On Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 3:55:16 AM PDT, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On August 15, 2018 2:31:10 AM CDT, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: >>There are some very wealthy early cryptocurrency anarcho OGs. >>Given a working crypto prediction market, them dropping a million for a >>solid prediction on when some cantalope will pop... a fun game for >>them. >>Any extra kicked in by the masses is just icing on the cake.
>Does an AP market dominated
How would you, or anyone, know if an AP-type market was "dominated"? Whether absolutely secure and anonymous, or mostly anonymous, the vast majority of the population would not know who was using the AP system. Sure, there would be speculation, but that is all.
>by a bunch of the fucking ultra wealthy
Obviously, the "ultra wealthy" might appear to have one advantage over "the poor" in using AP: They have much more money, on a per-person basis. But, the number of "the poor" (or, at least, those with incomes under, say, $100,000 per year) greatly outnumber the "wealthy", and certainly the "ultra wealthy".
Another factor is that in order to effectively use AP, you generally have to know who your target is. And I am not merely referring to names. In today's political system, in order to get what you want, you have to stick your head up and speak out. That might make you a target. But in an AP-type system world, you need not say anything, at least not anonymously.. To use AP you need to know who "the enemy" really is. That's hard, when nobody is speaking up. So even if a "ultra wealth" person has a virtually unlimited amount of money to pay into an AP system, how does he target his enemies? How does he know who those "enemies" are? He may know NOW, in a non-AP era, but he won't know in an AP-driven era in the near future.
>, whose interests I promise you do not align with yours, whatever sociopathic method they used to
accrue their capital, even count as a functional AP market?
The fact that some "ultra wealthy" are using the AP system does not prevent others from using the same system. So, the meaning of the word you used, "dominate", is limited.
Do the "ultra wealthy" "dominate" the American food market? Does a person whose net worth is $1 million eat 100 times as much as a person whose net worth is $10K? Does a person whose net worth is $100 million eat 10,000 times the amount of a person whose net worth is $10K? What about other spending, such as housing, transportation, entertainment, etc?
>BTW, the US is well beyond bankrupt, search deficit and debt. >That entire $700B, and more, could be seen as being funded >by fake money.
That's a position which could be taken by people who think that the national debt will never be paid off. (Or, perhaps, SHOULD never be paid off!!) The problem is that debt is often owed to "ourselves". And, perhaps it could be paid off by selling all Federal lands in America.
We should all ask, too, is it a "legitimate" debt? That National debt may have been wasted, but the people loaning it to the Federal government did not, merely by that loaning, make it illegitimate.
I should also point out that I believe that one big reason that the "ultra wealthy" are ultra wealthy, is BECAUSE OF a big government, not IN SPITE OF a big government. Most people don't seem to "get" that. So, you don't like the "ultra wealthy", I get that. But what's the best thing we could do about that? I say, eliminate (or at least, drastically reduce) the size of government.
The American federal government spends about 30x more money, per person, corrected for inflation, than it did in about 1925. Maybe THAT is where the wealth currently owned by the "ultra wealthy" actually came from?
Some (many?) people would defend the size of the national defense spending on the basis that this country needs to be defended. I have invented a system, AP, which I believe will defend the region formerly known as "America" with a factor of 100 less money, and quite possibly far less than even that.