Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | hfsp's commentslogin

This is a smug take.

Who do you think gets the benefit of the freshly printed fiat?

In the central bank cantiollionaire system, there are three classes of citizens:

1) jamie dimons, warren buffets and the like who get access to practically 0 cost lending rates 2) the ~60% of citizens with assets (e.g. stonks, real estate) that get pumped along with the money printer 3) everyone else

What do you think happens to "third class" citizens?

The rules are NOT the same for everyone under the central banking system.

The rules ARE the same for EVERYONE with BTC.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff...


> The rules ARE the same for EVERYONE with BTC.

No, This is a very smug take from the "must be good because I got mine" BTC crowd. "Smug" practically defines them.

Anyway congrats on some smug "whatabout fiat"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism


The rules of btc will not change and become a multiple-tier system because of your feelings. Sorry.

I provided evidence (from NY fed) to your burden of proof request.

All one can ask is to have the same rules for everyone. Equal access. No special privileges.No cantillionaires.

If you are a cantiollionaire - good for you.

If you are not a cantiollionaire, then wtf are you defending a clearly corrupt system that further drives inequality and perpetuates cronyism? Is it because you want to be the person distributing freshly printed fiat?

Assuming your well founded intentions are to make the world less inequal via the money printer, the money printer has been proven to do the exact opposite.

If you want to properly critique btc, you can argue that there is a one time cantillon effect until hyperbitcoinization. Then you can get into the discussion of what happens to the people who don't have any. You could discuss UBI or other social systems.


Btc is what it it is because it is NOT centralized.

pos = centralization risk.

pos = shitcoin.

If you want to read in depth: https://voskuil.org/cryptoeconomics/cryptoeconomics.pdf.


This is either an uninformed or misleading take.

It isn't necessarily "Africa" or "Americas".

The heuristic is "is my local fiat shitcoin stealing my purchasing power".

Counter to your claim and easily provable with a basic search Nigeria is one of, if not the leading in BTC adoption %.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/nigeria-is-the-second-l...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1194735/bitcoin-online-s...


Is it the shitcoin or is it the fact that the economy itself is gone and thus your currency isn't worth anything because nobody is selling things to you?

Here is an interesting article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/venezuelas...


BCH is trending to 0 in BTC. How does this solve Venezuelans or Lebanese store of value problem?

https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/BCHBTC/


Yet they just passed BTC's daily transaction volume (regularly) . Like it or not, BCH is about to eat BTC's lunch and good for them. They've earned it.


SoV first and only then medium of exchange. Not the other way around.


That is because BTC extremely unstable, which is good for speculation but not for a currency


Let's follow the money.

Said "scientific study" is funded by Wellcome. An arm of WHO, unelected crisis manufacturer supreme. On wellcome's site:

"Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."

Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.


>This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People - LEAP) [grant number 205212/Z/16/Z]; Cancer Research UK [grant numbers C8211/A19170 and C8211/A29017]; and the UK Medical Research Council [grant number MR/M012190/1]. AP-C is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship [grant number C60192/A28516] and by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the WCRF International grant programme [grant number 2019/1953].

And cancer research. But you didn't bring that up.

edit: Also not "An arm of WHO", they partner with them cause priorities (public health) are aligned.


Can you link to the part of Wellcome being against meat consumption? They look like a charity about vaccination or such?

I couldn't find anything here about meat consumption:

https://wellcome.org/about-us


The page on the site with the specific quote by GP is here: https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/people-and-projects/grant...

You may already realize this but if you type

site:wellcome.org "Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."

into Google you'll find it.


thanks, didn't know that.


I don't get the unhealthy obsession with "unelected" in some people.

A proper -mediocracy- meritocracy (i.e. it's actual skills and qualification that counts) is preferable over any kind of popularity contest. That's not to say the WHO in particular works by this standard, I just find it very irritating if people insist on every position or institution - especially very specialised ones - being subject to elections.

That just doesn't make sense and can have horrifying consequences (see [1] for an example). There are positions (in my example: medical examiners), that simply cannot be adequately filled by laypeople and amateurs. That's not how a complex society works. It's not the middle ages anymore and most professions and many official positions require training, experience, and qualifications.

That's why I don't get the obsession with everyone needing to be "elected" (and by that I assume you mean by the general public, because WHO positions in particular are in fact awarded by elections).

[1] https://youtu.be/hnoMsftQPY8?t=277


> A proper mediocracy

While I think mediocracy is more accurate, I think you meant "meritocracy".


Indeed I did - thanks for the correction!


[flagged]


We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. This kind of thing isn't allowed here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.


[flagged]


Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only takes this us further into hell.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


There's two underlying issues:

1) Failure of winterization across both wind and organic power sources 2) Unreliable nature of wind


>Texas supposedly has about 30 GW of wind power capacity >In reality solar and wind must be coupled with storage in order to act as reliable baseload generation.

The problem is there is no grid scale storage, and neither ERCOT nor any other organization I know of can will solar nor wind into production.

Completely agree with your assessment.

ERCOT leadership failed.

TX power grid failed.

People died.


TheIntercept has fallen mightily from breaking the story on Snowden to filling political hit pieces.

Pretty telling their own founder was ousted last year.

Agreed on the ideological slants.

People were put in harms way.


>Less polluting Are you familiar with the rare earth metal mines, solar, or wind plants in China?

>It should be prioritized over the private gains of fossil fuel executives/employees/lobbyists. Stop playing politics with my power system.

You are playing politics. I just want to not freeze to death during the snowstorm, or fry up in the hot summer.

Unreliable electricity sources such as wind and solar are a recipe for paying more for electricity, and losing power when it is most needed.


Have sympathy for yourself.

Please note organic fuels: -provide parts for your computer, smart phone, router -power your home, and office so you can use above -keep you cool in the summer and warm in the winter -transport you on the ground and in the air from A to B -power the agricultural sector so you don't have to grow all your own food

Unlike you, there are a billion people+ on Earth who do not have access to cheap, and reliable energy.

This is peak developed world virtue signaling.


Those aren't fuels - those are chemicals found in crude oil. You don't burn crude oil in power plants. Burning less coal or natural gas doesn't decrease access to plastics and other organic chemicals.

That there are starving people in africa is not a valid argument for Americans to over eat, likewise the lack of cheap reliable alternatives to fossil fuels in the third world is not a reason for the developed world to also keep burning fossil fuels.


>Those aren't fuels - those are chemicals found in crude oil.

Methane is an organic fuel. Coal is an organic fuel.

>You don't burn crude oil in power plants.

Diesel is how small island nations in the Carribean or Hawaii get their reliable electricity. Diesel is a heavier form of crude. In case you don't believe me here is a primer: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/diesel-fuel/.

>That there are starving people in africa is not a valid argument for Americans to over eat, likewise the lack of cheap reliable alternatives to fossil fuels in the third world is not a reason for the developed world to also keep burning fossil fuels.

>lack of cheap reliable alternatives to fossil fuels in the third world is not a reason for the developed world to also keep burning fossil fuels.

What exactly are you saying? You are depriving the poorest billion people of electricity because of your virtue signaling?? This is inhumane.

"Over eat" - who are you to judge what form of electricity use is moral?

This is insanity on multiple levels.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: