So the idea is that this will be reinvested, leading to more productivity and job, which is a more sustainable way of getting rid of debt.
If you tax the rich, chances are that their business will cut spending, lay off people and increase unemployment. So while "Tax the rich" looks impressive if you are looking only superficially, it is not very sustainable.
I'm sorry, I'm not entertaining anyone who pushes trickle down trite at this point. It's so far beyond the point of pretending such claims are actually in good faith it's not even funny.
Somehow in the 1950s we had marginal tax rates on top earners that were like over 75%. And when the folks who talk about "making America great again" are asked what period of time they'd like to go back to they're usually thinking the 1950s.
It has a tiny bit of merit on the basis that limited wealth inequality creates opportunities for investment of the surplus capital in novel ways. Something that doesn't work well in planned economies with forced equality. What we have today with a small number of plutocrats hoarding all the wealth doesn't work because they're playing a game of exclusively enriching themselves with no incentive to trickle anything down.
There is a big space in between today's world and Harrison Bergeron. Somewhere in that space is probably the global optimum. False dichotomies are false.
Of course you are not hoping they will do out of their good of their hearts.
They would naturally want to enrich themselves, and one way to do that is launch new business and employ people, which in turn leads to the transferring back of the wealth to the people. In this manner, this also boosts economy in ways that a simple tax hike would not.
Trickle down theory is so old and boring. Instead, you can try this:
If you tax the rich, they would lose sleep. If they lose sleep, they would be tired all the day and won't be able to work at optimal level. And if the rich do not work well, then the whole economy goes downhill. So, give them tax breaks and a good night sleep. It's good for the economy.
On one hand, your idea has merit. But it is not without subtle risks. These could be mitigates by doing proper mitigation measures. But again, you cannot be sure how this will work out. May be the rich have some assets that they can sell off to meet the increased tax burden. This means that they don't have to manage those assets, which can contribute to reduced stress, which could lead to a better nights sleep. This will in turn cause them to wake up and exploit the worker class with increased vigor. But they could also use their now superfluous attention to engage in reddit or hackernews or watch youtube reels, and start zombifing and eventually end up being a d-crat..So who knows how it will work out.
The idea described in the post makes sense to me. Bitcoin is idealized gold.
Today gold have some advantage over bitcoin in that it has some intrinsic value. But if someone finds a way to covert iron into gold, your reserve will disappear overnight.
But no such risk for bitcoin. The maximum supply is capped at some number.
> Today gold have some advantage over bitcoin in that it has some intrinsic value.
For humans, the only things that have 'intrinsic' value are air/oxygen, shelter, water, food. (Notwithstanding things like joy/happiness and being loved by others.)
Anything else is an arbitrary / psychological trick, or sociological agreement, that we do amongst ourselves. Rocks are just part of this latter mechanism, regardless of whether they are shiny or not:
That article has a chart which shows some price fluctuations and follows that gold standard did not prevent it. But that would require the price fluctuations are only caused by changes in money supply. Which I have a hard time agreeing with.
I get the drawbacks of gold backed money. But I think it dwarfs when compared to a debt based money. Basically I think debt based economies tend to foster rampant exploitation. Yea, I think inflation is really exploitation and thievery. There is no other way to see it. Debt based economies cannot work in a fair way without a way for the community to extract values from the entities that are indebted. It might be a government, or it might be a person. When a bank gives out a loan, it can ask for some collateral. But what collateral does a government provide when it issues a bond?
So in short, a gold backed economy might hinder progress or slow it down, but it won't actually enable thievery and exploitation. But the modern economies does that, and so they are a much bigger evil than a gold backed one.
> Yea, I think inflation is really exploitation and thievery. There is no other way to see it.
CPI<0 is deflation, and history has shown how badly things go with that. CPI>>0 has had recent examples and people don't like it. CPI=0 is practically impossible, as you have measurement error and can easily slip into CPI<0 territory.
So we're left with CPI≳0, which is what most monetary policy aims for:
> So in short, a gold backed economy might hinder progress or slow it down, but it won't actually enable thievery and exploitation.
The era of the gold standard was the Gilded Age, when wealth inequality was at its highest. The US has reached that peak again by some measures—while other countries have not, which probably says more towards other social policies that are probably more important than currency regime.
Further, the gold standard causes deflation, which is a terrible burden for those that have debt, like most farmers, and anyone who has a mortgage. It can grinds down wages.
There's a reason why many regular folks hated the gold standard back in the day:
I think the community will replace it with a better algorithm and existing coins will be swapped for the new coin. Transactions might be required to be frozen for a while though..
How do you make sure that only the original owner of a P2PK can swap for the new coin, and not one who also found the private key? Isn't that private key the only thing that can be required for authorizing the swap?
You clearly don't understand. Once the BTC cryptography is compromised, there is now way to prove chain of custody, so there is no way to prove who has how much bitcoin and assign it to a new coin. Literally, in an instant, the price of BTC goes to zero.
If someone figures out a way to convert iron into gold, we are truly living in a marvellous world because this scarcity economics is finally over. In that case, who gives a shit about bitcoin.
>What distinguishes Bitcoin from Titcoin, another kind of cryptocurrency which also is with a 'capped supply'?
The presence of a growing community that are willing to accept it for good and services.
> why the gold-standard died..
