After the quarantine has been lifted and all companies have started to be allowed to run again, I am optimistic that in 2021
my economy will recover. For this year, the income of the company that I lead is not the same as before the corona virus
spreads. But at least there is income that can be obtained, hopefully the amount of company income can continue to increase.
Your lucky that your company is still earning while others didn't experience to earn yet because they are still close . your companies income will return to normal as soon as there is no more covid . my financial status are the same or I'd say it improve a little because my nature of work is online and this kind of work are on demand now . I'm thankful but I'm not selfish , Im wishing that this covid be will gone as soon as possible . I feel like if this corona virus doesn't end any time soon and keeps getting bigger (it happens in some nations, dying out in others) I feel like we are going to get another break out soon and that will not end well for economy. It already happened once and the nations decided that having a less valuable currency and high inflation would be result instead of having everyone super poor and not even be able to afford food, so I understand the logic and it kind of worked, well at least for short term. However if it happens again in the coming months they can't continue to print money, and even if they do that would be unbelievably bad for our future as well, so I do not know about my economic future, unfortunately the situation doesn't look good for now at all. We're seeing an uptick because the lockdowns have eased. As governments try to move closer to normal you will continue to see the spread of the virus. The virus is basically linked to economic activity at this point. The movement and interaction of people through the economy spreads the virus. This is why when strict lockdowns were in place, you had falling infection rates. Such strict lockdowns choked off the ability of the virus to spread, but also economic activity. |
|
|
|
So how is this still paying 4.08% a year, what's the business model?
The business model is very simple. There were 123 BTC wagered yesterday and part of the house edge pays for free rolls, lottery tickets, reward points, golden tickets, referral income and the 4.08% compounded annual interest. It's a model that has been working for almost 7 years now. The interest is essentially a loss leader for the gambling portion of the site, which is where the site makes profit. The house edge is pretty severe compared to other dice sites, but as long as there are players willing to play against it, the site can afford to pay the interest. Unlike a lot of sites that "pay" 15% per month on deposits (and should be avoided as likely scams), 4% should be manageable as long as there is a steady stream of dicers. |
|
|
|
Looks like the situation is even worse than I thought.
I bet over 181.5 on a Volleyball wager.
I found a source for the volleyball match showing that it was won 3 sets to 2, best out of 5.
The chances of a volleyball match not going over 181.5 when it goes to 5 sets are slim to none.
And yet the bet gets graded as a cancel because supposedly they can't find a source that shows it went over 181.5, only that it went to 5 sets.
What a fucking scam. This bet won almost undoubtedly and they're grading it as a push.
Fucking scammers.
It sounds like you couldn't find the score either, otherwise you would have posted what the score was instead of making a point about your bet "likely" having won instead of actually won. Do you not understand why a sportsbook wouldn't pay out on an over/under prop when there is no verifiable score? They refunded the bet because it can't be determined either way, and that's the right call. You don't pay out a bet because it's "likely" something happened. If the match ended 3-0 and they graded it a loss because it was "likely" to have come in on the under, would you accept that or would you be here whining about that too? (That's rhetorical, we all know the answer.) |
|
|
|
1989 - savings and loans bailout
2008 - banks bailout
2020 - covid19 bailout aka wall street bailout
bailouts get bigger every time. But will they become more frequent?? Do we need more bailouts to bailout the aftermath of the previous bailouts?
