Monday, October 9, 2023

CBDC's - The Nail in the Coffin of Capitalism

David Attlee, "CBDC lays foundation for new global monetary system: French central bank"
The first deputy governor at Banque de France calls central bank digital currency “the catalyst for improving cross-border payments.“

Representatives of Banque de France, the French central bank, have embraced the global perspective on the central bank digital currency (CBDC) discussion, touting it as the foundation of a new international monetary system.

On Oct.3, Denis Beau, the first deputy governor at Banque de France, called the CBDC “the catalyst for improving cross-border payments by enabling the build-up of a new international monetary system.” The official emphasizes the necessity of considering cross-border issue around CBDCs from the outset and not as an afterthought.

Beau sees several paths for developing a CBDC. The first is the development of common standards and interoperability between wholesale CBDCs and legacy systems. The second — promoted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) — is the development of regional or global CBDC platforms. Wholesale CBDCs could be standardized to be exchanged directly on these platforms and perform payment versus payment and delivery versus payment transactions.

Beau cited the example of Project Mariana, which explored the possibilities of an automated market maker (AMM). The project, involving the Banque de France, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Swiss National Bank, successfully concluded in late September.

The official talked not only about the CBDCs but also about the tokenization of finance. He expressed his belief that the public sector must support the private sector more to enable the full potential of blockchain while limiting the risks. In his opinion, tokenized “central bank money availability” and tokenized assets are allies rather than competitors.
C - B - D - C C - B - D - C Programmable money. Programmable money. We’ll monitor every purchase you make, Every transaction or decision you take. If you’re not doing wrong, what is there to hide? How you spend money is for us to decide. Your social credit rating, how do you score? If you’re compliant you will get your reward. You may only own what we deem you can own. If you don’t register we’ll block your phone. Wait! You’ll be late for the expiry date. The State has mandated you money terminates So spend speculate before it’s confiscated This is what we’re going to orchestrate No more saving Programmable money. Programmable money. C - B - D - C. C - B - D - C. Your money’s now a tool of policy. You will be living in a smart city. You may only travel in a limited range. Energy and meat rations cos climate change. We’ll take your dough if we think it’s owed. No matter if you do not think it’s so. Taxes and fines fares fees of all kinds . All embedded in th.e lines of code. Hail Big Brother Programmable money. Programmable money. C - B - D - C. C - B - D - C. Tears of the sun, fallen from heaven. Empires fall. Radiant droplets everlasting. We will implant you with a microchip, AI and other forms of censorship. We will decide what is good for you. Total control there’s nothing you can do. Bitcoin fixes this.

44 comments:

  1. The death of modern American greed capitalism will be a very welcome death if it actually happens.

    The strong growth of democratic socialism in our democratic republic will be a very positive development.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Democracy requires free and fair elections.

    ReplyDelete
  3. republiturds are working hard to do away with both.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ...and showing up in person to vote? Way too inconvenient!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I get it all right. "Make voter fraud simple."

    ReplyDelete
  6. What you want is to make voter suppression simple.

    Other states have had vote by mail before the pandemic. I hear it works well for them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Vote by mail... It works great in MA!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Vote by mail would be great, if the identity of the mailer could ever be positively identified (biometrics). Short of that, it's "cheat city".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wrong. But i'll allow your illusions since they give you such great pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nobody ever stole an election in Rome on the campus martius because everyone could count the results They have in Chicago.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe we should allow people to withdraw money from bank accounts based upon the same criteria we allow people to vote in elections to occur. ID? Nah, you don't need an ID. Signature check? Not required! We trust you! We can't make this hard

    ReplyDelete
  12. Money? Who need the money? If they not have em... they can have foodchecks. ;-P
    But only for those who vote... the Right Way. :-))))
    Yahoo!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your link: Both parties use street money ... The practice is legal everywhere ... committee people can hand out cash for any reason, as long as they’re not paying someone for their vote.

    As for voting the right way... Yes, you have to vote for Democrats to get things Democrats support. If you don't care about poor people starving, vote republican.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ...because political campaigns are world renowned for raising and spending ALL their money "properly" and "lawfully"... BWAH!

    ReplyDelete
  15. \\Yes, you have to vote for Democrats to get things Democrats support. If you don't care about poor people starving, vote republican.

    Yeah... that's how despots like Hitler coming to power.

    Vote for me... or else.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Qtard: Yeah... that's how despots like Hitler coming to power. Vote for me... or else.

    How despots like donald tRump plan on retaking power. Don't prosecute me or my followers will commit violence. Reelect me or my followers will commit violence.

    It happened on J6 and could happen again. And be successful this time. The totalitarian-loving Qtard supports such violence. Says it is a "human right".

