I read The Great Taking a few months ago. I don't really buy it. But, regardless of that, the whole premise of the book is that it's the intermediaries who are the problem (banks, brokerage firms, etc.).
If that's the diagnosis, then in today's day and age, how could the book fail to mention Bitcoin, Ethereum, and any other blockchain whe…
I read The Great Taking a few months ago. I don't really buy it. But, regardless of that, the whole premise of the book is that it's the intermediaries who are the problem (banks, brokerage firms, etc.).
If that's the diagnosis, then in today's day and age, how could the book fail to mention Bitcoin, Ethereum, and any other blockchain where there are no intermediaries? It's a little early now, but it's pretty obvious that all stock and debentures will eventually migrate to some blockchain. Stocks and bonds are just representations of ownership; eventually they will be tokenized and the roles of these intermediaries will change. Webb never mentions blockchains or any of the obvious solutions to the dilemma he describes. If the problem is the intermediaries, then get rid of the intermediaries.
I didn't misread it. A "legal framework" is just a tool. I fully understood that. The bad actors are the banks and brokerage firms who supposedly advocated for the tool (legal framework) through which, Webb claims, they intend to fleece the world.
Makes sense. I think that’s how most people view it. It is such an insane idea; so deeply destructive that it can’t be true.
My view is that we just lived through a similar coordinated plot so insane and so deeply destructive, I wouldn’t have believed it if you told me in advance.
I would have asked how will you placate the population? If you go after people’s kids, there will be violence in the streets!
Haha! That's very true. Five years ago, if you told me a significant portion of the population would assert and believe that men can get pregnant, I would have called you crazy.
It was an interesting read. Easy to get through in half an evening. His section up front on his background, how he was raised, went to school, started in computers and then went to Wall Street -- that was all great. I happen to have been a securities lawyer in a previous life, so even the legal arguments that followed were easy for me.
But, it's not plausible (in my opinion) that there's a grand plan to steal all securities. Even if you consolidate control of all (or most) securities amongst a few "mega-intermediaries," you still need customers. You still need citizens to tax. And, you have to placate the populace such that you can perpetuate your control which, in a post-fleecing world, would be highly, highly concentrated.
If the current wealth gap is driving increased violence and dissatisfaction, what does a post-fleecing world look like? I'm not saying the wealth gap is doing these things, but I think most people believe that. If those at the top tried to grab nearly all of the assets, how long does it take before torches and pitchforks come out?
I've only watched the video 1x but I noticed that mr. Webb said that the 'fleecers' don't comprehend that they won't survive their actions, i.e., things won't turn out so well for them. He spoke of the need to educate the useful idiots, of whom we have plenty.
I read The Great Taking a few months ago. I don't really buy it. But, regardless of that, the whole premise of the book is that it's the intermediaries who are the problem (banks, brokerage firms, etc.).
If that's the diagnosis, then in today's day and age, how could the book fail to mention Bitcoin, Ethereum, and any other blockchain where there are no intermediaries? It's a little early now, but it's pretty obvious that all stock and debentures will eventually migrate to some blockchain. Stocks and bonds are just representations of ownership; eventually they will be tokenized and the roles of these intermediaries will change. Webb never mentions blockchains or any of the obvious solutions to the dilemma he describes. If the problem is the intermediaries, then get rid of the intermediaries.
I think you misread his diagnosis of the problem. He doesn’t suggest it’s banks or brokers. Legal framework is the main problem.
I didn't misread it. A "legal framework" is just a tool. I fully understood that. The bad actors are the banks and brokerage firms who supposedly advocated for the tool (legal framework) through which, Webb claims, they intend to fleece the world.
Makes sense. I think that’s how most people view it. It is such an insane idea; so deeply destructive that it can’t be true.
My view is that we just lived through a similar coordinated plot so insane and so deeply destructive, I wouldn’t have believed it if you told me in advance.
I would have asked how will you placate the population? If you go after people’s kids, there will be violence in the streets!
And yet...
Haha! That's very true. Five years ago, if you told me a significant portion of the population would assert and believe that men can get pregnant, I would have called you crazy.
And yet. . . . you would be the one laughing now.
I'm curious, If he'd mentioned BTC or ETH, would you think the book more credible?
It was an interesting read. Easy to get through in half an evening. His section up front on his background, how he was raised, went to school, started in computers and then went to Wall Street -- that was all great. I happen to have been a securities lawyer in a previous life, so even the legal arguments that followed were easy for me.
But, it's not plausible (in my opinion) that there's a grand plan to steal all securities. Even if you consolidate control of all (or most) securities amongst a few "mega-intermediaries," you still need customers. You still need citizens to tax. And, you have to placate the populace such that you can perpetuate your control which, in a post-fleecing world, would be highly, highly concentrated.
If the current wealth gap is driving increased violence and dissatisfaction, what does a post-fleecing world look like? I'm not saying the wealth gap is doing these things, but I think most people believe that. If those at the top tried to grab nearly all of the assets, how long does it take before torches and pitchforks come out?
For me, that's why it was not credible.
I've only watched the video 1x but I noticed that mr. Webb said that the 'fleecers' don't comprehend that they won't survive their actions, i.e., things won't turn out so well for them. He spoke of the need to educate the useful idiots, of whom we have plenty.