Could bitcoin become the next Swiss bank account?

[NeoTrader]

Just because the government is not doing its job as well as it should, it doesn't mean the solution is to get rid of it. I understand Milton Friedman's advocating for a small, limited government but I believe instead of having a small, limited government, what we need instead is a SMART government as for all the areas where you believe that there is no need for government, I can tell you countless areas where there is not enough government involvement. But the government is not a drawer where you can pull it out when you need it and push it away when you don't. No, it's an independent, dynamic, intelligent (when it needs to be and want to be), diverse, all-encompassing and experienced organization that I believe still does and can do more good than harm. What matters here is how we make sure to harness the good that the government can do and try to mitigate and reduce the inefficiency and harm of governmental action to have it work better with the free market.

And I believe this is where the people come in. This government is created for the people, by the people and of the people but ONLY if the people want it to be. If the people that the government is created for, by and of are completely apathetic and oblivious to what the government does, then this is where special interest groups with ulterior motives come in and hijack the government for their own use and the government instead is being used as a tool that spews out policies and regulations that only benefited the few and harmful to the people.
There a is saying that "the baby who cries the loudest gets the most milk". It REALLY is true. The government is voted in by the majority but if the majority always stays silent then it's the loud minority that's going to get everything. And this is what is happening.

Beautiful words... But unfortunately, they don't belong to this world... That is the thing with the things I say and the people I mentioned... They accept the reality of the world, because history proves that whenever you put men with power over others, they will always use that power to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
But if you let men be individually free from one another, with no power over others, that same "selfishness", makes it in the interest of each individual to please others, because this is the way you earn a living and can become rich in a free competing market(by providing goods and services to others with the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price).
The founders of the US understood that... That's why they designed the Constitution the way I described in my last post to you... And that's why the USA became the richest and most powerful country in history.
What you described is beautiful in theory, but the entire human history is evidence against what you described. There isn't one single example in human history where concentrated power in the hands of government hasn't ended up in tyranny. Venezuela being the last example of this: a democratic country that eventually voted for a leader to have unlimited power and the result is what we see today.
Jefferson said that "it is the natural tendency for government to grow", which inevitably becomes tyranny. This has been proven again and again. And the people responsable for this growth are well meaning people like you, that simply don't see that despite your best intentions, the end result of these ideas is tyranny. I'm sure the people of Venezuela didn't intend for what is happening to them to happen when they voted for Chavez to have power for life, but it happened all the same, because they voted for it basing their vote on their good and noble intentions ignoring the reality of the world and life.
Again, this is where the genius of the founders of the US is shown. They didn't base the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on good intentions, but in the reality of the world of men, using that as a way to promote growth, wealth and well being for the majority of people. And the basis of what they proposed and the main purpose of the Constitution is this: to limit the power of the federal government.
Because the solution is not "smart government", since there is not such a thing, as history shows. The solution is what the US history showed: voluntary interactions and trade between individuals, free men, each persuing their own goals and happiness.

 

[JSOP]

Beautiful words... But unfortunately, they don't belong to this world... That is the thing with the things I say and the people I mentioned... They accept the reality of the world, because history proves that whenever you put men with power over others, they will always use that power to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
But if you let men be individually free from one another, with no power over others, that same "selfishness", makes it in the interest of each individual to please others, because this is the way you earn a living and can become rich in a free competing market(by providing goods and services to others with the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price).
The founders of the US understood that... That's why they designed the Constitution the way I described in my last post to you... And that's why the USA became the richest and most powerful country in history.
What you described is beautiful in theory, but the entire human history is evidence against what you described. There isn't one single example in human history where concentrated power in the hands of government hasn't ended up in tyranny. Venezuela being the last example of this: a democratic country that eventually voted for a leader to have unlimited power and the result is what we see today.
Jefferson said that "it is the natural tendency for government to grow", which inevitably becomes tyranny. This has been proven again and again. And the people responsable for this growth are well meaning people like you, that simply don't see that despite your best intentions, the end result of these ideas is tyranny. I'm sure the people of Venezuela didn't intend for what is happening to them to happen when they voted for Chavez to have power for life, but it happened all the same, because they voted for it basing their vote on their good and noble intentions ignoring the reality of the world and life.
Again, this is where the genius of the founders of the US is shown. They didn't base the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on good intentions, but in the reality of the world of men, using that as a way to promote growth, wealth and well being for the majority of people. And the basis of what they proposed and the main purpose of the Constitution is this: to limit the power of the federal government.
Because the solution is not "smart government", since there is not such a thing, as history shows. The solution is what the US history showed: voluntary interactions and trade between individuals, free men, each persuing their own goals and happiness.

