It’s likely that SOMEONE has SOMETHING or can produce SOMETHING that you as an individual need or desire. The beauty of sound money operating in a free market is that you can rightly pursue that with your own efforts and talents, you don’t need to take it from anyone. When I say “free market” I’m referring to a free market economy; rational human behavior under the influence of scarcity and trade-offs (not influenced by policy or threats) by way of exchanging goods and services with one another. Not anarchism, just to clarify. Human beings are very good at properly orienting themselves when they live in societies/communities with a sound moral incentive structure, a sense of justice, and the expectation that the fruits of their labor won’t be unjustly seized or confiscated. They’re very bad at orienting themselves when they have no way to save or plan for the future, have no expectation of justice or property rights, and when the moral incentives are skewed to favor the greedy and corrupt. Some of the greatest human prosperity, achievements, and innovations have occurred during eras of human history when sound/hard money was being widely utilized. I believe it would solve the issues we are discussing. There is precedent for it.

The umbrella issue is human nature. It’s in our nature to hoard, to plan, to prepare for bad times or bad weather. This becomes greed when one has enough resources to continue accumulation, it’s difficult to stop. It’s also in our nature to be covetous of what others have accumulated, because we want it for the same reasons they accumulated it. In complex systems like modern economies these behaviors manifest themselves in the obvious ways that we see. There are those that have accumulated far more than they will ever need for one lifetime, and those that are covetous of that because they don’t have anything to sustain their own life. Greed will never be eliminated from the human condition, neither will envy. I believe sound, neutral money brings those two conditions in to balance naturally and without any central or collective planning because there are natural limitations to the money supply and an equilibrium of incentives can be achieved. Simply put, free markets with sound money would result in the best of all systems, it would incentivize work and innovation, saving and planning for the future, preservation of property rights, and greedy/corrupt participants or endeavors would naturally get exposed and punished to the extent it would disincentivize that behavior. Keep in mind that this is simply my opinion and I’m just some dumb fucking guy trying to make sense of what I observe. I’m not looking for a fight or anything.

Nice, I’ll check these out. I’m of the opinion that capitalism and socialism/communism both fail in practice and concentrate power at the top because the incentive structures are ultimately corrupted by the control of the money. If the money itself isn’t free and neutral, societal incentives in any system cannot align for the benefit of the majority. The Lords of Easy Money is a solid read…I don’t think any system can be properly or fairly implemented without a sound, neutral, decentralized money first.

I did recommend some. I’ve read some economic and historical books but nothing specifically advocating for the benefits or positives of communism/socialism tbh. Everything I’m aware of references events such as the Holodomor in Soviet Ukraine in the early 1930s, for example, as a caution against collectivism policies/economics. I was just wondering if there was some other version or definition of communism/socialism I could look into as it’s difficult to find books that historically defend those ideas.

I’m getting conflicting answers online, maybe you could tell me: What exactly is communism, and what is socialism, and what (if any) are the differences between the two?

Though it’s fiction, Atlas Shrugged is a classic for portraying many of these archetypes in a philosophical and practical application.

Capitalism in America by Greenspan and Wooldridge is pretty much a must.

If you’re talking about the core devs, I 💯 agree. They have been compromised, I completely see that. #Bitcoin as a network will still probably survive if enough of the right people do what’s necessary to keep #bitcoin as money, and as money only.

Isn’t it weird that #bitcoin dumped on the exact day that #core v30 was released (Oct. 10) and has been bleeding ever since? Meanwhile privacy coins without detrimental changes to their code like #zec and #monero have been ripping. Must be some crazy coincidence.

So no one has lost any conviction in #bitcoin as a project to replace central/global banking with the #core(rupt) v30 implementation? #Bitcoin is suppose to be a superior monetary network to the fiat shit show people have had to endure for centuries. It gets opened up to be a polluted dumping ground for any digital sludge to be stored on the network forever and people just carry on with “21 million forever.” Aren’t bitcoiners low time preference minded? #Bitcoin is supposed to be the people’s MONEY for centuries. The implications for massive OP_return data to be passed around and mined into permanence are far reaching and now a threat forever, not just today, tomorrow, or next week. This update was contentious, rushed, ill advised, suspicious, and completely unnecessary. It’s only a matter of time before someone somewhere exploits it and then what? “21 million forever” doesn’t mean shit when it coexists on the same blockchain as illicit material. What a fuckin shame.

What’s better than buying the dip? Buying several dips multiple times 🫠 #bitcoin