Is There a New Dotcom Bubble?

[Ed209]

Getting déjà vu.

Spoiler

View attachment 48885

View attachment 48886

Spoiler

View attachment 48887

View attachment 48888

Albeit a slightly more respectful déjà vu.

What's your point? You didn't have a clue what you were talking about even after I explicitly explained everything to you. I challenged some mistruths and put the record straight, that's all. It's not my fault if people didn't understand it but continued talking like they did. Some of the ignorance in this thread has been astounding.

I noticed all the anti-vaxxers laughed at your comment. They couldn't follow data even if it slapped them round the head They'd be the first in line begging for help if they ended up on a ventilator, though.

 

[Damocles]

I noticed all the anti-vaxxers laughed at your comment. They couldn't follow data even if it slapped them round the head They'd be the first in line begging for help if they ended up on a ventilator, though.

Hey now @Ed209, why are bringing "vaccines" into this? It's a completely different topic.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

What's your point?

That even when you've got five or six people telling you you're wrong, you won't accept it.

Some of the ignorance in this thread has been astounding.

▲ case in point.

But look @Ed209, the real point is I'm just having fun here; I've seen you can take a joke, and I actually consider you to be very knowledgeable where the subject matter contained in this thread is concerned.

I honestly don't know why you and @Juan don't work in finance. I think you'd both be great, and could actually picture the two of you in the trading room together, discussing inflation and interest rates.

 

[Ed209]

Hey now @Ed209, why are bringing "vaccines" into this? It's a completely different topic.

Touche.

That even when you've got five or six people telling you you're wrong, you won't accept it.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but I was talking about when you and Juan were adamant that you couldn't use crypto in the real world.

In any case, I'm never wrong (joking, of course, for those reading this in a serious context).

But look @Ed209, the real point is I'm just having fun here; I've seen you can take a joke, and I actually consider you to be very knowledgeable where the subject matter contained in this thread is concerned.

I was taking the piss with the anti-vaxxer part at the end. There was no malice intended hence the laughing face, but sometimes I have to admit that I shake my head in disbelief at some of the stuff I read on here. I'd rather see and hear all these opinions then have them censored, though.

 

[Juan]

You make this sound so simple. What's right and fair for the majority is to keep everyone above water and make sure that people can survive. They shouldn't have created this mess in the first place, though.

In this new era of "capitalism", although I would rather think of it as outright theft, the money is flowing from the lower paid and the middle class to those Silicon Valley billionaires and, on top of that, those billionaires pretend "sovereign" states (i) not to apply their laws to Tech Companies (taxation, privacy, data protection); and (ii) to finance their debts, their spending and their losses at ultralow interest rates.

This is all profoundly anti-democratic and needs to be stopped now.

 

[Ed209]

In this new era of "capitalism", although I would rather think of it as outright theft, the money is flowing from the lower paid and the middle class to those Silicon Valley billionaires and, on top of that, those billionaires pretend "sovereign" states (i) not to apply their laws to Tech Companies (taxation, privacy, data protection); and (ii) to finance their debts, their spending and their losses at ultralow interest rates.

This is all profoundly anti-democratic and needs to be stopped now.

You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Silicon Valley billionaires.

If they raise the rates too quickly, then they run the risk of sending the economy into a recession. A significant number of people would lose their jobs if this were to happen, so not only would they have no income anymore, but they'd still have to pay inflated prices. It could be a double whammy and this would be disastrous. If the labour force is further reduced then it would put more of a strain on the output of goods and services, and this would lead to even more cost-push inflation. This would negate any rise in the rates (which would likely be small and ineffective anyway, as they won't want to bankrupt themselves).

It's a complex situation that they've created for themselves which is why they are using delay tactics (because they have no clue what to do). If they crash the asset markets by too much then it would create other problems. Many who are retired would have no choice but to try and earn money again, but how would they all achieve this if there's far fewer jobs and more competition for placements? Who's going to pay for all those who can't find work and stand to lose everything? The Fed will likely take double digit inflation over a recession because it's the least painful route as things stand. However, who knows where it will stop? That's the dilemma. They need to make sure that we aren't heading into an hyperinflation trap like sooo many have fallen into throughout history.

The moral of the story is that they shouldn't have printed so much money! The decisions of a few central bankers can have disastrous consequences for all of mankind because we have no say in these things. The current system is bullshit and needs overhauling.

 

[Juan]

The moral of the story is that they shouldn't have printed so much money! The decisions of a few central bankers can have disastrous consequences for all of mankind because we have no say in these things. The current system is bullshit and needs overhauling.

This is what people in your country think about inflation, politicians (Boris and that Sunak must be total crooks) and those idiots who run central banks:

Protesters across UK demonstrate against spiralling cost of living
Events co-organised by People's Assembly and trade unions held in at least 25 towns and cities

People in Newcastle take part in the People's Assembly's nationwide protest against the rising cost of living. Photograph: Owen Humphreys/PA

Protesters demonstrated in dozens of towns and cities across the UK on Saturday to highlight how the spiralling cost of living crisis is affecting the public.

The demonstrations, co-organised by anti-austerity organisation People's Assembly and supported by trade unions, were held in at least 25 towns and cities, from London to Glasgow to Bangor.

The protests come as UK inflation jumped to 5.4% in December, the highest rate in almost 30 years. The Bank of England warned CPI will hit 6% by April, with governor Andrew Bailey coming under fire for suggesting workers should not ask for big pay rises to control it.

People protest against rising energy and living costs outside parliament. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA
"Working people could not be working harder and yet life is getting so much more difficult," said Laura Pidcock, national secretary of the People's Assembly and a former Labour MP. She said there was "real anger" over the cost of living crisis and the government's failure to act.

"Older people will be cold in their homes, people will be struggling to feed their children, when none of this is a crisis of their making," Pidcock said.

The events follow fears rising living costs will be experienced by the UK's poorest the hardest. The chancellor, Rishi Sunak, has come under pressure to rethink April's national insurance (NI) rise, after a thinktank warned UK households classed "destitute" could climb by almost a third – to more than 1 million – this spring.

Placards in Parliament Square in London read "tax the rich" and objected to surging energy prices. In Newcastle, one sign held near a baby said: "I can do a better job than Boris."

Three-month-old Jocelyn Wilczek joins people in Newcastle taking part in the People's Assembly's nationwide protest about cost of living crisis. Photograph: Owen Humphreys/PA
In autumn, the government withdrew a £1,040-a-year uplift to universal credit (UC) – opposed by several leading Conservatives including Iain Duncan Smith, UC's architect – despite warnings it could plunge 800,000 people into poverty.

The protests were sparked because "people are fed up of rich men telling them that they have to pay for boardroom greed and colossal market failure," said Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite.

"This crisis was not caused by working people and we are not going to take wage cuts to pay for it," Graham added.