Well first of all Venezuela is a bad example to use to to justify absence or limitation of government, tbh. When you vote for someone to be in absolute power over everything forever, of course that's not democracy anymore of course that corrupts absolutely. But not all government are like that and governments doesn't have to be like that and it's up to people to make sure that it doesn't. People DO have the power to change and people HAVE changed things in the past. It's getting harder and harder yes but people are also getting more aware and there is better tools available. You don't want it to be a theory? Then do something about it to make sure it doesn't become a theory.

Complete laissez-faire is not any better, TRUST ME. There was a period of time in history and actually in countries like China who just embraced free market capitalism when governmental regulations/policies have not kept up, things were even worse. This is why I think it would be helpful for you to read some of the books I recommended to get an idea how things used to be to get a better perspective.

 

[NeoTrader]

Well first of all Venezuela is a bad example to use to to justify absence or limitation of government, tbh. When you vote for someone to be in absolute power over everything forever, of course that's not democracy anymore of course that corrupts absolutely.

You missed the point. Venezuela is a perfect example exactly because they voted for someone to have absolute power. They were a democracy and the people voted to get a tyrant.
Your argument is that the people having the power to vote will make government do what is best for them, and Venezuela is just one more proof that that doesn't work the way you described.
All your ideas are theory. That's the way democracy should work in an ideal world, but reality shows that this simply doesn't work.
But the world has had finally one example of something that indeed worked in reality and this example was the USA, which was based in limited federal government. And the more the same country distances itself from that, the worse it gets, which is sadly also what has been proven by reality again and again.
The point is that all of what I said are facts, the bad and the good things. And since there is already plenty of evidence of what works, it is not smart to insist in trying to apply theories that have been proven to be failures again and again.

But not all government are like that

As I said, history proves otherwise.

Complete laissez-faire is not any better, TRUST ME.

Sorry, but that is not an argument. I prefer to trust nobody and make decisions using reality, logic and facts, just as I described above.
Today we have evidence of what works and what doesn't and I think we have to use what has been proven to work and I already made it clear what I think that is And to back that thought, I use the facts I mentioned.

 

[JSOP]

You missed the point. Venezuela is a perfect example exactly because they voted for someone to have absolute power. They were a democracy and the people voted to get a tyrant.
Your argument is that the people having the power to vote will make government do what is best for them, and Venezuela is just one more proof that that doesn't work the way you described.
All your ideas are theory. That's the way democracy should work in an ideal world, but reality shows that this simply doesn't work.
But the world has had finally one example of something that indeed worked in reality and this example was the USA, which was based in limited federal government. And the more the same country distances itself from that, the worse it gets, which is sadly also what has been proven by reality again and again.
The point is that all of what I said are facts, the bad and the good things. And since there is already plenty of evidence of what works, it is not smart to insist in trying to apply theories that have been proven to be failures again and again.

As I said, history proves otherwise.

Sorry, but that is not an argument. I prefer to trust nobody and make decisions using reality, logic and facts, just as I described above.
Today we have evidence of what works and what doesn't and I think we have to use what has been proven to work and I already made it clear what I think that is And to back that thought, I use the facts I mentioned.

Just because some country votes for a leader doesn't make it a democracy. LOL You have to look at the actual working of that country's government really to assess whether the country really operates in a democracy or not. Russia has voting mechanism as well but would you call that country a true democracy? I wouldn't and neither is Venezuela and many South and Central American countries, in my opinion.

Just limiting government doesn't necessarily improve democracy. You think you don't trust nobody but you actually do. You trust the free market; you trust all the players that make up the collective forces in the free market that somehow will make things right that free-thinking individuals in the course of looking after their self-interest would actually arrive at the most optimum outcome. In most cases, yes but I am telling you, NOT in ALL cases, NOT in all times. There is a limit in what self-interest can accomplish in a society and you need something else to balance that off too. I will give you an example: Do you know that China is rampant with fake goods even fake formulas that killed babies in China to the point that till this day Chinese don't buy formulas that are Made in China. WHY do you think that is the case? It's obvious because fake goods are cheap to produce and when sold at the same price as genuine goods, they garner extreme lucrative revenue so in free market in the absence of government intervention, in light of self-interest, of course this kind of unscrupulous commercial activity would flourish. Is this what you want to see happening? And I can give you another example, WHY do you think you pay almost $0 for water and it doesn't cost you $50 to mail a piece of letter to a rural area with a population of 750 (this is how much it used to cost in England at one point in equivalent dollars to poor people to mail a piece of letter)? It's because the government is there, gathering resources from all and providing you goods and services in a collective? And those are based on facts too, not theory.