    ReplyDelete
  17. Divine Violence isn't a human right? Who knew? It must only be a non-human animal's "right". Like a tiger in a cage being poked by a little boy's stick.

    ReplyDelete
  18. ...or a Double Standard Justice/ Election System.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Slavoj Zizek sees Benjamin’s divine violence as accruing, perhaps in the superstructure, to be released in response to the pent up sufferings of millions.

    John Locke believed in the precondition that the right of violent insurrection could only be retained by those challenging tyranny, stipulating "that force is to be opposed to nothing but to unjust and unlawful force". The right of revolution only gave a people the right to rebel against unjust rule, not any rule: "whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the constitution and frame of any just government, he is guilty of the greatest crime I think a man is capable of".

    If trumpers engage in "divine violence" because Joe Biden is reelected in 2024, they will be guilty of the greatest crime a man is capable of (as per Locke).

    And Joe Biden being president isn't causing the pent up suffering of millions.

    ReplyDelete
  20. John Locke wrote before the American Revolution, before it was stated that Government is FOR and BY the People. Before the "divine rights" of kings had been overthrown. You saying Biden has a divine right to be President? :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. The People have the right to elect the leader of their choice in a free and fair election.

    Sounds to me that trumpers think dotard donald has a divine right to be president. Ask Mystere. That is what the "prophets" are saying.

    ReplyDelete
  22. We're saying precisely the opposite. we're saying that the voting public, not the party officials and bosses, pick the candidates (unless you're a Democrat sheep, anyways).

    ReplyDelete
  23. The voting public chose Joe Biden. What you're saying is that sore losers have a right to impose their choice on the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  24. \\It happened on J6 and could happen again. And be successful this time. The totalitarian-loving Qtard supports such violence. Says it is a "human right".

    To decide for themself? Yeah -- THAT is, human right. MOST BASIC of all.

    But such a mindless puppet of DEMN-OK-ratsy as you, with brains stuffed with DEMN NewSpeak narratives (like that people do not need RIGHTS... but "protection from violations").



    \\John Locke believed...

    And who are that Locke??? Whose words we need to take as Holy Scripture, or what? Is it saint or prophet of DEMN-rats? ;-P

    Well... he was talking ABOUT HIS OWN times... and that is LOGICALLY INCORRECT to apply his words to realities he NEVER new.

    But whom I kidding... this idiot Derpy cannot grok anything like that, :-))))



    \\If trumpers engage in "divine violence" because Joe Biden is reelected in 2024, they will be guilty of the greatest crime a man is capable of (as per Locke).

    YEP!

    That EXACTLY trick Religious Fanatics using. "Thy was written in Scripture!", "Jesus SAID THAT!!!" :-))))))

    ReplyDelete
  25. Qtard: But whom I kidding... this idiot Derpy cannot grok anything like that...

    I dunno about your alter ego, the idiot Derpy, but I definitely cannot grok your stupidity.

    Qtard: And who are that Locke?

    Google... What did John Locke do for the founding fathers?

    His theories form the foundation of principal American documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and they permeate the speeches, writings, and letters of our founding fathers. Locke's ideas define our world so thoroughly that we take them axiomatically.

    Locke's writings were very important to the founding of the USA and therefore relevant today. It is logically incorrect to claim otherwise. A fact an idiot like Qtard absolutely cannot groke.

    Qtard: That EXACTLY trick Religious Fanatics using. "Thy was written in Scripture!", "Jesus SAID THAT!!!"

    To the totalitarian-loving Qtard defending democracy is a "trick". No surprise. Because Qtard's brains are stuffed with rightturd fascist propaganda. Like people don't have the right to chose their leaders in democratic elections. A minority should be able to "decide for themselves"... And everyone else.

    FYI, I quoted John Locke. I have never quoted Jesus to you. Not even once.

    ReplyDelete
  26. \\His theories form the foundation of principal American documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and they permeate the speeches, writings, and letters of our founding fathers. Locke's ideas define our world so thoroughly that we take them axiomatically.

    Whatever.

    Theories... it's not Practic.

    Your Captain Obvious.



    \\To the totalitarian-loving Qtard defending democracy is a "trick".

    "Defending"???

    With DENYING Human Rights...

    and giving lip service to Upholding the Law.

    And calling revealing such a tricherously deceptive behavior... all kinds of names.


    \\...stuffed with rightturd fascist propaganda. Like people don't have the right to chose their leaders in democratic elections. A minority should be able to "decide for themselves"... And everyone else.

    Yep.

    It seems like PERFECT SUMMARY of you own behavior.



    \\FYI, I quoted John Locke. I have never quoted Jesus to you. Not even once.