Andy Simmons, a 24-year-old from Leeds who works in merchandising in London, attended the Parliament Square demo to protest rising living costs after his rent was recently hiked.

"When I moved in I was paying £780 rent a month," he said, for a room in a flat with three housemates. "Now I'm paying £845 – it could have even been worse, the landlord wanted to raise it to £950."

"Quality of life is progressively getting worse under a Tory government," Simmons said. "But they can obviously afford to spend millions giving Big Ben a makeover."

Sunak insisted it was "simply not right" that the "poorest will bear the burden" of NI rises in an interview with Sky News.

But opposition MPs at Saturday's events blamed the Conservatives. "The cost of living crisis is a Tory political choice: they hand bankers a £1bn-a-year tax cut while scrapping the £20-a-week universal credit uplift," Labour MP Zarah Sultana, who attended the Coventry demonstration, said on Twitter.

"Low-paid workers cannot and will not pay for the government's problems," said Fran Heathcote, president of the Public and Commercial Services union. "The hike in heating bills, fuel, transport costs and national insurance contributions, at the same time as pay is held down and pensions are being attacked, leaves most workers with a real cost of living crisis."

 

[Ed209]

This is what people in your country think about inflation, politicians (Boris and that Sunak must be total crooks) and those idiots who run central banks:

People don't understand inflation, and again, this has been demonstrated throughout history. Money needs to come from productivity and shouldn't be printed and given away to artificially keep things propped up. Everyone wants an easy life first and foremost which is understandable, but it was the central banks that put everyone into this position. As I keep saying, why are people enslaving themselves to the current corrupt system? People can open a crypto account right now and get 12% interest on a stable coin of their choice. They can have their salary paid into this account and have a Visa debit card to go with it that pays 2-5% cashback. They will get Netflix and Spotify for free, good discounts at stores, and a free airport lounge pass. The general public is largely unaware of this, so, they stick with the banks that give them 0.05% or whatever it is nowadays, and for this, the banks take their money, lend it to other people, and then keep all the profits for themselves. They then have the cheek to charge fees for the privilege, in some cases.

You are hyper focussed on raising the rates like it's a silver bullet when it isn't (in this particular situation). If they make the wrong decisions now then we could enter a recession and these people will no longer be begging for a rise, they'll be begging for a job just to survive. I'm on their side, though, of course, I am. The banks created this mess, but unfortunately, the people at large have little to no understanding of macroeconomics and its bad leadership that has brought about these problems. People will always vote for an easy life, even if it's to their own detriment 10 years down the line. This is partly why our governments have run up such massive debts in recent years (because they want to be in power). Instead of living to our means, we've been greedy, and because of this we haven't seen a budget surplus in decades, so we no longer have a buffer zone to safely raise the rates (at a time like this when it's desperately needed). A country ideally needs to be below 60% debt-to-GDP. The UK have more wiggle room than the US, but Russia can raise their rates sharply because they've managed their money well.

That person holding the tax the rich placard is a fool. That's the first sign of desperation; to demand that we take everyone else's money. This would drive down productivity and innovation, and the government would end up receiving less tax as a result. Economists already know this and I've explained it in a previous post. The tax that a government receives will always find an equilibrium regardless of who pays what. What you gain in one area will always be lost in another.

The protests come as UK inflation jumped to 5.4% in December, the highest rate in almost 30 years. The Bank of England warned CPI will hit 6% by April, with governor Andrew Bailey coming under fire for suggesting workers should not ask for big pay rises to control it.

He's basically saying that higher wages will lead to more demand-pull inflation which will lead to more cost-push inflation. It's a vicious cycle that can lead to hyperinflation. You have to be very careful and it's another reason why they shouldn't have printed all this money. The only way they could have printed all that money and kept inflation at bay is if productivity ramped up in equal measure to swallow up all the excess liquidity. What actually happened is the reverse, which is why we're seeing inflation take off.

Governments either need to get their books in order by getting back into a healthy budget surplus for the next few years (which people will hate and won't vote for), or they need to massively scale up their productivity efforts and make sure that the supply chains don't break down.

It's a complex issue, although, it's predictable based on the history of human behaviour. In other words, what we are experiencing now happens all the time. Does this ring a bell?

Under fiscally responsible leadership and a thriving economy, this monetary system worked well for much of Roman history. Unfortunately, when growth began to slow around 200 AD, the state's attempts to stimulate the market were disastrous.

End of the road

After the dust of the civil wars had settled, Rome enjoyed two centuries of economic prosperity with its advanced road network opening trade across the known world. But the boom couldn't last forever.

The Romans slowly started running out of new territory, and hence of fresh revenue streams. A plague from 165 to 180 AD didn't help – the population shrank, and prices soared. Other inflationary factors included the movement towards a cash-based society (elites had previously traded more with land) and rising public spending on infrastructure and the military.

Hyperinflation hits

Faced with mounting costs and a dearth of new sources of wealth, Rome responded by hiking up taxes on its citizens and devaluing the currency. One denarius previously held roughly 4.5 grams of real silver. Roman officials – who controlled the minting of coins – slowly began adding impurities to improve government liquidity. More and more coins entered circulation, each time becoming less pure.

To put this in perspective, under the reign of Augustus (27 BC – 14 AD) the denarius was about 95% silver, but by 265 AD this was down to 0.5%. Rome's silver coinage had become almost worthless.

Price controls

Hyperinflation was crippling the economy. Emperor Diocletian came to power in 284 AD, and attempted to curb the freefall. He introduced price controls in 301 AD, but this only drove consumers to the black market. He also introduced a new silver coin called the argenteus, with one coin equal to 50 of the old denarii. But within a decade one argenteus would be worth 100 denarii. Despite Diocletian's best efforts, Rome's toxic inflationary cycle continued.

The fall

Diocletian's successors were equally ineffective in tackling the Empire's fiscal problems. Taxes and prices continued to increase, affecting the middle classes and poor the worst as wealth became increasingly concentrated in the coffers of an elite. Parallels with today are not difficult to draw! Mob riots followed, as did mutinies when the government couldn't pay the troops.

The long-term decline of Rome cannot be pinned to any one cause. Political instability and military failures against invading Germanic tribes ultimately sealed the Empire's fate, however these events took place against the backdrop of a long-term economic decline with inflation and inequality at its core.​

 

[Juan]

If they make the wrong decisions now then we could enter a recession and these people will no longer be begging for a rise, they'll be begging for a job just to survive.

Do you mean those people in the US who are quitting their jobs because they no longer care and prefer to go live their lives somewhere else? There are job openings no one wants to fill, and companies will have to raise salaries, and still this will not be enough to entice people to go back to work.

Actually the FED does have every reason to raise interest rates NOW. They should not wait a single day more.

