/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>6467761
Furthermore, how is the current market cap for Cryptocurrencies 1 trillion dollars? 1 trillion dollars of what? How was 1 trillion dollars pulled out of thin air if nothing of value was created? Before, when bitcoin was primarily a tool to get paid for "illegal" services like supporting Wikileaks or buying drugs I could see it's market value, but now it's value is entirely derived from it being valuable. None of what is going on makes sense to me.

I’m a nutshell, it makes about as much sense as the stock market.

Fiat currency has no real value either.

G-g-guys? I'm scared

>>6467885
>it's value is entirely derived from it being valuable

you already get it OP

>>6467761
because some people believe it is a better system of money like an upgrade from fiat just like how people thought money was better than bartering and whatever the fuck people used to buy stuff with. If the ideas becomes popular enough it will be the new form of money if not people invested will lose most of their money. It's called an investment op when you risk some money now for the opportunity to make more later.

>>6467761
>>6467885
Desu, it's going up in value because the USD is going down in value.

It's a free market currency that is opposed to centralized banking systems. It's going up because it's revolutionary and if you save your money in crypto, the value will INCREASE, not decrease like if you used USD or euros.

>>6467959
That's asinine though.

A stock is backed by some arbitrary thing like a company and it's value is derived from speculation.

A currency, which bitcoins are supposed to be is generally backed by the potential output of the supplies of the currency. For example the US government supplies USD and the potential output of the US is strong. There are other factors, but the point is there are things there.

Crypto does not have anything of the sort backing it. In fact this entire board proves the only thing that is pumping its value is the fact people think buying them will make you rich. Speculative pumping of shitty stocks and selling it all off for cash is illegal in the stock world because it's an easy way to make cash on things that are worthless.

>>6468012
But I can explain why a dollar has it's buying power. Why the fuck do cryptocurrencies currently have a market cap chasing 1 trillion dollars? There isn't even an efficiently designed coin in existence yet and they border worthless as currencies unless converted to local currencies defeating the entire purpose of their existence (as told to me by the white papers I have read about BTC and ETH)

>>6468169
>A currency, which bitcoins are supposed to be is generally backed by the potential output of the supplies of the currency. For example the US government supplies USD and the potential output of the US is strong. There are other factors, but the point is there are things there.
>Crypto does not have anything of the sort backing it. In fact this entire board proves the only thing that is pumping its value is the fact people think buying them will make you rich. Speculative pumping of shitty stocks and selling it all off for cash is illegal in the stock world because it's an easy way to make cash on things that are worthless.
you can buy products and services and other currencies using crypto so I dont see how this is an argument

>>6467761
Bruh it really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Blockchain has the potential to revamp our financial system and we're betting on what meme coin is going to be valuable in the future. Computers and the internet have already revolutionized communication, entertainment, productivity and many others. It's very reasonable to expect it to revolutionize currency aswell

>>6468078
How are exponentially increasing power and processing requirements to solve pointless math problems an upgrade to fiat currencies when it is still possible to regulate it and it's worthless until converted to your local currency? What is even the point of all the systems to keep transactions anonymous if you are going through local governments getting rid of this part of the equation?

>>6468222
In that scenario in order for BTC to have value it must take value from somewhere else, or then it just made value by being able to transfer value, which makes no sense.

>>6468226
What coins on the front page of this board do you think are going to revolutionize currency? What is it about BTC to you even that makes it revolutionary?

>>6467761
Do you think that its overvalued or rather than its true value should be zero?

>>6468276
It's slowly gaining traction (especially in Asia).

It use to be about currency, now it's about smart contracts, networks and all kinds of applications.

>>6468358
basically if the USD didn't exist, cryptos or gold would dominate

cryptos are trying to seep their way into the present system which is currently almost fully monopolized by the violence of the government

>>6468420
>networks and all kinds of applications

These are literally meaningless buzzwords. I can say that about normal currencies. Please give actual examples.

>Smart contracts

Why exactly do you desire smart contracts? Given the implementation of most cryptocurrenceis, this just means the entire network is able to be compromised by an evil actor with more processing power than the good actors, which means you can take out most currencies with a simple botnet and with no regulatory force if you lose your money you are SOL

>>6468495
Cryptocurrencies do not change who control most of the money because you cannot pretend the actual reason money has value is changing whatsoever with the currency exchange format changing.

>>6467761
The point is there are always suckers who want to get rich quick. Greed is an extremely potent force that can make even smart people make retarded decisions like buying worthless assets that they don't understand.

>>6468608
lel what this makes no sense

if USD lost value then those who control USD would lose their purchasing power

>>6467761
Economical (r)evolution, digital money, product of globalisation, basically instead of printing them they creating them with magical math problems. In 5 years there won't be more than 6 crypto currency anyway.

>>6468759
If cryptocurrencies somehow overtook the USD it would be regulated in America heavily and the companies would still pay taxes to the US government.

The US holds money but it's value comes from things like property and companies, not the actual currency itself. Virtual coins are not going to change this.

>>6468759
yeah bro all the rich people definitely store all of their money in USD and not US equities / real estate / bonds, the combined market cap of which is many times the number of USD in circulation (1.4 T USD in circulation vs. >>25T US Equity Market Cap, 10T just in NYC real estate, bond cap massive idk how large but many times equity market cap).

These assets are of course totally tied to the USD and are not at all independent of it.

Changing the numeraire changes nothing about wealth distribution

>>6468871
its much harder for the US government to track crypto transactions

if crypto overtook USD, the american gov would lose their tax base

and they should

I hope we starve the beast

>>6468913
>yeah bro all the rich people definitely store all of their money in USD and not US equities / real estate / bonds
which are valued in US dollars dummy

US dollar goes down, these things crash fucking hard
they are already in a bubble

>>6468979
You literally don't understand where most money in the economy even comes from. Companies have to keep records of their transactions. Going to a company and seeing a bunch of value that is hidden away from cryptotransactions just means they are going to get audited, and whoever went with your genius plan is going to go jail.

>>6467885
gold has value because it's scarce and difficult to extract

the same properties apply to crypto, except crypto has more uses on top

don't get me wrong, your concerns are valid and there are problems in the crypto sphere - but scarce, fungible, easily transferable , decentralized representations of value.., can have value for those reasons alone

>>6468871
USD is backed by absolutely nothing at all besides two things:
1. your trust in the US government
2. it being considered to hold a certain value with merchants accepting it as payment.

Fiat currency is garbage though because the ability to print it out causes inflation which guarantees that the currency will fall to zero at some point.

>>6468979
If you starve the beast it will attack

Stop thinking like some white middle class American and this will make a whole lot more sense faggot

I really like EGAS, it looks like a scamcoin but even if it is, at this price it can still go 10x before it gets dumped. check it out.
Take a look@ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ethgas/

>>6469060
This. USD truly overtaking BTC doesn't really change anything except that it takes cash out of the equation which governments will love.

>>6467761
People thought the same shit when credit cards came out get with the times grandpa or get left behind

>>6468276
>pointless math problems

they're not pointless because they're securing the network

digging a hole is pointless but not if there's gold at the bottom

>>6469143
douchebag much?

I really like EGAS, it looks like a scamcoin but even if it is, at this price it can still go 10x before it gets dumped. check it out.
Take a look@ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ethgas/

>>6467761
Because people see it going up in price, which causes a feedback loop. People are naturally attracted to things that can make them rich without working for it, same reason why the lottery and casinos are popular.

Just be smart and know when to sell out. Millionaires and even billionaires will be made from this craze, but the vast majority will end up holding the bag.

>>6469143
>Oh look, entitled rich guy picking on the regular Joes!

Go back to high school, prick.

>>6469092
>USD is backed by absolutely nothing at all besides two things:
>1. your trust in the US government
>2. it being considered to hold a certain value with merchants accepting it as payment.
>Fiat currency is garbage though because the ability to print it out causes inflation which guarantees that the currency will fall to zero at some point.
THIS

>>6468549
>Why exactly do you desire smart contracts? Given the implementation of most cryptocurrenceis, this just means the entire network is able to be compromised by an evil actor with more processing power than the good actors, which means you can take out most currencies with a simple botnet and with no regulatory force if you lose your money you are SOL

Are you paid FUD? This line is 100% false. The whole point of the blockchain is that this can't happen unless you have a 51% attack. It would take a hell of a lot more than a fucking simple botnet. If that were true BTC would have been wasted along time ago.

You're whole thread is just basically a FUD attack with just enough truth to make uninformed belief your lies.
Smart contracts are the future.

>>6469704
Did you not read what I said? I said cryptocurrencies. BTC is safe only because of it's popularity, but then this current craze isn't just BTC and ETH is it? How many miners do these literally who coins have? It's nothing more than chasing the wave.

>>6469573
that guy looks like me

>>6469940
you should be happy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

>>6469092
This is fucking retarded, sure you can frame it as "trust in the US government" and you'd be correct, but you also don't even mention that the U.S government leads the:

Most powerful military in the world
and
Most powerful economy in the world

If the USD falls into some massive crisis and people are searching en masse to hold their shit in bitcoin, then we have literally hit the nuclear fucking apocalypse and 99% of humanity is wiped out anyways.

>>6469092
>Fiat currency is garbage though because the ability to print it out causes inflation which guarantees that the currency will fall to zero at some point.

do you realize that gold backed USD was just a temporary experiment

and do you realize that if coming off the gold standard wouldnt happen the economy will crumble since as the number and valuation of assets increased drastically with fixed supply of USD it value would grow exponentially just as bitcoin and it will mean that people would hold on to them instead of participating in economy and USA would end up being a third world country

Do you know how to spot a brainlet? muh gold standard

>>6470037
>Most powerful economy in the world
not for long lmao

they have the biggest debt in the world

they're so royally fucked

if people stop using the dollar USA dies

>>6470097
lmao

another brainlet

>>6470080
>and do you realize that if coming off the gold standard wouldnt happen the economy will crumble
It would decline temporarily and then go back up.
Nixon only got off the gold standard so the gov could pay it's debts that it shouldn't have even had in the first place.
Getting off the gold standard fucked up royally and is the cause of the massive economic stagnation we've been experiencing.

