One of the biggest issues in today’s financial system is the role of asset managers and how they handle our funds. These institutions often act as central authorities that not only manage our financial resources but also wield significant influence over markets. The core problem lies in the concentration of power and responsibility in the hands of a few major players. Asset managers like BlackRock, Vanguard, and Fidelity manage trillions of dollars on behalf of their clients. This centralization poses several risks: firstly, mismanagement or poor decisions by these institutions could have massive repercussions on the global financial system. Secondly, there is a potential dependency on a small group of decision-makers whose interests might not always align with those of their clients. Another issue is that companies are obligated to follow the directives of their shareholders. Their primary duty is to represent shareholder interests and implement their votes. By entrusting funds to large asset managers like BlackRock, shareholders effectively transfer their voting rights to a handful of centralized actors. This can create conflicts of interest, as decisions made by these asset managers significantly influence corporate policies across various industries. There is a risk that the same individuals control different industries. This could lead to intentional problem creation to sell profitable solutions later — for example, developing unhealthy foods that foster diseases, which are then treated with medications. Similarly, media campaigns could disproportionately highlight certain issues to promote profitable products like for example "environmental solutions." In capitalism, the entities generating the highest profits grow the fastest. Capitalism dictates that those who do not exploit these mechanisms will ultimately lose to their competitors. Even if these problems are not yet fully apparent today, within this system, it is almost inevitable that they will arise in the future. #pension #funds

If MicroStrategy’s Bitcoin holdings generate more profits than the world’s largest companies, it could lead to significant issues. If Bitcoin’s value rises to several million as we think and investors shift from productive assets to an “unproductive” MicroStrategy, what capital will remain for production? Will governments truly refrain from intervening? If trust in the USD collapses, wouldn’t governments seize Bitcoin from a company profiting solely from financial strategy? I don’t know the answer but would approach this cautiously.

America’s earlier success was closely tied to democracy and freedom, which created space for revolutionary ideas. However, this is no longer the case, largely because governments are creating massive amounts of new money and debt levels are rising everywhere. This constant money printing blurs real demand in the economy, making it difficult to identify where resources and labor are truly needed. The market no longer responds to natural supply and demand forces, as it once did, but is distorted by artificial financial interventions. This has undermined the ability of capitalism to function as efficiently as it used to. In a system that suppresses divergent thinking, innovation cannot flourish. Capitalism, especially in the U.S., worked well in the past because it automatically revealed where there was demand. When there was a shortage in a particular sector, wages would rise, attracting people to fill those jobs. This flexibility is lacking in centrally controlled socialist systems, where decisions are made from the top, and resource distribution is inefficient because it doesn’t reflect real needs. Socialism requires constant surveillance to ensure no one exploits the system. In contrast, capitalism self-regulates: if someone cheats or operates inefficiently, they can’t compete on price and will eventually fail. However, this only works if the currency is stable and not corrupt. Due to artificial money printing in the West, capitalism is no longer functioning as it should. Inflation and unequal distribution of newly printed money distort the market, benefiting sectors like finance while more essential areas are neglected. As a result, workers no longer seek the jobs that are truly needed, leading to dissatisfaction and inefficiency. The longer this continues, the greater the distortion or manipulation of the economy becomes, and the bigger the problems will grow. This will cause Western economies to fall behind other systems more rapidly or become less functional altogether. #democracy #system #moneyprintergoesbrrr

One reason for the decline in our population’s prosperity lies in the fact that the state is financed through taxes and inflation. A large portion of the money we give to the state is lost through bureaucracy, administration, and employee salaries. Only a fraction of the withdrawn money is ultimately returned to the public. This leads to us receiving less and less, while having to give more and more.

This might be a controversial opinion, but I think it’s important to consider. What are your thoughts about it? In an ideal capitalist system, a person earns money by providing value to others through their work or services. This means that wealth is fundamentally linked to making a positive contribution to society. Only those who give a lot to others can earn a lot. This encourages cooperation and service to the common good, as the incentive is to be rewarded for productive activities. However, the real problem arises when people acquire wealth without having to contribute anything. If someone simply receives money without working for it or providing something of value to others, their character develops differently. Such people don’t learn that money is earned by fulfilling the needs of others. Instead, they lack an understanding of community and the importance of mutual support because they already have everything and don’t need anyone. This can lead them to develop an egoistic character focused primarily on their own advantage. In extreme cases, this might even lead them to act maliciously at the expense of others to maintain or improve their status. To prevent these negative developments, maybe it would be important to tax unearned wealth, particularly inheritances, more heavily. This could ensure that wealth isn’t simply passed down undeservedly, which would reinforce social inequalities and unjust power dynamics. Capitalism could then continue to function as a system that promotes cooperation and encourages people to be rewarded for productive and socially beneficial contributions. I’d be interested to hear what others think about this.

Censorship of transactions in the Bitcoin network leads to a long-term decrease in profitability, making the network vulnerable to competition. The argument is based on the following considerations: 1. Economic Incentive and Profitability: - Miners are financially motivated to include transactions with the highest fees in their blocks. - By censoring certain transactions (e.g., images or data classified as spam), miners forgo potential profit by not including the highest-paying transactions. - In the long run, this practice reduces miners' revenue, and consequently, the funds available for investment in hardware and network security. 2. Competition and Network Effect: - An alternative network that does not engage in censorship and accepts all transactions could fill this gap, thereby generating more transaction fees. - This network could grow faster due to being more profitable and having more resources for development and infrastructure. - Even if, initially, the majority of users (e.g., 90%) support the censoring network, the uncensored network could gain significance over time as it becomes more economically attractive. 3. Long-term Consequences: - If the uncensored network gains enough market share, it could eventually overtake the original Bitcoin network. - To maintain its dominance, the Bitcoin network must remain the most efficient and economically attractive network. This means maximizing the incentive for miners by not censoring transactions, thus ensuring the highest economic benefit. In summary, censorship not only contradicts the principles of Bitcoin but could also weaken the network in the long run by making it less profitable and more susceptible to competition. Censorship resistance is therefore a crucial feature that contributes to the long-term stability and dominance of the Bitcoin network. #bitcoin #fees #centralizing