https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1024205104570884096?s=19
- paulkrugman
When people argue against Bitcoin, most of the time they help me feel more confident in my opinion Bitcoin will disrupt an opresive industry. Seeing Paul Krugman take time off from his vacation to talk about Bitcoin. Sealed the deal. While I agree and respect him for planning on going to a Blockchain convention to debate against Bitcoin. His reasoning is understandable, he fears what does not know. Like most arguments against Bitcoin a common weakness is occurring. The no-coiner argument is saying the problems with Bitcoin are actually the exact problems with the current banking system. Some even admit to the faults in the banking industry but excuse it for good intentions. Or it's just the way we have always done it. I see a glimmer of doubt in there arguments when they acknowledge the faults in the Fiat system. This is good as more and more people are actually looking at how the system actually works. A major accomplishment already. Take Paul's my system is broken but it's not that bad approach to his argument. He admits governments can break and manipulate the system.
Governments have occasionally abused the privilege of creating fiat money, but for the most part governments and central banks exercise restraint, again because they care about their reputations. But you’re supposed to be sure that a Bitcoin is real without knowing who issued it, so you need the digital equivalent of biting a gold coin to be sure it’s the real deal, and the costs of producing something that satisfies that test have to be high enough to discourage fraud.
In other words, cryptocurrency enthusiasts are effectively celebrating the use of cutting-edge technology to set the monetary system back 300 years. Why would you want to do that? What problem does it solve? I have yet to see a clear answer to that question.
Because we want to disrupt the monetary system.
Yes! Who said the last three hundred years have been for good. The banking industry has created slaves. While Paul believes the banking industry was created voluntarily by the people. I will always argue an evil power is active and willing to distroy as many people for their own selfish ways.
The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender. - Proverbs 22:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs22:7&version=NIV
Bitcoin is to volitile is the best argument for not using Bitcoin. Yes, volatility will happen when the entire market cap of Bitcoin is the equivalent of losses of one day of trading Facebook stock. We will see more stability as the adoption of BTC grows. Not because the tech is superior, it's because Bitcoin will be there when a generation of children get fed up from working as a slave to pay off a debt from the previous generations. The system essentially charging people 7 cents a day to rent a shovel and pickaxe to earn 5 cents in the mines.
I always start my argument for Bitcoin with the caveat Bitcoin is not important for Americans yet. We have a privilege to be protected by a few good people who keep evil at bay. My prediction is evil will consume the third world countries, ie hyper inflation, first. They're some countries who already have, hyperinflation, unsecured, Fiat, centralized banking is not a good thing. Hopefully we can put the bank's out of this business.
Paul asked why Bitcoin is so much better?
But if you want to argue that I’m wrong, please answer the question, what problem does cryptocurrency solve?
Answer: Bitcoin is never "usually good" about not abusing it's power. Everyone, rich or poor, must follow the same rules.
Thanks for reading.
