It's an oversimplification, perhaps a proxy for wealth. Russian oligarchs hoarding London property are moving from a poor country to a rich country, but they are colonisers.
I think this doesn't pay any attention to the historical meaning of coloniser.
If I continued with the theme, colonisers were poor as fk. who moved to other poor as fk places. But with sufficient luck and skills they were able to enrich their legacies.
Colonisers build colonies in places that had no prior permanent settlement. Thats why we speak of a potential Mars-colony, for the beginning at least.
It seems the wording coloniser is chosen as a power projection, since rich people hold more power than poor people. But it doesn't pay any respect to our past.
Historically, colonization included two very different types of societies- in America, it was primarily poor European peasants moving to undeveloped land and starting farms they worked themselves and pursued an independent future from their former country.
But it was also things like Belgian Congo where a relatively tiny number of Europeans set up governmental & social structures which were exploitative of the local population and extractive of the resources to go back to the colonizing country.
It's unfortunate that we conflate two very different things with one word. Most of the colonists/pilgrims/pioneers/settlers going from Europe->USA were essentially refugees fleeing poverty, persecution, war or starvation in their home countries who were making a new permanent life for themselves. This is in stark contrast to most of the colonization of Africa (whether from Europeans or Arabs) which was primarily military and governmental people who retained allegiance and connection to their home country and often intended to return home after serving some time in the extractive colony.
And of course, in modern usage, it gets used for everything ranging from white rappers to muslim communities in London, so you need a lot of context to assess the intended meaning.
Perhaps I left out "trying to".. But really it means they have to raise their salaries for all doctors less to bring their compensation for hiring in new foreign doctors up to an acceptable level for some nation's expat doctors.
Of course it doesn’t benefit the Portuguese. That’s not how Portugal is governed. It’s cynical, but that’s really how it is; learned helplessness on a national scale.
nomads pay taxes, then they leave – Portugal gets extra money to provide social services and does not need to care for those nomads when they hit retirement – saving the state money in the future
I admit that I don't understand the full details of what they did (the article doesn't get too in-depth with it), but here's what the DOJ press release [0] says:
>Anton Peraire-Bueno and James Pepaire-Bueno manipulated and tampered with the process and protocols by which transactions are validated and added to the Ethereum blockchain. In doing so, they fraudulently gained access to pending private transactions and used that access to alter certain transactions and obtain their victims’ cryptocurrency. Once the defendants stole their victims’ cryptocurrency, they rejected requests to return the stolen cryptocurrency and took numerous steps to hide their ill-gotten gains.
>Anton Peraire-Bueno and James Pepaire-Bueno meticulously planned the Exploit over the course of several months. Among other things, they learned the trading behaviors of the victim traders whose cryptocurrency they ultimately stole. As they planned the Exploit, they also took numerous steps to conceal their identities and lay the groundwork to conceal the stolen proceeds, including by setting up shell companies and using multiple private cryptocurrency addresses and foreign cryptocurrency exchanges. After the Exploit, the defendants transferred the stolen cryptocurrency through a series of transactions designed to conceal the source and ownership of the stolen funds.
Factually, they appear to have found a software bug. The community at large expected some range of inputs to the software, but as part of a cheat these folks provided inputs outside the range accepted by the community, which federal prosecutors are using as a substitute for proving an actual false statement, which is the real element.[1] It's interesting because the inputs apparently weren't "false" and maybe they weren't the sort of thing capable of falsity. Instead, they violated a community expectation -- that maybe wasn't documented.
Putting consciousness of guilt and money laundering aside for a moment... the government just charged exploiting a software bug for profit as a wire fraud.
It’s unlikely that Bitcoin will ever do the same, for the same reason Ethereum was created separately in the first place: they (BTC community in general) don’t want to add or change anything, because they perceive that as diminishing its value. Oh well.
I’ve used DeFi for as long as it’s been around and will continue to do so. It’s safer and can be more profitable than TradFi, even with stablecoin yield. It’s a larger area than you might realise, and there is a lot more to it than degen gambling.
reply