"But muh imaginary numbers on a screen!"
(nitter.net)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (45)
sorted by:
Crypto and FRNs aren’t money.
Why? What's the definition of money and how does BTC fail to meet the criteria for being money?
The fact that it isn't real, dipshit. It's fake numbers on a screen. Might as well invest in upvotes ffs.
As you said this and you're always wrong...BTC to 200,000 this year.
I can't believe we agree on something.
As opposed to what - fake numbers on a piece of paper or fake numbers on your bank account? Come on, we've been through this bs. The medium for money doesn't have to have intrinsic value as a commodity.
For money to be sound, it has to be hard, scarce, durable, portable, divisible, and resistant to manipulation, with a high stock-to-flow ratio that enables it to function as a reliable store of value across generations. Bitcoin fulfills all of those better than any other currency in history, including the gold standard. Government fiat is not even worth mentioning, it's literally the worst debt-slave inflationary system ever devised, yet all the Bitcoin haters would rather have that than crypto.
You have no comprehension of this topic.
Because words have definitions, sophist.
If you don’t know, then shut the absolute fuck up about this topic. It’s the most basic, fundamental thing you need to know before you can opine in any capacity.
Same leftist bullshit.
And I'm the sophist here lol.
Just because people take something for granted and self evident doesn't mean shit. Definitions tend to get very technical when you delve seriously in the subject. If I ask some rando person what existence is, he'd probably answer me the way you did. If I asked someone who has studied philosophy it's a different story. Same applies to economics and money. Your non-answer told me which person you are of the two.
Yes. Learn what money is or die enslaved to jews.
Hence why you’re being made fun of for accepting the definition you’re told.
Translation: “I totally think a man can become a woman if he tries hard enough!”
Because you’d be an idiot for not being able to distinguish the difference between something that exists and something that does not, yes.
The only distinction an ideologist would make is whether “the becoming” of an idea counts as the idea being “made real.” A layman wouldn’t think to make the distinction.
Are you genuinely mentally ill? Or are you just jewish (but I repeat myself)? Go print infinity jew confetti and then wonder why everything is so expensive, economist. Meanwhile, everyone who has ever read a law or opened an economic textbook knows what money is.