    Whatever.

    That is called "argument from authority" in both case.

    That is when dumb asses have nothing to say from itself. They strt trying to hide their misery... behind that authorities words.

    Yawn.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Whatever" is what dumbasses with no valid arguments to make say.

    grammerhow.com: Let’s be honest, “whatever” is not the mark of a good argument. If someone comes out with “whatever,” it usually means they have nothing left to say.

    The best replies are “do you have nothing better to say,” “is that all you can say,” and “clearly, I won". Replies like these show that you have won the argument. Once someone has to resort to using “whatever,” they have run out of useful things to say.

    ReplyDelete
  28. That was about your claim "I have never quoted Jesus".

    Obviously, I dismissed it, as it is unrelated.

    So... yeah, you absolutely right -- you admitted that you have nothing to say -- that's why you need to fall for such a miserly tricks -- like inserting some non-sequturs... to derail discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  29. And I must admit...

    HOW CAREFULLY you avoided to answer to all other questions here.

    AGAIN.

    Or what, maybe you SILENTLY AGREEING with what I have writtne? :-)))))

    ReplyDelete
  30. Qtard: That was about your claim "I have never quoted Jesus".

    You wrote "whatever" twice, liar. Lying about you own words. Again!

    You wrote "whatever" firstly after what I quoted about Locke...

    "Locke's ideas define our world so thoroughly that we take them axiomatically".

    Locke is one of the greatest authorities ever in regards to American democracy. Yet Qtard dismisses him with lame "argument" that me citing him is an "appeal to authority".

    Qtard: HOW CAREFULLY you avoided to answer to all other questions here.

    I saw no questions. Only Qtard loudly proclaiming it's moronity.

    Qtard: Defending"???

    Is this a question? It was the only time you used question marks.

    The answer is YES. As before, and as always... I defend democracy. While Qtard attacks it. Qtard has been very clear that it hates democracy -- wants very much to see democracy overthrown in the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  31. \\You wrote "whatever" twice, liar. Lying about you own words. Again!

    What words?

    QUOTE em. ;-P


    \\"Locke's ideas define our world so thoroughly that we take them axiomatically".

    Or dogmaticly.

    As any Religious Bigots would do.

    Yawn.


    \\Locke is one of the greatest authorities ever in regards to American democracy. Yet Qtard dismisses him with lame "argument" that me citing him is an "appeal to authority".

    Yap.

    E-X-A-C-T-L-Y.

    Citing words of "authotiry" it's "argument from authority".

    This time you got defintion right. :-)))



    \\I saw no questions. Only Qtard loudly proclaiming it's moronity.

    Your alter-ego? ;-P



    \\The answer is YES. As before, and as always... I defend democracy. While Qtard attacks it. Qtard has been very clear that it hates democracy -- wants very much to see democracy overthrown in the United States.

    Yeah.

    "Overthrown".

    With ensuring Human Rights primacy.

    ECACTLY what Totalitarian would be AGAINST. Against people having their Human Rights and Freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Qtard: Citing words of "authotiry" it's "argument from authority".

    Isn't.

    Appeal to authority is a fallacy when those who use it do not provide any justification to support their argument. Instead they cite someone famous who agrees with their viewpoint, but is not qualified to make reliable claims on the subject.

    John Locke was qualified. The Founding Fathers decided so. Why they cited him.

    Qtard: ECACTLY what Totalitarian would be AGAINST. Against people having their Human Rights and Freedoms.

    The totalitarian Qtard *is* against. Totally against citizens in a democracy being able to elect the leader of their choice. Says the leader should be installed using violence.

    Qtard: \\"Locke's ideas define our world so thoroughly that we take them axiomatically". Or dogmaticly. As any Religious Bigots would do.

    "Axiomatically"... Clearly a word the idiot does not know the meaning of. It isn't a synomon of "dogmatically".

    Qtard: Your alter-ego?

    Yours.

    Qtard: \\You wrote "whatever" twice, liar. Lying about you own words. Again!\\What words?\\QUOTE em. ;-P

    Right above!

    Quote... (First "whatever")...

    Whatever. <---RIGHT HERE!!

    Theories... it's not Practic.

    Your Captain Obvious.

    Quote... (Second "whatever")...

    \\FYI, I quoted John Locke. I have never quoted Jesus to you. Not even once.

    Whatever. <---RIGHT HERE!!

    That is called "argument from authority" in both case.

    [End Quotations]

    Are you still going to deny it?

    Scream "I never said it"?

    ReplyDelete
  33. \\Dervish Sanders said...
    Qtard: Citing words of "authotiry" it's "argument from authority".

    \\Isn't.