A country ideally needs to be below 60% debt-to-GDP. The UK have more wiggle room than the US, but Russia can raise their rates sharply because they've managed their money well.

A few countries were well below the 60% debt to GDP ratio in 2008 and still they suffered the crisis, which was provoked by greed and a huge real estate bubble, plus an active secondary market for MBS. And then 10 years down the line the same happened... again! And here we are, sitting on a huge pile of debt and another real estate bubble.

That person holding the tax the rich placard is a fool. That's the first sign of desperation; to demand that we take everyone else's money.

I think that person is very sensible and is asking for something fair, even if Rishi Sunak or posh Boris do not agree with him. The income tax cannot stand at like 50% of one's salary while Tech Companies are not paying a dime in tax... not fair. This needs to be addressed.

He's basically saying that higher wages will lead to more demand-pull inflation which will lead to more cost-push inflation. It's a vicious cycle that can lead to hyperinflation.

Central bankers are saying "we are going to print hundreds of thousands of millions of euros and give them away to bankrupt companies" and at the same time they are saying to salarymen "hey guys, your salary will have to be frozen, no raises..." Hahaha... is this a joke or what?

It's too serious to be a joke, unfortunately. This bullshit is what central bankers have been saying everywhere, including Spain, for like 40 years. Inflation plus no wage raises. And people are sick of this, obviously.

 

[Ed209]

Do you mean those people in the US who are quitting their jobs because they no longer care and prefer to go live their lives somewhere else? There are job openings no one wants to fill, and companies will have to raise salaries, and still, this will not be enough to entice people to go back to work.

You are proving my point. This is demand-pull inflation.

A few countries were well below the 60% debt to GDP ratio in 2008 and still they suffered the crisis, which was provoked by greed and a huge real estate bubble, plus an active secondary market for MBS. And then 10 years down the line the same happened... again! And here we are, sitting on a huge pile of debt and another real estate bubble.

Of course, they did! The entire world is linked via their respective liquidity pools. You can't have a major player go down without it affecting everyone else.

Your arguments all agree with what I'm saying: the current banking system doesn't work. Why do we need these huge corporations that have exorbitant overheads to move our money around? They have skyscrapers all over the globe dedicated to their operation which is inefficient in this day age, both from a fiscal point of view and a green one.

I think that person is very sensible and is asking for something fair, even if Rishi Sunak or posh Boris do not agree with him. The income tax cannot stand at like 50% of one's salary while Tech Companies are not paying a dime in tax... not fair. This needs to be addressed.

Explain how it's fair? The wealthiest people have already contributed the most to society via taxation and productivity. This is a fact backed by data even after you take expenses and other variables into consideration. Sure, there will always be unscrupulous people who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths who don't deserve it, etc, but that's life, unfortunately. It works both ways. Many unskilled people refuse to work because they think they are above the jobs that are out there (and there are plenty). After the UK left the EU, it became increasingly difficult to fill these roles because they were predominantly filled by foreigners that could no longer get access.

If you try to fill this void by putting even more of a tax burden on the wealthiest, then they'll just leave the country and take their skills with them. Economic growth occurs through productivity and not taxation, and it's generally the wealthiest that push the economic expansion the most, and this benefits everyone. The £20 rise was given during the pandemic, so it wasn't taken away as that quote you provided suggested. It was stopped after the lockdown ended. I didn't get a rise during the pandemic; in fact, I lost a ton of business and ending up taking a job to help fill the void. Finding one was easy. We live in a free market where every person has the choice to create their own wealth if they don't want to work for others. If they are entrepreneurial, they can create wealth for others and become wealthy themselves in the process; that is the reward for expanding the economy. If you put ever increasing taxations on those who drive economies forward, then those economies will eventually begin to shrink, and that's a fact. You will move more towards a stagnant communist state where nobody prospers and you're all equally poor.

The downside to capitalism is that you inevitably end up with too much wealth being held by a minority of people, but it's still better than the alternative, in my opinion.

Central bankers are saying "we are going to print hundreds of thousands of millions of euros and give them away to bankrupt companies" and at the same time they are saying to salarymen "hey guys, your salary will have to be frozen, no raises..." Hahaha... is this a joke or what?

There would be no salaries at all without those companies. It's a chicken and egg situation. I don't agree with all the money printing, anyway, as all it has done is push the problem further down the road.

There needs to be a banking reform. The legacy system has been broken for decades and your arguments help prove this. I guess people just love getting screwed because you and others are still defending them. My question to you is why? Why not let your money accumulate the 12% from a crypto account and help save your money being eaten by the inflation that the legacy system created? At least with crypto the rewards are shared evenly and are not stolen by a bunch of greedy unnecessary assholes sitting in their skyscrapers talking about ungreen crypto is .

I haven't lost a cent to inflation, so far, because I get interest paid weekly. I upload it to my Visa card and do my shopping with it, etc. The banks wouldn't do that for me, so, fuck em

EDIT:

Sorry, I missed your point about the tech giants: yes, they should pay their fair share of tax, and I think any sane person would agree with this. However, it's the governments' job to close the legal loopholes that these companies exploit. If they wanted to, they could, so why don't they? There will always be an element of corruption at these high levels.

With that said, they still employ millions of people worldwide both directly and through their ecosystems and supply chains. The tech they create can also lead to further job creation in other sectors. Their innovation can also help drive medical advances and other such scientific endeavours, so it ain't all bad.

I trust that you don't ever use a phone, or a computer or a sat nav, or Google, or play video games, or watch movies, or listen to music, or read this forum for that matter since you despise tech so much?

I understand your point about the tax, but look at the situation holistically; they aren't the only ones who avoid it, so why single out just that sector? Also, do you trust that the government would actually invest and create more wealth via that tax money than they would? It's a real question, so think about it. Governments generally waste exorbitant amounts of money, so giving more directly to them isn't always a great idea.

 

[Juan]

If you try to fill this void by putting even more of a tax burden on the wealthiest, then they'll just leave the country and take their skills with them. Economic growth occurs through productivity and not taxation, and it's generally the wealthiest that push the economic expansion the most, and this benefits everyone.

If billionaires are not taxed, I do not want to pay 40% on my income either. Why would I have to pay income tax if Amazon pays no corporate tax in Spain and illegally hides its profits transferring them to tax havens or "low taxation jurisdictions" (= tax havens)?

It is the Irish who should worry. As far as Spain is concerned, things cannot go worse than they stand now... those Tech Companies are not paying a dime here and the IRS is going to start chasing them and make them pay.

My question to you is why? Why not let your money accumulate the 12% from a crypto account and help save your money being eaten by the inflation that the legacy system created? At least with crypto the rewards are shared evenly and are not stolen by a bunch of greedy unnecessary assholes sitting in their skyscrapers talking about ungreen crypto is .