And of course you would argue that's exactly it, the government should have a limited role and only interfere in certain area(s). Well this is when I told you before, you cannot expect the government to be like a drawer, pull it out when you need it and push it away when you don't. It's a free-thinking, dynamic, diverse, individual organization itself that is the culmination of everybody in the society and everything is commingled and juxtaposed together. You can't just draw a line and says ok the government is only allowed to step in in these areas but needs to stay away from that area of the free market. Well, many areas in the market overlaps; international trade touches upon product safety and human welfare and public goods, so WHERE do you draw the line? This is the problem.

This is why I say, I agree with Milton Friedman's idea that the government's role in free market should be limited but in reality the implementation of it is very difficult. And this is WHY government officials have to go through all those "lengthy meetings" and "writing all those reports". LOL

 

[Sig]

Just because some country votes for a leader doesn't make it a democracy. LOL You have to look at the actual working of that country's government really to assess whether the country really operates in a democracy or not. Russia has voting mechanism as well but would you call that country a true democracy? I wouldn't and neither is Venezuela and many South and Central American countries, in my opinion.

Just limiting government doesn't necessarily improve democracy. You think you don't trust nobody but you actually do. You trust the free market; you trust all the players in the market that make up the collective forces in the free market that somehow will make things right that free-thinking individuals in the course of looking after their self-interest would actually arrive at the most optimum outcome. In most cases, yes but I am telling you, NOT in ALL cases, NOT in all times. There is a limit in what self-interest can accomplish in a society and you need something else to balance that off too. And those are based on facts too, not theory.

This is the guy who speaks with such disdain about my 20 years in the military and those I served with, hasn't the first concept of what we do, but is sure the private sector can do it better because he can throw up 20 quotes from his favorite author that say so. And he'll shuck and jive and move on to something else when you call his bluff, I'm still waiting for his visit to my office that he accused of being fake. He's not going to listen to reason until he grows up a little.

 

[NeoTrader]

I'm still waiting for his visit to my office that he accused of being fake.

I've already told you: I don't give a shit about your personal life. I didn't say it was fake, I said it is IRRELEVANT and proves nothing even if it were true. You seem to have a very slow understanding process for someone who thinks so highly of himself. I told you this more than once and you even distort it by putting words in my mounth...

This is the guy who speaks with such disdain about my 20 years in the military and those I served with, hasn't the first concept of what we do, but is sure the private sector can do it better because he can throw up 20 quotes from his favorite author that say so. And he'll shuck and jive and move on to something else when you call his bluff, I'm still waiting for his visit to my office that he accused of being fake. He's not going to listen to reason until he grows up a little.

Whenever you're ready, I'm waiting for the answer on my last post to you... In fact, since you expetedly evaded it because it proves your assumption is full of shit, I'll just put it again here to make it easier for you to answer it:

Ludwig von Mises died at 92.
Milton Friedman at 94.
Thomas Sowell is 88.
Friedrich Hayek died at 93.

Now, tell me, if what I say and think has to do with age(and you have no idea how old I am) and only young people think the way I do.
How do you explain the men above who died defending these ideas or still defend them to this day, the very ideas I've been defending throughout this thread?

And you don't have to talk to me through through answers to others. I'm right here...

 

[NeoTrader]

Just because some country votes for a leader doesn't make it a democracy.

Uh... Yes, it does. The basis for democracy is voting. That's ehy pure democracy is a failure, because if one part of the population can vote to explore another part and use government to do it, it will. That is why everything I said about the american constitution is so important... So that this abuse of power doesn't happen.

LOL You have to look at the actual working of that country's government really to assess whether the country really operates in a democracy or not. Russia has voting mechanism as well but would you call that country a true democracy? I wouldn't and neither is Venezuela and many South and Central American countries, in my opinion.

Just limiting government doesn't necessarily improve democracy.

I'm not talking about improving democracy. I'm talking about it's inherent flaws that can only be put in check by limiting what a democratic government can do, so that it doesn't become a tyranny of a majority, which is not very better than your typical tyranny. As Hayek wrote:
"Democracy is essentially a means, a utilitarian device for safeguarding internal peace and individual freedom. As such it is by no means infallible or certain. Nor must we forget that there has often been much more cultural and spiritual freedom under an autocratic rule than under some democracies and it is at least conceivable that under the government of a very homogeneous and doctrinaire majority democratic government might be as oppressive as the worst dictatorship."

