I Believe Bitcoin May Not Survive Outside China In The Long Run!

I just checked the Bitcoin price and saw Bitcoin dropped down to $3,806.93.  It is a steep drop from when I saw Bitcoin was up near to $5,000.  This has happened because Chinese government is stepping up in regulation for Bitcoin.  Rumor or not, Chinese government is banning several major Chinese Bitcoin exchanges and stopping groups in China to create new virtual currencies.  Since such news have come out of China, Bitcoin has continued to slide downward.  It got rebound a bit, but it’s not yet over $4,000.

People are believing in Bitcoin for several reasons.  One important reason they believe in is that other governments won’t ban Bitcoin and so Bitcoin could survive outside China and around the world.  Other reasons are that Bitcoin won’t be controlled by governments, and so people can actually surpass the governments’ scrutiny when making financial decisions.  Unfortunately, Bitcoin has too many reasons for the governments around the world to step up to regulate.

I believe that China is a very powerful market factor, because China has the power to persuade other governments to step up their own Bitcoin regulations.  This is why I think Bitcoin won’t survive in the long run!  Of course, that’s my belief, and so I could be 100% wrong!  Don’t take my belief as fact, because you need to do your own research and soul searching whenever it comes to financial decision.  If you’re investing in Bitcoin and believing in Bitcoin, then you should just do what you think it’s best for you!

Anyhow, I like the idea of Bitcoin, but Bitcoin has several weak points that make me feel so uncomfortable about it.  Two most important weak points about Bitcoin are governmental factor which I had mentioned, and the other one is how easily Bitcoin could disappear.  What do I mean by this?  Well, let’s say I believe that Bitcoin coins are not actually safe on your devices.  Computers’ storages could get corrupted and poof your Bitcoin coins would disappear.  Hackers could just hack into your network or your smartphones and poof your Bitcoin coins would disappear.  No electricity or battery power, well you can’t really use your Bitcoin coins until the power is back.

In short, Bitcoin is much harder to get refund or recover once the coins leave you for good.  There is no institution to make sure the transaction is just, and the transaction always depends on pure trust without any insurance.  Once the governments start to ban Bitcoin together at large (i.e., worldwide), it makes Bitcoin users to lose the ability to appeal to the authorities for transactions gone wrong.  This weakens the Bitcoin’s appeal by a lot I think.  The things that make gold, hard physical asset, more appealing are values that can be verified and redeemed in the eyes of the world.  Bitcoin lacks the redeem attribute!  In my eyes, Bitcoin does not have the shine of gold, because you can’t redeem Bitcoin on justification but on pure trust!

 

 

Why Are The Chinese Flourishing Under An Authoritarian Regime?

Why isn’t the Chinese government allowing the Chinese to elect the country’s leaders and yet China is still flourishing?  Western people like us are often wondering why this is the case.  Some people from the United States and other western states have believed that once the Chinese are wealthier, they would demand a full blown democracy sort of governmental regime.  Nonetheless, I think this sort of belief is kind of make believe.

Chinese history had recorded many Chinese historical dynasties that were able to provide prosperity that had no equal in historical time periods, and so the ancient Chinese were able to flourish and get wealthy in all sorts of manners.  Yet, in those time, the Chinese were all ruled by a king or an emperor.  The modern Chinese regime is similar yet different than the past dynasties in several ways.

Basically, the modern Chinese regime is an authoritarian body, because the Chinese cannot elect their leaders.  This is very similar to how past ancient dynasties had ruled China.  Nonetheless, Chinese modern regime is different than the past ancient Chinese regimes/dynasties in a sense that Chinese modern leaders are not likely to be able to pass their positions down to their children as if their positions could be inherited.  Instead, there is a process within one party system that would weed out the bad and pick the good to govern an institution within China.  Nonetheless, this process is very similar to how the ancient Chinese dynasties had done in promoting meritocracy.

Anyway, as historical periods in China has shown us that the Chinese can unite and operate just fine under one party system, and so we in the West should not expect China to emulate the Western democratic systems.  Nobody knows the future, perhaps China may emulate the West in the future, but in my opinion I don’t think this will likely to occur at all.  Instead, I think China would still be one party state in foreseeable future, and yet the Chinese will be able to flourish in this particular environment.

The Goal Is To Not Have Civilization Clash But To Have Civilization Struggle

Since ancient time, most parts of the world (whatever form a country has taken to govern the population) have had to contend with the central (very top level) all the way down to the local (very bottom level) governments.  In the ancient world, some parts of the world were experienced democracy, but most parts of the world were experienced hierarchy sorts of governance.  To further breaking down the atom, some ancient parts of the world were experienced class struggles much more than most parts of the ancient world.  With the look into the past and until now, the contemporary governance images of our world, we can safely assume that even though the central government of a country does hold a lot of power, but usually the local governments are more creative in supporting the local population.

