|
BADecker are you even aware of the benefits of a country and governments?
You DO understand that it brings efficiency and stability through mutualization of costs risks responsabilities and profits?
That's the main point of a community. That's what the market, private industries and single individuals will never be able to bring simply because they're not meant to:
Optimization and mutualization around a shared moral value.
There is no moral in the market.
If it the way to maximize profits is to simply deny the rights of those who paid for your services long enough until they die they will do it. That's exactly what's happening in USA right now.
|
|
|
|
Tu revends combien plus chère sur localbitcoin ou autre ?
Autre question, tu vends au prix du cours ou un prix définis par avance ?
Environ 15% Non c'est le prix au cours. En gros l'idée est simple: tu veux transformer 500€ en btc sans laisser de trace. Tu me l'envoies et quand je réceptionne je transforme immédiatement 500 de mes prores € sur une plateforme d'échange et je te renvoies l'équivalent (-15%) en btc. Donc évidemment personne "d'honnête" n'a besoin de ce service hein. C'est clairement pour les gens qui veulent pas laisser de trace. |
|
|
|
Sauf que cette création de richesse est personnelle. Si tu prends un peu de recul, le système a toujours un choux et un navet au total.
Certes mais le choux et le navet ont pris de la valeur. C'est la raison pour laquelle, la croissance est potentiellement infinie même si les ressources sont "finies". Avec la nouvelle valeur du chou et du navet, tu peux les échanger contre quelque chose qui était inaccessible avant cette prise de valeur. D'accord avec le post juste avant, on confond les valeurs et la richesse. Dans mon exemple il y a bien création de valeur mais certainement pas de richesse. Oui la valeur augmente autant que tu le souhaites mais simplement parce que la valeur c'est très relatif. Par contre la richesse ne bouge pas d'un pouce sans extraction et/ou transformation des matières premières. Tûtûtût ! La valeur est certes relative car elle n'est pas identique entre les individus qui échangent, les deux étant gagnants (sinon ils n'échangeraient pas). Si la valeur était absolue, il y aurait forcément un gagnant et un perdant.
Comme les deux sont gagnants, il y a création de richesse. Ben déjà c'est forcément le cas dans un système. Chaque chose a une valeur objective DANS UN SYSTEME
Prenons un autre exemple. Imagine deux collectionneurs de timbres, Alfred et Patrick.
Alfred possède la collection entière des timbres de France, sauf un : le fameux timbre Schmulbluc
Par contre, il possède deux timbres Schmilblick
La côte de Schmulbluc est de 1000 euros
La côte de Schmilblick est de 1500 euros
Patrick, de son côté, possède le timbre Schmulbluc à 1000€ et il est prêt à le céder contre le timbre Schmilblick à 1500€
Alfred et Patrick procède à l'échange.
A priori, si on regarde l'échange d'un point de vue comptable, Alfred à perdu 500€ dans l'histoire et Patrick a gagné 500€.
Cependant, la collection d'Alfred est a présent complète et l'ensemble prend 30% de valeur en plus.
Par conséquent, Alfred et Patrick ont tous les deux gagné dans cet échange. Comme on peut le voir, il y a eu création de richesse, équivalente à la valeur supplémentaire que prend la collection d'Alfred.
