Crypto currencies are infinite. Expect their value to eventually reflect that.
There can only ever be ~21 million Bitcoin, ergo it is by definition ultimately inflation-proof. But where are the limits on how many bitcoin wannabes can be introduced? There are already over 5,000 of them. Ethereum is approaching half of Bitcoin’s market cap.
A couple of other good faith questions for Bitcoin boosters and crypto enthusiasts more generally:
– To the assertion that Bitcoin is a store of value are the wild swings in its valuation. A big day for a traditional store of value like gold is a move of 2%. For cryptos, swings an order of magnitude larger than that are not uncommon. Dogecoin, which had been the fourth highest crypto in market capitalization going into the weekend, dropped 30% in a matter of hours. Does this not reveal crypto to be a class of speculative asset with huge upside and downside potential–that is, the opposite of a store of value?
– To the assertion that Bitcoin is a medium of exchange, nothing is actually priced in it. There are an increasing number of vendors who will convert to fiat the market price of Bitcoin at the time a transaction occurs, but things aren’t priced directly in cryptos. If Bitcoin is $55k, a Tesla Y goes for a Bitcoin. If Bitcoin drops 10% tomorrow though, a Tesla Y will continue to sell for $55k but will now go for 1.1 Bitcoin.
On the other side is the potential decentralization of money and ultimately the end of empire. Here’s to its continued success!
Not only wrathful on how a message of negative white identity–not negative in the vicious sense of white fragility and white guilt, but in terms of defining identity in contrast to that of another group–is so often dead on arrival:
Your opinion is a very minor one among white people. It is almost non-existent among the educated and the young. You hope to persuade them to agree with you, but you don’t even give these people the respect of acknowledging that they are not merely brainwashed or totally ignorant. Instead you tell them that their ideals are actually an aggressive war of genocide against them. Just imagine how that comes across! They support those ideals, so they obviously don’t consider it genocide. How low a regard can you hold people to think they would all love their own genocide? And then think you’ll win them over?
If you want to engage with people, you need to begin with where they are at and take their stated preferences and ideals seriously. But instead you take away all of their agency and ability to think and give it to the Jews. This is the real reason why they find your ideas so personally offensive – because they are personally offensive.
A black negative identity views blacks primarily in relation to whites. It is and continues to be viable, for better or worse (the latter in this blogger’s view), because many blacks and a substantial number of non-blacks embrace it. A white negative identity isn’t because whites don’t.
I just went back and re-read one of my favorite books, Coming Apart by Charles Murray. It starts with a prologue that gives an extensive description of the U.S. in 1963 before the massive changes that started in the later sixties. It occurred to me while reading it that wokism is an attempt to take the America of 1963 and turn it into the exact opposite. Murray says that Americans of 1963 smoked liked chimneys and drank like fish but the use of drugs was rare and exotic so if you take the reverse of that you would have widespread drug use and more restrictions on tobacco and alcohol.
The U.S. of 1963 actually had much less income inequality than the U.S. of today. The newly created wealthy elites prefer the woke America of today over the unwoke America of 1963 because going back to something like 1963 would mean the loss of a large part of that additional wealth that has been transferred up to them.
Wokeism neutralizes the progressive left by preempting their criticisms of the system with accusations of anti-wokeness. Have a problem with the CIA killing brown people overseas? Sounds like what you really have a problem with is women of color overcoming white supremacy in traditionally male spaces:
Have a problem with the largest upward transfer of wealth in the history of the world? Sounds like you’re anti-science, anti-Semitic, and homophobic:
While it perverts the left into boot-licking apologists for the corpotocracy, the intelligence agencies, the war on terror, and tech censorship, it takes for granted the high regard respectable Republicans have for business. If woke means broke, the problems will fix themselves, and if not, well, the market has spoken and who are we to argue with that? Just make sure our the value of our houses and 401(k)s keep going up and we’re on board.
The only contingent Wokeism can’t absorb is the dissident right and a handful of independent leftists like Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore, but their numbers are small, their institutional support even smaller, and all the cultural guns are pointed at them if they ever manage to seriously threaten the power structure in any way.
Jay Fink makes an observation illustrating why the phrase “clown world” resonates the way it does:
If I was to go on my Facebook today and be honest about who I am attracted to…. conventionally attractive women, mostly younger than me, not obese etc I think I would get a lot of negative feedback. Some would shame me, others might delete me.
Now if I was to lie and say that I was gay, transexual etc I think I would get much love and support. There is something really wrong about this. Biologically normal preferences are shamed while deviant choices are praised.
So much for being proud of who you are.