Yes, I have friends like him, the communality here is they were grad students in philosophy or a related field, from colleges in CA or the Northeast. These guys are fairly bright, love to argue about everything, including subjects that they aren't very familiar with, and can't handle being on the losing side of a debate. Dyer also has LA/SoCal affections, a bit of a showman and into film.
Jay Dyer Thread
- Thread starter JCSteel
- Start date
-
- Tags
- public figures
Yes, I have friends like him, the communality here is they were grad students in philosophy or a related field, from colleges in CA or the Northeast. These guys are fairly bright, love to argue about everything, including subjects that they aren't very familiar with, and can't handle being on the losing side of a debate. Dyer also has LA/SoCal affections, a bit of a showman and into film.
I hope so but it's disappointing when you see Jay embrace Michael Sailor, that guy is bad news.
Whatever, like I care...
Not that I feel the need to explain myself but since you asked nicely I'll reply. I want to see the big picture of things and I think that no money, whatever the form, will help you circumvent the persecution by the beast system, ultimately. The ONLY real, hard currency will be your faith in God. God will provide BUT only for those who have put "spiritual currency" into His "bank". Thus, the more someone tries to sell you on some fancy digital money the more probable he's a charlatan who wants to push you off the royal path and replace the true God with a false one. If that is too radically Christian position for someone then tough luck.
Last edited:
Exactly, that's the point. The entire crypto thing has been rubbing me the wrong way from the beginning. People act as if it's some sort of ticket to the Ark, but it's closer to the mark of the beast from what I observed.
Be honest, make money, and yeah, be smart about storing your wealth, but Orthodox Christians have no business getting into financial speculation nonsense. BTC doesn't have absolute value, and anybody who thinks it does is under some weird spell. Unfortunately, the Church hasn't as of yet brought forth a clear statement on finance (although I think the Russian Patriarchate produced a fairly good document on stock trading and banking, but I can't find it right now), but I think it's obvious that there's no spiritual value in it. It would be good if your patriarchs could comment on the crypto craze.
Ultimately, our nations are suffering for giving up on Christian principles. Being part of Western society, we cannot fully protect ourselves from that. We have to suffer with our peoples. We can hold BTC, Monero, gold or silver, but I think Scripture is very explicit in telling us that those things do not actually provide any security at all. Definitely not worth antagonizing other Christians over.
That being said, I'm still a Jay Dyer stan and would shill for him anytime in the realm of online debates. I think his actions just reignited my interest in discussing this stuff. Crypto seems like a fat juicy psyop to me, and although I am a very lazy person, I don't think my antipathy towards it is due to my unwillingness to engage with it. Financial speculation just seems to turn people into ratty zombies faster than most drugs ever could.
I do see the big picture of things very well. I'm also pretty honest about what is occurring, and still remain a skeptic on most things, so it's worth continuing to pay attention to all of these things. Don't forget that the usury system in general, and the fiat money system, can WAY more easily be called the beast system than can something like the BTC network. I think that's a blind spot due to normalization bias for most people, even sharpies around this forum.
This is technically true, but an unrelated point - of course I don't disagree. There's a reason why mammon is opposed to God commonly in the scriptures. I'd highly recommend people look at the back and forth we've had on the BTC thread to see why someone like me, or chance vought, for example, have many reasons that are moral to get people to look into BTC.
The issue is exactly that - storing your wealth. If something stores your wealth better, it's not "speculation." I'm not under a weird spell, through logic and life examples I know that there is no such thing as absolute value. This is a common sticking point for most people in the world, particularly those opposed to BTC. Even someone very conservative like Fr. Josiah says that mortgages, a form of "usury" are still acceptable in a sense. Why? There's no way around the system at this point, and it seems like a family needs a home. Which makes BTC all the more important, because in BTC real estate is going to its marginal cost of production, which is where it always was before the real debasement came, fiat currency.
Fiat's not the issue though, usury is. If you have a fixed standard currency AND you allow usury, then the accumulation of wealth and influence for usurers can be even quicker.
A modern state with a modern economy has to be able to solve credit scarcity problems on the spot. It's a very useful tool. The issue arises when the institute issuing the money is privately and opaquely organized and basically gets money into circulation with interest. Interest leads to a constant necessity of paying up on top of what you made generally, and that's where the absurdity of constant growth demands come from.
A proper state needs to have sovereignty over its currency.
"Fixed" means like BTC and Gold have an advantage of not constantly devaluing today, but misallocation easily causes crises to happen.
I'm not even sure there's not several different ways to go about it, depending on the economic structure of potential for a nation, but fixed standards don't really solve the issue. But a state has to figure out how to keep the vast majority of the population safe from predatory lending.
Don't solve what issue?
I agree with this.
The idea that someone should not be able to charge something for lending seems too far, especially in modern realities where we don't have an appeal to local/religious agreements that are far more well rounded in general in human interaction. The question is what is too much. The muslims obviously think around 2-3% is the maximum reasonable "loan" interest. For me, and it's just a guess, I'd say it's around 4-6%. The point is that with harder money, smaller interest can still make sense for many people who are lending. Less credit may stifle some maximum or theoretical innovation, but big picture it curtails more foolish or over consumption, so it's a net win. The overly available credit and money printing has hurt far more people in the society than it has helped - especially the welfare types and women, which then have major downstream effects in other parts of life, as we know.
The inflation/deflation issue. Inflation and deflation are both instruments of the banking class and they actually produce fairly similar outcomes for the populace. There's no rational reason for why we couldn't have a national bank that simply aims to stabilize prices and minimize credit scarcity. Now the situation we have is that all the money people use is basically entering circulation as credit with interest, which becomes a problem whenever the economy doesn't grow faster than the private debt, which it hasn't really for a while if you look at actual purchasing power of most people in the Western world.
I cannot exactly say how fees for loans should best be organized, but my understanding of history tells me it should be tightly regulated, more so than most other aspects of society. A national bank of course could possibly resolve credit scarcity issues without any fees, but then you end up with a whole other can of worms, regarding the question of how to adjudicate what loan is a good loan.
Instead of getting knee deep into crypto, people should band together and only support small local banks while also politically fighting for the abolition of the current central bank system. Whether we ban or regulate usury or not, if people simply buy into local banks, only use those banks and avoid crazy investment strategies, credit supply becomes a community effort, which is what it should be. Then people can just debate on their lending regulations and have a vested interest in doing it properly.
Anthony Migchels started sort of a project like this, but I'm not sure it can be done entirely bottom-up, because the weight of international finance is too much for small communities to bear. Some leader will have to step up and break down the central bank. It has happened before, and quite successfully so, at least economy-wise.
I agree, and I generally recommend all things Richard Werner who talks about local banks and productive lending, which is actually quite easy (if allowed - he implies what you are implying, I'm sure of it). As for "crypto" that's never the issue. BTC is different because it's money for a global, digital/internet economy. Yes, it is that important and yes, it is what we say it is.
Please specify, it's not totally clear from the post alone which way you intended to go.
Ok, not trying to derail (you can go to the BTC thread for more), but BTC is more important right now because it makes each person a bank unto himself. You won't be allowed to just "create a bank" sadly at this point, so this is our first way through.