>>6467761
>>6467885
It has value for the same reason anything has value you brainlet: people believe it does.

>>6470080
>mean that people would hold on to them instead of participating in econom
LMAO they would have SAVINGS, which is the lifeblood of the economy
once they have enough savings people would be spending this money like crazy and it would have created a massive service sector economy with real savings backing it up

kill yourself keynesian brainlet

>>6470142
>being a triggered leftist brainlet
lmao

>>6469092
not just merchants, but the US government, in the form of taxes. You pay your taxes solely in USD. therefore, to live in the united states without being thrown in jail, you need USD.

that is why it's accepted.

>>6467761

Yeah that’s great and all but earn real money at this Pump discord server discord gg/YQqTCqt

>>6470145
>Getting off the gold standard fucked up royally and is the cause of the massive economic stagnation we've been experiencing.


No it isnt

introducing stocks, bonds, futures and all other stupid assets as well as stupid wealth redistribution where average joe basically doesnt take part in these is the reasen why economy in US is the way it is

>>6470183
SURE
U
R
E

>>6470235
>No it isnt
It absolutely fucking is you leftist shitstain

The value of the US dollar has declined rapidly since then.

In the 50s/60s back when we were on a semi-gold standard there was a booming middle class.

Now the new generations are totally fucked over.
Fuck you corporate kike apologist

>introducing stocks, bonds, futures
Where do you think the money came from that got pumped into these things came from anon?
Getting off the gold standard was just a massive wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the super rich.

>>6467761
Take a math class and put your money on ETH and just forget about till December since you are so new

>>6468608
Banks

To anyone that thinks theres a bubble or its ending soon youre in for a rude awakening come 2030 when we're still flipping money on this shit

>>6470319
I dont think you understand what I am saying

why would you spend dollars if their valuation is increasing everyday? How would you scale this?

Its pretty fucking easy to resort to MUH gold standard, see momma thats why we are so pooor ree rhetoric since it makes you soo much more clever than the other fag but it doesnt make it true.

>>6470319
if only there were some kind of additional variables that occurred between the 1970's and now that could possibly be responsible for these differences.

what a tragedy if these differences weren't easily expressible in a meme image.

good thing that's not the case! ron paul 2020!!

>>6470319
>leftists
>implying the right is any better

May I remind you that Nixon, a right-winger is the one who got rid of the gold standard? Not to mention that Nixon was one of the most elitist presidents of all time, having literally declared war on the poor with the War on Drugs.

>>6470422
>why would you spend dollars if their valuation is increasing everyday?
Classic keynesian myth.
You wouldn't.
You would save most of your money at the start
This is a good thing.
More money goes into things like mining and manufacturing instead of consumer goods.
The economy restructures itself after a few months and then begins to grow again as spending increases.
This is the only way to have REAL economic production instead of constant bubbles.

>Its pretty fucking easy to resort to MUH gold standard
because it's LITERALLY what fucking happened and you faggots have ZERO argument

the entire gilded age industrial revolution in USA happened under a deflationary gold standard and it there was double digit levels of production
stay mad

>>6470571
wow nice assumptions, it goes well with all your other clever thoughts about how good it would be if it were like yoy are saying, right R-RIGHT? You are so clever after all, clever boy

>>6470542
>May I remind you that Nixon, a right-winger
Nixon was a leftist though.
He gave the central bank(a leftist institution, marx desired it in the communist manifesto) more power.

Not saying republicans aren't bad.
They're just not right wingers economically.

>>6470510
>if only there were some kind of additional variables that occurred between the 1970's and now that could possibly be responsible for these differences.
Yes, government getting off the gold standard and creating the massive inflation of the 70s.

>good thing that's not the case! ron paul 2020!!
You don't have an argument and you desire your own enslavement
kill yourself central banker apologist
you don't belong on /biz/ nocoiner

>>6470635
>wow nice assumptions
I think you mean facts

Look at your post, you have ZERO refutation to anything I've said. lol

Go suck janet yellens dick

>>6470639
and you are lacking not only common economic knowledge but also basic understanding of politics
And I dont even am a leftist

>>6470694
Another useless post with zero argument.
Wow you certainly have me convinced.

>>6470571
>You wouldn't.
>You would save most of your money at the start
>This is a good thing.
>More money goes into things like mining and manufacturing instead of consumer goods.
>The economy restructures itself after a few months and then begins to grow again as spending increases.
>This is the only way to have REAL economic production instead of constant bubbles.

Prove this faggot

>>6470746
>Prove this faggot
Look at the entire gilded age.
Massive levels of economic production that occurred under a deflationary gold standard for like 3-4 decades.
During this time americans had the highest wages in the world and prices were the lowest.

>b-buh muh long depression
a myth, wages were increasing all through this period.

>b-buh everyone was poor, muh coal mines, muh rubber barons
lmao, no shit, the economy was much less productive 120+ years ago because technology/production was not as advanced as today. It was still a massive economic boom and the laws of economics shouldn't magically change over time.
If we never got off the gold standard, if we never created the federal reserve, we would probably have a 2 day workweek and everyone would just have fun all day consuming consumer goods and doing entertaining things with their families etc.
You and the bankers are the people fighting against this shit.

>>6470868
lol. okay. whatever, nice fantasy

>>6467885
>How was 1 trillion dollars pulled out of thin air
t. doesn't understand market caps.

>>6470948
>actual american history that occurred for decades is a fantasy
Whatever anon, stay retarded.

I bet you think a "deflationary spiral" caused the great depression too.

>>6468358
>What coins on the front page of this board do you think are going to revolutionize currency?

Ethereum

>>6471044
Next thing you're going to say the holocaust didn't happen

>>6471209
It did but probably only 500k jews died and it was mostly due to lack of food and disease during the war.

>>6470639
you understand that the US broke from the gold standard in the 30's and not in the 70's, right anon? it's what brought us out of the great depression. BECAUSE FIAT MONEY WORKS.

nice graph. I have one too. it says you're a faggot who gets economic news from memes and draws spurious correlations among charts that happen to have the same origin.

>nocoiner.
kys, I bought my first btc in 2012 but I was rich IRL before that.

>>6471302
jesus christ this guy.

>>6470639
>Nixon is a leftist
>Banks are leftists
>Everything I don't like is left.

>>6470080
inflation based economy is for brainlets
if deflationary economy wouldn't work, the tech sector would be 'third world' levels, since whenevre you buy some tech, you know you'll be able to buy something better for less in 2 years. but you buy it because you need it. maybe gdp becomes lower in a deflationary economy, but that's literally just the flow of money. not the wealth of people and not their well being at all. there's 0 point in forcing people to spend their money by devaluating it. it only works if there are competing economies, then the inflationary one will indeed anallihate the deflationary one by trade-deficit. but as long as economies are equally deflationary, it only leads to a much more sensible global economy.

>>6471307
>you understand that the US broke from the gold standard in the 30's and not in the 70's, right anon?
no shit idiot.
We were on a full gold standard until 1913, then we had a semi gold standard until 1970 when nixon closed the gold window

>t's what brought us out of the great depression. BECAUSE FIAT MONEY WORKS.
Fiat money doesn't work.
Fiat money(along with massive government intervention) CAUSED the great depression. After WW2 was over keynesians like yourselves wanted the government to keep the war spending going or they said the economy would collapse.
Instead the government dramatically decreased spending, taxes and regulations and it resulted in the most economically productive year in american history and this lead to the post war boom.
Learn american history.

>it says you're a faggot who gets economic news from memes and draws spurious correlations among charts that happen to have the same origin.
but keynesian teenagers do that.
You people don't actually read books or economic articles and just have this blind "deflation is le bad" ideology without actually questioning it. You don't even have any real arguments and you couldn't refute anything I said in my previous posts on economic history.

You're a fucking idiot and if you hate cryptos so much like pic related keynesian kike then you shouldn't be on this board.

>I bought my first btc in 2012
LOL really?
You own crypto but it goes against your ideology?
You do know all of the economists you worship hate crypto and want the government to regulate it out of the market right?

>>6471335
I see you also believe the "6 million jews died, not one more or one less" meme.
lol
why are you even on 4chan redditor?

>>6471450
Not far left.
But yes, yes those things are left wing.

>>6471488
This based guy gets it.

>>6471488
interesting, thank you anon for this post made me think and gonna look into it more

>>6471507
>fiat money doesn't work
>he types from his affordable supercomputer that he uses to trade magic internet money with fellow neets around the world in his copious spare time during his life of relative luxury
yes this fiat currency didn't work out well for anyone.

re: america: post-war WW2 was the most prosperous time in american history because we were an unrivaled hyperpower supplying and arming the rest of the (devastated) world.

re: crypto being against my ideology: this is a massive speculative bubble. I am here to make money off of it. I have, it's great. you should try it. money fucking rules.

re: the holocaust: ok we're done here.

>>6470350
>>6470417
I found this arrogance particularly amusing since its obvious youve been in crypto for 2 months tops

My problems with Crypto.

1. Lack of Value. The only proven value add of crypto was buying illegal goods on the black market.

2. Not user friendly. Send money to wrong address? Money gone. Get hacked? Money gone. Lose wallet keys? Money gone. Normies will not trust a system where they have no customer support.

