It’s not clear to me why building a derivatives trading bot leads to exploitation but whatever floats your ideological boat I suppose.
...rent-seeking in a system based on massive electrical waste.
With that as the core assumption, the exploitation would be anyone who relies on the environment (everyone, then), I'd think.
Is there a term for someone who stretches language in such a way for rhetorical purposes?
I can see why it's an effective rhetorical trick, since it forces people to debate whether the behavior is bad enough to fit the definition of exploitation, or whether it's not sufficiently bad. By having this debate we've already implicitly accepted their premise that something bad is going on.
Yes. Isn't it?
Isn't the electrical waste something bad?
I happen to think that flying overseas for a holiday wastes a lot of energy. I could label this a "massive energy waste". Then as a corollary I could label people taking those trips and people facilitating those trips as "exploitative" actors. But these are mere debating tricks even though it's all vaguely accurate given the words I've chosen and the framing I've picked.
The root problem to all of this is an untaxed externality.
A lot of crypto currencies use a lot of electricity that wouldn't have been used otherwise. A portion of that electricity that was used will be non-renewable energy.
> I happen to think that flying overseas for a holiday wastes a lot of energy. I could label this a "massive energy waste".
Yes, people taking over seas vacations instead of staying home also wastes energy.
Oh, you've taken on less work hours to enjoy your life? Maybe others are able to view that as a waste. Quit stretching things so much that you paint __everyone else__ as a threat or enemy.
I didn't say I didn't waste energy, I didn't say I was an angel, I was merely pointing out the fact that two wrongs don't make a right. "It's ok for bitcoin to waste electricity because people flying internationally waste electricity too" is a pretty weak argument.
Call it waste or whatever else you want to, the fact is, crypto currency uses a ton of electricity that wouldn't be used otherwise. Sure you can go on weird tangents if you want but it is a simple fact that seems silly to ignore.
The accusation here, right or wrong, is that this is what crypto and the bot are ultimately doing.
Note, this may have you reaching for questions that start with "How is this any different from..."
I get it, I could be doing something much more productive with my life.
The money this bot makes isn't for myself if that's any consolation. Not most of it anyways.
I have big plans to use the money generated to help the poor.
I live very frugally, exclusively shop at thrift stores, drive a 20 year old car that I fix myself, and am frustrated with all of the homelessness I see in my city.
In my eyes, this bot is the only way I can stand to make a real dent in that pressing issue. All I know how to do is code.
My cryptocurrency of choice is Stellar actually, it doesn't use any electricity hardly whatsoever to keep it's blockchain safe.
Not all cryptocurrencies are hell-bent on destroying the globe. Some of them actually try to solve real problems.
Everyone who wants to be rich says this exact line even though you don't need a lot of money to help the poor. Do you currently volunteer for shelters, charities or soup kitchens? If not, why do you think that will change when you get more money?
That's probably what billionaires tells themselves as they rocket to outer space.
Something that provides value (liquidity) can’t be rent-seeking.
Likewise the electricity isn’t waste since it enables something people value (bitcoin).
Which has the added benefit of the now not being an apocalyptic hellscape just yet.
Most people aren't trying to make a quick buck by rent-seeking in a system based on massive electrical waste.
On the reals though, casual moral condemnation of particular economic activity is usually indicative of insufficient self-reflection.
Similar scenario: I take up arms to aid the king and in turn ensure stability and peace for society. The land I'm given as compensation allow my lineage to live as nobility for centuries. Is that ethical?
I'm making hyperboles not to discount your logic but to show an extreme and try to pinpoint where the limit is. For what its worth, I'm saving quite aggressively and live very modestly for the sole purpose of increasing my leisure, perhaps to retire early. So I am obviously not making this argument as a way to bash FIRE practitioners. I am genuinely curious about the ethical implications of compounding rewards for legitimate sacrifice. Of course someone who works hard in their youth without consuming should be able to retire earlier without guilt. Though I think Warren Buffett is on to something in his disdain for dynastic wealth.
