insert_coin

The rich buy stuff after they become rich. Most entrepreneurs that make it live almost like a college student barely able to afford anything; they are hoping to trade current spending for future spending. And I'm talking about restauranteurs, shopkeepers, carpenters, not only tech entrepreneurs who've been detached from the norm in recent years due to the influx of easy fed money.

Most entrepreneurs are the last ones to get paid.

Well, if what you ask is a tautology the answer is almost obvious. Almost.

No, I got it, as sophisticated as it was. But my analogy is this:

A law against fraud is like a law against mugging, you cannot commit fraud and you cannot mug. Both pretty clear and reasonable. But a law against trading because you might get scammed is like a law against getting mugged: YOU ARE NOW FORBIDDEN TO GET MUGGED, problem solved!

Of course people, because they are good hearted and their intentions are so pure, often fail to see the difference. After all, how can anyone be against a law prohibiting mugging?!

Don't be silly, that would be foolish!

In fact, perhaps a law that prohibits you to get mugged in the first place is in order.

> I disagree with this. Fools have a hard enough life without permitting predators to take their money. Nobody chooses to be a fool.

And yet, it will always happen. Some of us are fools, some of us will be fools, and some of us will never know how much of a fool we really were. Those will be the lucky ones.

Nature works this way for a reason.

Misguided compassion is a big part of why we are even having this discussion in the first place: people wanting to help wholeheartedly without realizing they are being fools themselves.

Were our previous best intentions not good enough? or maybe were they the cause of it all? Who can tell, who can tell...

No, but we also shouldn't imply the main reason accidents occurred before was because there were no speed limits.

As have all the crashes since in "bulletproof" regulated markets.

It was an analogy. Really going out of your way to create drama where none exists.

Keep mentioning guillotines and you'll see how quickly those benefits disappear.

Which high taxes are part of.

Raising taxes is an admission that current tax policy, and the other side of the coin, the government spending policy, are awfully designed.

Of course there has never been a competent design since taxes always need to be higher to "reduce" the ever increasing wealth gap higher taxes were supposed to be tackling in the first place.

Just for once we could try something different maybe?

There is that of course. That is also the reason why they leave and take their money with them.

My opinion is that students not on classrooms are much less prepared to deal with those, according to you, non "well-socialized" students from traditional schools.

> I just don't think that a classroom can possibly match the free-form, consequential education that comes from serious one-on-one time with a skilled, productive adult performing a consequential task.

While true, I just don't think a one-on-one education, however skilled the tutor might be, could possibly match the social development that comes as consequence of classroom education.

How to teach anything? You teach first to learn.

In my opinion learning is not an obvious thing, it is not obvious why things need to be presented as problems for example, and many students rebel against them as it leads to an empty feeling every time they even attempt to solve a textbook math problem. Curiosity is innate, but learning has to be taught.

So the clash occurs because they begin by teaching math to people that do not know how to learn, or why to learn.

Yes become the abuser instead...much better plan.

Exactly, you be better. The most important person you need to change is yourself.

This is the issue. It is not to stop complaining. "Toughen up" means do something about, it means complaining solves nothing.

Which is why our problems now are so much bigger, since our complaining became so much louder.

The thing is if you are the victim, it is because you are personally the victim. The moment a whole category of people become victims just by definition, or for acts committed even before they were born the word loses all meaning.

I am not arguing with you about the utility of each definition, I'm just pointing out the difference in use and why you keep talking past each other.

That is only because what you are interested in IS price increases.

If what you are interested in is money supply, and you call that inflation, then it doesn't matter what you do with the money, you can store it, you can burn it, you can spend it, is all the same. It doens't matter if prices go up either, that is irrelevant under this definition of inflation.

Inflation used to mean money supply. Inflation now means price increases. People thinking they are talking about the same thing when they use the word inflation is where the confusion is coming from.

Difficult to say as they are not 'actually' printing money tho they call it that, they are just creating bank reserves and since they are not used as money they don't generate inflation, not as measured by the cpi anyways.

Inflation can be increases in prices, and it is used in this way by most modern economists, except hard money economists to whom inflation is by definition the increase in money supply irrespective of prices. In this sense, inflation is what causes price increases but isn't price increases. The article is talking with this second, or original definition of inflation.

There is no train.

How can we be talking past each other when you got exactly what I said? You just disagree with me that non profits exists, that cooperatives exists, that employee owned businesses exist, that communions and communities where profit is not a word in their lexicon exist.

But they exists. And not only that, the number of self employed people that share all or some of those values grows every year.

And if all that isn’t enough, there are countries much less imperialistic that would have no trouble letting you in.

Cold corporate jobs are not the only jobs and have never been.

> But you know what else is equally unacceptable in the eyes of most companies? Genuinely progressive stances on labor organization, public ownership, and anti-imperialism. For the same reasons.

Why then even bother to work at those places? there are many other places to work, many that share those views.

Sadly for some their only purpose at work is to cause division, they don’t want the work, they don’t want to be in a place were their ideas are dominant because what they really seek is change, by force. That number is growing and is causing all these problem and it will only get worse.

And just by chance you decided what ‘it’ was.

> You can have third-party Android app stores. Can you say the same about Apple?

You can buy an Android Phone, and install whatever app store you want.

There’s always powerful institutions involved in money, and yet countries fail. There’s always corporate money and politicians tied up in huge contracts for resources, for imports, for exports, etc., and yet wars happen.

Bad times makes things reach a point they cannot be contained anymore, it doesn’t matter how big your backing seemed to be during the good times.

But, they haven’t stopped printing have they?

Turkey will print money until they collapse, or other countries step in and “help them”. Bitcoin will not prevent that.

Venezuela has never printed more.

This is the equivalent of gold confiscation.

But because the government doesn’t really care about confiscating your bitcoins, they can just “force” exchanges to fail and “destroy” their monetary value for their citizens that way.

If you think just because you own bitcoin you are safe from government actions when shtf this should make you reconsider.

Exchanges failing is the equivalent of gold confiscation for a digital fiat currency like bitcoin.