Did somebody say fine art = money laundering? A banana duct-taped to a wall sold for $120,000 at Miami's Art Basel this week

submitted by useless_aether from cbsnews.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FormosaOolong 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Geebus, this is one of the most blatant examples. It's so irritating that someone dropped that much cash on a fucking banana when there are so many worthy charities that actually do something useful.

[–][deleted]  (18 children)

[deleted]

    [–]AnarchySpeach 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

    Only problem with crypto is it's so difficult for governments to tax. They basically have to ask permission to tax it... which kind of defeats of the purpose of a tax if the majority of people are just going to opt-out.

    And no government is going to accept auto-taxes collected from illegal stuff (or stuff they don't approve of) being sold, because that would be admitting they can no longer control the economy. If England or America accepted automatic payment from a 3rd party crypto-currency they couldn't control the entire world's economy would shift over night. Billionaires would be created and destroyed within hours. That kind of rapid-paced economy could bankrupt a country without warning if enough politicians went full retard at once... and because humans are humans, that risk is a very valid possibility.

    Currency has been, and always will be, a tool used by governments to steal wealth. It's why art works so well. It uses the age-old method of bartering. Favor for a favor with a banana to legalize it.

    [–]Tom_Bombadil 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

    Only problem with crypto is it's so difficult for governments to tax.

    Um... That's actually not a problem.

    It's a benefit.

    [–]HeyImSancho 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

    I somewhat think since the NSA created the blockchain algorithm, that it's a false positive towards freedom. On that point, I recently read an article by 2 professors out of some Texas college, that were able to actually pinpoint the rise of bitcoin, from a single player out of a single exchange. The massive jump up from a couple grand, to 10 wasn't organic.

    Now, I know there's a ton of information now that only serves to contradict; so as to create chaos, so take anything I bring up with a grain of salt, as it could just be what I'm reading(just like anyone else lol).

    [–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    I wouldn't be surprised if it was a state operation to sabotage/transition off of the dollar.

    Even so, the idea has caught on, and clever people will find a way to make it work.

    [–]AnarchySpeach 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    sabotage/transition off of the dollar.

    That seems unlikely at the moment. I don't see much profit to be made by doing it... at least currently.

    [–]AnarchySpeach 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    It wouldn't be that hard to inflate or decrease a cryptocurrency (or bitcoin) because of how relatively small it is. Doing so would take a lot of money and risk to do it, but it's scarily simple to do. That's part of reason some companies refuse to touch it. It's still a young concept that we don't quite understand.

    [–]JasonCarswell 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Not understanding things doesn't hold the establishment back.

    Not having full spectrum dominance does.

    [–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Good point.

    [–]AnarchySpeach 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Not having full spectrum dominance does.

    Yep. Completely agree.

    [–]FormosaOolong 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    Well said, jc.

    [–]AnarchySpeach 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    It's a catch-22. Without a government to give it recognition on a global stage the crypto-currency will never enter the global market. Bitcoin, for as awesome as it is, must go through several mediums before ending up in a chosen currency to spend it, which can get expensive at times, and isn't always cost effective (plus the lack the companies willing to accept payment in the currency). Meanwhile, at the same time, if a government recognized a crypto-currency they couldn't control as a valid means of tax acquisitions and monetary exchange the global community (aka powerful countries with the economical strength to abstain from it) could threaten to boycott it on the ground of "Protecting Ethical Principles" (because illegal purchases would be automatically taxed, but impossible to stop) which would inevitably result in political backlash and unnecessary wars (something America, England, and other other powerful countries aren't willing to risk.)

    I don't see a government approved 3rd-party crypto-currency happening anytime soon, despite the porsperity it would bring to the lower casts of society, and the massive economic growth a country could beniefit from it. Like, just imagine if North Korea sponsored Bitcoin as their country's personal currency. They could become the richest country in the world in a week, or bankrupt the next after other countries bankroll a massive "fuck-you" money-loss campaign like "C: The Money of Soul and Possibility Control".

    High risk. High reward. Poor people would benefit greatly, but governments might suffer. That risk is the reason why governments don't want to touch it.

    Edit: Typo's and spelling mistakes fixed... I think.

    [–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    It's a catch-22. Without a government to give it recognition on a global stage the crypto-currency will never enter the global market.

    I don't think this is the case.

    Governments never legitimized bartering, trading, etc.

    They co-opt whatever they can.

    Make certain things illegal; if there's a motivation (illegal drug marked to cornered by the CIA, etc.).

    Sometimes, they make them legal by force (opium wars, etc.).

    State agency's will always try to make people think they are more powerful than they actually are.

    Historically, intimidation/fear are the main tools of coercion.

    Propaganda is only about 100 years old.

    They are probably in control of the major crypto groups.
    The independent ones might not be worth the effort at this point.

    There's always cracks in the system.

    [–]AnarchySpeach 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Governments never legitimized bartering, trading, etc.

    Because they're incredibly difficult to tax from a lack of a paper trail.

    Make certain things illegal; if there's a motivation (illegal drug marked to cornered by the CIA, etc.).

    Oh yeah. CIA's been making bank selling cocaine to other countries. Sometimes giving it away for free just to help destabilize others. I doubt they'd be okay with massive populations of their own citizens taking half their black-budget income.

    They are probably in control of the major crypto groups.

    Some they have 100% control over. Others they have enough control to cause major fluctuations in their favor, but they would lose that control instantly if a country opened the floodgates to normal citizens to use it for mundane transactions.

    The independent ones might not be worth the effort at this point.

    I'm not sure what you mean by that. Lack of notice doesn't always translate to a lack of worth.

    [–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    The future: Second Hand, Vintage, and Antique Stores.

    Tax them again and again and again...

    [–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    It sounds like you agree.

    [–]beermeem 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

    My coding professor in college loved to tell the joke about a VW Beetle. It's license plate?

    FEATURE

    [–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!