3. ICOs are Chuck E. Cheese tokens. Seriously, they are. No dividends. Not equity. No nothing because the hope to resell later at a higher price.

What I've learned from Crypto is most humans cannot think for themselves and will follow the herd.

>>6471527
The right and the left are both evil in their own way.

The left believes in centralized banks, and they will prevent those banks from failing by any means necessary (i.e; bailouts)

The right believes in trickle-down economics, which in reality is a caste system where the rich get huge handouts from the government (i.e; Trump tax plan) at the expense of the poor and middle class.

>>6471607
>>fiat money doesn't work
>>he types from his affordable supercomputer that he uses to trade magic internet money with fellow neets around the world in his copious spare time during his life of relative luxury
What the fuck do these 2 things have to do with each other?
Holy shit you're a brainlet.

>yes this fiat currency didn't work out well for anyone.
What does fiat currency have to do with this? I already explained why we would be much better off if we never had a central bank.
It's like you're saying if you're are enslaved in prison and the guard gives you water and food, the prison is a massive benefit to you, insanity.
Also, the tech sector is actually DEflationary lol.

>re: america: post-war WW2 was the most prosperous time in american history because we were an unrivaled hyperpower supplying and arming the rest of the (devastated) world.
Man I never get tired of hearing this OLD and STUPID keynesian argument and you faggots constantly get destroyed on it.
If our trading partners were destroyed it means we should have been much WORSE off.
You are basically saying that if we nuked the rest of the world to the stone age, our economy would rapidly improve. Makes no sense.
Post war boom happened because america had a mostly stable currency while having a mostly free market economy. If we took the socialist route we would have accomplished nothing.

>re: crypto being against my ideology: this is a massive speculative bubble. I am here to make money off of it. I have, it's great. you should try it. money fucking rules.
Hope you have fun when the economists and politicians you suck the dick of try to ban crypto because it messes with the federal reserve's goals.

You absolutely REFUSE to question your own ideology.
You are the biggest bootlicker, holy shit lol

>>6471718
>The right believes in trickle-down economics, which in reality is a caste system where the rich get huge handouts from the government (i.e; Trump tax plan) at the expense of the poor and middle class.
Trickle down economics isn't even fucking real. It's a leftist strawman argument.
Supply side economics was literally just the economic policy of the reagan administration. They barely even implemented it. Also supply side economics is very similar to keynesianism. Supply side economics is anti free market garbage.

What the USA needs to do is to implement a FREE MARKET. It's superior to all of these ideas.

>>6471607
>"I love the government because they steal poor people money and give it to me and my rich friends"

I hope you get fucking shot faggot

>>6471785
Yeah, trickle-down is literally a ponzi scheme orchestrated by the government. In reality what happens is government steals poor peoples' money and gives it to rich people.

>>6471677
My problems with Stocks.

1. Lack of Value. It's literally all speculation, they have absolute 0 actual value. When was the last time a company like Apple, Microsoft, Google or Amazon have been acquired by buying up public stocks? What is the probability that your 500,000 USD worth of stocks will be the decisive factor in the acquasation of a company valued over 100,000,000,000 USD?
There's close to 0 real value in stocks, you just give your money for them for 0 guarantees. Technically a company that 100x'd its profits could still have the value of their stocks degrade. The only thing stops it from hapenning is speculation.

2. Not user friendly. Need say anything about this? Normies can't even trade stocks directly at all, they all need to pay serious %s of their investments to brokers.

3. Stocks are Chuck E. Cheese tokens. Seriously, they are. No dividends. Not equity. No nothing because the hope to resell later at a higher price.
Even IF there are dividends, there's no binding in how much they'd have to pay 10 years from now based on their incomes (which is super easy to fake anyways)

I love when I'm debating with a leftist and he keeps getting rekt on points and his posts keep getting smaller and smaller as he desperately tries to cling onto the last shreds of 1 or 2 of the minor arguments in my post and ignores the rest of everything.

wew

>>6471753
hey bailouts during the great recession were good for people's quality of life because they ultimately prevented the larger economy from imploding.

>>6471846
stop using the word trickle down, it isn't a real thing
it's a leftist strawman argument

we don't have "trickle down" right now

we have central bank creating trillions of dollars and giving it to bankers and corporations while the economy gets destroyed and poor people's purchasing power decreases

this is neo-keynesianism, not "trickle down".

>>6471854
obama was actually a pretty good president.
hillary would have been good too.
ron paul is old and senile.

>>6471858
you also have no problem with the 7 trillion bank-bailout in 2009?

>>6471890
the federal reserve was a good invention. it promotes economic stability. adjusting interest rates etc. can be useful.

also: nazis were actually bad people and the holocaust was bad.

>>6471892
Obama was shit, so is Trump. Fuck off you douche ass lib. You're as fucked up as my father.

>>6471858
banks SHOULD have failed, the economy would have restructured itself within a year or so and we would be back on solid ground with a functional economy and growing, these bankers should have been in jail

It fucking WORKED in Iceland.
Next you're going to say Iceland is small so my point doesn't count.

Okay, it worked in 1920 in USA when the state cut spending and taxes after the federal reserve created a recession.

>>6471890
Reagan called it trickle down. But whatever you want to call it, a ponzi scheme is a ponzi scheme regardless of what it's called.

>>6471932
iceland is small and things that happen in the US are higher stakes.

"1 year or so" seems kind of short to restructure the largest economy in the history of civilization, doesn't it? whatever let's just roll with it it's cool, there's not much at stake.

>>6471924
not no problem, but i think we're better off for it, by a lot.

>>6471892
>>6471925
>changing the topic after getting BTFO
lmao

>the federal reserve was a good invention. it promotes economic stability. adjusting interest rates etc. can be useful.
The federal reserve has resulted in the suffering and deaths of millions of americans.

>can be useful.
Yes, so bankers and corporations can enslave the population into debt slavery and so the war machine can continue.

You people need to be shot in the face.

>>6471890
Trickle down a pejorative term for supply side economics. It is real and it doesn't work.

>>6471973
>Reagan called it trickle down. But whatever you want to call it, a ponzi scheme is a ponzi scheme regardless of what it's called.
It isn't real.
Stop saying it.
We don't have it now.
It's not a real thing.

>>6471981
>iceland is small
So?
The same exact economic principles can be applied to both small and big economies.

>"1 year or so" seems kind of short to restructure the largest economy in the history of civilization
There's no way you're this stupid.
Why did it work for every single recession in the 1800s?
Why did it work in 1920?
Why did it work after we dramatically cut spending after ww2?
Why does letting shit banks fail work everywhere?

You keep getting btfo.
You have no arguments left.

>>6471932
i mean, in iceland the banks went down with foreigner's money, so not really a fair-comparison, obviously good for their local economy

but would love to see what would have happened if there were no bank bail-outs at all, ever

it sure would have caused some unseen chaos, but there's a good chance it'd have lead to a much more sensible economy in the end

>>6471981
>not no problem, but i think we're better off for it, by a lot.
I'm beginning to think this guy is either larping troll, an unironic jewish banker working for goldman sachs or an extremely stupid person that craves authority

>>6472002
It works for the rich. Just not the other 90% of the country.

>>6472002
>Trickle down a pejorative term for supply side economics.
Yes, created by leftists.

>It is real and
Reagan got out of office decades ago, we haven't had anything close to policies like that since then.
He didn't even apply most of them.

>it doesn't work.
It doesn't work because it's a leftist economic policiy.
Government controlled central banks controlling everything? Massive government spending?
This is leftism.

>>6468132
Ive been browsing biz for months, someone please explain desu.
inb4 normie

>>6472048
>it sure would have caused some unseen chaos, but there's a good chance it'd have lead to a much more sensible economy in the end
EXACTLY

There would be a massive restructuring, prices would decrease.
The economy would be on solid ground after about a year.

>>6472094
We don't have trickle down now.
Holy fuck where are you idiots coming from.
Go back to redddit.

>>6472096
Reagan is a leftist? Next thing you're going to say Trump is a leftist.

>>6472120
Trump's economic policies are center-leftist.
They're actually more leftist than Bill Clinton.

How the fuck is government central banks and massive government spending right wing?
They're not.

Answer the question.

>>6472034
the current economy is healthy. keeping it going is a good thing.

most people have plenty to eat. the third world is being lifted out of poverty. there are fewer deaths by combat than any time during the history of civilization. obesity affects more people in the world than hunger. human quality of life is better than it has ever been, and continues getting better every day.

>but yeah let's try it the other way because i don't like bankers!!!
you're dangerous, and if you let the entire banking system collapse, many of the niceties of safety and civilization that you take for granted would be in jeopardy.

you will understand when you're older.

>>6472119
Reddit is for the Trump autists and Hillary shills.

>>6468169
>But I can explain why a dollar has it's buying power

Please do and then tell me there's nothing wrong with that system

>>6472167
>the current economy is healthy. keeping it going is a good thing.

>most amount of debt in the history of humanity
How is this healthy or sustainable at all?

>biggest trade deficit ever
How is this healthy or sustainable at all?

>americans have extremely large amounts of debt that keep going up
How is this healthy or sustainable at all?

>Central bank keeps printing money and the rest of the world keeps reluctantly buying it
How is this healthy or sustainable at all?

>the third world is being lifted out of poverty
what does this have to do with USA's economic policy?
Why do you keep changing the subject after getting proven wrong?

>>but yeah let's try it the other way because i don't like bankers!!!
This argument is pathetic.
During the time of slavery, the economy was growing and wars were decreasing.
Why wouldn't we want to put an end to things that are obviously hurting us just because we are slightly better than before?
Are you this stupid?

>you will understand when you're older.
You write like a 15 year old and you have a blind trust in institutions that are robbing you blind.
People tend to get more conservative as they get older, one day you'll learn.

