Economists drooling over the thought of a big war in the “third world,” too blinded by the thought of quarterly profits to realise that that isn’t what a Third World War implies.
quick, somebody tell me if a third world war is good for bitcoin
it obviously is, duh
Everyone will be clamoring for non-governmental currencies like bitcoin in a post apocalyptic scenario. Unlike nonexistent governmental forces, etherium smart contracts have enforcement mechanisms built-in.
Pedaling my bike generator so I can mine bitcoin on a world with no power grid.
Pedal fast my friend! The entire economy is depending on you!
Drooling fingers, panic buttons
Playing with missiles like they’re toys
And there’s easy money, easy jobs
Especially when you build the bombs
That blow big cities off the map
Just guess who profits when we build 'em back up?
This kills the portfolio
they would die same as everybody else
they’re hoping to pull a dr. strangelove
What if we trick them into thinking the nukes are dropping so they all get in their bunkers and never come out?
yeah but what I am saying is that those plans won’t work they fundamentally underestimate the sheer power of the bombs being discussed
i understand what you’re saying, they don’t
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
can’t express enough that when I said everyone would die that was meant to be a cause for concern
But we’ll all go together when we go.
Where we go one we go all
Yes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.
My brain is so fried I read “third world war” like a war in the “third world.” They mean WW3. The Economist is a monster factory.
I did the same. Not sure why.
I think another one may have already started
The only reason we haven’t had a Third World War is because the bourgeoisie and their political hirelings no there would be no way for them to avoid the destruction.
deleted by creator
lol
