Wikipedia has a lot of problems, which is why I mostly stopped contributing years ago. But all the problems basically stem directly from their list of "policies" that were erected around the time that a horde of fairly obvious disinformation agents managed to wrest control away from Jimmy Wales. The new Wikipedia "democracy" now ensures that the government with the largest propaganda budget will always be able to control the tone and narrative of any controversial articles.

One of the worst of these policies is the idea that mainsteam media news sources should be given special status. This was obviously intentionally designed to steer the revolutionary capability of truly grass-roots, crowd-sourced intelligence back into the fold of the controlled narrative. And, unfortunately, one of the most blatant abuses of this policy is the way Wikipedia is used as a vehicle to slander controversial public figures.

Gossip is one thing; and perhaps the world is not much worse off when Wikipedia is used to spread tabloid trash. But the world absolutely is worse off when Wikipedia is used as a conduit to smear everyone from political prisoners to rogue investors who make enemies of the increasingly encroaching police state apparatus.

The elderly are disproportionately wealthy since they have generally avoided paying for the negative externalities of fossil fuel consumption and procreation.

I did read the parent:

Somehow, you have conflated "not supporting an infinitely-increasing population" with

Probably just because you decided to erect a strawman. Well, how about a little fire, scarecrow?

You are free to encrypt your Bitcoin thumbdrive with a memorized password, and to make multiple copies. These simple steps cost little or nothing, certainly less than holding fiat currency in a bank, and result in superior protection against theft.

Ironic, since that's what the "sovereign" European governments thought as well, but now they aren't quite as sovereign as the bankers are in charge, the debts are re-paid, and the citizens get austerity.

https://www.casascius.com/

How many millions of years of growing trees and grass do you suppose it would take to offset the amount of carbon we have put into the atmosphere in the last hundred years?

Actually, you were suggesting we triple the world population and all eat beans for some reason. I was just pointing out what a stupid idea this is.

You keep making this argument, as though labor has some inherent value that others are somehow obliged to reward you for performing. I think we all get the point by now that you would prefer some sort of "time-labor" based currency. They are out there, right here in the US even. I encourage you to move someplace that has one and use it and find out firsthand why they don't work.

Maybe you've missed the point that, if you don't want Bitcoin holders to "prosper from your labor" you are free to simply not use it, unlike fiat currencies backed by government force.

One of these things is not like the others...

I'm genuinely curious, for those who like to define "deflation" in these broad, vague terms, does the word retain any meaning at all to you? I mean, do you generally think of deflation as a bad thing, and if so do you really think that all of those "causes" are always bad? Or, when you hear "deflation" do you just mentally substitute "one of these five things could have happened"? What is the value of the concept of "deflation" to you, if any?

No such requirement exists in the US.

Well, I'm glad this comment clarifies the fact that you seem to have little knowledge of how the banking system actually works. I can now dismiss the rest of your comments as well.

We didn't remove "regulation" 30 years ago. We removed the gold standard. You might want to look into that.

And I'm not sure what planet you live on, but the "banking oligarchy" is not a product of lack of regulation, but of the government-sanctioned monopoly Federal Reserve and various other bail-outs and preferential cronyism that maintains it.

Fair enough. Though I would argue we just have an economic problem in general.