>>6472263
how old are you? no larping. I'm curious.

>>6472181
desu, trickle down isn't fucking real, stop being a leftist faggot, holy shit

realize the real problem is central banks.

you are playing right into their hands

>>6472296
31

Lets watch as you continue to refuse to respond to my arguments because you are utterly unable to.

>>6471849

You are being contrarian for the sake of disproving me.

1. Companies like Apple or Google or Microsoft are adding value to the world through their products. The iPhone has gone through the entire diffusion of innovation curve. (see pic). Crypto is stuck at early adapters because it doesn't provide most people any value.

2. Strawman. For Crypto to become gain adoption it has to be user friendly.

3. Every public company will eventually pay dividends. If they have been successful then the board of directions will pressure the firm to do a dividend as that will increase the value of the stock price.With Crypto there is no such mechanism so the only way for the coin to increase in value is based on demand. Ut's much more limited.

With stocks, if the COMPANY does well then the price goes up. But with ICO tokens, If the COMPANY does well FROM ANYTHING BESIDES THE ICO, then the token price will remain unchanged. Coins are like funding projects rather than full companies and holders or coins get no benefit from let's say syngery. It'd be like buying shares in Apple's IPod devision and having nothing when the iPhone cameo out.

>>6472327
cool. we're about the same age. I'm 33.

goodnight anon. the best part of this argument was that you will wake up tomorrow safe and warm in the world that I want, and not the one that you want, and that will be the case for the rest of your life.

>>6472298
>>6472298
I love how you're so triggered by the fact that I'm using the term "trickle down". It doesn't matter what it's called. You're policing my language, yet you're going around calling everything and everyone leftist.

Wanna know who else is known for language policing?

That's right, leftists!

Fucking hypocrite.

>>6472498
>cool. we're about the same age. I'm 33.
sure you are kiddo

>goodnight anon. the best part of this argument was that you will wake up tomorrow safe and warm in the world that I want
Millions of people will die of starvation this year alone and it's ALL the fault of the world you want. Your justification for this is "well it's better than before".
You couldn't even refute my criticism of this stupid argument lol

The world I want has no exploitation and starvation and poverty is virtually non existent.

Enjoy bootlicking your murderous central banks.
Enjoy being angry and not being able to refute ANY of the arguments I made.
lol you actually lost

>>6472263
>How is this healthy or sustainable at all?

I remember back when I fell for the Ron Paul kool-aid.

1. The biggest problem today is stagnant wages which is caused by corporations not wanting to increase wages since wages mean less profit.

2. The next 2 big problems are cost of college and healthcare which is caused by the free market increasing prices because they can. It's not dissimilar for net neutrality. If you let private corporations (inb4 not all universities are private) set all prices then they will increase prices when possible and in the case of these industiries, it'll increase prices beyond inflation. These 3 indisutires need to be regulated like utilities or else they will suck all the money out of the economy.

3. If we let the banks go under, it would have crashed the entire world economy. It would have taken far longer than 1 year to recover. I would agree that the massive deflation and reduction in debt would have been good for the middle and lower classes.

Bonus. Fed printing money is a good thing. Without inflation, people would hodl dollars like bitcoin and it would mess up the economy.

>>6472545
>You're policing my language
No, I'm calling you an autistic retard because you're using the wrong word.

You literally are a leftist though HAHA

Respond to my criticism about reagan not implementing trickle down. Respond to my criticism about central banking and massive government spending not being "supply side" or "trickle down"
Lets watch as you pussy out and can't refute shit
kys

>>6468608

that is some dumb shit right there ...

what about the Rouble, Brittish Pound, Poo Money, EURO ...

-

literally pointless to ask around here for sound advice, most crypto's won't even stick around long enough to serve any purpouse but a quick cash grab while the markets-shares (each coin probably being owned by at least 30 - 80% by the guys who made it ... likely with exceptions)

crypto won't be around for long - britbong banks already trying to create their own shitcoins and so will other banks

worldwide bans for unregulated crypto will dead certainly become a thing if it EVER becomes more popular/useful

as of right now its an insane bubble - with unknown potential of growing bigger until its either "killed off" or replaced

>>6472659
>I remember back when I fell for the Ron Paul kool-aid.
You were never a supporter of Ron Paul.
You're a liar.

>1. The biggest problem today is stagnant wages which is caused by corporations not wanting to increase wages since wages mean less profit.

There isn't real economic growth, there is just inflation and malinvestment. Of course wages aren't going to increase.

>2. The next 2 big problems are cost of college and healthcare which is caused by the free market increasing prices because they can.
This is so hilariously fucking wrong and PROVES you were never a supporter of Ron Paul and didn't listen to a single fucking word he said.
These things are expensive because they are NOT a free market.
A free market would cause the price of these cartelized industries to fall through the floor.
Before the government started intervening and controlling these industries prices used to be incredibly cheap. Look how cheap healthcare was in the 50s and 60s before the government took over. Pic related.

In a free market prices are set by supply and demand, not simply by the seller.
Holy shit, you're economically retarded

>3. If we let the banks go under, it would have crashed the entire world economy.
Good, then it would have restructured on solid ground like has happened in every single fucking example of this in history.
Why do you think this worked in iceland?
Why do you think this worked in 1920 in USA?
>b-buh muh great depression
caused by fed reserve money printing and massive government interventionism
fixed after ww2 when spending, taxes and regulations were cut
>Fed printing money is a good thing. Without inflation, people would hodl dollars like bitcoin and it would mess up the economy.
>hehe dude it's good that almost everyone in the economy gets reduced purchasing power because muh coins go up
If we had a free market, cryptos would be the de facto currency and EVERYONE's purchasing power would increase, not just us.
Also deflation is GOOD

>>6472799

picked the wrong quote
meant for

>>6468495

Are there actually unironic readers of Paul Krugman on this board now?

Did the reddit newfag invasion succeed?

>>6472896
too late I don't care anymore

>>6472840
Back in the day I used to think like you. Looking back I realized that my problem was a 1) lack of experience and 2)lack of education (specifically MBA).

>There isn't real economic growth, there is just inflation and malinvestment. Of course wages aren't going to increase.

How do you even define real? So we've had no economic growth since when? Are products like the iPhone or new Nvidia GPUs not real economic growth?

There has been economic growth. The problem is that growth has been distributed unequally. The top 1%, 1%, 2%....10%...etc. have received a disproportionate amount of economic growth. This shouldn't be surprising.

There are 2 classes of people. Capitalists (people who own the means of production like founders and proletariats (wagecucks). If you are a wagecuck, you can't set a salary. Instead your salary is determined based on how easily disposable you are. Couple that with a culture that values profits and this is the (((real))) problem.

There is real economic growth, you are just not getting it.

>A free market would cause the price of these cartelized industries to fall through the floor.

This is what I meant by uneducated. A free market doesn't cause prices to fall. A free market allows all forms of competition and allows prices to rise and fall depending on the market conditions.

With regards to healthcare and college. People are price inelastic because those services are vital in our society. Hence companies can raise prices.

>In a free market prices are set by supply and demand, not simply by the seller.

That is a special case called perfect competition. As I said before, free market allows all forms of competition including cournot, bertrand, monopoly, etc.

The job of the CEO and the board of directiors is to try as hard as possible to not allow the corporation to get into perfect competition so they can keep the prices as high has possible.

cont in pt 1.

>>6472840
>Good, then it would have restructured on solid ground like has happened in every single fucking example of this in history.

One of the big problem on 4chan is the most people here lack empathy which is why they are mal adjusted and don't fit into society.

Take your average America. They worked that 9-5, paid their taxes, did as they were told and now they lose their entire life savings, the economy is in the worst depression in recorded history and they are having trouble feeding their children.

The problem is externalities. Why should the average America that did as they were told be punished for the gambling on Wall Street? That's what too big to fail means. This is also why they passed heavy regulation on the banking industry following the great depression like glass-steagall because this industry is prone to reckless behavior that hurts everyone else in the economy.

>caused by fed reserve money printing and massive government interventionism

No. it was caused by speculation and reckless investing JUST LIKE FUCKING BITCOIN.

>If we had a free market, cryptos would be the de facto currency and EVERYONE's purchasing power would increase, not just us.

If Crypto was the de facto currency then people who were early adopters would be the new 1% and people who got crypto lack would be peasants. It would just redistribute the wealth.

>>6473087
>Back in the day I used to think like you
but you didn't.
You're repeating the same classic things austrian economics have debunked ages ago.

>How do you even define real?
Being able to purchase more real goods and services.

>So we've had no economic growth since when?
We've had minimal economic growth but even this minimal economic growth is being offset by central banking malinvestment and inflation.

>There has been economic growth. The problem is that growth has been distributed unequally.
Please just shoot yourself in the head.
You pieces of shit support central bankers creating trillions of dollars out of thin air and giving it to your banker and corporation buddies at all the time time blaming the problem on tax decreases which aren't even real.

>have received a disproportionate amount of economic growth.
Yes, thanks to YOUR system of fiat currency. This is your fault.

>There are 2 classes of people. Capitalists (people who own the means of production like founders and proletariats (wagecucks). If you are a wagecuck, you can't set a salary. Instead your salary is determined based on how easily disposable you are. Couple that with a culture that values profits and this is the (((real))) problem.
The wages for wagecucks would be going up as prices decrease if we had a free market in money and banking.
This is how it used to be in the 50s and 60s.
This effect was even more pronounced in the gilded age when wages increased as prices decreased rapidly.

>This is what I meant by uneducated.
You're absolutely uneducated, you don't even understand how basic supply and demand works.

>A free market doesn't cause prices to fall.
LOL really?
So if the state sets massive price controls that force the price of a product up high and then removes the price control, you're saying the price wouldn't fall?
Holy shit you people are actually this retarded.