Because Bitcoin and crypto are risky assets and, as such, one morning you may wake up having zero money. Have you seen what has happened recently to Facebook, PayPal, Delivery Hero etc? These are theoretically solid companies, and suddenly in a single day they drop by -25%.

The stock market is totally overvalued.

I understand your point about the tax, but look at the situation holistically; they aren't the only ones who avoid it, so why single out just that sector?

The stupid "argument" of Big Tech goes on like this: oh, we made 500 million in Spain, but you know what, there is a marketing service, or an algorithm we "rent" from this group company in Ireland... so we have to pay that Irish company exactly 500 million. So there's nothing to be taxed in Spain...

It's fucking ridiculous. And it is absurd that in the European Union this has lasted for so long and no one, no politician and no high ranking civil servant has done anything about it. This has to stop and those companies have to pay tax where they are making their money.

The solution is taxing market access. So Spain would say to Amazon: you know what? if you want to sell your goods in Spain, directly or through any third party on your platform, you will be taxed 100 million euros for market access, a ballpark figure. If you like it, you can do business. If you don't like it, get out of Spain.

 

[Ed209]

If billionaires are not taxed, I do not want to pay 40% on my income either.

This is a silly thing to say. The data show that wealthy people contribute the most tax by quite a margin. It's not the tax that's important but the productivity that most of them help to create.

Tech companies use legal loopholes, so your frustration should be with your government for allowing it to happen. If you kicked all the tech companies out of your country then you'd lose a source of GDP. I don't see how that would help? You should be angry at the corrupt system and the incompetency of most governments.

Would you prefer it if your country was a communist state? I'm not saying that sarcastically, it's a serious question. From the points you make, it seems that you'd prefer not to live in a capitalist society.

Because Bitcoin and crypto are risky assets and, as such, one morning you may wake up having zero money.

Sounds like the path fiat currencies are currently on. Debasing one's base currency by increasing the supply by 50% (in a year) is insane, and none of us gets a say on the matter. Why do a select few central bankers have the right to a monopoly over the value of the money that's in everyone's pockets? This is money that people have worked hard to earn only to have someone extract the value out of it at the drop of a hat. This is effectively stealing peoples labour to reduce the government debt, and it goes almost completely unnoticed.

There are decentralised alternatives gaining traction that have removed all the extortionate fees and overheads, and they could help millions of poorer people by the virtue that they are much fairer. There's also no central authority that can fuck everyone over at a moments notice with no vote or discussion. I voted with my feet by removing my money from the bank. I would have to be crazy to park it there and let it lose all its value over time.

Have you seen what has happened recently to Facebook, PayPal, Delivery Hero etc? These are theoretically solid companies, and suddenly in a single day, they drop by -25%.

The stock market is totally overvalued.

I don't care about their values as they are mostly meaningless. The S&P's value rose in synchronicity with the rise in the base monetary supply (m2). As the new money flowed into the system, the markets went up. It's mostly artificial growth based on money printing which wasn't earned by anyone. To understand this concept better, one needs to go back in time to go look at how trade used to be conducted. If someone wanted a cow, for example, they'd have to exchange something of equal value or provide their labour to equal that value. This would mean that both parties would stand to benefit, and if everyone else conducted business the same way, then society as a whole would benefit.

Fast forward to now with all the money printing, and it would look something like this (a crude and simple analogy):

Person A builds a house from scratch, requiring hours of labour and cost in raw materials. Then, person B comes along to make an exchange for it by saying, "it's fine, I've got a piece of paper saying IOU on it." This person wouldn't have done anything of value to earn the right to have that house by the virtue of what they had provided - in societal terms - via the supply of goods or services. This imbalance means the exchange is no longer fair or equal, and when you scale that up you start to get big problems.

It's fucking ridiculous. And it is absurd that in the European Union this has lasted for so long and no one, no politician and no high ranking civil servant has done anything about it. This has to stop and those companies have to pay tax where they are making their money.

That's bureaucracy for you. It's a complete mess. There should be better systems in place and this is ultimately down to the individual governments to enforce.

I'm not particularly a fan of Brian Rose, but what he says here is spot on, in my opinion. It's especially noteworthy considering he spent half of his lifetime in the banking sector:



I think the best social construct we have right now is a hybrid of socialism and capitalism because they help balance each other out (at least until something better comes along). I think it's safe to say that nobody wants to return to feudalism.

 

[Juan]

This is a silly thing to say. The data show that wealthy people contribute the most tax by quite a margin. It's not the tax that's important but the productivity that most of them help to create.

Those Tech Billionaires barely pay any tax and in no way pay 40% of their income, like I do. I and the rest of the taxpayers (subject to income tax) are paying what those greedy billionaires do not pay.

Tech companies use legal loopholes, so your frustration should be with your government for allowing it to happen. If you kicked all the tech companies out of your country then you'd lose a source of GDP. I don't see how that would help? You should be angry at the corrupt system and the incompetency of most governments.

I have news for you: El Corte Inglés, in Spain, just a chain of department stores, sells twice as much as Amazon, and pays a lot more tax, and employs more people than Amazon. El Corte Inglés pays fair salaries to its employees and pays social security for them too (= public pensions when they retire).

And same goes for WalMart in the US. However, WalMart relies on benefits and subsidies for its employees to complete their income or have access to healthcare etc. Basically WalMart pays miserable, very low, salaries.

Tech companies use legal loopholes, so your frustration should be with your government for allowing it to happen.

This is just an attempt at clever talk to deviate the attention to the central matter we are discussing: laws are not being enforced on Tech companies and no one can enforce them because no matter who we vote for, they will still do nothing.

So yes, the answer is demonstrating like those truckers did in Canada... or a revolution. Not great option, just because some corrupt politicians and central bankers now want to steal democracy itself from the people...

Or maybe it is more a matter of going to the ECB and setting it on fire

I don't care about their values as they are mostly meaningless. The S&P's value rose in synchronicity with the rise in the base monetary supply (m2). As the new money flowed into the system, the markets went up.

I said Facebook and PayPal lost -25% on a single day. They went down!

That's bureaucracy for you. It's a complete mess. There should be better systems in place and this is ultimately down to the individual governments to enforce.

Democracy has been hijacked by Tech Companies, who are greasing the pockets of those corrupt politicians. It does not matter who we vote for, they will not enforce the law.

So what's in the power of citizens? Or should I say... in the power of the consumers?

Not using services provided by Tech Companies. Restricting access to personal data, rejecting cookies. Not purchasing anything from Amazon. Not using delivery services. Not taking an Uber. Etc etc

I do all that... I barely deal with any of those companies. Consumers have the power to choose. Citizens do not have any power, as elections are meaningless.

 

[Ed209]

Those Tech Billionaires barely pay any tax and in no way pay 40% of their income, like I do. I and the rest of the taxpayers (subject to income tax) are paying what those greedy billionaires do not pay.

