Bitcoin and cryptocurrency, what's a financial bubble? Explanations in 5 minutes chrono!

[Christophe]

A currency designed to evade regulations, whose value is set by the market only, accessible only to those who have access to the Internet. Yes, I think it will only aggravate the inequalities. Finance will adapt very well, they already have the IT resources and are beginning to take an interest in it.

I think the opposite, do you think that a currency regulated by a handful of people (moral or physical but there are still individuals behind the legal persons) and who controls the world (energy in particular) goes into the sense of equality? Seriously?

Is today's world a model of equality? The social inequalities only increase tenfold and this in the space of 20 or 30 years (and coincidentally it coincides with the computerization of the world ... of finance in particular)

Have you seen the 30 minutes conference mentioned above? Otherwise I advise you:

As for internet access, are you serious? In developed countries, an active person who does not have access to the internet does not exist or it wants it ...

I think you would be surprised at the coverage rate of populations of the "third world", in Africa, for example ... I don't have a figure in mind and I didn't look but I think it is located towards 50% ... (mainly in mobile internet) ...

Whence do you believe that comes the scam to the Nigerian (who should celebrate his 20 years in not long, If not already done ...) ??

[Christophe]

If I condemn the economy in the sense narrow and specific that it took for 300 to 400 years, it is because it condemns us! As proof, I take the observation of these "social, mental and then moral (etc, etc) serious regressions" ...

300 to 400 years? Are you serious?
30 or 40 years ago ok but I would not go beyond!

1789 and the years that followed were they years of social, mental and moral regression? France has opened the eyes of the world to social inequalities (ok mainly on paper and for a few years ... but still we can not speak of regression except the period of terror!)

In our developed countries, social inequalities (= in fact access to material well-being) have been steadily declining since the beginning of the nineteenth century, to the beginning or middle of the 80 years ...

No bowl I was born 2 years before!

[Ahmed]

I can see that history is not your area of ​​"comfort"!

[Christophe]

It's easy !! I thought you higher than that ...

Developments?

If you do not have royal or noble blood * (I do not know, you may have it? What would explain your remarks? Oh yes I can be tease too!), I advise you to go for an internship of life in France 400 years ago, in winter preferably ... not sure that you have a week so life was difficult compared to now ...

You might already be dead at your age ...

ps: in social regression I include the average standard of living eh, let it be clear ...

reps: * and even if you had, the comfort of life of the nobles of the time, except the absence of having to work, was not that of the average French today ... thanks to the evolution of medicine ... ask your dentist to apply 400 methods the next time you go!

[Christophe]

To refocus the debate, an 20aine of Parisian businesses accepts bitcoins ... since November 2016: https://www.lesechos.fr/finance-marches ... 146615.php

[sen-no-sen]

If you do not have royal or noble blood * (I do not know, you may have it? What would explain your remarks? Oh yes I can be tease too!), I advise you to go for an internship of life in France 400 years ago, in winter preferably ... not sure that you have a week so life was difficult compared to now ...

The idea of ​​progress is highly subjective (related to the subject).
If he is undeniable that technological advances (housing, hygiene, food, medicine) have provided a limited part of the population a significant increase in living conditions, it is nonetheless that objectively (ie from the point of view global) no progress can be affirmed.
With the advent of the "lights" and what is more since the industrial revolution mankind has entered into a process of transformation which, if it continues (?) Should logically lead us to the disappearance of complex life forms on earth (human understood).

We are in the situation of an obese person who has an inoperable bowel cancer that starts to lose weight ... it would happen by force that in a very short time the person goes through a stadium Or are body mass index would be ideal ... before inexorably thinning and dying.

We are currently going through this stage, but this one is not going to last, and the previous phases have already confirmed the morbid nature of the current process.

[Christophe]

If he is undeniable that technological advances (housing, hygiene, food, medicine) have provided a limited part of the population a significant increase in living conditions, it is nonetheless that objectively (ie from the point of view global) no progress can be affirmed.

"Undeniable progress and no progress", sorry I do not understand this kind of paradoxical sentence, I must be too stupid ...

About junk food I started this debate in 2011: Health-pollution-prevention / supply-and-junk-hungry-and-malnutrition-disease-t10399.html

[sen-no-sen]

"Undeniable progress and no progress", sorry I do not understand this kind of paradoxical sentence, I must be too stupid ...

If you do not have royal or noble blood * (I do not know, you may have it? What would explain your remarks? Oh yes I can be tease too!), I advise you to go for an internship of life in France 400 years ago, in winter preferably ... not sure that you have a week so life was difficult compared to now ...

"We believe that we master the words, but it is the words that master us" Alain Rey

You make a confusion between temporary progress and limited to a small portion of humanity and progress in the full sense, ie concerning all forms of life on earth.
If we take into account all forms of life,there is no progress.
Have the neonicotinoids been a progress for bees? Rifles for tigers? Chainsaws for trees? Anti-personnel mines for Afghans?

[Ahmed]

Christophe, you write:

It's easy !! I thought you higher than that ...
Developments?

I think there is a big misconception about the meaning of "comfort", by which I meant that history is not the area you know the most (that's a nice phrase!) .. . quite simply. And, it is because I did not have time to develop that I adopted this formula, the conciseness of which was too concise ...

Further:

You might already be dead at your age ...

I confirm, I am dead.
And since you want to know everything, I'm not noble, but it does not matter ...

Let's resume calmly and develop (you'll want it! ): you speak of the French Revolution as the triumph of the Enlightenment and of Progress, but it is only the collapse of a post-feudal structure (which had not known how to evolve as the nobility did before it English) for the benefit of the bourgeois class who took advantage of other problems to manipulate the "people". The triumph of bourgeois reason * and all the com 'around magnified an event which quickly turned against the mass of the people. It is easy to show that post-revolutionary living conditions have deteriorated for the mass of artisans, workers and peasants.
This was also the case, with a lag, in England if we look at the XNUMXth century and the degradation was continuous to reach a maximum in the XNUMXth century, which does not prevent technical "progress", but the link between both is not as automatic as you suggest.
You want more? It's really difficult to summarize all this in a few lines ...

Sen-no-sen well summed up the question: there are phases of improvement in living conditions (it should also be linked to geographical locations), but these changes are not linear and are therefore temporary, the long-term trend is less brilliant (to use a euphemism), but it is necessary that many do not perceive it so that this regress come.

* It is this class that now writes the story, or rather that of the winners.

[chatelot16]

to praise the revolution of 1789 makes me feel sad when it was a lamnetable failure leading to robespierre who guillotined everyone

We must beware of the history of simplistic France learned at school ... most of the benefits attributed to the revolution were rather made by Napoleon! it took a dictator to do effective work

and the great ideas of the revolution were not invented by the revolutionaries but by the philosopher of the Enlightenment

if he had not guillotined louis 16 stupidly he would have done better ... he had started doing it

the revolutionaries did not invent anything, they even guillotined Lavoisier, shouting that the republic does not need a scholar ... what a shame!

conclusion making a revolution to take power when one is unable to govern is very bad!

as well as going to a presidential election and not knowing how to ... continue to look for the toolbox a year later ... and lose 5 years in the country