When the economy is growing the companies are whining about government regulations and taxes. When the economy is in a recession/depression all the companies want the government to save them. That's the hypocrisy of capitalism right there. After several decades,the US economy will reach a point,where the companies will not be able to exist without constant bailouts. This will be a government controlled economy,pretty similar to the communist centralized plan economy. Lol, that's not "capitalism". In a capitalist system, bad companies that haven't planned for adverse situations are allowed to go bankrupt. Bailouts are anti-capitalist. What you're actually describing is just greed, and it doesn't exist solely in capitalism. Greed is human nature, and no matter what economic system you have, greed is the motivating factor for it. That's why in even "socialist" economic systems, wealth concentrates at the top. The rulers of those systems are motivated by greed. There's a middle ground too, it's not just capitalism or communism. Countries like Sweden have a pretty solid system where the economy is not centrally planned but there are strong social programs. |
|
|
|
Its not a about Medical issue. Its just smoke and mirrors. Its a about Economic issue. Becouse the strongest covid restrictions are in places where debt is highest. But the government had to hide this otherwise If they would telling the truth the more panic would occured!! The covid smoke and mirrors is not bad idea  The rulers who run world are smart like me But they are much more smart If I would run the World I wouldnt not know to use this covid fake Thing I Wonder how they Got that idea covid 19 to hide their Economic debt bubble and liqutity problem? Conspiracy theories are usually stupid and this one is not an exception. The US is suffering a widespread outbreak because it won't undergo strict lockdown procedures, and as a country with a massive debt load it fails the very correlating test you propose in your conspiracy theory. Further, shutting down economic activity to try and stem the flow of the virus makes it even more difficult to service the debt loads a country carries as tax revenues drop as a direct result of lower economic activity, so your theory that the countries with the highest debt load have purposely introduced lockdowns as a means to hide their debt problems doesn't even make logical sense. It would actually make the debt problems all the more apparent as the share of debt-to-GDP would skyrocket. ...the point i made was that the covid is just economic smoke and mirror for real problem wich is debt bubble. same was happening 2008 when crash was not that big so they did not need to hide this crash with some smoke and mirrors scheme. but every 10 years the economic circle will start and will end so everytime the end of the bull martkets and starting of the debt p´bubble will be more and more painful. we have more credit and loans then actual money is existing the next 10 years i dont think the covid 19 smoke and mirrors idea can even hide the problem. 2030 will be painful coz by that time the smoke and mirrors covid cant hide anymore i guess so. When you say "smoke and mirrors" that connotes an intentional deception. Maybe that's not your point? Maybe you just mean it's a distraction. That might be closer to a legitimate point, but I'd still disagree with it. The two aren't related. The 2008 crash was absolutely monstrous. There was systemic collapse throughout the financial system and liquidity evaporated. It would have continued to cascade had the government not stepped in to bailout financial firms. You can take issue with whether that was the right call or not, but it's a fact that financial firms would have continued to go under with increasing severity if the situation was not stabilized with massive injections of new money, which came in the form of quantitative easing. |
|
|
|
The US market did it again. A new high has been reached after price action managed to break above the 3400 on the SP500. What happened? I'll try to explain the dynamics behind the bullish run and what we can expect next. I think that uptrend and new high is a combined result: - Covid new cases are on the decline and hence there are less concerns.
- Elections are getting closer. Trump’s approval ticked up ever so slightly in recent polls and this could provide some optimism in the stock market.
- And finally the trade war showed signals that both sides are still committed to the implementation of the agreement.
What next? The SP500 index has seen a break above 3400. This could lure in investments from the sidelines perhaps (as discussed in a previous article) and could boost the market even higher. "What If" Scenarios? All good? Not exactly, we will see a bear market likely before the election takes place, but i'll discuss this in a future posts. As usual, it’s time to discuss the main question: how should we manage this market with options? "The trend is your friend" so i want to follow it. But it is even more important to protect your portfolio with SPY or SPX put or bear put. This completely ignores the fact that the market is higher than it was when COVID started but fully 1/5 of the country is unemployed. No amount of optimism about the COVID numbers getting better (which I don't even think they are in a meaningful way) could explain the disparity considering how much worse the economy is now than at the beginning of the year. Companies are going to make less money because everyone has less money due to the great drop in gross economic activity, yet the prices of the stocks have gone up despite the expectation of substantially lower earnings. Improving COVID numbers can't explain that unless you're trying to say that the optimism has temporarily sent people out of their minds with enthusiasm for stocks. I wouldn't buy that argument. |
|
|
|
when a movement in a market doesn't make any sense at all that always means there is manipulation going on. fake movements always look weird and make no sense. granted the economy has recovered a little bit and the life resumed but things are far from being normal and certainly not fully recovered with all the money that all these companies in stock market lost in the past couple of months and continue to lose. there is also another factor that could be the main reason for manipulation. and that is the coming US elections. a recovered stock market, even if fake and in a bubble, looks so much better in campaigns  This isn't true at all. Just because a market move doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean there's market manipulation going on. The stock market cannot be explained in a simple two-dimensional way. There are millions of actors all acting independently and trillions of dollars at play, and neither of those translate into a simple binary explanation (i.e., the market it up because X or the market is down because Y). The stock market is too complex and vastly too large to be summed up like that all the time, and that's not evidence of manipulation because sometimes it moves in a way that you didn't expect given whatever specific attribute you're keying in on at the time. |
|
|
|
Its not a about Medical issue. Its just smoke and mirrors. Its a about Economic issue. Becouse the strongest covid restrictions are in places where debt is highest. But the government had to hide this otherwise If they would telling the truth the more panic would occured!! The covid smoke and mirrors is not bad idea The rulers who run world are smart like me But they are much more smart If I would run the World I wouldnt not know to use this covid fake Thing I Wonder how they Got that idea covid 19 to hide their Economic debt bubble and liqutity problem? Conspiracy theories are usually stupid and this one is not an exception. The US is suffering a widespread outbreak because it won't undergo strict lockdown procedures, and as a country with a massive debt load it fails the very correlating test you propose in your conspiracy theory. Further, shutting down economic activity to try and stem the flow of the virus makes it even more difficult to service the debt loads a country carries as tax revenues drop as a direct result of lower economic activity, so your theory that the countries with the highest debt load have purposely introduced lockdowns as a means to hide their debt problems doesn't even make logical sense. It would actually make the debt problems all the more apparent as the share of debt-to-GDP would skyrocket. |
|
|
|
1989 - savings and loans bailout
2008 - banks bailout
2020 - covid19 bailout aka wall street bailout
bailouts get bigger every time. But will they become more frequent?? Do we need more bailouts to bailout the aftermath of the previous bailouts?
