Current Events > Crypto is better than traditional investments because of the lack of fees

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't see the value in giving my money to corrupt financial institutions for them to profit from while charging me stupidly high fees for every transaction just to get a pitiful return

Crypto is superior in every possible way

Crypto is a scam

Rathinor posted...

Crypto is a scam

Less of a scam than banks are

What fees?

No

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/5/0/AAJBROAADSoe.jpg

Who charges you for trading anymore?

And yet, banking institutions have been the backbone of nearly all complex human societies, power the economy in order to produce actual GDP through investment, and keep a healthy monetary flow throughout the economy through fractional reserve banking. Crypto currencies, on the flip side, are a negative-sum game, meaning that for every dollar that is invested into them, less than one dollar can be extracted out of them. It misdirects the flow of investments away from products that can represeny tangible value towards speculative accounts that are completely detached from the rest of the economy--Remember when people would complain that giving rich people tax breaks is dumb because they'll just put it into savings accounts instead of investing it back into the economy? Well Crypto investments are that, except way more so and also increase our usage of green house gas emitting fuels and create shortages in our electronics supply.

how much does it cost to send btc nowadays

Pogo_Marimo posted...

And yet, banking institutions have been the backbone of nearly all complex human societies, power the economy in order to produce actual GDP through investment, and keep a healthy monetary flow throughout the economy through fractional reserve banking.

Nah

All banks do is steal money from people to hoard for themselves. They are a detriment to society and provide nothing good

Pogo_Marimo posted...

increase our usage of green house gas emitting fuels and create shortages in our electronics supply.

Proper cryptocurrencies do the exact opposite. They minimize waste as much as possible.

Just imagine replacing every physical bank with a tiny raspberry pi. It would be an enormous reduction in harmful emissions and wasted resources.

Heh, more like Raspberry Why

crypto has fees tho

Guide posted...

crypto has fees tho

If you're using shitcoins like bitcoin or etherum instead of proper ones like algorand or banano

Crypto would be better for a decentralized world but libertarians can't be trusted so we need banks

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Crypto would be better for a decentralized world but libertarians can't be trusted so we need banks

Opposite. Things like banks came about explicitly *because* of unregulated currencies being such a bad idea.

MarthGoomba posted...

If you're using shitcoins like bitcoin or etherum instead of proper ones like algorand or banano

Real crypto terms are genuinely indistinguishable from trolling at this point lmao

ellis123 posted...

Opposite. Things like banks came about explicitly *because* of unregulated currencies being such a bad idea.

How is it the opposite? A central bank makes no sense without nations, and a bank with an army is more or less a nation

MarthGoomba posted...

Just imagine replacing every physical bank with a tiny raspberry pi. It would be an enormous reduction in harmful emissions and wasted resources.

Crypto ties up a lot of energy doing complicated math problems that exist solely to produce crypro.

MarthGoomba posted...

If you're using shitcoins like bitcoin or etherum instead of proper ones like algorand or banano

This is such a funny post lol

Aw sweet, a schizo thread

MedeaLysistrata posted...

How is it the opposite? A central bank makes no sense without nations, and a bank with an army is more or less a nation

It's basically the formation of nations as dictated by (mostly outdated) philosophy. The idea is that in a world with no nations the act of having money in the first place is moot and that once trade begins to happen in such a way that money becomes a relevant factor then society forms and thus you end up in a situation where having a centralized source of rules/regulations to keep things civil becomes relevant. Obviously this is very much a "cart before the horse" sort of thing in that societies would have *long* since turned into nations before this point but the entire premise requires it so bleh.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/migration-of-millionaires-worldwide-2022/

ellis123 posted...

It's basically the formation of nations as dictated by (mostly outdated) philosophy. The idea is that in a world with no nations the act of having money in the first place is moot and that once trade begins to happen in such a way that money becomes a relevant factor then society forms and thus you end up in a situation where having a centralized source of rules/regulations to keep things civil becomes relevant. Obviously this is very much a "cart before the horse" sort of thing in that societies would have *long* since turned into nations before this point but the entire premise requires it so bleh.