    Yeah. Battleing against Common Knowledge and Definitions. Like any Proud Idiot would do.


    Argument from Authority: Definition & Types - StudySmarter
    www.studysmarter.co.uk › English › Rhetoric
    An argument from authority is when someone uses an authority's words, not their reasoning, to justify an argument. The argument from authority is a logical ...

    Argument from Authority... · Inductive Argument from... · Types Of Arguments from...
    Appeal to Authority Fallacy | Definition & Examples - Scribbr
    www.scribbr.com › fallacies › appeal-to-authori...
    Appeal to authority is a fallacy when those who use it do not provide any justification to support their argument. Instead they cite someone ...

    Argument from Authority | SpringerLink
    link.springer.com › chapter
    That fallacy is variously known as the argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (literally, argument from modesty) or appeal to expertise. Arguments ...



    \\but is not qualified to make reliable claims on the subject.

    \\John Locke was qualified. The Founding Fathers decided so. Why they cited him.

    In THEIR times? Maybe.

    But it INAPPLICABE to the MUCH DIFFERENT times... which are TWO HANDRED YEARS after them.

    And that is... "logic" 100% THE SAME Religious Bigots USING... when they citing this or that excerpts from Scripture... pretending that "old wisdom" of goat herders... somehow applicable in the modern time.

    One-to-one correspondence.

    That's why I call you Religious Bigot -- on the base of such facts. ;-P



    ReplyDelete
  34. \\Qtard: ECACTLY what Totalitarian would be AGAINST. Against people having their Human Rights and Freedoms.

    \\The totalitarian Qtard *is* against.

    Your alter-ego?

    Because facts are such:

    I -- declare people have Human Rights... as immanent to em.

    And YOU.

    You PROTESTING -- and doing it openly and many time confirmed... with YOUR OWN WORDS, as you said: "I *DO* deny..." EM having ANY rights.

    But now.

    You confirming that that -- "totalitarian Qtard *is* against" -- what totalitarisn would do.

    AND THAT IS... what YOU DOING.

    That makes it possible to come to LOGICAL conclusion -- that when you calling up "Qtard" -- you talking about itself... some alter-egos itself having inside its feverish scull, and struggling against.

    Like Religious Bigot in his self-inflicted halucinations of "brawling with INNER demons". ;-P

    All is plausible... that way.

    Or... you can (try to) disprove it -- with FACTS and LOGIC. ;-P



    \\"Axiomatically"... Clearly a word the idiot does not know the meaning of. It isn't a synomon of "dogmatically".

    Words Axiomatic and Dogmatic are semantically related or have ...
    thesaurus.plus › related › axiomatic › dogmatic
    Dogmatic and axiomatic are semantically related In some cases you can replace term "Dogmatic" with "Axiomatic", this adjectives are similar.

    39 Synonyms of AXIOM | Merriam-Webster Thesaurus
    www.merriam-webster.com › thesaurus › axiom
    Synonyms for AXIOM: theory, principle, law, doctrine, truism, proposition, rule ... dogma · gospel · verity · precept · basis · if · canon · assertion.

    dogma | Etymology, origin and meaning of dogma by etymonline
    www.etymonline.com › word › dogma
    1600 (in plural dogmata), from Latin dogma "philosophical tenet," from Greek dogma (genitive dogmatos) "opinion, tenet," literally "that which one thinks is true," from dokein "to seem good, think"

    axiom (n.)
    "statement of self-evident truth," late 15c., from French axiome, from Latin axioma, from Greek axioma "authority," literally "that which is thought worthy or fit," from axioun "to think worthy," from axios "worthy, worth, of like value, weighing as much" (from PIE adjective *ag-ty-o- "weighty," from root *ag- "to drive, draw out or forth, move").

    VERY BIG DIFFERENCE... not. ;-P


    That is just Derpy the Idiot trying to pretend that it have power to change meaning of commonly known words... on its whim. :-))))

    What an idiot. ;-P

    ReplyDelete
  35. \\Are you still going to deny it?

    \\Scream "I never said it"?

    Denying what? :-))))))

    What you straggling to prove SO MUCH here?

    Can you state it openly? For more lulz. :-)))))))

    Which would be revealing your idiocy MOAR!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Qtard: In THEIR times? Maybe.

    In the times the United States operates under the Constitution? We are still in those times.

    Though we know Qtard thinks those times should have ended. Is still rooting for those times to end. Both Qtard and Minus think donald tRump should be "president for life", yes?

    ReplyDelete
  37. \\Though we know Qtard thinks those times should have ended. Is still rooting for those times to end. Both Qtard and Minus think donald tRump should be "president for life", yes?

    This Too Shall Pass.(c)

    ReplyDelete