Three data points is hardly enough data to make a point, let alone extrapolate it into anything meaningful. Bailouts are generally bad because they take the consequences for irresponsible behavior out of the equation. They also skew the economics of investment and risk/reward. The people who want bailouts are those who have a lot to lose, so bailouts invariably favor the richest people in the economy while destabilizing the currency for the rest of us. Bailouts should be a measure of last resort, but "too big to fail" is now a permanent part of our lexicon to the detriment of us all (except the billionaire class). |
|
|
|
Governments like inflation, because it is good for them.
They do the most they can to generate more inflation: negative interest rates, money injection, and so on.
Governments make a lot of money from inflation, due to inflation tax.
For example, you pay capital gain tax over inflation. Your asset is 3% more valuable one year later? You will pay taxes over that 3%, even if only 1% is real valuation and 2% is just inflation.
Not only that, governments get to enjoy to spend that money before inflation even makes its mark in the market which gives them a huge advantage over any other player in the market, think about it suppose that the whole money supply around the world is just 100 dollars, so all products and services of the world are worth those very same 100 dollars, but then the government prints 3 dollars this means they get to spend those 3 dollars before the market is aware of their existence and as such they get goods and services worth that money, but once those 3 dollars enter the market now all products and services around the world have to be divided by a money supply of 103 dollars effectively lowering your purchasing power. While the mechanics of this example are correct, you have to realize that the economy is so much more complex and the absolute numbers are so large that a change like this would take an exceedingly long time to show in prices, and the bet is that the economy can recover and grow to absorb most of the new money put into circulation before the effects of rampant inflation are felt. For the most part, this has been a pretty good trade off. The US does not have out of control inflation and has done a good job measuring the risk of inflation against all the new money put into the economy. |
|
|
|
I was just looking at the comparisons of the charts between the dax, uk ftse and s&p500 and it looks like the S&P has has majorly outperformed the others but I'm trying to work out why?
A lot of people seem to think consumers are buying more from larger companies and less from smaller ones and the US government seemed to be doing it's best to bailout everything other countries were competing on (afaik) against it - like they normally do. But it seems weird that part of the market has already fully recovered even though the pandemic is set to continue for quite a while. Did people just deposit their cheques from the government straight into the stock market? Are companies doing buybacks still with their own rescue packages? Or do people wait for a crash before they start investing...
You won't find a concrete reason for this because of how nebulous it is and the fact that nothing is directly cause-effect, but the most likely explanation I've seen has to do with how much money the Fed has created recently to hold down interest rates. By doing so, it forces the yield on safer investments like bonds and treasuries to near-zero, and because investors want a return on their wealth, it forces them into riskier investments in search of better returns. In this context, that means exited the now zero-yielding investments and moving into equities. So although the Fed has not bought securities directly with the money they created, the net effect is to push money into equities as a consequence of printing that money. |
|
|
|
Vaccine for COVID-19 will be available on 2021 so I believe it will be a positive year for my finance although I'm not that affected of this pandemic due to the nature of my work. My daily job routine doesn't change at all except for no office appearance at least once a week. There is a lot of ways to become positive amidst this pandemic. Imagine many people in Africa are suffering from poverty even before this Pandemic but still there life goes on as usual. So why not us that has a lot of resources available to sustain our daily necessities. We just need to become creative and adapt to the new normal. Just like BTC price, We can't stay always at the bottom.
Even with vaccines it is likely the virus will be with us indefinitely going forward. One difficulty related to vaccines is the amount of people who will refuse to get vaccinated. Other than that, there is a high likelihood of the vaccine not eradicating the virus but only helping to control the extremes of the outbreak. This is likely a virus that will be seasonal like the flu, where it still kills hundreds of thousands every year during the flare ups, but does not otherwise rise to the level of a pandemic. |
|
|
|
Is it possible that the 1% group want to kill us intentionally (get rid of the people they don't need)?
