Curtis Yarvin is the author of Gray Mirror graymirror.sub... Other Life ✦ Subscribe to the coolest newsletter in the world OtherLife.co ✦ Get a free Urbit ship at imperceptible.... ✦ We're building a new country at imperceptible....
He's making a lot of excellent points, and he's clearly explaining what he thinks is actually happening. Whether you agree or disagree, his points are well thought out and concise.
A government can print fiat money and will probably give it to rich people. A government can also grant a standard whereby a it will accept any crypto token created to a standard bit value of cryptography calculated. The problem with the second one is that you are enforcing a responsibility to expend our resources on creating crypto that can clearly be used to do more important things, and you are still, ultimately, printing money for rich people, because they would be the ones who own the most mining rigs. Crypto equalizes nothing: it just makes a society that will always be stratified sacrifice an inordinate amount of productive potential on making computers crunch chaos towards infinity. Why not just do it on shoestrings? We literally already know we can.
When a person invests his money in a bank; he gets earning in the form of interest. All that money is shown in the liability side of balance sheet of a bank.
A share is an asset of the shareholder, but a liability from the corporation that issues it. A corporation is, ultimately, just a collection of net assets that it owes to its shareholders, at some point in the future. But this is true of all things. All of your assets are your assets because other people are actively owing you the right to hold onto your assets. If they weren't: you wouldn't have those assets, other people would. An asset is the right to claim a debt, and a debt is an obligation to serve an asset.
@TheRepublicOfUngeria Still more brainless stupid, sorry. I own a lot of property and I have 100% equity hence zero debts. I'm sorry but like all dumb people you imagine you can change what words mean in order to make your stupid work. Sorry you can't.
I like Curtis but he’s wrong about an index fund being in defiance of economic theory. Investing in an index fund is basically going long on the future of the market or a sector thereof.
Yes that is the definition of an index fund. It goes against economic theory because they add no value to the market, creates a ponzi structure, and concentrates market control to BlackRock, Vanguard et al.
@@jessiecasson2643 With index funds, it's more like they are investing in an algorithm which invests according to the standards set by another party. Like, an S&P 500 Index is an algorithm that invests equally across The S&P, but Standard and Poors is the one who determines which companies go into and later leave its 500 list. It inherently limits risks which limits the amount you could really gain or lose, because, for growth, it succeeds in capturing the net growth of all companies while they are in The S&P 500. But it fails to capture the growth of the meteoric rise of a company from nothing into something that The S&P 500 is willing to list, and it forces you to eat the losses of whatever companies fail enough to be kicked off the list, up until they are kicked off the list.