In general terms, saying that all rich people are tax dodgers is as bad as saying that all poor people are scroungers. These are common stereotypes at both ends of the spectrum. I don't know the intricacies of anyone's personal tax contributions from any companies in particular, so I can't really comment, but if you look at the numbers as a whole, the wealthiest people contribute the most both directly and indirectly (through employees and job creation, etc).

This is explained using data in this clip (ignore the text message at the end):

This is just an attempt at clever talk to deviate the attention to the central matter we are discussing: laws are not being enforced on Tech companies and no one can enforce them because no matter who we vote for, they will still do nothing.

I'm just stating the facts. If the legal loopholes exist, companies will exploit them. The government should create new laws if they want this to change.

I said Facebook and PayPal lost -25% on a single day. They went down!

I don't really care what their prices are, to be honest. I've never invested in them and I'm not sure what your point is? Stocks go up and down, and looking at their recent growth, you've gotta expect some pull backs. All markets move in boom and bust cycles.

Democracy has been hijacked by Tech Companies, who are greasing the pockets of those corrupt politicians

Honestly, what's the deal with you and the tech companies, lol? Did they sell you a dodgy phone once or something, so you pledged to spend the rest of your life attempting to destroy them?

Not using services provided by Tech Companies. Restricting access to personal data, rejecting cookies. Not purchasing anything from Amazon. Not using delivery services. Not taking an Uber. Etc etc

That's everyone on here screwed then That's an average weekend for @Damocles.

 

[Damocles]

Honestly, what's the deal with you and the tech companies, lol? Did they sell you a dodgy phone once or something, so you pledged to spend the rest of your life attempting to destroy them?

@Ed209, please tell me you're just playing dumb here for arguments sake, because this isn't a joke, it's a real thing.

Companies like Amazon, Twitter and Google (esp.) are becoming our future world leaders.

National governments have practically no power against these giants anymore.

You're saying "well those governments should just create laws that force those companies to behave ethically", but you're ignoring the fact that it is money and blackmail that create those laws; hence their non-existence.

Politicians will of course introduce the bare minimum of laws that fit inside the Overton-window, such as: tougher sentences for online bullying and revenge porn, etc. etc. They'll also make empty promises about taxation. But once they're in office they'll take the path of least resistance and most money.

No one ever really objects to changes in criminal law, because those usually have a foundation in virtue signalling, which both politicians, members of the public and corporate giants alike, share an interest in.

But change in corporate law is a whole different ball game, and is also where mass corruption gains most traction. The UK "cash for access" scandal in 2011/12? Perfect example. CEOs paying to meet senior officials, why? To talk about Football and philanthropic opportunities? No. To have laws made and changed in their favour.

And the worst part is "cash for access" was playground stuff compared to the power companies like Amazon and Google have over world governments.

They don't just have money to make sure laws are in their favour, they have information. Lots of it.

In fact, if I was Google, I could make anyone do whatever I wanted. Because in a matter of seconds I could check and find any single questionable phrase they had typed into the search field, any questionable website they had visited, in the last 20 years, and finish their reputation, planet-wide.

It is truly unbelievable, some people still do not have the foresight to see the monsters they are feeding.

I'd honestly suggest you watch a couple of episodes of Black Mirror, @Ed209, because our current reality is becoming stranger than any fiction even Charlie Brooker could write.

Perhaps start with Season 2 Episode 3, "The Waldo Moment", just to get an idea of what it will be like when we get our first ever Twitter parliament.

But seriously, you know things are bad when an anti-democratic, aspiring police-state like the EU, is getting nervous about the amount of unchecked power Google and Facebook are acquiring over the world.

So what's in the power of citizens? Or should I say... in the power of the consumers?

Not using services provided by Tech Companies. Restricting access to personal data, rejecting cookies. Not purchasing anything from Amazon. Not using delivery services. Not taking an Uber. Etc etc

I do all that... I barely deal with any of those companies. Consumers have the power to choose. Citizens do not have any power, as elections are meaningless.

Absolutely @Juan. That's what people like @Ed209, and anyone else who shares his lack of concern need to learn, and learn quickly, before the shackles are locked and tightened.

This is on us. No politician or political party is going to save us here. They're all fallible; weak and greedy.

• I barely use Amazon anymore. If I can find the product elsewhere, I buy it elsewhere. I probably made 5 purchases from it, total, last year.
• I use Bing on my Windows laptop (not much better than Google, but privacy is an irrelevance on a Windows device because of the in-built telemetry, but still better because you're not feeding Google).
• I use Firefox on my linux laptop, which gives me full anonymity.
• I use bolt not Uber. Again, not the solution, but at least it's using your money to vote for market competitiveness.

Of course there are constant improvements to be made, which can all be learnt, and kept up to date with, on digital privacy forums.

In any case, the "digital revolution" has done anything but free us; if anything it's ushering in a whole new era of control and subservience. Makes me wish I had grown up in the 60's/70's.

 

[Ed209]

Are you kidding me? Can nobody take a joke on here That comment about you was an outright bit of fun. I thought you'd laugh at that one.

I've seen Black Mirror; I think most people have. Being serious for a moment, I'll say this: the irony on this thread is unbelievable because either my posts are ignored or @Juan is the most contradictory person on here. He really doesn't like the banks and the control they have over people, and yet, he continues to exclusively use their services despite there being an alternative. In fact, he hates the alternative (without understanding a thing about it) and continues to defend the banks. So, which one is it?

But seriously, you know things are bad when an anti-democratic, aspiring police-state like the EU, is getting nervous about the amount of unchecked power Google and Facebook are acquiring over the world.

This is unbelievable. I have been talking about how crypto has the power to break up the centralised power that these monopolies have over our data until I'm blue in the face, and then @Juan, yet again, defended the big tech companies in his response! This is why it's so contradictory and confusing, and it's why I ask him the questions I do because I don't think even he knows what he wants.

I started a campaign to help raise money for Tinnitus Talk by asking people to move away from big tech and onto a faster crypto privacy browser. Not only would Tinnitus Talk have acquired a lot of money for people switching over, but the people who chose to do so would have protected their data and earned money whilst doing so as well. Guess how many wanted to put it to the man and help Tinnitus Talk whilst doing so? About 5.

I am the biggest advocate of decentralisation on here, so either nobody reads my posts, or there's a lot of hypocrisy flying around. I keep telling people that they should have control of their data, but this thread has always been anti-crypto even though it's very purpose is to go against the things that everyone on here claims to despise. That's why I scratch my head in utter confusion.

In any case, the "digital revolution" has done anything but free us; if anything it's ushering in a whole new era of control and subservience. Makes me wish I had grown up in the 60's/70's.