Snipped all the garbage out of this post to get at the only relevant question worth addressing here, which is an economic question at heart. The answer is no and the reason is basic economic principles about the creation of wealth. More people means more economic activity, and more economic activity makes those at the top of the socioeconomic ladder more wealthy. If you have less people you have less total wealth in the world because there is less economic activity, which means less wealth accumulates at the top rungs of society in absolute terms. The more people there are, the more consumers of everything there are. The idea that the "wealthy" want less people in the world is an idiotic idea just for the economics of it, but you've gone and made the idea even dumber by turning it into a conspiracy theory about the wealthy wanting to cull the world's population. |
|
|
|
basically the article says the fed has some missed time to make up for since we had a period of lower than 2% inflation, well need say for example 3% inflation to make up for that lost infation.
money printer go brrrrrrrrrrrrr
From their Keynesian standpoint, it makes perfect sense. These deflationary periods obviously kick inflation well below 2%. Why worry about slightly overshooting 2% on the upside if it could mitigate the risk of cutting the recovery short? As far as money printing goes, I'm not sure it matters much. If the economy doesn't recover to 2% inflation (or takes longer to do so than expected) they will keep running their infinite QE program anyway. Money printing is just the norm now. It's not based on the actual money supply, it's based on the state of the markets. They were still calling it a "recovery" 10 years after the last crash from the housing crisis and were worried about jeopardizing the "recovery" when we were posting the best employment numbers, stock market numbers and GDP on record. The framing of it as a "recovery" long after it was recovered and was just a flat out booming economy is deceptive and designed to never have to raise interest rates, because the billionaire class in this country is addicted to cheap money and god forbid the Fed ever employ a sound monetary policy for fear of pissing off their republican backers. |
|
|
|
"The global economic transformation now faces the main question: What to choose — centralization or decentralization?" What is 'The Great Reset' you might ask? This topic can be very sensitive, but it's something that needs to be thrown at your face sometimes. We are still and will continue to be in an economic recession for god knows how long. Will crypto be the solution? Maybe for part of it... Raoul Milhado produced a hell of an article that outlines what the world can look like in the coming months. He takes note of the WEF (World Economic Forum) making an impartial statement about a need for urgency for "global stakeholders" aka one-percenters to manage the outcomes of what is called "The Great Lockdown" <-- (SERIOUSLY READ THIS) His article can be found here: https://cointelegraph.com/news/what-role-will-crypto-play-during-the-great-resetThis 'lockdown' we have entered could be known as a cover to remake the world. The cost COVID-19 pandemic has surpassed every single epidemic/pandemic the world has ever seen. We've seen industries shift 90 degrees and take a bullet to the head but we have also seen industries flourish from the ground up, resulting in a new wave of entrepreneurs and people finally looking out for themselves. Don't forget to mention the current curriculum is dying as they aren't teaching what is hot like "How to Tik-Tok" or "OnlyFans 101." Even though it may be frowned upon, we're all adults and need to be faced with the truth behind reality whether it sucks or not. Either way, it's nice to see crypto have a resurgence in the past months as an alternative to traditional finance and business. My dad, a blue-collar worker that will rely on his retirement is FINALLY reaching back out to explore investment opportunities in Bitcoin... What are you hoping to get out of this 'Great Reset?' Are you adapting? Because at this point, whether the industry, it is evolving to something similar to The Hunger Games or even the survival of the fittest. Don't forget to smash that poll button with your vote because it's important to me and it's provocative; it gets the people going!!! This is a bunch of fluff. There's no solution crypto offers for the pandemic. The problem is a lack of economic activity caused by the need to stop or slow the spread of a the virus. Economic activity itself spreads the virus because the movement of people is what spreads the infection. Until there's a vaccine, the world will have reduced economic activity as people seek to limit their exposure. There's absolutely nothing crypto can do to solve or alleviate that. |
|
|
|
Well, even peoples are not losing faith from centralized organizations but there are some problems in my country. The government of my country announced lately that they will not responsible for bankruptcy. If a bank goes bankrupt, means you lost your money. This wasn't a real-time and perfect decision, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most probably that's why I have seen that picture to our banks. Possibly people's withdrawing money to confrontation the bad situation or both would be a reason why banks are becoming empty.