It's easy to argue it's unethical by invoking utilitarianism. Unfortunately that also means basically anyone with a white collar job in the first world are unethical, which I'm not sure most people would agree. Other than that I can't think of any convincing for why that's unethical.
Imho society should be liberal in letting people acquire and enjoy their wealth, and strictly limit the passing down of wealth to prevent dynasties and having someone's opportunities decided by their parents' means. This would solve a lot of compounding problems. However, people are generally pretty terrified of not being able to let one's own kids inherit the entire fortune and sharing it with other random kids too. We'll likely continue along those lines for a long time coming, whatever your stance on ethics doesn't stand a chance against family bonds and their voting power.
If you contribute enough productive value (as determined by the free market, paid in some asset), why does it matter when you retire? I'm sure there is some endgame where we stop funding our consumption economy to the same degree we are now, but is that a reason to work until you can't anymore?
You can only kick up your feet if you've done enough "economic output" in the previous years, it's not a free lunch. This is coupled with the fact that most retired persons do invest and contribute capital. It's not at the same level as Mark Cuban, but does it really matter if you only invest a million vs 700 million+?
And who pays for the benefits the elderly (or as a matter of fact, the whole society) enjoys? Amenities, welfare, health insurance, etc. - taxpayers, exactly the demographic (before 65 - healthy & able-bodied) FIRE is encouraging to stop working, thus avoid paying income taxes.
Are you also against people being frugal because that causes them to pay less sales taxes?
“Industry, thrift and self-control are not sought because they create wealth, but because they create character.” - Calvin Coolidge
That will never happen, as I explained in a sibling post:
>there would be an imbalance of labor demand compared to supply. This will cause prices to go up, which will make it less attractive to stay "retired" and more attractive to start working again.
I'm not sure what you're alluding to with this, but if it's "well if everybody goes FIRE society will collapse", then you're wrong because it will never occur (due to the economic mechanisms discussed earlier).
>but the ones that just want to perma-vacation on society's economic margin are what annoy me
Sounds like you're annoyed if people aren't being productive when they can be. After all, what's the difference between being 100% productive for only 50% of your working years (ie. FIRE), and being 50% productive for 100% of your working years? What's your opinion on people engaging in non-productive activities (eg. watching TV, playing sports, reading books), taking time off, or taking a "easy" profession? Are you against them as well? Or are they fine because they put in a token amount of work?
Bonus: I suggest reading this guy's blog for unexpected outcomes https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26543527
Contrary to popular belief, taxes are supposed to benefit society (at least that is the intent & purpose). I agree this is not the case for corrupt countries, but if everyone just retired early or sat at home mining coins, where will society end up?
https://beunsettled.co/blog/is-the-fire-movement-really-the-...
...that haven't been realized yet. As you draw on your reserves, you'll be forced to realize those gains and pay taxes on them, making this a non-issue.
>willingly "unemployed" in your productive years to "enjoy life" and "freedom"
Ah yes, because the goal of life isn't to enjoy it, it's to be as productive as possible! Freedom is overrated anyways!
>as the crypto miners trying to avoid taxes.
Are miners known to be tax dodgers or something?
>but if everyone just retired early or sat at home mining coins, where will society end up?
"retired early": there would be an imbalance of labor demand compared to supply. This will cause prices to go up, which will make it less attractive to stay "retired" and more attractive to start working again.
"sat at home mining": same thing that would happen if everyone decided to gold mine. eventually there would be a saturation of miners and it won't be profitable anymore, causing people to exit.
You might be able to take out small amounts strategically to avoid the 40k threshold.
I may be mistaken, but isn't FIRE telling people to live off 4% of their investments forever? If the goal is 1 million, that is exactly 40k.
The math works out perfectly to leech on society - and (this is just a hypothesis) possibly causing S&P 500 ETFs to inflate as these FIRE "retirees" promote their methods online, creating a feedback loop and illusion of ever-increasing stock market boom for the last 10 years
What? Most people aren't trying to make a quick buck by rent-seeking in a system based on massive electrical waste.
Myself? I cut my work hours recently so that I can live now instead of dreaming of someday. I spend my free time enjoying my life, not trying to figure out who to exploit.
That's also an option.