Yet, here we all are on a digital forum where most of the members use software and devices made by big tech. However, I agree with your sentiment. I much preferred the days before social media and smart phones. Things were much simpler and enjoyable back then, and I haven't been a fan of Facebook since the beginning (because of how fake it makes people become and the control aspects of it). Everyone strives to show the world how perfect their lives are whilst they are tortured souls in reality. It ain't healthy or normal, and I've always been a critic of it. I say that, but I still use it for business reasons because it's essential in this day and age. Although, I think I've only made one post on there in the last two years or so.

At this point, I'd like to thank @Juan for the debates we've had over the last few weeks/months as it has served as an important distraction.

Peace out everyone.

 

[Daniel Lion]

The next step for the NASDAQ will be 13.000.

Happy new year @Juan and @Ed209.

I always enjoy your posts and just wanted to give you a shout out.

Peace,
Daniel

 

[Ed209]

Happy new year @Juan and @Ed209.

I always enjoy your posts and just wanted to give you a shout out.

Peace,
Daniel

Happy new year, Daniel. I hope all is well with you and your family, buddy.

 

[Juan]

either my posts are ignored or @Juan is the most contradictory person on here. He really doesn't like the banks and the control they have over people, and yet, he continues to exclusively use their services despite there being an alternative. In fact, he hates the alternative (without understanding a thing about it) and continues to defend the banks. So, which one is it?

If I have to rank the companies or institutions I don't like at all it would go on like this:

1. Crypto
2. Big Tech (they tell bankers and politicians what to do)
3. Central bankers
4. Governments
5. Banks

So banks are bad, but the other 4 categories are even worse. When I hear that the Winklevoss brothers are some of the main promoters of crypto, I like crypto even less...

Taxpayers were forced to save banks using public money and issuing public debt, but Big Tech is even worse, as they do not pay any tax (even worse than banks!) and we, the taxpayers, have to pay more tax so that those Silicon Valley billionaires can buy 500 million yatches, expensive homes and all they want.

This is not an even playfield. Laws should be designed to provide an even playfield where anyone can thrive, and this includes tax laws of course.

 

[Ed209]

If I have to rank the companies or institutions I don't like at all it would go on like this:

1. Crypto
2. Big Tech (they tell bankers and politicians what to do)
3. Central bankers
4. Governments

Crypto is a very diverse space, so it's difficult to know what aspect of it you don't like. What's intriguing, to me at least, is that many of the most well-known projects in this space are attempting to solve the issues that you don't like.

From a financial point of view, it's just a much fairer and greener way of distributing money. Why should we have to pay for all these large corporate offices around the world, and allow them to take all the profits from our gains so that they can give themselves huge bonuses at our expense? Then, when they are reckless and cause a global recession, nobody gets jailed or faces any consequences. Instead, it is the taxpayers that have to bail them out. Your point about the Winklevoss brothers is rather redundant because any currency is going to have all kinds of people using it. I could say that fiat currently has terrorists and dodgy leaders using it, so it works both ways. One should never be able to control who can use what as that's basically fascism.

From a data point of view, crypto seeks to give ownership and governance back to the individual and take the centralised power away from the likes of Google and Facebook.

Taxpayers were forced to save banks using public money and issuing public debt, but Big Tech is even worse, as they do not pay any tax (even worse than banks!) and we, the taxpayers, have to pay more tax so that those Silicon Valley billionaires can buy 500 million yatches, expensive homes and all they want.

I think your fundamental analysis of how tax works are deeply flawed. There's data from the last 100 years (as I've already pointed out) that show this. I can say with absolute certainty that you will not come close to the amount of tax that an average billionaire will have paid into the system (watch the lecture above). You won't even be in the same league.

The problem with big tech has always been about the control they have over people and their data. That is by far the biggest issue and why they need to be reined in and controlled in a much more regulated way.

This is not an even playfield. Laws should be designed to provide an even playfield where anyone can thrive, and this includes tax laws of course.

There will never be an even playing field. There hasn't been since the dawn of mankind, but we are probably the closest now than in all of living history. Watch the lecture above and look at the data. The wealthiest 1% pay the most effective tax rate out of any class. I don't like how grossly uneven the distribution of wealth is; not one bit. But can anyone think of a better social construct that will allow innovation and productivity to thrive, without there being a rich/poor divide? We should strive for better social security systems that make sure that nobody gets left behind to the point that they end up impoverished. I think universal health care would be a good starting place for most countries.

We will never agree on these issues, so continuing on with the same points seems a bit silly at this stage. I meant what I said in the previous post, though. It's been a good destruction having these debates, so thanks. Take care of yourself

 

[Juan]

From a financial point of view, it's just a much fairer and greener way of distributing money.

I think you would be enlightened if you read the Financial Times article on crypto mining in Siberia. It's clarifying. Those Siberians from Irkutsk basically say "I do not give a shit about crypto, I do not even understand it but I connect this and this machine to the power grid and this produces money". And there's a business around it, people sell equipment to mine crypto, and are happily wasting electricity. It is not "green" or "ecological" at all and the people who are perpetrating this crime against nature just do not care about anything.

There have been power failures in Siberia, in areas where they do produce electricity due to crypto mining. People are not able to cook or switch a light because other fools are "mining crypto", which they do not understand.

I do not know why you keep insisting on talking about this because, as I said many times before, I am not interested in crypto and there is no way I will put a cent on this.

To me it is just shocking that crypto peddlers can even come to a tinnitus forum to try to sell this scam.

I think your fundamental analysis of how tax works are deeply flawed. There's data from the last 100 years (as I've already pointed out) that show this. I can say with absolute certainty that you will not come close to the amount of tax that an average billionaire will have paid into the system (watch the lecture above). You won't even be in the same league.

That's not even an argument. You have to look at percentages. Jeff Bezos does not pay 40% of his gross income, as I do. He pays almost nothing in tax, a negligible percentage. I pay a higher percentage of tax than any billionaire in this world, and this is deeply unfair.

There will never be an even playing field. There hasn't been since the dawn of mankind, but we are probably the closest now than in all of living history. Watch the lecture above and look at the data. The wealthiest 1% pay the most effective tax rate out of any class.

You are just wrong. The wealthiest do not pay tax and they even laugh at others when they say "they [billionaires] should be taxed more" (for instance Warren Buffett said that). If they want to pay more they could stop hiding their billions, avoiding tax and money laundering.

During divorce proceeding Bill and Melinda Gates decided to split their "philanthropic foundation" which, of course, has nothing to do with philanthropy... only has to do with tax avoidance. And that's why they split their "charity", because there is nothing charitable about it.

Peter Thiel uses his Roth IRA to hide huge sums of money and the American IRS turns a blind eye on the matter.

We, the people, should start doing something about this, at least as consumers, because otherwise the world is going to look very ugly in a few decades...