In light of that, limiting the power of the federal government is essential.

You think you don't trust nobody but you actually do. You trust the free market; you trust all the players that make up the collective forces in the free market that somehow will make things right that free-thinking individuals in the course of looking after their self-interest would actually arrive at the most optimum outcome. In most cases, yes but I am telling you, NOT in ALL cases, NOT in all times. There is a limit in what self-interest can accomplish in a society

A free market is nobody, it is by definition impersonal. But I trust people persuing their own goals and to do that, they will do their best... As Adam Smith wrote:
"...man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens."

But I never said that this ALWAYS works... In the very few intances where a free market cannot operate, government has indeed an important role... Which are national defense, a justice system and police(even thoug even these are argueable, at least here is a case for government handling them). Butgovernment should resctrict itself ONLY TO THESE..All the others that a free market can self regulate, should be left for the private sector, for the reasons I pointed out proving with facts why this is better this way(quoting obamacare and steel tariffs as examples).

I will give you an example: Do you know that China is rampant with fake goods even fake formulas that killed babies in China to the point that till this day Chinese don't buy formulas that are Made in China. WHY do you think that is the case? It's obvious because fake goods are cheap to produce and when sold at the same price as genuine goods, they garner extreme lucrative revenue so in free market in the absence of government intervention, in light of self-interest, of course this kind of unscrupulous commercial activity would flourish. Is this what you want to see happening?

If the chinese don't buy it, it is their choice and how the market should operate, low quality products are rejected by consumers and better quality products are bought. If they don't buy it, the activity does't flourish. But even if it is low quality and they want to consume it, it is their choice. It is like smoking, alcohol and drugs, I' not into it, but who am I to say what other people consume, even if it harms them?
If thirf parties are involved, there is a case for government to step in(the justice system, one of the few functions it should have). By prosecuting the companing and even imprisioning the mentors of it. But quality control is another thing, this must be done exclusively through markets.

And I can give you another example, WHY do you think you pay almost $0 for water and it doesn't cost you $50 to mail a piece of letter to a rural area with population of 750 (this is how much it used to cost in England at one point in equivalent dollars to poor people to mail a piece of letter)? It's because the government is there, gathering resources from all and providing you goods and services in a collective? And those are based on facts too, not theory.

Who said this is a good thing? People should individually pay their own things and they are free to move out if it is not worth it for them. If water or mail or anything else is too expensive in one place for them, they should take that into account and decide if it is worth it to live there. and that is the beauty of the market, it either makes people be responsable or it makes them invent ways to better their lives(if these services are to costly, they may create a business opportunity for people willing to provide the service at a better price).

And of course you would argue that's exactly it, the government should have a limited role and not interfering everywhere in the free market. Well this is when I told you before, you cannot expect the government to be like a drawer, pull it out when you need it and push it away when you don't. It's a free-thinking, dynamic, diverse, individual organization itself that is the culmination of everybody in the society and everything is commingled and juxtaposed together. You can't just draw a line and says ok the government is only allowed to step in in these areas but needs to stay away from that area of the free market. Well, many areas in the market overlaps; international trade touches upon product safety and human welfare and public goods, so WHERE do you draw the line? This is the problem.

Actually, you can and it has been done. As I told you many times before: that line is called THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

 

[JSOP]

Uh... Yes, it does. The basis for democracy is voting. That's ehy pure democracy is a failure, because if one part of the population can vote to explore another part and use government to do it, it will. That is why everything I said about the american constitution is so important... So that this abuse of power doesn't happen.


I'm not talking about improving democracy. I'm talking about it's inherent flaws that can only be put in check by limiting what a democratic government can do, so that it doesn't become a tyranny of a majority, which is not very better than your typical tyranny. As Hayek wrote:
"Democracy is essentially a means, a utilitarian device for safeguarding internal peace and individual freedom. As such it is by no means infallible or certain. Nor must we forget that there has often been much more cultural and spiritual freedom under an autocratic rule than under some democracies and it is at least conceivable that under the government of a very homogeneous and doctrinaire majority democratic government might be as oppressive as the worst dictatorship."

In light of that, limiting the power of the federal government is essential.


A free market is nobody, it is by definition impersonal. But I trust people persuing their own goals and to do that, they will do their best... As Adam Smith wrote:
"...man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens."

But I never said that this ALWAYS works... In the very few intances where a free market cannot operate, government has indeed an important role... Which are national defense, a justice system and police(even thoug even these are argueable, at least here is a case for government handling them). Butgovernment should resctrict itself ONLY TO THESE..All the others that a free market can self regulate, should be left for the private sector, for the reasons I pointed out proving with facts why this is better this way(quoting obamacare and steel tariffs as examples).


