←back to thread

927 points smallerfish | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
portaouflop ◴[] No.42926658[source]
IMF gave them 1.4 billion to abandon the “experiment”:

> The IMF made this a condition for a loan of 1.4 billion US dollars (1.35 billion euros). In December of last year, the IMF reached an agreement with President Nayib Bukele’s government on the loan of the stated amount to strengthen the country’s “fiscal sustainability” and mitigate the “risks associated with Bitcoin,” as it was described.

—-

I dislike cryptocurrencies as much as the next guy but this was clearly something else than a failure of the currency itself

replies(30): >>42926697 #>>42926752 #>>42926769 #>>42926916 #>>42927021 #>>42927075 #>>42927122 #>>42927290 #>>42927312 #>>42927357 #>>42927505 #>>42927532 #>>42927536 #>>42927642 #>>42927745 #>>42927985 #>>42928058 #>>42928513 #>>42928720 #>>42928756 #>>42928806 #>>42929654 #>>42929949 #>>42930337 #>>42930726 #>>42930753 #>>42930779 #>>42930984 #>>42934734 #>>42935466 #
stephen_g ◴[] No.42926769[source]
Despite that interference, from everything I’ve read though it’s hard to describe the bitcoin experiment as anything else than a massive failure…
replies(4): >>42926864 #>>42926901 #>>42927899 #>>42933006 #
mlcrypto ◴[] No.42926901[source]
Massive success actually for anyone holding. Did you forget the price is $100k?
replies(6): >>42926947 #>>42926964 #>>42927105 #>>42927367 #>>42927603 #>>42927778 #
tapoxi ◴[] No.42926964[source]
But you're not supposed to hold legal tender, by design you're supposed to spend it.
replies(1): >>42926981 #
redundantly ◴[] No.42926981[source]
gestures at all of the billionaires
replies(7): >>42927015 #>>42927127 #>>42927212 #>>42927329 #>>42928000 #>>42931140 #>>42934490 #
chungy ◴[] No.42927015[source]
I dare you to come up with a single example of someone that has a billion dollars in liquid assets. They probably don't exist: "billionaries" are worth billions on paper, thanks to stocks, investments, real estate holdings, etc.

All in all, billionaires are a bad example of holding legal tender, because that just doesn't happen.

replies(6): >>42927036 #>>42927137 #>>42927397 #>>42927568 #>>42927751 #>>42937997 #
brokenmachine ◴[] No.42927397[source]
The way I understand it, billionaires would hold it if they could, but then they'd actually have to pay tax when they spent it.

This way, they get to control unlimited assets without paying any tax.

Personally, I don't think that's so great "for the economy", because I actually don't care about the economy...

I care about people, and having 500 billionaires owning everything and charging everyone to use it is not the economy I want for people.

I'd rather that everyone pays tax, especially the super-rich.

replies(2): >>42927684 #>>42927699 #
thinkski ◴[] No.42927684[source]
Why not work to become a billionaire, then donate your wealth? Or begin donating your earnings today? I would guess most people on Hacker News are in the upper decile of wealth globally — there are still billions of people living poverty. Feels like a fairer way to help people than trying to do it with other people’s wealth — the latter feels like hypocrisy.
replies(2): >>42927855 #>>42928106 #
brokenmachine ◴[] No.42928106[source]
>fairer way to help people than trying to do it with other people’s wealth

That "other people's wealth" you're talking about is everyone's wealth.

Billionaires stole the profits of our work from us, and they didn't do it fairly.

I feel you underestimate how much a billion dollars is.

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

Nobody in history has ever worked hard enough to earn a billion dollars fairly.

It's crazy to me that you'd defend these people who have corrupted and degraded the entire system - the government, the finance sector, the media - to only favor holding everyone else to ransom. Not producing but holding. Societal wealth stolen without paying tax to benefit society. People didn't choose this.

I'm not starving, sure. And I'd be absolutely fine paying significantly more tax than I am now.

But I'm not about to voluntarily donate while I am still forced to work towards retirement, and there are people controlling literally 10,000 times more assets than I am that pay zero tax.

Do you not see the inevitable outcome of that?

You and your children, and their children, will own nothing because the super-rich will outbid you and everyone else for everything.

Food, houses, cars, travel, hotels, healthcare, medicine. EVERYTHING.

You will be poor. The rich is a tiny club and you're not in it.

Everyone, even the wealthy ones here on hn will eventually succumb. You will be outbid for everything.

You will have to sell your house to afford necessities while all your work goes towards luxuries for oligarchs.

There must be some mechanism to limit wealth or that is the inevitable outcome.

Here's a little thought experiment...

It's a hot day and everyone's thirsty. You have $9. There's a bottle of water on the table that you want to buy and the price on it is $10.

I give you $1. You can almost feel your thirst satiated.

Then I give the person next to you $1,000. How do you feel now?

Well our current system is like that, but multiplied by 100.

I do not agree that society should exist solely for the benefit of a handful of super-rich freeloaders.

On the desert island, they would starve and/or be eaten. That's not my definition of a useful member of society.

replies(2): >>42930445 #>>42934564 #
1. ◴[] No.42930445[source]