>>6473087

>People are price inelastic because those services are vital in our society.
This is the dumbest fucking excuse I've ever heard.
Why were these products/services so CHEAP back in the 50s and 60s?
Back when there was much less government involvement in these industries.
Clearly the problem is massive government interventionism forcing prices higher.
You are an economic illiterate manchild.
You couldn't even refute the image I posted which debunks the idea that healthcare in america is a free market when in fact it's monopolized by government supported cartels.

>free market allows all forms of competition including cournot, bertrand, monopoly, etc.
You're embarrasing.
These things only happen thanks to government intervention.
Monopolies don't occur in free markets and have NEVER occurred.
inb4 debeers and standard oil

>The job of the CEO and the board of directiors is to try as hard as possible to not allow the corporation to get into perfect competition so they can keep the prices as high has possible.
They can try all they want, if another firm lowers prices they they are shit out of luck.

>>6473208
>One of the big problem on 4chan is the most people here lack empathy which is why they are mal adjusted and don't fit into society.
You lack empathy.
You support central banking enslavement and debt slavery.
You people need a bullet in the head.

>They worked that 9-5, paid their taxes, did as they were told and now they lose their entire life savings, the economy is in the worst depression in recorded history and they are having trouble feeding their children.
It wouldn't be that bad, it would at most be a temporary downturn.
What you want is a slow bleed where living standards constantly decrease over time leading to an eventual massive economic depression.
This is what is presently happening in america thanks to policies you support.

>Why should the average America that did as they were told be punished for the gambling on Wall Street?
They shouldn't.
Why do you support central banking which gave wall street all of these funds to gamble with in the first place you corporate fascist piece of shit?

>glass-steagall
You're really repeating all of the leftist MSNBC talking points aren't you.
Why are you even on this board?
GS is a completely useless law. Many successful countries don't even have a law like this.
Canada never had a law like this. It wouldn't have prevented a recession anyway.

>No. it was caused by speculation and reckless investing
LOL
And who gave them trillions of dollars to spend with?
It all comes back to that doesn't it.
You just can't fucking explain this.
If the fed didn't give them all of this cheap money they would be restricted to only use what people have deposited in the bank and profits from their investments.

>JUST LIKE FUCKING BITCOIN.
Bitcoin boom is a result of central banking money creation as well.
These trillions of dollars have to go somewhere kid.

>>6473208
>If Crypto was the de facto currency then people who were early adopters would be the new 1%
So?

>and people who got crypto lack would be peasants
Holy shit you ACTUALLY don't understand basic fucking economics lol

The money saved by the ultra rich only INCREASES the purchasing power of the poor.
How the fuck do you not know this?
You don't even understand basic supply and demand.
If the super rich gave out all of this money to the poor and middle class, it would just cause a massive increase in the price of consumer goods and everyone would be worse off.
The fact that a large portion of this money is SAVED is a good thing, it's the lifeblood of the economy. The price of capital and consumer goods goes down so more REAL investment can occur and people can buy more goods for cheap.
You want to fuck over the poor.

You keynesian/socialist retards need a bullet in the head.

>>6473428

>Being able to purchase more real goods and services.

This doesn't make sense. So your defintion of economic growth is less income inequality?
The amount of money in the economy is limited. Your purchasing power is equivalent to the percentage of income you have compared to the total income in the economy.
So we're back to exactly what I said, which is the #1 number is lack of wage increase.

>We've had minimal economic growth but even this minimal economic growth is being offset by central banking malinvestment and inflation.

You are conflating a lot of different issues and it's confusing you. Okay we're had inflation but that effects everyone and it's not stopping wealthy people from owning megamansions, jets or yachts. So the economy is doing great for certain people.

>Please just shoot yourself in the head.
Didn't address my point because it force you to admit that I am correct.The rich has gotten richer in recent years which means everyone who isn't rich has gotten poorer.

>Yes, thanks to YOUR system of fiat currency. This is your fault.

Everyone uses FIAT currency. The rich that have gotten rich are using that same fiat currency and it's working great for them. The problem isn't FIAT, it's the power of compound interest and investments.

>The wages for wagecucks would be going up as prices decrease if we had a free market in money and banking.
Prices have nothing to do with wages. Wages only go up if your boss wants to pay you more. But he has a bonus to meet and want's to keep wages as low as possible. This is not complicated.

>This is how it used to be in the 50s and 60s.
Europe bombed.
Japan bombed.
Russian communist and closed off
Rest of the world not even industrial revolution.
USA, high taxes on the rich and low income inequality because rich lost so much wealth in the great depression.

>>6473428
>BASIC supply and demand works.
>BASIC
>BASIC

What is you educational level?
Where did you learn economics?

Your problem is you only have a BASIC understanding. You are misapplying concepts because you are uneducated.

let me help you out

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perfectcompetition.asp

>Both buyers and sellers are price takers.
>The number of firms is large.
>There are no barriers to entry.
>The firms' products are identical.
>There is complete information.
>Firms are profit maximizers.

So perfect competition doesn't apply to most industries like college where the products are not identical (degree from Harvard isn't the same as country bumbkin university) or healthcare where there are large barriers to entry (cuz people take dieing serious).

>>6472622
you are legit brainlet

you do realize this is the best time in the history of mankind yet u utter shit about muh unsustainable debt

>>6473703
>This doesn't make sense.
Why not?

>So your defintion of economic growth is less income inequality?
No. You can have a massive increase in income/wealth inequality and the middle and poor class would still have an increase in the products and services they can buy.

>Your purchasing power is equivalent to the percentage of income you have compared to the total income in the economy.
Partially true but not really.
If the middle class and poor suddenly got all of the money from the super rich. They would have the exact same living standards.
No new products or services have been created.
The middle and poor classes are purchasing the exact same amount of things.
This would just cause inflation.
Are you stupid? How do you not see this?
Where are the products and services going to come from?

>lack of wage increase.
Wages aren't increasing because of your central bank malinvestment/inflation.
What you want in wages to increase as prices decline.

>You are conflating a lot of different issues and it's confusing you.
Keynesian children like yourself are perpetually confused.

>Okay we're had inflation but that effects everyone and it's not stopping wealthy people from owning megamansions, jets or yachts.
No shit dumb fuck.
2 reasons for that, inflation hurts the poor the worse because they have so little. Inflation for a rich person doesn't effect his living standards all that much, he already has enough money to purchase a lot of things, even if the prices increase.
the other reason is the money created by the central bank gets pumped into wall street which goes to bankers and corporations. This is where all of these massive bonuses are coming from.
You support this system.

>Didn't address my point because it force you to admit that I am correct.
I addressed your point and debunked it though.

>>6473870
>No. You can have a massive increase in income/wealth inequality and the middle and poor class would still have an increase in the products and services they can buy.

You are a brainlet.

Let me make this real simple for you.
>All the money in the economy adds up to 100%
>All the goods and services that the economy can produce add up to 100%.
>For the middle and lower classes to be able to purchase more goods and services, it means the rich need to be able to purchase less of those services.
>This is income inequality.

>>6468169
You realise fiat money is made up of thin air by banks and then they lend you this money ad charge you interest for it. They can make as much as they want of it. There will never be more than 21 mil btc

>>6473703
>The rich has gotten richer in recent years which means everyone who isn't rich has gotten poorer.
Only because of central banking and government intervention.
What is really happening is the economy is stagnating and falling and this mainly effects the poor and middle class.
On top of that wall street is getting bigger thanks to the federal reserve and rich people are getting richer.
The economy isn't doing poorly BECAUSE rich people are getting richer.
Rich people getting richer is a side effect of this corrupt central banker system.

>Everyone uses FIAT currency.
No shit.
It didn't use to be this way though, glad people are debating it now.
>The problem isn't FIAT, it's the power of compound interest and investments.
Clearly it's not because back in the 50s/60s the middle class was booming.

>Prices have nothing to do with wages.
Yes they do stupid.
If prices decrease as your wages do then the real purchasing power of your wages go up.
This is what you want.
If you wages increase while prices also do, you aren't getting any richer.

>Wages only go up if your boss wants to pay you more.
holy shit you actually went to fucking college to get an econ degree and you're unironically telling me this
LOL
Wage rates are controlled by the labour market. If your boss pays you too high he loses business and has to raise prices. If he pays you too little another firm can take you for more money because it's more beneficial for the other firm to pay you your marginal revenue product
I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

>Europe bombed.
This argument is classic.
If our trading partners were destroyed it means we should have been much WORSE off.
You are basically saying that if we nuked the rest of the world to the stone age, our economy would rapidly improve. Makes no sense.
Post war boom happened because america had a mostly stable currency while having a mostly free market economy. If we took the socialist route we would have accomplished nothing.

>>6472154
>Trump's economic policies are center-leftist.
I just got here and what in the fuck am I reading right now?

Jesus when they said this board was full of fucking morons I didn't believe them, holy shit was I a silly son of a bitch for having doubts.

>>6473485
>Monopolies don't occur in free markets and have NEVER occurred.
lmao

>>6473805
Nobody said there was "perfect competition".
There is just supply and demand.
Read this, brainlet.
https://mises.org/blog/perfect-competition-%E2%80%9Cgobble%E2%80%9D-degook
>inb4 mises

The perceived effects from a lack of "perfect competition" are way too small to explain the massive price increases in the healthcare and education markets.

>>6473857
>you do realize this is the best time in the history of mankind
Technology wise, sure.

But for the poor and middle class.
No it's not.
The average person could afford to pay for his wife and entire family on a wagecuck salary in the 50s and 60s.
Not anymore.

