Topic: Why is the Occupy movement not immediately embracing bitcoin? - page 7. (Read 17899 times)

I will agree to what you say if once everyone gets on board we hand out videocards to everyone and start a new blockchain. Then it would be an actual 'fair' system'

No, efficiency in government means using your resources as completely and optimally as possible. Throwing in the need to have profit left over drops efficiency, since some of the value is needlessly privatized.

edit: Also your concept of value and profit changes daily so I'm not even going to argue with you

The timing is just too perfect. Disenchantment with the global financial system and the protesters looking for a more cohesive message. Wall St dropped the ball when they stopped paying regular dividends on common stock and instead took huge executive bonuses. Common people no longer have good investments with compounding interest for retirement savings. Bitcoin can give them just that. Transaction fees will accumulate and reward those who save by deflating the economy and raising the value of savings. The best thing about it is you don't have to trust slick salesmen selling junk investments because businesses will have to earn their profits rather than cheat investors.

donate thru this address and old_eng will match
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.575288

Having 1% of the 99% would be nice already. There's no need that all of them see the light by tomorrow.


Beside the point. This is not a radical movement. No one (OK, some, but not many) wants to abolish money. I think everyone remembers the only large scale experiment of a society without money in recent times. A substantial part of the population of Cambodia did not survive.

There are not many early adopters of bitcoin. There are many millions of millionaires in the world. There is no comparison. There are not only millions of bitcoin left to mine, but there can be millions of bitcoins in transaction fees to be made by us instead of the greedy bankers.

I have joined this thread rather late, but it seems the answer to why the Occupy movement hasn't caught onto bitcoin is two fold:

1: Only nerds and special interest groups really 'get it'.  Try explaining bitcoin to a non computer savvy person.  It's virtually impossible.

2: Adopting bitcoin is replacing one group of greedy people with another.  Greedy bankers and their greedy customers caused the financial crisis.  Now we're asking the Occupy movement to support the early adopters of bitcoin, who are sitting on a mountain of them mined or bought when they cost cents per dollar.

Roman empire once had more money than needed, following some successful conquests and A LOT of money. They abolished the taxes for some decades.

But a government having a surplus? It's a bit impossible since it has a lot of expenses and the only income is from taxes... if you remove taxes you only have expenses...

Since when something being illegal stop it from happens?

Just want to point out that slavery is illegal, so all you are saying is "if you are poor, you deserve to work hard to get rich, and shit if you work hard enough and make smart decisions naturally, then you may be able to afford to better you and your family"

So i agree with you...

Occupy World St. will embrace bitcoin simply because it is not a rigged system. You can still be an early adopter for the next ten years. There are plenty of bitcoins to mine. There is no reason you cannot have your mining computer running while enjoying the camaraderie of your friends at the protest. Maybe you can even profit a little by selling some of your bitcoin to them.

Occupy won't embrace bitcoin because bitcoin is simply another rigged system.  They don't want to replace one rigged system with another.  It's rigged to benefit the early adopters.  Maybe if it were designed so you earn bitcoins by sleeping outside in a park in cold weather rather than wasting electricity to run a fucking computer all day.

Facepalm

Yeah sure, only rich can get instruction is much better instead. And if you are poor, well then you deserve to be a SLAVE!

They dangle their dollars over your head and you dance


Once again, this money wasn't just "printed and stuffed into the economy", it was loaned through bonds. The crashed wasn't really caused by lenders being forced to lend to those that couldn't pay back so much as it was caused by a lack of regulation of the finance sector, allowing them to package up the shitty loans as securities, get the falsely rated as "AAA" by private ratings agencies, and then dump the toxic "AAA" securities on organizations like pension funds, meaning that the banks really had no risk whatsoever in taking the loans as they could disguise them as something better and sell them.
While I still don't know what to think about the bailout (More people would have lost their homes if the bailout didn't happen, but we probably should have seized the assets of the banks and bankers who caused this to cover the costs)


Private ratings agencies like S&P helped enabled the finance sector to get away with what they did. I do call for all those involved to be changed or shutdown, but since they are private and not accountable to me they don't give a shit. At least with the government, I get a vote.

Also, government should not be in the business of "keeping costs low" and shouldn't need "economic incentives" to do things, it should be using all the resources it can collect from it's populace to in turn provide profit-less services beneficial to all the people as best it can - once the need for "economic incentive" is introduced to the government, the need to profit will cause them to provide services less valuable than the money people pay in taxes.

