Search the Community

I wrote a new post about how Bitcoin's value proposition can be correlated with general mechanisms by which any fiat money economy operates, as I've explained in some recent posts on this forum here. Here is the conclusion from that article: In other words: people ultimately hold Bitcoins, because everyone needs Bitcoins to submit a new entry into the blockchain, usually for the purpose of making a Bitcoin transaction; however, in many cases, this is also just in order to submit a hash into the Blockchain that proves the existence of a document (or other data) at a certain point in time. This is just one example of Bitcoin usage that is not facilitating the exchange of goods and services.

So couple of days back I was debating with a Socialist friend of mine who came out saying that states can borrow money as much as they want. I obviously asked him that how the hell could that be possible? Well this is how he explained it: 1. States don't have to pay back their debt because they theoretically last forever. 2. If states were to privatize or end public sector it would cause unemployment, which therefore would require these new unemployed people to be supported. So the state would need to borrow even more money to do so. 3. If state is getting in trouble with paying back it's debt, it can simply print more and more money and use it to pay the interest of the debt. He said that inflation would be a better choice than reducing public sector, because it only takes away money from INDIVIDUALS. Public sector provides services to everyone free of charge so it is more important than personal rights. I asked him while shocked that doesn't he agree that taxing somebody is actually ethically wrong? He answered: "No. It's because money is only numbers, not property." After this discussion I felt like tearing my eyeballs out with a fork. How can somebody just smile and say something like this? Please share your thoughts and opinions, as I would REALLY like to hear them! Markus FIN