>>6473954
>Let me make this real simple for you.
make it as simple as you want, you're still going to be extremely confused on the subject

>>For the middle and lower classes to be able to purchase more goods and services, it means the rich need to be able to purchase less of those services.
TOP LUL

Okay let me explain something to you. The middle class and poor consume 99% of all consumer goods.
The capitalist class consumes 1 to MAYBE 2% of all consumer goods.
Clearly the effect of this is completely irreverent and they aren't the ones taking your purchasing power.
The fucking central bank is.
Why are you such a corporate bootlicking cuck?
like holy shit anon get help

>>6474038
>Only because of central banking and government intervention.

Let me wrap this up.

The problem with the economy is that:
>Wages are not increasing because higher wages = less profits
>College/Healthcare/Internet need to be classified as utilities. Because they are not, the free market is doing what the free market wants to do which is make profit causing these services to increase in price beyond inflation, sucking the money out of people's pockets.
>Increase in home prices coupled with the stagnant wages making it difficult for millennials to purchase a home.

Now you are right that monetary policy is not making the situation better. Yes they are causing asset prices to increase. BUT BUT BUT THIS IS NOT THE ROOT CAUSE OF OUR PROBLEMS.

This is why no one takes Ron Paul Libertarian shit seriously, because it doesn't solve the core problems and in fact in makes a lot of problems worse.

>>6474131
>But for the poor and middle class.
>No it's not.

And thats bcs of tarded wealth redistribution, stock, futures and whatnot

Gold standard would not solve it

>>6474065
>I just got here and what in the fuck am I reading right now?

How is massive government spending, social programs, decently high taxes, high corporate taxes etc not center left.

Even Bush was center left.

Real right wing economics in america would be abolishing the income tax and central bank.
America had an industrial revolution using these policies.

>>6474077
>DUDE I READ ABOUT STANDARD OIL ONCE IN MY HISTORY TEXTBOOK
What's it like to be a brainlet?

>>6474189
IDIOT
The government is literally creating trillions of dollars out of thin air and basically giving it to super rich people.
Of course taking this away would solve the problem.

>>6474189
>And thats bcs of tarded wealth redistribution, stock, futures and whatnot

This guy gets it.

What I've realized is that people like >>6474181
are so brainwashed into hating the government and idealizing business that they can't realize the real problem is unregulated capitalism which will naturally tend to sucking up all the wealth to the top. They are no different from SJWs. Both reject reality for ideology.

>>6474241
>The government is literally creating trillions of dollars out of thin air and basically giving it to super rich people.
>Of course taking this away would solve the problem.

>I am a hedge fund manager with billions of dollars
>I am a avarage joe with 2000 in savings

>somehow, going to gold standard where 1usd=some exact amount of gold will solve it

Do you even math bro?

>>6474246
what is more these gov/bank hating fags are leftist in their dialectics without knowing it

It all comes down (whether u are leftist or ancap) is MUH GIB money back to the poor


And I am being flagged as a leftis, fucking hilarious

>>6474182
You're horrifically wrong on everything you've said and we here on /biz/ disagree with your keynesian/leftist bullshit.

>>Wages are not increasing because higher wages = less profits
I already debunked this.
Wages aren't increasing because the real economy isn't increasing. We aren't producing real goods and services anymore.
We have the world reserve currency so we just print money and the world sends us their resources.
How can businesses really create wealth wealth when there the real economy is stagnating and they make much more money just speculating on a federal reserve pumped up stock market?
I already debunked your stupid idea that capitalist magically control all wage rates and the labour market doesn't exist.
Holy fuck and you said you went to school for this.

>>College/Healthcare/Internet need to be classified as utilities. Because they are not, the free market is doing what the free market wants to do which is make profit causing these services to increase in price beyond inflation, sucking the money out of people's pockets.
Already debunked this.
They used to be much cheaper in the 50s and 60s back when it was an actual FREE MARKET and not monopolized and government subsidized like it is today.
I even posted an image with refs explaining the countless reasons how government intervention increases healthcare costs.

>>Increase in home prices
One of the biggest industries pumped up by central banks.
Why the fuck do you think people can't afford them?
Christ you're an idiot.

>This is why no one takes Ron Paul Libertarian shit seriously
Actually libertarianism and free market ideas are growing.
This board in particular is the most supportive of these policies on all of 4chan.

>>6474211
>Real right wing economics in america would be abolishing the income tax and central bank.
No that's not right wing economics, that's libertarian economics. There's a difference. You're conflating "small government" with "right-wing" when the two only intersect when a philosophy agrees on both.

I see above that you're 31, did you drop out of middle school back in 1998? How are you this old and still have no fucking clue what you're talking about?

This fucking board, I swear. I can't say it's been good, /biz/.

>>6474246
>unregulated capitalism
LOL
How the fuck is it unregulated when the government steals trillions of dollars in purchasing power and gives it to bankers and large corporations?

How brainwashed can you possibly fucking be?

How more "regulated" do you want this market to be?
Do you want corporations to start beating people with whips or something?
Will that """"""regulation"""""" satisfy you?

Why the fuck are you people even on /biz/ if you hate free markets so much?

>>6474295
>>I am a hedge fund manager with billions of dollars
this guy GOT this money because the federal reserve pumped the market and gave it to him

>>I am a avarage joe with 2000 in savings
This guy would see this purchasing power actually INCREASE over time instead of decrease. Wages would also go up so he could save even more.
You people are unironically saying the poor and middle class saving money is bad.

Holy shit you legit want to be financially enslaved.

>>6474369
>libertarians are leftists because they don't like central banks printing trillions and giving it to banks
Jesus christ your arguments are falling apart

Stop being such an ideologue.

>>6474369
>It all comes down (whether u are leftist or ancap) is MUH GIB money back to the poor

Yep. But the ancap can't even admit he wants to redistribute the wealth cuz it short circuits his ideology.

>>6474394
>I see above that you're 31, did you drop out of middle school back in 1998?

Some people never grow up. Also probably watches Fox News. Sad!

>>6474394
>No that's not right wing economics, that's libertarian economics.
It's both.
USA before the central bank used to basically be libertarian.
That's the real america.
That's when america built a large portion of it's wealth.

This is the real right wing.
To say high taxes and high spending is somehow "right wing" is hilariously wrong.

>>6474524
>Yep. But the ancap can't even admit he wants to redistribute the wealth cuz it short circuits his ideology.
Lol you kids are actually trying to come up with an argument but you're failing pretty hard.

>libertarians are actually leftists because they want to take wealth away from the government
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>I BET YOU WATCH FOOOOXXX NEEWWWSSS!!!!
HOLY FUCK
He actually did it.
This fucking young turks watching redditor
lmao

>when lefties fail to refute any of your arguments and then pretend to act all smug

>>6474607
Are you seriously 31? You remind me of when I was 12. Grow up.

>>6474389
>They used to be much cheaper in the 50s and 60s back when it was an actual FREE MARKET and not monopolized and government subsidized like it is today.


Im giving u a real world example why FDA or gov intervention is vital in healthcare, lets see how u are going to resolve it:

Lets say u are a pharm company that wants to introduce new product - super cheap painkiller (even cheaper to produce). By your logic it will only take "free market" to determine which painkiller will be better (conventional or this new super cheap one). Now what you dont realize is that this new painkiller has this great new feature to prologn th QT interval of the heart which might cause death in a certain population of ppl with heart pathologies

But the product itself is successful bcs of market dynamics, even tho some portion of ppl are dying

How are u going to prevent this without government intervention?

This is the kind of logic that results in all your faulty assumptions that you have all across your points.

>>6474695
>when a krugman reading keynesian manchild fails to refute any of your arguments

>>6474710
>Im giving u a real world example why FDA or gov intervention is vital in healthcare, lets see how u are going to resolve it:
It's actually amazing you completely ignore the countless things that are causing the price of healthcare to skyrocket but instead harp on a tiny thing that may debatable should actually be a regulation.

Just incredible.

>Now what you dont realize is that this new painkiller has this great new feature to prologn th QT interval of the heart which might cause death in a certain population of ppl with heart pathologies
I honestly don't mind an FDA that very minimally regulates drugs ONLY for safety and not for effectiveness but I'll explain how it would work in a free market.

In a free market there would be many competing medical schools/associations and 3rd party testing agencies for drugs and medical equipment like underwriters laboratories etc.

People would only go to doctors that belong to reputable medical associations and are required by those associations to only prescribe drugs approved by certain 3rd party testing laboratories.

Certainly there would a very small amount of people that would go to shitty doctors that didn't go to medical school or use a shitty med association and they might get hurt, but there would be much less deaths concurring than presently occur due to the FDA's monopoly. FDA has killed millions thanks to restricting drugs and releasing bad drugs for corporate profits.
FDA is currently in bed with big pharma, yet leftists mostly support this system.

>>6474710
I think it's time for us to leave. If this guy is actually 31, then he is beyond hopeless. Nothing more sad than a grown man still acting like a angsty teenager.

>>6474896
>Certainly there would a very small amount of people that would go to shitty doctors that didn't go to medical school or use a shitty med association and they might get hurt, but there would be much less deaths concurring than presently occur due to the FDA's monopoly


You have nothing to support this ridiculous claim, just you assuming that your ancap fantasy is actually correct

I rather stick to hard facts

>>6474970
>I think it's time for us to leave. If this guy is actually 31, then he is beyond hopeless. Nothing more sad than a grown man still acting like a angsty teenager.
You sound like a 15 year old that loses the debate and then claims other people are younger than him.

I mean you got btfo and couldn't refute anything that I posted.
Can you just admit you were wrong and move on like an adult?
Also most people on this board disagree with you people. I'm trying to figure out why you are here.

>>6474974
b-but-small government.