Faaaaaaaux C'est là que le bas blesse comme on dit. Le vrai problème c'est que la richesse du système n'a pas bougé d'un pouve, on se retrouve toujours avec le même nombre de timbres. Ce que j'essaie de te dire c'est que là, y a pas création de croissance. Les deux ont gagné en valeur de patrimoine c'est vrai mais le système (c'est-à-dire leur communauté) n'a pas gagné 1 euros en richesse. Après tout dépend comment tu définis tes termes bien sûr, mais c'est ridicule (à mon sens) de considérer que CA c'est de la création de richesse et de croissance. On part vraiment dans des concepts très abstraits donc je vais essayer de ramener à quelque chose de concret et réaliste. Avec ta vision des choses, imagine deux personnes: A et B sont voisins. A est plombier et B est electricien. A a un problème avec son ampoule et B avec sa baignoire. A et B se rendent mutuellement service et se paient une bière. Et bien avec ta vision des choses, il y a eu ici croissance et création de richesse puisque les deux se retrouvent avec une maison avec moins de problème. Là ça va, ça fait sens et c'est pas totalement con en fait. Mais si A et B sont des petits artistes du dimanche. A peint et B sculpte. A trouve que la sculpture de B est mieux que sa peinture, B l'inverse. Ils échangent. Il y aurait eu ici création de richesse? C'est... C'est ridicule. A ce compte là oui on peut avoir une "croissance" infinie mais cette croissance ne signifie rien en ne suffit pas du tout à faire tourner un système capitaliste correctement. |
|
|
|
This is all completely crazy. I closed everything, I'm done with trying to guess anything. Closed my last long at 2200 only to see I missed 100$ rise ^^ (won't complain though, still profit) I got my stack of btc, you can all go as you want. But I stop trading there, too crazy for me  |
|
|
|
Looooool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_involving_the_United_KingdomLook at the bottom of the table, from 2000 I won't even talk about colonization here (though it could be seen as the main root of the problems) simply talking about the numerous wars you, and the whole occidental world, started in Middle East simply to get more oil and more money. And then when you bombed entire countries, killed hundreds of thousands of people perfectly innocent, took their ressources... You say you've done nothing? Questio of perspective. I'd say you're the real terrorist. That's true, countries like GB have been acting like hired goons and took part in various conflicts around the world, especially in Africa and Asia, that shouldn't involve them. While this should be publically condemned, just like the invasion of Iraq, the actions of terrorists should be condemned as well. The people who walk the streets, taking their children to school aren't responsible for the actions of the military. They can't change anything and targeting them specifically is savage. If they want to wage a war they should bomb the parliament or some military bases, not cinemas and restaurants. Ah so people aren't responsible for the action of their governments and military? But we still have superior rights as being born in a country? And we live in democracy? So... Two solution: -We do live in a democracy and we need to take responsability on their actions -> we have to either accept terrorism or get rid of our governments and change policies -We don't live in a democracy so we're not responsible for their actions -> we should make a freaking revolution and get rid of our governments and change policies |
|
|
|
So how does this work...
One lunatic with insane thoughts blows up a bomb in a teenager concert in Manchester. The man probably never even had contact with IS...
IS wakes up.. Hey there's been an explosion in Manchester done by a muslim.. Lets claim this attack!
Am I missing something here? Because this seems to be the case the last 24 months when something happens..
Exactly what's happening yup. You even got some "terrorist attacks" claimed by ISIS where the guy has never been in a mosquee in his entire life xD But ISIS claims it and after it's easier for governments to explain us that the real problem is Islam so no one cares ^^ |
|
|
|
Now i am saying when i was a child i was brought up on the street and believe me if i was young now
i would be burning mosques throwing petrol bombs in shops and everything..
Which makes you not really different from those "terrorists" Funny though how they are terrorists while your soldiers are heroes. I guess it's mostly a question of perspective. When i was a child my parents would say DON'T YOU EVER HIT FIRST NOT EVER.. If he hits you then you hit back or they will be hitting you everyday.. Now we could talk about religious wars always hitting the population FIRST.. But in this day and age it's the ISLAMS .But it was the islam that started the religious wars in the first place.. Religion is suppose to be about non violence not in ISLAM.. 1,400 Years of Islamic Aggression: An Analysis - CBN.com www.cbn.com/spirituallife/.../understandingislam/IslamHistory0212.aspxBut let's give the writer the benefit of the doubt and say that the author meant that "During the Crusades, Islam and Christianity first met." This, of course, is also I wasn't born 1400 years ago so what have i done..ANSWER NOTHING ..So who hit who first?.. Looooool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_involving_the_United_KingdomLook at the bottom of the table, from 2000 I won't even talk about colonization here (though it could be seen as the main root of the problems) simply talking about the numerous wars you, and the whole occidental world, started in Middle East simply to get more oil and more money. And then when you bombed entire countries, killed hundreds of thousands of people perfectly innocent, took their ressources... You say you've done nothing? Questio of perspective. I'd say you're the real terrorist. |
|
|
|
You make great comparison with communism - Ive lived through it.
You know where that lead to? Very, very small group of people (politbyro, but you can call them papacy aswell), who knew each other held responsibility for redistribution of wealth (social justice, but could be called salvation) in the name of the state (god).