So a private agency, given the choice of running an honest business and profiting a little, or pulling a grift and profiting greatly would choice to stay honest for what reasons? I believe the standard operating procedure in America is: pull a scam/do something bad, get caught, reform organization under another name so the "vote with your dollars to keep them honest" crowd will continue to unknowingly support them (if you didn't do the illegal stuff through a shell corporation).


also, lol at this:

Public schooling exists solely for the reason that we believe that your children are people and not your property, and should therefore be given some kind of baseline, uniform and structured education so you can't deprive them of knowledge they will need to be able to function later in life by telling them they don't need any math past addition and subtraction and that science is all gobbledygook because Jesus said so when he created the world in 3000BC in October.



The biggie would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act, which removed a bunch of post-Great Depression reforms that were introduced under Glass-Steagall and basically broke down the barriers between banks, securities agencies, insurance agencies, and ratings agencies and allowed the financial market to grow into the mess that it did.

Right. Because they can make you give them money. No, only the government does that.


The Federal Reserve's policies for one, propped up the housing bubble instead of letting it collapse when it was much smaller. This wasn't helped at all by the laws requiring lenders (at least those fed by tax money) to loan to those who were in greater risk of foreclosing. Nor by the fact that financial giants knew they would be bailed out by the government if their wild risks failed.

Don't forget that corporations are granted their status as entities by the government, and their number one legal responsibility is to their shareholders. There's also the fact that as a regulatory body financed by taxation, the government has no economic incentives to keep costs low or service quality high. Had it been a private regulatory agency in charge of overseeing the financial industry during our crisis, I guarantee you would not be calling for them to have increased power, but to be shut the fuck down.

Please don't think that I'm pinning our problems on some new oversight rule that the government is imposing on the financial sector. As I explained above, a private agency would have better incentives for properly regulating, but these are the least of the government's flaws. The big ones run deep, like central banking, inflationary money supply, public schooling (I consider it a form of religious indoctrination).


Please produce evidence, or at the very least a coherent argument, that this is the case.

The threat of government force is a far less effective coercive tool than the one that they used against everyone: capital


We've been de-regulating all kinds of shit, especially finance, for the last 30 years. Can you name some regulations you really think contributing to our problems, since both of our last economic crashes were caused by deregulation of lending rules and securities laws?

Voting. Not even once.

Ok, just once. Then I realized that it's ridiculous to create a system of institutionalized violence to prevent violence.


What? You know what they say about assumptions?

Trust me, the rich don't like what I've got to offer, at least not the ones that use the coercive tool of government to increase their wealth.


Only if you believe that the increasing reach of government regulation and increasing size of the corporations are merely a coincidence. A magical, magical coincidence. More government MUST solve our problems and make the corporations smaller!


Go learn economics. Disparity of wealth does not matter, if everyone's standard of living is increasing. Disparity of wealth does not matter, if there is no centralized power structure to manipulate.

Why are you here? SomethingAwful getting boring? Or are you going to sell me your Bitcoins for cheap?

All of the money from the budget/the Treasury comes from things like bonds and taxes, not straight from the Federal Reserve - that money is used for loans to make sure that the scale and value of the money supply roughly matches the scale of population and economy growth over time. Naturally these things cannot be perfectly pinned down, therefore you want the money supply to slightly outpace growth (inflation) to both make sure the needs of the growing economy are met but to also discourage the act of saving versus investing to ensure further growth



No, but you do vote, even though you somehow soak up all the bullshit the rich feed you about regulations being bad, about how they are the 'job creators', and how they aren't leeching disproportionately off the work of others and the 'risks' they take on. Nobody "creates jobs" just to make them, and sometimes the most profitable things to do is to squeeze your workers harder, lay them off entirely, replace them, or find a way to avoid paying taxes back to the society they 'earned' so much from.

You are directly supporting the stratification of power and wealth in this country by not being willing to put 'statist' limits on both businesses and government to reduce the influence the rich have over people.

I hope you can achieve your dream of being a serf someday. Don't think Bitcoin will help you either, a limited/deflationary monetary supply like Bitcoin only increases the relative wealth and influence of the wealthy compared to you as the economy grows but the available money stays the same.

Oh, I have avatars disabled, so I didn't catch that.

Very likely trolling.  I expected so from the first post on this thread due to the SA style avatar and the tone which was pretty obviously designed to reel in Libertarians.

As far as I am concerned it was a good troll in that it got people thinking about this and that.