 

[lymebite]

The wealthiest do not pay tax

I do not know how Spain handles taxes but in the United States the top 1 percent pays about 40 percent of federal income taxes. Maybe more is fair, maybe less is fair, I do not know.

"The top 1% paid $615.7 billion in federal income taxes, about 40% of the total, in 2018. That's the highest percentage since 2001, when it was 33.2%, according to the IRS data. The share bounced around a bit after that but has risen steadily since 2016."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/19/politics/democrats-taxes-rich-explainer/index.html

 

[Ed209]

I think you would be enlightened if you read the Financial Times article on crypto mining in Siberia. It's clarifying. Those Siberians from Irkutsk basically say "I do not give a shit about crypto, I do not even understand it but I connect this and this machine to the power grid and this produces money"

Lol, so we're still going? The Financial Times is not a great source for crypto news as they never release positive stories (they have an obvious axe to grind). It seems like you've fell for the propaganda if you only pay attention to those clickbait energy usage stories perpetuated by the legacy bankers.

Crypto as a whole is orders of magnitude greener than the current system (which nobody ever complains about). It also uses much less energy than loads of every day activities - such as drying one's clothes - but nobody cares about those kinds of things either, as they are never mentioned or talked about in the same way. What's really at stake is the bankers losing control over everyone's money. God forbid, we give poorer people access to a fairer system.

To me it is just shocking that crypto peddlers can even come to a tinnitus forum to try to sell this scam.

I've never tried to sell anything on this thread. I've only ever corrected mistruths or statements that aren't factual. We could argue that the real scam is giving a select few people the power to dilute all of our money at a moments notice, and not pay us a fair interest rate.

I'm not going to go into the tax debate again because you are wrong and can argue all you want.

 

[ZFire]

I haven't been a fan of Facebook since the beginning (because of how fake it makes people become and the control aspects of it). Everyone strives to show the world how perfect their lives are whilst they are tortured souls in reality. It ain't healthy or normal, and I've always been a critic of it.

This is very true. Social media gives off this illusion that everyone but you is having so much fun. But in reality no one is having that much fun. If you knew how much everyone else was faking it, you wouldn't want to join them in the first place.

 

[Juan]

I do not know how Spain handles taxes but in the United States the top 1 percent pays about 40 percent of federal income taxes. Maybe more is fair, maybe less is fair, I do not know.

The taxation loopholes are designed to avoid corporate tax, which is through which the truly rich amass their wealth. Income tax is for us, the poor who work for others.

Billionaires use tax avoidance schemes in multiple jurisdictions and these scheme allow them to take out dividends from their companies without paying any tax, or paying like 1%. And they hold their assets through companies domiciled in tax havens.

This comes down to property too. The rich buy their properties through corporations which in turned are owned by other corporations. And often the company structure involves several jurisdictions. For instance a company in the Netherlands that in turns owns another company in the Netherlands, that in turn owns an Spanish limited liability company which is the owner of a hotel. So there are 3 companies here just to buy a hotel, to save on tax to be paid when the hotel is bought, and to save on the rents = dividends that the hotel pays to its ultimate owner, which are the owners of the Dutch company on top of this scheme.

I'm not going to go into the tax debate again because you are wrong and can argue all you want.

Prove me wrong then. Tell me how Jeff Bezos pays 40% on all his gross income, like I do.

 

[Ed209]

"The top 1% paid $615.7 billion in federal income taxes, about 40% of the total, in 2018. That's the highest percentage since 2001, when it was 33.2%, according to the IRS data. The share bounced around a bit after that but has risen steadily since 2016."

Hi Lymebite, hope you're well.

Some friends of mine are in the top 1%, and I remember one year I was talking about tax, in general, with one person in particular, and he had a bill for half a million . He also employs around 50 people or so (I'd say as a guess), so his contribution to society far exceeds mine. He has created jobs and wealth that directly impacts our country's GDP.

This is very true. Social media gives off this illusion that everyone but you is having so much fun. But in reality no one is having that much fun. If you knew how much everyone else was faking it, you wouldn't want to join them in the first place.

Yea, it's really annoying, but equally quite tragic. I've seen people put pictures on saying the typical "look how rough I look," whilst they are posing with full makeup on, lol. Then you get those people who say "look how sad my cat looks" whilst their new Rolex just happens to be on the table and in shot, etc.

Prove me wrong then. Tell me how Jeff Bezos pays 40% on all his gross income, like I do.

Jeff might be a complete prick, I have no idea, but when it comes to his tax, he will pay himself dividends because his wealth is tied up in his stock holdings (which are unrealised gains unless he sells them). This is not illegal, anyone can do it. What you are missing is the fact that 20 years or so ago he was just a regular guy working in a shitty office with one crappy desk and a hand drawn Amazon sign behind him. He took a lot of personal risk by holding onto his stock after the crash when everyone else was selling like crazy, and he eventually built up an empire that created thousands of jobs that directly contribute towards the GDP of many countries. I'm only aware of two years where he didn't pay tax personally, but that's a private matter that was done legally. If you create a company that scales and becomes profitable, and helps create wealth for others (meaning it contributes towards GDP), then you could do the same with your stock. As I said, he might be a prick in real life, but I don't know the guy. The working conditions might also be shit for his company, in particular, but that's another debate entirely. It's a fact, though, that the wealthiest people pay the most effective tax rate.

I don't agree with people who illegally scam their way out of paying their dues, which many obviously do (both rich and poor), but you have gotta look at the averages. As I said earlier, you can't just judge all rich people to be tax dodging scum, just like you can't assume that all poor people are scrounging scum. It works both ways. The numbers don't lie, though, when it comes to who pays more. I've just never been a fan of binary arguments where people proclaim things like, "it's all the richest people's fault!", etc.

 

[john paul]

As the shit hits the fan the life boats will come out. People think that Bitcoin will save them, so they adopt the very thing that will enslave them. If they just came out with CBDC's people wouldn't want to touch them with a barge pole. We took up the tech with open arms, but Bitcoin will not just replace FIAT because people are retarded, they can not be trusted to look after a private key. They will lose everything and that is Bitcoin's only weak link which is why it won't replace anything but it will remain an option. It is hyper value transfer and will turn the world upside down but while adoption rate is surpassing anything seen for most tech we have not even scratched the surface of what the tech will do. That development is SLOW.

Gaming is the first thing that is finally starting to come through but we are looking at an entire new virtual digital economy. VR and blockchain tech will change pretty much every old system we have now where we rely on trust, accounting and databases. The tax system completely reformed EVERYTHING. Accountants, till workers, people in positions of trust etc all gone. I suspect because those people won't be around though.