You don't want the entire economy of a country to be based on capped assets. That would limit the size of your economy. But such assets can work well as a reserve. Gold works because of its intrinsic value, and is not dependent on the presence of a community that accept it. But its intrinsic value can disappear overnight.
Bitcoin works as reserve because of the presence of a growing community that accept it, and is dependent on the community. But its value would not disappear and is only decided and ensured by the community.
So it really a matter of reaching community wide consensus. Bitcoin have it right now and there is no fundamental reason why it would lose its value. Sure governments can ban it, and it ll lose its value. But if the government itself is holding reserves in it, then we can be pretty sure that that would not be done.
So to answer your question, gold standard died because it would limit the size of the economy that it can support, because supply of gold is limited.
> where __value__ comes from and how/where it is stored
Value comes from people and the work they do. A currency, or a system of money, or let us speak plainly, a system of economy tracks the value provided by a person to the community. If you have 100$ with you, that means that you have done 100$s worth of work for the community. Same with bitcoin, if you have 100 bitcoins with you, that is a proof that you have done that much work for the community. And you are entitled to the same amount of work from the community. You redeem it by paying with this currency, the other people of the community for their services.
So in otherwords, paper currency is just a distributed ledger. Instead of a ledger with some values written in a piece of paper against your name, you just hold the corresponding amount of paper currency to prove the work that you have done. When you consider all the currency held by a the people in a community, it is really a ledger that is distributed over the people in that community.
A bitcoin economy can work exactly like this. Fundamentally because in reality, in a real economy, you are not storing the value, you are tracking it.
This makes sense, because an economy really is a system that enables people helping each other, ensuring that no one takes more than they provide, or have to provide more than they take.
$100 worth of work is not the same as solving $100 of proof of work puzzles. $100 worth of work produces some value to the local community in that you deliver goods or services that somebody else wants. A proof-of-work puzzle takes a resource (electricity/compute cycles), and destroys it. IMO, Proof of work puzzles are only useful as rate limiters. POW doesn't create value like chemical processes producing pharmaceuticals, or smelting iron ore producing steel.
>The military "altruistic" peacekeeping is a major benefit
Sure, but I think they are waking up to the fact that they cannot afford it, at least for now.
>much harder stand in future negotiations.
Well, from what Trump is saying, it seems that US didn't get the better end of a lot of deals, so it seems that it is spending resources for this peacekeeping but not getting any of the benefits in return..
> and they wanted to extort even more money and dependence from EU
Trump wants countries to lower tariffs and not steal US jobs. So he hits them with reciprocal tariffs and dis-incentives for making stuff out of US.
Trump does not want other countries to think US will defend them. So he makes it clear to them.
What is this deal about extortion and increase dependence?
Social media when it started was originally more about creating communities of people with similar tastes and interests. In the early days for me, it contributed a lot to my journey as a newly minted developer. I'm not sure I would've learned as much or so fast without it. The amount of stuff I discovered and learned just from being on Twitter and other platforms was simply incredible.
Obviously that's not what it is any more and would agree you could argue that its not really needed any more - but it started out well, not sure when or where it went completely off the tracks.
> In the early days for me, it contributed a lot to my journey as a newly minted developer.
Yea, it is like a catapult. You need to let go of it at some point to keep moving forward, or it is going to pull you back or at least stop you from making further progress.
>but it started out well, not sure when or where it went completely off the tracks.
Good intentions or In this case, moderation. You know that I cannot go into detail here without pissing the moderators here, right? Yea, exactly my point.
>Seems to be the most likely procedure with the current administration.
For example?
Also please show that the major current on-going efforts, like ongoing negotiations, measures in the border etc, were worked upon as intensive as it is now, in the previous administration.
Trump replaced NAFTA with USMCA during his first term. He claimed it was the best deal ever.
This term, he's claiming the deal is terrible and starting a trade war (which is likely not winnable and probably ends up settling for something approximating NAFTA again).
Which is it? Best deal ever, or crap? He's lying about one.
As part of it, Trump signed the "deal" that had Canada supplying power to 3 states. The same thing he later railed against and wanted to know who could have possibly done it. It was him.
So I searched for "NAFTA USMCA difference" and there are a lot of articles that describe the differences.
I agree that Trump sometimes exaggerate stuff, but that does not mean that there is nothing is there.
I think It is very dishonest to claim that all the current administration is doing is just continuing what the previous ones did, but with changed names.
The point of the argument you were replying to was that Trump signed the USMCA in his first term, but it's now saying it's a terrible deal for the US and reason enough to start a trade war with Canada over.
A deal he himself signed.
Trump doesn't just exaggerate. Trump outright lies. Minute by minute.
Not sure if you are the same person. But anyway, I cannot read your mind. Please explain your justifications for the claim or please share an article that does it.
So I think the title of this post is a bit off. The article is not saying "Normal" engineers are better than 10x. But your organization should not be depending on the 10x to operate, and it should work well with "normal" engineers.
And the key to great teams and organization is the "process", and not the presence of specific, 10x people.
But that means in such an org, you are just a replaceable cog. So from the point of a 10x engineer, you absolutely want your org to be dependent on you.
So the idea is that this will be reinvested, leading to more productivity and job, which is a more sustainable way of getting rid of debt.
If you tax the rich, chances are that their business will cut spending, lay off people and increase unemployment. So while "Tax the rich" looks impressive if you are looking only superficially, it is not very sustainable.