These men were very close to historical definition of demi gods. Tasked to administer collective means of production and development, since private property was not really an option. At different time periods taking or protecting lives seemingly at whim.
Democracy, that westerners taky for granted is quite fragile thing, tied intimately to the relationship between means of production and its owners. Take common men out of this equation and their role in the political system will diminish aswell. You are right, you would be probadly well fed and clothed in such system (as it will be obligation of upper class in such social contract), however ultimately you would lead a life of pet in a nice cage.
I am not forcing this view on you, just sharing my experience and perhaps hoping it will make you think.
THAT IS WHERE THE ANSWER LIES! The problem is in fact what you've lived through and what USSR knew has never been communism. Yeah we called that communism but it was not. It was a simple and plain oligarchy with a group of people having all the powers. But you'll tell me, it can only become this. Socialism and communism can only lead to that as the state will take more and more and "redistribute"... But only a few people will decide how it is redistributed! WELL NO! There is a solution now! Direct democracy. Imagine this: a country with high taxation where the people rather than elected a king for a few years who will decide everything, people actually vote directly the laws and the budget. Then there is no politbyro as you say. Because we all give and all decide equally. That can sounds as an utopia but... Technologically it's fairly easy to do. What is really opposing that? |
|
|
|
Now i am saying when i was a child i was brought up on the street and believe me if i was young now
i would be burning mosques throwing petrol bombs in shops and everything..
Which makes you not really different from those "terrorists" Funny though how they are terrorists while your soldiers are heroes. I guess it's mostly a question of perspective. |
|
|
|
|
And again everyone is going all and out against Muslims...
For fucks sake we don't give a shit! It's not what's important ><
GO on and kill all muslims already! So once there is no longer any muslims you'll see that all that isn't linked to religion in any way but to how YOU (and I) act and how YOU try to take the profit of the globalize world.
Want to end terrorism? Stop enslaving half of the world. Extreme islamism is a symptom, not a cause.
|
|
|
|
Ok yeah I see what you mean.
I'll try Bitstamp then, it's not really for the best to stay on a trading platform with such problems xD
It's not that I am vouching for Bitstamp either, considering the risks any and all trading platforms present. I am just talking about my personal experience/incidents or lack thereof. Can you tell how many BTC were bought/sold in that huge spike to 2082€? According to the order books, it should take a massive order of almost 2000BTC to reach this price now. According to the charts, that did not happen (the volume in those spikes was about 100BTC). Therefore it was not a massive bought order but some kind of bug/error in their API. Dont you think so? I am absolutely sure that this time, AGAIN, something happenned that bypassed all or part of the order book. I would like to know WHO was the fortunate guy (or entity) that took the big profit of selling those coins at that high price. And I feel sorry for whomever was liquidated and forced to sell at that artificial high price. It would have been much lower (or maybe he wouldn't even be liquidated in first instance) if our intermediate sell orders had been honored. I would like to think this is a (recurring) bug, but I am not sure anymore.I have also seen some complains about this same issue in twitter today: https://twitter.com/bmx830/status/866916576985047041Ah I see what you mean. If there was someone who actually put sell orders at those prices and there was an artificially high spike then someone must have won a freaking jackpot there... |
|
|
|
Sauf que cette création de richesse est personnelle. Si tu prends un peu de recul, le système a toujours un choux et un navet au total.