I'm looking forward to a world where we can all own part ownership in the things we care about, places we work, and have a say in how they are run and rely on what the blockchain says as being the truth. I'm not looking forward to a world or programmable money in the hands of an insane government though, it's sketchy business but it's going to be powerful and it's going to be interesting. Bitcoin got potentially rid of banks, Monero gets rid of banks and governments. Too bad people don't care about privacy that much yet but I'm pretty sure in the next 100 years they sure will.

 

[Juan]

What you are missing is the fact that 20 years or so ago he was just a regular guy working in a shitty office with one crappy desk and a hand drawn Amazon sign behind him.

He worked as an investment banker. Bezos was not exactly "poor" in pre-Amazon days.

This is like if you told me Bill Gates was some poor chap from a Parisian banlieue. He was the son of people who sat at the most powerful corporate boards in America...

It's amazing that people still can be deceived so easily...

And I would like to add that to be seduced by crypto like you are, you keep defending the status quo, rigged tax laws, and the privileges of the rich, including the usual cronyism, the steal of other's ideas, and all sorts of corruption.

By the way, I asked a very "simple" question, which was that you prove Jeff Bezos pays 40% of his gross earnings in taxes, as I do. Can you prove it?

 

[Ed209]

He worked as an investment banker. Bezos was not exactly "poor" in pre-Amazon days.

Did he just roll out of bed and into that job? Do people just happen to become surgeons? If one wants to be successful then one needs to be driven.

I'm looking forward to a world where we can all own part ownership in the things we care about, places we work and have a say in how they are run and rely on what the blockchain says as being the truth. I'm not looking forward to a world or programmable money in the hands of an insane government though, it's sketchy business but it's going to be powerful and it's going to be interesting. Bitcoin got potentially rid of banks, Monero gets rid of banks and governments.

I don't own any Bitcoin and don't see it as a replacement for a currency as things stand (there are better and faster cryptos for that purpose). Who knows what future hard forks might look like, though, and this includes how it may be stored. People buy it as a store of value to protect their wealth from the ever-expanding fiat currencies (that are eroding one's purchasing power).

This is like if you told me Bill Gates was some poor chap from a Parisian banlieue. He was the son of people who sat at the most powerful corporate boards in America...

Wouldn't you like to build a legacy for your family, though? Knowing that you have secured the lives of your children and your children's children?

It's amazing that people still can be deceived so easily...

I agree. It's amazing that people have such a little understanding of how their money works. If fiat was company stock, nobody would touch it with a barge pole. Imagine owning 1000 shares in something that had 1,000,000 in circulation, and then every year the company began to issue 100,000 new shares to pay for things; and then suddenly, one year, they issued 500,000 new shares and diluted you into oblivion. Who would want to buy into a company that operated like that?

And I would like to add that to be seduced by crypto like you are, you keep defending the status quo, rigged tax laws, and the privileges of the rich, including the usual cronyism, the steal of other's ideas, and all sorts of corruption.

There are different arguments being made here. Firstly, I would have agreed with you completely about 3 years ago regarding crypto. I would have said yea, what a load of nonsense, and I would have said that out of ignorance. It wasn't until a friend of mine got me into it that I began to do my own "proper" research. Owning it and using it, and understanding how it all works, changed how I viewed it by 180 degrees. I could see how it benefits the individual far more than fiat does (especially poorer people). One can save an enormous amount in fees and unnecessary middlemen, and we can make the planet greener in the process. You also realise how unfair the current system is when you are actually using a crypto account rather than reading about them in the Financial Times. The interest can be spread evenly amongst holders because there are no longer any banks or institutions stealing your money as part of every transaction. And as we know, fractional reserve banking is a scam. They take what isn't there's to lend to other people, profit massively from it, and then give you nothing in return. What is there to support?

They manipulate everything, and when they get stuff wrong through their own incompetence and greed, all the taxpayers pay the price and not them. Tell me again what's good about this system? Also, you can't really criticise something that you haven't used because I guarantee you that your opinion would change once you saw that 12% interest rolling in every week and you began to realise that your money was now keeping up with inflation.

The other parts of your argument I agree with. I hate cronyism. I don't like the fact that the vast majority of our prime ministers have come from Eaton. We don't ever get anyone who goes through the same struggles as the average working person - so they can see and understand the "real world," so to speak.

By the way, I asked a very "simple" question, which was that you prove Jeff Bezos pays 40% of his gross earnings in taxes, as I do. Can you prove it?

You never answer any of my questions, lol. Even after I ask you the same thing a few times. Regarding Jeff, he has paid more effective tax than you'll ever pay in your entire lifetime. That doesn't mean I have to like the guy, but facts are facts. Income tax is only a small part of the way that governments make money from people, and it's a relatively new thing. It was originally started as an effort to fund wars, and then it stuck.

 

[Ed209]

The Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, is now going to freeze people's bank accounts if they continue to protest against the vaccine mandates. I think this a fascist move as it denies people their civil freedoms and sovereignty over their bodies. It's an extreme measure as he wants to freeze people's funds without a court order by using emergency powers.

This is where crypto can shine as a decentralised entity with no government control.

 

[Juan]

Wouldn't you like to build a legacy for your family, though? Knowing that you have secured the lives of your children and your children's children?

Resorting to cronyism to get your kids a job is not a "legacy". It is just cronyism and corruption.

That's why all those made up stories about "Tech companies being started at a garage" are false... I could start a Tech Company at a garage in Causeway Bay (at one of those garages valued at 500.000 euros. just imagine the price of the apartment to which that garage belongs).

The truth is Tech companies have been built by "the sons of..." and the "daughters of..." connected to the old investors from California and supported by Wall Street investment banks. There's no novelty here, it's the same as always.

Who would want to buy into a company that operated like that?

If it were a company, shareholders will fire the CEO, the CFO, and everyone on the board of directors, and replace them with people able to do the job.

However, as citizens I already explained we are powerless. The democracy has been taken from us. No matter who we chose, that politician is going to be targeted and will be on the payroll of Big Tech. So those politicians (right, left, centre, it does not matter) will never serve the people and care for the citizens. They are bought by lobbies.

And same goes for central bankers.

Only consumers can take back the power, ignoring Big Tech, ignoring crypto, not using their services, not purchasing their products.

The most accurate description I have read regarding cellphones and the Internet is "the dream of the Stasi," or "Stalin's dream".

People died in the past to preserve their freedom and to stand up for their values and now they give away their most intimate thoughts for free to Big Tech.

You never answer any of my questions, lol. Even after I ask you the same thing a few times. Regarding Jeff, he has paid more effective tax than you'll ever pay in your entire lifetime. That doesn't mean I have to like the guy, but facts are facts. Income tax is only a small part of the way that governments make money from people, and it's a relatively new thing. It was originally started as an effort to fund wars, and then it stuck.

You still did not prove how Jeff Bezos pays a larger percentage of his gross earning than me. I pay 40%. Bezos does NOT pay 40% of his earnings. That's a fact.