin world, at least not openly. It's too much trouble and risk for a large company.

It is small companies, and prescient VC groups, who will run this space for a while.

its not about desperation and i don't think it would be perceived as such. its about a merging of common interests. the REAL economy and the tech giants need something like Bitcoin desperately to prevent being dragged down the black hole by our criminal financial industry and incompetent politicians. its the exact parallel argument for gold except that i think Bitcoin works much better. we as the Bitcoin economy need someone like Google to solidify our existence so that the innovation and investment can continue forward with more confidence.

in time i'm sure this will all fall into place.

HorseRider

donator

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1001

Yes, this is very true. Mtgox should really think about this. Google or something like that can invest millions of USD to make Mtgox a even more sophisticated and decent bitcoin exchange.

punningclan

sr. member

Activity: 283

Merit: 250

Making a better tomorrow, tomorrow.

Quote from: evoorhees on February 15, 2012, 10:10:41 AM

Don't confuse power and influence with "being in charge." Big tech companies have power and influence, sure. But to say that "they are in charge" is a wild stretch. And even to say that anyone is "in charge" is a bit misguided. We live in a complex economy, with many interests pulling in many directions - governments, banks, financial companies, tech companies, influence groups, on and on. And even within these subsets, they don't always agree. Banks fight with each other, tech companies fight with each other. There is no monolithic power structure - though there are many powers to be fearful of.

On your other point, about a tech company buying a stake in Gox, I'm sure they will do such a thing when they wish to. There is no need for Tux to pursue these people, and doing so only makes Bitcoin look desperate for attention. Further, it is highly unlike a company like Google would mess around with the grey area legality of the Bitcoin world, at least not openly. It's too much trouble and risk for a large company.

It is small companies, and prescient VC groups, who will run this space for a while.

Interestingly we have monopoly laws against industry but none against the those who monopolize the flow of wealth???

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

TL; skimmed

I would say that Tech won the recent SOPA skirmish largely because the Western peeps still have to much power. I'll expect a re-doubling of efforts to reduce that power through a combination of economic disenfranchisement, distractions (probably war with Iran which serves several purposes), and intimidation.

But anyway, corporate titans at battle make for a good show. Tech happened to be on the right side of this one, but that was strictly accidental. They'll almost certainly be on the wrong side of various future police state efforts is my guess.

N12

donator

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1010

I’ve been around for a year now like you, and while I agree that much has gotten better (client, exchanges, etc.), I am simply disappointed by how little has been accomplished that has actual utility for normal people.

For example, in February 2011, Silk Road opened up. I was thrilled, it was an awesome application for Bitcoin, and I knew it would flourish. Now if I saw more of that, for example Bitcoin gambling or an MMORPG utilizing it, or hell, anything that is going to actually have users, really, then yes, I would agree.

But until then, we are stuck with this market of positive and negative feedback loops, and we have Bitcoinica to amplify them. I can sense the sentiment change in here, it’s never a good thing.

HappyFunnyFoo

full member

Activity: 125

Merit: 100

I kind of felt this was TLDR. I agree that the tech giants hold enormous political power - that's because of their large market capitalization. I also agree that they outperformed financials - that's because the crisis at its very core had to do with how much risks and bad assets banks had, and investors are afraid to dump their money into banks, so it has to go somewhere else... the smarter (bigger) ones bought profitable techs instead of investing in garbage like gold or bonds.

I think it's foolish to think that a tech giant would invest in bitcoin. A more logical alternative is that one of them would create a superior cryptocurrency product with more features that solves many of bitcoin's incredible weaknesses, chiefly the impossibly large blockchain size if everyone started using it and its very slow confirmation speed (<20 minutes is totally unacceptable for modern commerce) for transactions. No company would invest in a product that didn't return a net profit, though, so it's unlikely we'll see this happen at all in the context of a totally free "people's cryptocurrency" system.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: N12 on February 15, 2012, 01:35:54 PM

cypherdoc, I agree with your sentiment. It’s a shame we have seen none of them embrace or encourage Bitcoin. Especially considering that they are young companies and were at a similar stage to where Bitcoin is now.

However, I do not understand how you think they would want to preserve purchasing power with Bitcoin when we have seen that its value can reduce by 94% over the course of six months.

What I see as the major problem for Bitcoin now is that the price is declining, and if you have watched the negative news lately, they FOLLOWED the price decline. Also, shorting creates the incentive to bring Bitcoin down. All of this has a negative impact on Bitcoin’s progress in my view. And if a technology like Bitcoin is not making progress, it is regressing.