If the chinese don't buy it, it is their choice and how the market should operate, low quality products are rejected by consumers and better quality products are bought. If they don't buy it, the activity does't flourish. But even if it is low quality and they want to consume it, it is their choice. It is like smoking, alcohol and drugs, I' not into it, but who am I to say what other people consume, even if it harms them?
If thirf parties are involved, there is a case for government to step in(the justice system, one of the few functions it should have). By prosecuting the companing and even imprisioning the mentors of it. But quality control is another thing, this must be done exclusively through markets.

Who said this is a good thing? People should individually pay their own things and they are free to move out if it is not worth it for them. If water or mail or anything else is too expensive in one place for them, they should take that into account and decide if it is worth it to live there. and that is the beauty of the market, it either makes people be responsable or it makes them invent ways to better their lives(if these services are to costly, they may create a business opportunity for people willing to provide the service at a better price).


Actually, you can and it has been done. As I told you many times before: that line is called THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Uh no, this is where you are wrong. This I need to point out to you. Voting is only ONE of the mechanism of democracy; it is NOT THE mechanism that will guarantee democracy. Just because somebody was "voted" in by the people doesn't mean that he/she cannot seize power for his/her own and abuse it to the harm of everyone else and turn it into a dictatorship. Plenty of examples exist in both in history and in modern times demonstrate that. Democracy is NOT guaranteed by voting; Democracy is guaranteed by everybody who exercises it and tirelessly protects it even including giving up their life for it.

You don't like theory and yet the Constitution of the United States of America is ONE BIG theory that you quote it zealously in light of problems in reality that challenge it. LOL

Without the government stepping in providing you the free water, water is going to expensive EVERYWHERE you go. And the mail, well what if people don't want to move? They have lived in that small town of 750 their whole life, WHY should they move? The Constitution that you so advocate so much states that every man is guaranteed for pursuit of happiness well, he's already pursued his happiness by living in that town, WHY should he move just because he has to mail a letter cheaper? LOL And what about the unscrupulous merchants manufacturing substandard baby formulas that killed innocent babies? Didn't those babies deserve to pursue their happiness and yet they didn't even have a chance to begin and they died? The parents who bought those formulas didn't buy them because it was their choice; they bought them because they were not aware of the low quality and many times they couldn't afford to buy more expensive good quality baby formulas. All those substandard baby formulas were packaged exactly the same as the high quality ones. By the time the parents became aware of it, it was already too late. Their babies have already died. Yeah the consumers in China eventually moved away from those substandard formulas and I already told you that is WHY today nobody in China buys Made in China formulas anymore but these babies have already died? What about them? How did the free market protect them??!! These babies just died for nothing? They shouldn't have been able to enjoy a basic quality of food that at least would not kill them? And yet in the absence of governmental interventions with policies and regulations, it was not possible. Just because their parents were poor and couldn't afford to buy more expensive formulas, they had to die. NOT everybody has a choice ALL the time. We all try our best to do what is most optimum for us but free market does NOT always allocate resources to ensure the most optimum for ALL, not just selected few.

And of course you would argue that's exactly it, the government should have a limited role and only interfere in certain area(s). Well this is when I told you before, you cannot expect the government to be like a drawer, pull it out when you need it and push it away when you don't. It's a free-thinking, dynamic, diverse, individual organization itself that is the culmination of everybody in the society and everything is commingled and juxtaposed together. You can't just draw a line and says ok the government is only allowed to step in in these areas but needs to stay away from that area of the free market. Well, many areas in the market overlaps; international trade touches upon product safety and human welfare and public goods, so WHERE do you draw the line? This is the problem.

Anyway, I think broadening your repertoire of books and experiencing more of life would help you see what I am talking about here. Good luck!

 

[JSOP]

So the answer to the OP's question is a hell fuck no. Right?

It's possible but only in very limited circumstances.

 

[sss12]

So is our cash. All the foreign currencies are traded around the world 24/7. The only difference is their value doesn't fluctuate as much.

The only negative about Monero being a surrogate Swiss Bank is, as pointed out by @schweiz seems to be the potentially large fluctuation in value that Monero could go through on exchanges and I agree that doesn't make it an ideal candidate as a storage of value. And the cause of that is because Monero is traded. So what if we restrict the trading of Monero somehow perhaps in terms of volume, would that help in stabilizing the value of Monero? What do you guys think?

I think you totally contradicted yourself in the last 2 posts.