>>6475078
Im done, this guy is legit deluded

>>6474974
>You have nothing to support this ridiculous claim
Lets see:
https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0214/opinions-steve-forbes-fact-comment-fda-may-kill-millions.html#622dc3bb1bbc
http://www.fdareview.org/05_harm.php
Empirical evidence shows us the FDA has directly or indirectly killed millions of people.
Meanwhile thilidamide scandal and the few other things that happened before the FDA don't even come close to that number.
Also if we didn't have a GOVERNMENT monopoly on doctors and medical associations then there would have already been competing schools that use different testing agencies already.

Too bad for you.

>just you assuming that your ancap fantasy is actually correct
I'm not an ancap lol

>>6475143
>Certainly there would a very small amount of people that would go to shitty doctors that didn't go to medical school or use a shitty med association and they might get hurt, but there would be much less deaths concurring than presently occur due to the FDA's monopoly


once again, prove this will happen

>>6475078
>>6475120
I've reduced both of you to small single sentence posts
You have nothing left
goodbye redditors

>>6475154
I already did.
There are more deaths NOW because of the FDA than the entire period without it.
It's incredible you still support the government AMA monopoly while at the same time pretending this system is a free market.

Fucking DELUSIONAL

>>6475206
Prove that more people die today than under your ancap fantasy.

>>6475206
and somehow, in the future, there will be better agencies than fda, because they will be competing with each other which will directly result in less deaths, right?

this is what you are unironically assuming

This must be what 4chan felt like back in 2009. With all the magafaggots infesting this place, I forgot what it felt like talking to a legit ancap, running on BASIC high school economics. .

>>6470037
china has been the #1 economy for quite some time now

>>6475233
>prove something empirically that doesn't exist yet
lmao

The example I posted didn't even include free market competing medical schools(because during that time there was still an AMA monopoly) but it included not having the FDA. Not having an FDA is more free market than NOT having the FDA.
Simply not having the FDA empirically results in much less deaths. Having more of a free market in medical care and drugs results in less deaths.
This is what we can empirically say.

You're grasping for straws right now, looking for the tiniest victory and you aren't even going to get that.

>ancap fantasy.
I'm not even an ancap, holy shit you can't even read dummy.

>>6475349
You are speculating and making assumptions. You need data and math to PROVE what you are saying wasn't just pulled out of your ass.

>>6475349
>The example I posted didn't even include free market competing medical schools(because during that time there was still an AMA monopoly) but it included not having the FDA. Not having an FDA is more free market than NOT having the FDA.
>Simply not having the FDA empirically results in much less deaths. Having more of a free market in medical care and drugs results in less deaths.


tip top kek logic

>>6475261
>and somehow, in the future, there will be better agencies than fda
only if the FDA loses their government monopoly(this monopoly in which you, the corporate fascist, support)

>because they will be competing with each other which will directly result in less deaths, right?
Not that reason, the reason is they cannot use the violence of government to prevent people from advertising or taking new drugs.
THAT'S the reason I am saying this.
Not as if there would be comping FDA's with the same violent government power to prevent people from taking drugs they don't like.
That's fucking stupid.

>>6475325
>I CAN'T REFUTE HIM
>I'M GOING TO CALL HIM AN ANCAP
>EVEN THOUGH HE'S SAID HE'S NOT A MILLION TIMES
>AFTER I'VE GOTTEN BTFO IN EVERY POST I'VE MADE
>ON A BOARD WHERE 80-90% OF THE PEOPLE HERE DISAGREE WITH ME ON CENTRAL BANKING
Christ this is embarrassing.

>This must be what 4chan felt like back in 2009.
Clearly you weren't here back then, redditor.

>>6475428
>Not that reason, the reason is they cannot use the violence of government to prevent people from advertising or taking new drugs.

what about the drugs that are misdiagnosed? Should they be prevented by some authorithy to be prescribed or not? How would avg Joe know which drug is good for him?

do you guys honesty think humans will use fiat forever?

>>6475407
>You are speculating and making assumptions.
No, I am giving you empirical evidence which makes you extremely angry.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I guess keynesian leftists are unironically this stupid.

>You need data and math to PROVE what you are saying
But I already posted the data and math.
That forbes article and that FDA website have done the data showing the FDA has killed millions of people.
Before we had the FDA much less people were killed by bad drugs.

What more evidence do you need?

>>6467761

Yeah that's great and all but if you want to make real money join the best pump group

discord gg/YQqTCqt

>>6475497
>How would avg Joe know which drug is good for him?

>He dies.
>The drug manufacture wouldn't be held responsible because personal freedoms
>His family warns other people to stay away, until they die from taking a different drug

ancap paradise, top kek.

>>6475421
>not an argument
>still can't refute this shit

It's so fucking funny that you guys got btfo on all other economics and economic history points I've made.
So many of my long drawn out arguments have zero replies lul
Are you twins or something?

>>6475528
>Before we had the FDA much less people were killed by bad drugs.

because the population was lower and less people were using drugs?

Your logic is trash and you have no data to prove that getting rid of the FDA would result in less deaths TODAY.

>>6475497
>what about the drugs that are misdiagnosed?
>drugs
>misdiagnosed
Holy shit speak fucking english you idiot.
Illnesses can be misdiagnosed, not drugs.

>Should they be prevented by some authorithy to be prescribed or not?
The authority is the rules doctors must play by to stay in the medical school/association.

>How would avg Joe know which drug is good for him?
He wouldn't that's why he would go to a specialist(something called a doctor) that comes from a reputable medical school that only prescribes drugs that have been tested properly.

If people go to bad doctors coming from bad schools and the drug makes them sick, news would get out and people wouldn't use that school/association anymore, or said school/association would be forced to reform itself.

>>6475566
well whatever fuels your ego I guess but you didnt prove shit since your logic is that of a middle schooler but you are too much of a brainlet to see that when you draw a random correlation or random relation it doesnt prove that it is correct

>>6475515
Keynesian lefties do.

I think they should go back to redddit.

>>6475535
>>The drug manufacture wouldn't be held responsible because personal freedoms
The drug manufacturer would be sued. Class action lawsuits would dominate the market like never before.
Thanks to the current system we live in they are suppressed.

>ancap paradise, top kek.
no argument
lol keynesians are bootlickers that constantly get btfo

>>6475692
>The drug manufacturer would be sued. Class action lawsuits would dominate the market like never before.

sue them based on what? You can only sue when someone brakes the law and you have laws that say "you can't sell bad drugs." like you know, the screening the FDA does.

>>6475640
>>Should they be prevented by some authorithy to be prescribed or not?
>The authority is the rules doctors must play by to stay in the medical school/association.
so government/fda

>>6475640
>He wouldn't that's why he would go to a specialist(something called a doctor) that comes from a reputable medical school that only prescribes drugs that have been tested properly.
so gov/fda

>>6474896
>Certainly there would a very small amount of people that would go to shitty doctors that didn't go to medical school or use a shitty med association and they might get hurt, but there would be much less deaths concurring than presently occur due to the FDA's monopoly.
>>6475143
>literal retard claims that his fantasy world will have less deaths than the real one
>"prove this" the anon says
>posts forbes OPINION piece
>calls it empirical evidence
>"too bad for you"
>>6475206
>I ALREADY PROVED IT!!!
>opinion piece
>>6475349
>>prove something empirically that doesn't exist yet
>lmao
This right here made me come back. What? What the fuck?

You just said in >>6474896 without the FDA there would be "much less deaths" due to only a "very small amount of people that would go to shitty doctors". This is something you said without any cited evidence, but presented it as if it would be irrefutably true if you got your way.

You're either bullshitting there or you're bullshitting in all the posts that come afterward. Pick one. You cannot pick neither. Here you do it again:
>>6475349
>Simply not having the FDA empirically results in much less deaths. Having more of a free market in medical care and drugs results in less deaths.
This is an assertion you make based on the opinion presented in a Forbes article. Your argument is essentially, "Well John pushed somebody over the railing, if we remove the railing nobody will die."

You are mentally retarded if you genuinely believe this and I say this not as an insult but instead as a genuine assessment of your complete lack of critical thought.

>>6475613
>because the population was lower
Okay, even if you adjust for population.
A million people is still much bigger than 10k or so.

>and less people were using drugs?
Lots of people used drugs back then.
Ever hear of heroin?
Also FDA really took over shit and got teeth in the 60s.

>Your logic is trash and you have no data to prove that getting rid of the FDA would result in less deaths TODAY.
The fact that the FDA kills millions by restricting SAFE and EFFECTIVE drugs means they obviously are responsible for countless deaths.

>>6475650
>well whatever fuels your ego
lol your asspain fuels the fuck out of my ego
I can't believe you couldn't refute any of the shit from before and are now butthurt on the tiniest of nothing arguments
holy fuck lol

>middle schooler
Ah yes, the "middle schooler" that schooled you on economics and you couldn't refute him.

>random correlation
LOL How the fuck is this a random correlation?
This is a specific correlation with actual data backing it up.

>>6475710
>sue them based on what?
Lying about their product or service.
Doctors and med associations could also be sued.

>You can only sue when someone brakes the law and you have laws that say "you can't sell bad drugs." like you know, the screening the FDA does.
Fraud is strongly illegal in a free market, dummy.
It's not a "regulation" it's a fundamentally part of the market itself.
Ever hear about laws against force and fraud?

>>6475817
you are a complete retard

>>6475785
>lol your asspain fuels the fuck out of my ego
bro. none of us are trigger. We're genuinely laughing at you because it's shocking that people as dumb and uneducated as yourself exist. I'm sure you know the drill as this probably happened every day to you back in high school.

>>6475734
>so government/fda
No.
How low is your IQ?
Honestly.
I just explained this and you're backtracking like a 6 year old.