Yeah idk lol I don't know much about this... I just figured crypto = anarchy and anarchy = anarchy so it works

Imagine thinking the solution to big banks is a non-FIAT currency with the volatility of a penny stock and at any given moment, can tank based off of one billionaire being stupid on Twitter

i cant tell if TC is serious or being ironic

"Fantasy leagues are just as viable as the real thing!"

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Yeah idk lol I don't know much about this... I just figured crypto = anarchy and anarchy = anarchy so it works

The easy way to "proof" it is to ask a simple question: As a species did we start with a formed society or did we start in anarchy? If we didn't start with already formed nations, why did we form them?

The entire concept of anything working by the removal of the state is considered a bit of a joke. It's part of the reason that Marx isn't considered to be all that correct even by leftists.

Trading fees haven't been a thing in awhile now. Robinhood, as much hate as it has received, did a really good thing for consumers/regular traders by basically forcing all the big brokerages to drop their trading fees.

Banks being bad doesn't mean that crypto is better or even just better at what banks do or even that it would lessen the negative impacts of banking.

That's that vaguely anti-capitalist sugar they use to make the scam poison go down smoother.

Crypto bros are absolutely delusional

ellis123 posted...

The easy way to "proof" it is to ask a simple question: As a species did we start with a formed society or did we start in anarchy? If we didn't start with already formed nations, why did we form them?

The entire concept of anything working by the removal of the state is considered a bit of a joke. It's part of the reason that Marx isn't considered to be all that correct even by leftists.

Economics literally means household management. The family or tribe is my best guess for the most fundamental level of organization prior to states. Tribes are self sufficient but societies are not.

Hardt and Negri identify the multitude as being the primary actor, which is about as far from a centralized state as you can get....

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Economics literally means household management. The family or tribe is my best guess for the most fundamental level of organization prior to states. Tribes are self sufficient but societies are not.

Hardt and Negri identify the multitude as being the primary actor, which is about as far from a centralized state as you can get....

A tribe is a state if it has land, something that would be very common when talking about the formation of basically every nation (in effect you have a form of the survival bias in that the fact that tribes that formed states instead of being migratory were able to survive the best shows the difference in efficacy), and a tribe always has a society (like, it is literally a subset of society as its definition... you *cannot* have a society-less tribe because that's literally what it is).

As for Hardt/Negri... I can't comment about what they necessarily say but you are confusing the act of being centralized with the formation of society. By its nature a society has laws/something that binds those that live in it together and those laws must be largely agreed upon as a function of the society even happening in the first place (though whether or not they are actually followed is a different story... think of it like how murderers know they are committing a crime: they agree with the concept of the function but they are not following it). Thus there is some level of centralized thought that comes from society: it is a inalienable attribute. This bleeds outwards as, unsurprisingly, it is very effective in all acts of life to condense and thus you end up with the multitudes being the centralized state of which Hardt/Negri brought up. Whether or not they are literally the ruler in said state is irrelevant, things like the social contract give them just as much power as anyone else. It is why demagogues are a thing at all as the actual rules/regulations that exist are merely a function of society with said multitudes. Heck, we even have a current example of this with all of the Trump nonsense: if being centralized has no influence from the people then how exactly could his entire campaign not have landed him in the gallows?

Squall28 posted...

What fees?

This. Who charges fees for stock trades anymore and the yearly fees for good mutual funds are so low you never even notice them.

MarthGoomba posted...

Nah

All banks do is steal money from people to hoard for themselves. They are a detriment to society and provide nothing good

Proper cryptocurrencies do the exact opposite. They minimize waste as much as possible.

Just imagine replacing every physical bank with a tiny raspberry pi. It would be an enormous reduction in harmful emissions and wasted resources.

Dumbest thing Ive read in a long time. Congrats.