Certes mais le choux et le navet ont pris de la valeur. C'est la raison pour laquelle, la croissance est potentiellement infinie même si les ressources sont "finies". Avec la nouvelle valeur du chou et du navet, tu peux les échanger contre quelque chose qui était inaccessible avant cette prise de valeur. D'accord avec le post juste avant, on confond les valeurs et la richesse. Dans mon exemple il y a bien création de valeur mais certainement pas de richesse. Oui la valeur augmente autant que tu le souhaites mais simplement parce que la valeur c'est très relatif. Par contre la richesse ne bouge pas d'un pouce sans extraction et/ou transformation des matières premières. |
|
|
|
.... no... The 60% poverty rate means 60% people live with less than 1.25$ Poverty rate of Moldava is 11% http://data.worldbank.org/country/moldovaIt means more than half of Eq. Guinea lives with 1$ or less while only 1 out of ten of Moldova are like this. So you're talking about average but this is ridiculous because inequality is far too large in Eq. Guinea. So rather logical to have higher crime rate in Eq. Guinea as people are poorer. Then you can compare Moldova with Albania, which happens to be the criminal capital of Europe. Albania is relatively richer when compared to Moldova, but the crime rates are much higher. Oh so after giving a false example you're just going to give another one and another and another until you find one that works? xD Anyway this example still doesn't work: http://data.worldbank.org/?locations=MD-ALAlbania and Moldava have the same poverty rate BUT Albania has a much higher GDP. It means between the two countries, Albania is not richer, it's just much more inequalitarian. So that means if two countries are equally poor, the crime rate is higher in the country which is more unequal. Thanks for proving even more my point  |
|
|
|
bitcoin monte peut être, mais je vois surtout qu'il perd du terrain face aux autres.
depuis le début de l'année, btc a fait x2, les autres ont fait x15...
Oui enfin quand de base on est à 1 c'est plus facile de faire x15 que quand on est à 2000 hein... BTC monte en prix donc forcément il se stabilise un peu. Et c'est pas un mal en soit! |
|
|
|
|
Everyone is talking about correction. Yeah there is going to be one, no doubt about it.
But whatever you feel like it's not going back to 1500$. So is it really worth to risk everything by trying to "see" a correction right now? :p
Just take a cocktail and ejoy the cool train to 4k$
|
|
|
|
|
No one says that btc is dead now.
Most of the time people now say btc is going to go down but no one says it will disappear.
There are actual problems though that explain the skeptism:
-Fees of transaction
-Limitation of number of tx
-Risk of HF
|
|
|
|
We might see 3k much earlier then expected  The volume people  I closed my long. Too afraid of a drawback. But if you got the nerves there is money to be made right now that's for sure! I think I'm gonna love this volatility |
|
|
|
After reading sitharas post one might belive woman are really stupid  Why? Sitharas is a woman? Damn if that's true she's the perfect example of how equally stupid men and women can be xD |
|
|
|
Ta remarque est à mon avis pertinente: j'aime les choux et toi les navet. J'ai un navet tu as un choux. On les échange. On s'estime tous les deux gagnants. Où est la création de richesse?
Tu as répondu tout seul à ta question. Il faut déjà considérer que la valeur d'un service ou d'une marchandise est relative. Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaudra bien plus cher que le même verre d'eau en France. Par ailleurs et pour en revenir aux services, si un médecin me sauve la vie, je pourrais continuer à générer des richesses pendant de nombreuses années. Le service rendu par le médecin l'a rendu plus riche et moi aussi. Pour en revenir à ton exemple, si tu as un navet et que tu t'en débarrassé, c'est qu'il ne vaut rien pour toi ou en tout cas, il vaut moins qu'un choux, sinon tu ne l'échangerais pas. Même raisonnement pour le possesseur de chou. Autrement dit, tu n'avais pas de chou et te voilà soudain propriétaire d'un chou. Tu as donc généré de la richesse, celle que tu donnes au chou. Mais l'exemple le plus illustratif est sans doute celui de l'Art : après tout, un tableau n'est qu'un morceau de toile avec de la peinture dessus alors comment expliques tu que ce tableau passe de quelques euros de coût à un prix de vente de plusieurs millions d'euros? Comme je le disais, la valeur d'une chose ou d'un service est relative. Quant à la monnaie, ce n'est qu'un outil. La quantité de monnaie s'adapte à la quantité de richesses produite afin de pouvoir continuer à échanger. Très bien alors je vois où est le souci. En gros ton raisonnement c'est: non mais on s'en fout c'est tout relatif. Pas d'accord, chaque chose a une valeur objective. Alors certes cette valeur change au cours du temps et surtout selon le système dans lequel tu l'intègres, mais toute richesse n'est pas relative. Ca serait trop simple! Je vois bien ce que tu veux dire, que la valeur d'un objet est relative à son utilisation, que tous on a une perception différente de ces choses et qu'on peut avoir création de richesses à partir d'un simple échange. Sauf que cette création de richesse est personnelle. Si tu prends un peu de recul, le système a toujours un choux et un navet au total. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