Government/FDA is inferior to a free market system of competing associations and laboratories. Government is a static bureaucratic system that has resulted in countless deaths due to violence.

>so gov/fda
No, competing medical associations/testing agencies.
:^)

>>6475854
>you are a complete retard
I'm sure he bought TRON as well

>>6475854
>when you win the argument and the other guy posts butthurt angry one liners for an hour

>>6475866
>We're genuinely laughing
Yes, I can see that you're totally not mad right now.
and you totally destroyed my previous arguments from before.
See all of those long drawn out posts that have real replies in them?
yeah....

>>6475866
>dumb and uneducated
How am I dumb and uneducated if I laid out countless arguments and you were unable to refute them?
How?
How is this possible?

>>6475942
>Doesn't know the difference between an OPINION/ASSUMPTION/SPECULATION and real DATA/FACTS

t. brainlet
t. high school dropout
t. college uneducated.
t. unemployed.

>>6475919
yes you won
Go brag to your mommy

>>6475817
>Fraud is strongly illegal in a free market, dummy.
A free market is, by definition, unregulated.
No regulation means, without mincing a single fucking word, not regulated by the rule of law.

>b-but a f-free market hasn't really been tried before it's not true free market!
You've spent the majority of the thread calling everyone leftists and here you're saying that a market needs regulation because somebody found a flaw in your ideology. Pic very fucking related. Still waiting for you to answer me here: >>6475750

>>6475982
b-b-but muh arguments!

Look mommy I learned a new word

>>6475750
>>>6474896 (You)
>>Certainly there would a very small amount of people that would go to shitty doctors that didn't go to medical school or use a shitty med association and they might get hurt, but there would be much less deaths concurring than presently occur due to the FDA's monopoly.
>>>6475143 (You)
>>literal retard claims that his fantasy world will have less deaths than the real one
>>"prove this" the anon says
>>posts forbes OPINION piece
>>calls it empirical evidence
>>"too bad for you"
>>>6475206 (You)
>>I ALREADY PROVED IT!!!
>>opinion piece
>>>6475349 (You)
>>>prove something empirically that doesn't exist yet
>>lmao
>This right here made me come back. What? What the fuck?

These aren't opinion pieces though, this institute has actually done the research on this.
Look at that website, there are links to countless sources proving the FDA's harm and murder of millions.
Look:
http://www.fdareview.org/14_references.php

>This is something you said without any cited evidence
The only evidence I have is America pre FDA.
During this time there was less deaths actually.
You want evidence there will be less deaths in my preferred system?
Okay, it would be similar to the system pre-FDA(less deaths) BUT there would be far more PROTECTIONS in place that would prevent a lot of those deaths.

What else do you need?

>>6475982
>and real DATA/FACTS
Like the countless data/facts here that prove you wrong?
http://www.fdareview.org/14_references.php

I guess these are all my ancap fantasies then. LOL

>>6475994
>yes you won
Thanks, now you can grow up and move on.
You've got a lot growing up to do kiddo.

>>6476037
>During this time there was less deaths actually.
>You want evidence there will be less deaths in my preferred system?


>he unironically thinks that the only source of mortality in last x years is FDA

This new exchange will give you free 500$ to use on it, but hurry up the bonus is almost over.
https://pastebin.com/u8G1QZi2

>>6476003
>A free market is, by definition, unregulated.
No, holy shit you unironically took the meme strawman version of a free market and made it into your own idea.
A free market literally means there is some enforcement mechanism in place to protect property rights, enforce contracts and protect people against violent force and fraud.

Some traveling gang in africa raiding a town and raping their women is not a free market.
You're an embarrassment.

>>b-but a f-free market hasn't really been tried before
Many free markets have been tried in history before and were extremely successful. try harder
Nice horseshoe image, sargon.

>>6476013
>babby is this mad
Wow imagine if you didn't have that other retard backing you up.

>>6476097
>>he unironically thinks that the only source of mortality in last x years is FDA
What?
I was only talking about drug related deaths, either caused by FDA or by a voluntary system.

Actually respond to what I wrote there.
You can't refute it.

>2 redditors from /r/politics and /r/bitcoin hear about /biz/ and get triggered that not everyone support central banking

my sides

Alright time for me to sleep.
That was fun.

sage

>>6476037
>>This is something you said without any cited evidence
>The only evidence I have is America pre FDA.
>During this time there was less deaths actually.
>You want evidence there will be less deaths in my preferred system?
>Okay, it would be similar to the system pre-FDA(less deaths) BUT there would be far more PROTECTIONS in place that would prevent a lot of those deaths.
>What else do you need?
That'll do, thanks.

First off,
Before the FDA people did absolutely die from "miracle cures" that were both unregulated and highly toxic, but through the power of marketing techniques and customer faith these were happily consumed by people entirely unaware they were drinking piss, kerosene, and turpentine. (paraphrasing here, but I'm sure you get the picture)
>but word will get out, only a few people will die!
Yeah, I'm sure you'd love to believe that. Thankfully we have a real-world example of why that's complete bullshit: China.

China's kind of like the Wild West at the moment in that the government has such incredibly loose regulations and corruption is so high that companies can literally get away with robbing you and the only recourse you have is pointless because the company "declares bankruptcy" and Mr. Lee walks out, changes the sign from "SNAKE OIL AROMATICS" to "SNAKE OIL INDUSTRIES" and you can't say shit about it. Then somebody else comes along and falls prey to the same trap, by the time you get the word out that it's the same people in the same company in the same building wearing the old uniforms as the company that robbed you it's too late because they've done it again.
>yeah well I said 3rd party testing would make it safe!
Wrong. Instead of a government stooge to bribe it's just some fucking guy looking to make some money. If you pay them a fuckload of cash to look the other way you can drown out the wails and cries of family members with, "well we're certified!" This is the exact same thing you were accusing the FDA of.

>>6476037
Oh I'm not fucking done with you. You made a big fucking mistake shitposting enough to summon me from the abyss.

Above my second post you made this little gem: >>6475982
>t. brainlet
>t. high school dropout
>t. college uneducated.
>t. unemployed.

I'm officially calling it. You're a NEET living with your mom, you didn't graduate high school, and you sure as shit don't have a real job and probably never have. Nobody is this fucking stupid while simultaneously being successful to any real degree, even if you are in crypto (doubtful) you're such a slobbering paultard that I bet you make the dumbest financial decisions out of anyone here. So pony up, buttercup, let's see some proof of college education. (I will not accept anything less than a MBA from somebody who shit-talks as much as you)

>>6476136
>No, holy shit you unironically took the meme strawman version of a free market
Ah, so the "it's not REAL communism" attitude strikes again, except different because you're clearly a retarded ancap.
>A free market literally means there is some enforcement mechanism in place to protect property rights
Mm. No, no it doesn't. A free market literally means "free market." As in the market is free. You were sperging out about regulation and calling everyone slaves and leftists earlier, so here I am making you eat those words.
>Some traveling gang in africa raiding a town and raping their women is not a free market.
Yeah, but what the fuck does the price of tea in Chinatown have to do with this?
>You're an embarrassment.
Maybe, but I did pass 8th grade finance so I don't think you have any fucking place to say jack shit about it. Still waiting on proof of why you're so high and mighty, by the way.
>>>b-but a f-free market hasn't really been tried before
>Many free markets have been tried before
Wow really!? You don't fucking say.

Literally proof of autism here, anyone who wasn't a goddamn sperg would've caught on to being insulted.

>>6476322
>im sweepy now bye
Ho ho ho don't you fucking lie to me you little cocksucker, I know you're still there watching this thread like a fucking hawk.

>>6472114
That anon is generalizing but what he says is true, the dollar is printed and as such there is an ever increasing number circulated, and every bill printed results in every other bill being worth less. The government prints bills for the sole purpose of paying off debt every year making them bills worth even less.

Bitcoin Legacy however only has a supply of 21 million coins and in theory the number would always just go down as owners of Bitcoin lose the coins, get robbed, files get corrupted or whatever or private keys are lost.. Honestly I think Bitcoin Legacy was a great vehicle for introduction but it must die if cryptocurrency should actually see mass adoption. I think we saw the prices as high as they're ever gonna go for Bitcoin Legacy, between tx fees and the abysmal speed of the network I find it very unlikely this shitcoin will go anywhere.

>>6476642
hilarious how this faggot thinks he is so oh so much clever then every single non retarded educated economist/politician alive which are all just basically "muh sucking corporatist/bankster cocks'' bcs they make world sound more complicated than it is in his brainlet subpar scifi infested brain

>>6477230
when in reality he is just a filthy leftist that feels left out

>>6467761
That image annoys me from the fact that it rises when indicating a fall

>>6477230
>>6477298
I'll level with you, I do think decentralized currency out of government hands is a better idea than what we have now because I really don't trust our government now and I'm a cynic. That said, I'm nowhere near capable of producing the delusional fantasies as this guy.

I wouldn't say he's a leftist at all, just another dumbass that doesn't realize nothing is perfect.

>>6478068
>I'll level with you, I do think decentralized currency out of government hands is a better idea than what we have now because I really don't trust our government now and I'm a cynic.
well I agree

I also think that crypto is one of the best wealth distribution option ever though I dont drivel in deluded opinions about gold standard and so

>>6478127
I think crypto is the only real avenue for a interplanetary economy, even if the latency issues mean that population clusters (celestial bodies, stations, etc) are just collections of exchanges linked together somehow. Extraplanetary operations would forever be grounded on Earth in the most important way possible if they were forced to issue treasury notes or deal in a digital equivalent. We could never fully expand if the Outer Space Treaty meant nobody could plant a flag and call it home, we will eventually need colonial independence and that includes fiscal independence.