Those banks will be replaced with other bank, in the end all people will get is another name, everything else will be the same. I think that people don't really knows what centealized and decentralized means in the first place. Many of us still learn about that, I can say we are lucky we are in crypto and here we know more about how economy works, what centralized and decentralised organisations means, how they work and what they are stand for, and I guess most of us give advantage to decentralised because we know its a more fair system, and honest to all, not just for individuals and groups as centralized organisations are. People who feels sick from governments and banks are turning to crypto, they lost faith in centralization long time ago, but they (we) didn't have alternative, now we have and its crypto. Banks being replaced with other banks don't help the people who's savings are gone as a result of a bank going out of business with to backstop by the government for savings. Bank bankruptcies reduce confidence in the banking system. Bank runs are merely the loss of confidence in the bank, regardless of whether the bank is actually unstable or not. Just the worry that banks could become unstable actually makes the banks unstable, and the more banks that fail the more people will be concerned about the remaining banks. |
|
|
|
GS is the perfect example of don´t listen what they say, just observe what they are doing. It was clear that as soon as they found a way to make money with crypto/blockchain they would miraculously change their opinion all of a sudden and jump the bandwagon. I´m just wondering if they are eyeing on a token for trading, for settlement or put out something with a real value
Being down on bitcoin and being down on crypto is not the same thing. Goldman is anti-bitcoin as an investment and as a currency, not anti-crypto which they can find a lot of use for, specifically in instantaneous settlement. A big bank being pro-crypto is not necessarily a bullish sign for bitcoin. In fact, the more the big banks get into crypto, likely the worse it will be for bitcoin as there will be better uses of crypto under their systems than bitcoin, especially given that bitcoin is so slow to adapt. |
|
|
|
User: jaysabi
Position to Apply: Hero
Posts Start: 3229
Address: 37s2UzdBhJCM624kjPNMEJvzviDnKZVsHc
As requested, confirming acceptance and details in spreadsheet are correct. |
|
|
|
Everyone knows real inflation has been vastly higher for a long, long time. I have no idea why they bother claiming any figure at all. It doesn't bear any relation to the real world where it's doing real damage.
CPI has its purposes in this analysis since economic output is directly tied to consumer spending. How fast the prices of consumer goods and services rise tells us a lot about how far wages go in the current economy. What it doesn't tell us about is savings. Investments like stocks, real estate, and BTC aren't tracked for inflation purposes. And that is definitely something we should be keeping track of in addition to CPI. I'd like to see an inflation index covering investment assets, because a healthy analysis considers not just spenders, but savers as well. An inflation index tracking savings wouldn't really be an inflation index since inflation is the rise of prices and savings has nothing to do with prices. If the government gave everyone a million dollars and everyone put it in the bank and did nothing with it, there would be no inflation to record. Eventually, savings make their way back into the economy, so the exclusion of savings is only temporary. When the savings start to make their way back into the economy, it will affect prices and inflation accordingly. If you hold your savings in dollars and then after decades find that it can purchase only a small fraction of the real estate or gold that it once could, I think that's a very important measure. In other words, CPI doesn't tell us how much you lose by keeping your savings in dollars. That's a metric everyone should be aware of. I guess this is the part I don't understand then, because this is exactly what the inflation rate tells you. Inflation is calculated in the base currency and measures price increases over time, so if inflation is 2% per year the value of USD is dropping 2% per year. It doesn't matter if your net worth is in physical dollars or not, everything in the economy is denominated in dollars so no matter what medium you're keeping your wealth in, inflation affects it all the same way because you transact in dollars. It's just that a consequence of keeping wealth in a medium that is inflation resistant (e.g., gold) makes the "value" of the asset rise in USD as inflation causes USD to lose value. If you buy gold at $100 and then it's worth $110, did the gold gain value or did the dollar lose value relative to gold? They're one in the same. But the inflation rate is telling you what you're losing by holding dollars instead of assets that produce income or act as an inflation hedge. |
|
|
|
Everyone knows real inflation has been vastly higher for a long, long time. I have no idea why they bother claiming any figure at all. It doesn't bear any relation to the real world where it's doing real damage.
CPI has its purposes in this analysis since economic output is directly tied to consumer spending. How fast the prices of consumer goods and services rise tells us a lot about how far wages go in the current economy. What it doesn't tell us about is savings. Investments like stocks, real estate, and BTC aren't tracked for inflation purposes. And that is definitely something we should be keeping track of in addition to CPI. I'd like to see an inflation index covering investment assets, because a healthy analysis considers not just spenders, but savers as well. An inflation index tracking savings wouldn't really be an inflation index since inflation is the rise of prices and savings has nothing to do with prices. If the government gave everyone a million dollars and everyone put it in the bank and did nothing with it, there would be no inflation to record. Eventually, savings make their way back into the economy, so the exclusion of savings is only temporary. When the savings start to make their way back into the economy, it will affect prices and inflation accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
