He is such a weird looking and acting man, it's no wonder there is a lot of instant antagonism to Zuckerberg setting up his own Facebook currency. This article at The Conversation is a big ramble, but the woman writing it (gee, I wonder what her sexuality is) really dislikes Facebook quite intensely, by the sounds.
I even saw on IPA Twitter Chris Berg talking about it, saying something about governments should be fearing this big time. So not only do Sinclair Davidson and Berg now seemingly make a large part of their living by talking about blockchain at RMIT, even the IPA wants to talk about it? Is the IPA running out of topics to cover? I take this as a sign that certain funding from certain sources might have dried up. Did Gina get upset that Alan Moran was sacked? Have the tobacco funders moved on? Because the topics up at the IPA website are very generic now, it seems to me. (Too much red tape, etc.)
Anyway, where libertarians stand on cryptocurrency and companies getting more powerful seems a bit of a mess to me at the moment. On the one hand, I think they are drawn to the idea of government losing control of money because that will affect taxation and that means small government, something they hold as a matter of faith as being a Good Thing. On the other hand, they don't like it when companies are "woke" on any issue, because, I don't know, that interferes with them making money? In other words, one part of them thinks it would be cool if companies displaced government; the other part of them resents it when companies, even at this early stage of potential government displacement, start flexing their muscle.
I trust Sinclair Davidson will be along to explain it all any hour now...
* except libertarians. See my post above.
4 comments:
I think you'll find this is more representative of right wing opinion https://twitter.com/pwafork/status/1141560895274811392
Fair enough. Not sure he counts as libertarian, though, does he?
He's a twit full of American right wing talking points, that's for sure. I just looked at his twitter feed, seeing he does not support the Victorian euthanasia laws and in doing so brought in "socialised medicine" and the impetus that gives for euthanasia. (Even Sinclair doesn't support it, despite the very conservative scope of the law which I think would barely give most Catholics any concern.)
Zuckerburg is a lifelong actor from the bastard wing of the oligarchy. Its very unlikely his birth name is truly Zuckerburg. And we see he has identical personal looks to well-known historical oligarchs who were also a product of inbreeding.
http://www.petitpetitgamin.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/celebrities-and-their-historical-look-alikes-i-am-certain-nicolas-cage-is-a-time-traveler-6.jpeg
There is a rumour going around that he's really one of David Rockefeller's grandsons. I oppose this rumour vigourously. In my view the desire of oligarchical bigshots to put cuckoo babies in other peoples households is so ludicrously unrestricted that he's more likely to be David Rockefellers son and grandson; both at the same time. Its pretty clear now that the bastard wing of the oligarchy is tasked to take on all the big jobs. But being the runt of the family they gave Zuckerberg the cushiest job of all.
Post a Comment