Blitz, first of all don't make the mistake of just looking at short term price fluctuations as the measure of whether Bitcoin is failing or not. Just look at all that's been accomplished in the last year alone. And if you do measure price, then just how much are we up over the last year?

We are making extraordinary progress with mining in my opinion which is only going to strengthen the network in the long run. In my particular case I just don't care if i'm losing small amounts of money mining. Its the principle of supporting something I believe in that drives my motivation and clearly I think it will pay off financially in the long run. And I am not alone when it comes to this attitude.

Look what the internet has done to the financial industry the last ten years. Its brought it to its knees with more to come. It takes time and patience.

Melbustus

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1004

cypherdoc - I also agree with your overall sentiment, for two reasons:

1) Innovation is what underlies humanity's advancement. Sure, it gets bled by governments and so forth, but tech companies are still core drivers of increased living standards over time and do naturally accumulate a lot of investment and value.

2) There are a lot of people in the tech sphere whose world-views should align very nicely with Bitcoin. Peter Thiel and PayPal's early history are prime examples. The technology wasn't up to the task at the time, but bitcoin is different, and I'm sure a host of very wealthy influential tech-elite are watching closely.

N12

donator

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1010

cypherdoc, I agree with your sentiment. It’s a shame we have seen none of them embrace or encourage Bitcoin. Especially considering that they are young companies and were at a similar stage to where Bitcoin is now.

However, I do not understand how you think they would want to preserve purchasing power with Bitcoin when we have seen that its value can reduce by 94% over the course of six months.

What I see as the major problem for Bitcoin now is that the price is declining, and if you have watched the negative news lately, they FOLLOWED the price decline. Also, shorting creates the incentive to bring Bitcoin down. All of this has a negative impact on Bitcoin’s progress in my view. And if a technology like Bitcoin is not making progress, it is regressing.

fornit

hero member

Activity: 991

Merit: 1011

Quote from: drakahn on February 15, 2012, 12:52:59 PM

Technology will one day mean we don't need money

(who will pay you when ALL the work is done for us by technology?)

no one. but that does mean there will be no money, it just means most people wont have it. so pretty much like now i guess.

drakahn

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Technology will one day mean we don't need money

(who will pay you when ALL the work is done for us by technology?)

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: cypherdoc on February 15, 2012, 10:30:41 AM

i hear the pessimism loud and clear. i just think we can change things. y'all wouldn't be here if you didn't think so too.

When we have technology in every home that can stop bullets and other weapons the state is more than willing to use to impose it's will on the people I'll believe you. Until then, you, my friend, are living in a fantasy world.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: cypherdoc on February 15, 2012, 08:26:51 AM

the price chart says it all.

Riiiiiiiiight, just like the price charts in housing before 07/08 pop said it all huh? Roll Eyes

Please. You're clueless if you're thinking the price charts say it all.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

i hear the pessimism loud and clear. i just think we can change things. y'all wouldn't be here if you didn't think so too.

Bitinvestor

sr. member

Activity: 470

Merit: 250

Bankers are experts at diverting money into their own pockets while screwing everybody else: their shareholders, their customers, their competitors, and their governments. Many technology companies actually make good products for their customers and money for their shareholders and that is why their stock prices rise.

evoorhees

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1023

Democracy is the original 51% attack

Don't confuse power and influence with "being in charge." Big tech companies have power and influence, sure. But to say that "they are in charge" is a wild stretch. And even to say that anyone is "in charge" is a bit misguided. We live in a complex economy, with many interests pulling in many directions - governments, banks, financial companies, tech companies, influence groups, on and on. And even within these subsets, they don't always agree. Banks fight with each other, tech companies fight with each other. There is no monolithic power structure - though there are many powers to be fearful of.

On your other point, about a tech company buying a stake in Gox, I'm sure they will do such a thing when they wish to. There is no need for Tux to pursue these people, and doing so only makes Bitcoin look desperate for attention. Further, it is highly unlike a company like Google would mess around with the grey area legality of the Bitcoin world, at least not openly. It's too much trouble and risk for a large company.

It is small companies, and prescient VC groups, who will run this space for a while.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

there are massive changes occurring these days.

surely the financial debacle is front and center.

but you'd be blind to not notice the huge strides going on in technology.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

well see this is the thing. you're taking the pessimistic point of view as if there is no hope.

i see it differently. control of the money supply is going to change hands with time. Bitcoin is going to allow that. its a fledging child of the technology industry.

edit: look at those price charts. who is everyone throwing that printed money at?

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Let me have control of the printing presses over at the Federal Reserve and I'll be running technology in this country.

Topic: Who's REALLY in charge of this country? (Read 2505 times)