Whether a country’s governmental system is democracy or communism or whatever, a country has had to deal with a strong central government and the uncooperative local governments.  Breaking down the atom at the level of inner working details between the central and the local governments can be complicated, and so I’m not going to even try in this blog post.  Nonetheless, in a layman conception, we can safely assume that if the central government is too weak, the local governments can be divided throughout the country, and the whole country can be on the verge of civil war or worse.  If the local governments are too weak, certain local populations will feel as if the local governments are corrupted and not serving the local populations’ interests, because the central government has always been controlled by larger group of interests and opinionated power driven politicians.  I think the balance must be met in a scale of strong central government and productive local governments.  Nonetheless, you cannot have a weak central government, because a country with weak central government may become so divisive to a point of splitting a country into warlordism (i.e., local governments are at war).

We cannot run away from corruptions no matter what form of governance system is taking on by a country, because corruption is inherently built into human nature.  Thus, we cannot use the argument of strong central government will lead to more corruption.  Instead, we must look at how to relax some unhelpful regulations and how to build up some helpful regulations to a balance that can regulate and weed out corruptions effectively.  Trial and error approach is the approach that a progressive country should take.  Once a country thinks it’s already too developed, it is probably already too corrupted and growth stagnated.  Ongoing reform must always be at the forefront of the conversation and practice for a governmental system to stay in synch with the populations’ demands.

Anyhow, we have seen from the ancient world till now that the struggle of creating the right balance for the central government and the local governments to work as a whole country is real.  Thus we can argue that if we are going to make the struggle for this balancing act to be even more complicated, we are going to face a much tougher time in making it right.  This means some parts of the contemporary world that are trying to merge government systems together without any consideration for local populations’ cultures will have a harder time in creating a right balance in governance.  Instead of creating the right balance for governance, these multiple governance mixed parts of the world may eventually experience wars and chaos, because the differences of native, local cultures are too different to reconcile (e.g., class, economy, ideal, belief, tradition, etc…) .

Humans are not robots, thus native, local cultures can never be eradicated.  With emotions and free thoughts, human nature tends to form local cultures that represent the local peoples.  Although there are exceptions such as for greater good, mostly people tend to think in local culture and local flavors.  For an example, the majority peoples would think what is best for the family first, then the rest would come after naturally.  Breaking down the atom even more, besides the exceptions to the rule such as the greater good of parents, each human tends to think selfishly, and so each of us tends to thrive on individuality.  So, even in the smallest unit of humanity, we are going to see the struggle of balance between the central and local centers.  Within each of us, we want the central center of a family to be strong and prosperous, but we also want the local center that speaks individuality to be strong and prosperous.  Thus, we must seek out the right balance of the centers.

I think human cultures are there to make us human, thus to destroy cultures with force will yield chaos.  Human cultures should be changed from within and not to be forced and shaped by the external demands unless the local population demands to be shaped by the external factors.  If the border of a country isn’t clearly drawn on the map or clearly dictated to the population, I think the balance of the central and the local centers are going to be a lot more complicated… may destroy a civilization and create extremisms such as genocide.

Of course, one can argue that humans should work together, thus all borders should be crossed.  I think this argument is somewhat flaw.  Of course, humans should work together, but all borders should not be crossed.  Instead of having all borders to be eliminated, we should focus on having some borders to be compromised in truces and agreements!  This means we should focus on civilization struggle and do away with civilization clash.  Civilization struggle is where each nation tries to defend its own border and make compromises for advancing the local populations’ interests.  Civilization clash is where each nation tries to eradicate its enemies at all cost (i.e., genocidal behavior).

In short, I think the central government should be strong and stay slim in a way that allow local governments to breathe and govern with local distinct flavors — all in all, to allow a nation to be strong to a point that a nation’s culture should not be eradicated (i.e., border should be clear on the map and in world economy).  The goal is to not have civilization clash but to have civilization struggle.  We cannot do away with the struggle part, because to be human is to struggle!  Nonetheless, we should do away with the clash part, because it’s a genocidal behavior.

Each of us human is unique and precious, thus genocide is the opposite of humanity as it tends to try to eradicate the unique, precious parts of humanity.  In my opinion, struggle is to reform and to stay in synch with time; to become more progressive.  Clash is to be genocidal, and we should do away with genocidal behaviors at all cost.  Say no to all forms of genocide!  Say yes to reform struggles!  This means we should say no to the genocide of cultures also!  Each culture is different and unique and may provide different insight into humanity, and we should not allow a genocide to wipe out a culture.  The world is much more colorful when we have the struggles of cultures.  The world is much more evil and sad and genocidal when we have the clashes of cultures!