Now for a dose of reality on those illogical $million price projections for Bitcoin... - Technologies have a known adoption cycle
Logistic S-curve adoption. But the breadth of adoption depends on the utility of the technology. Smart phones and toilet paper are technologies just about everyone needs (note I don't use the latter). Unless Bitcoin will be morphed via offchain reserves to correct glaring weaknesses in its technological design, then it can not and will not appeal to most of the population. If you are not factoring that into your FA analysis, then your FA is flawed. First of all Bitcoin (as it currently stands unless morphed as I say above) will be limited to reasonably affluent, white males mostly under age 50. Thus figure the upper limit of adoption is several hundred million. Note NE Asians are white. So we may already be at that adoption "chasm" you mentioned, or it will come on the next run up and peak in price. - To adopt Bitcoin, you must buy bitcoins
- Buying bitcoins from a rigid stock increases its price to induce existing holders to sell
Assuming the stock is rigid and hasn't morphed into an offchain reserves coin. - The value of Bitcoin network is correlated with the number of its members
- The purchasing power of one bitcoin is roughly linearly correlated to the number of bitcoin owners in the world and it can be expressed with the following equation: 0.0005*U (USD/BTC), where "U" is the number of bitcoin owners.
And so Bitcoin's value will not approach fiat for general commerce without being so morphed. Given the above argument, you can see why a dip below $300 is psychologically important. We ain't going to da moon, so a lower entry price builds enthusiasm and bullish resolve. P.S. White is a factor because browner people are too busy enjoying the outdoor and natural life. The white males are stuck inside with winter and find indoor male hobbies. Females in general aren't going to adopt anything that is not super easy, not threatening, available in pink, and lovingly accepted by their peers. Add: Andreas M. Antonopoulos claims in the developing world Bitcoin is approached by a different class. However if as it appears be he is referring to his experiences in South America, there is a huge influx of former European immigrants there. |
|
|
|
|
It is a fact that people close to a technology have an early advantage that the general public can not. However they also frequently overestimate their beloved technology as there are market realities they (usually subconsciously) chose to be oblivious to. So the sword cuts both ways, there is no free lunch.
Risto the creator of this thread is a Christian. I provided scriptures for him, but I can make the same logical argument from a non-religious perspective also.
aminorex, knows how to use a thesaurus, e.g. quotidian instead of daily and apposite instead of appropriate, apt, befitting or suitable.
|
|
|
|
So consensus here is that bitcom could go to $70, an altcoin could be a much better investment and TA is a much more reliable price indicator than FA for btc. Mmmmkay, guess I have to sell all my coins now. Or actually, should probably do the opposite of what people are thinking here.
You misinterpreted my post. Even if an altcoin could succeed in the way I suggested, how would you know which one? Thus your chances of beating your investment in Bitcoin are slim. I was explaining why you are locked into this groupthink, because statistically you can't break out of it. Because you don't have the insider view I have being a different level of programmer than you. I can evaluate things that you can't. However, even with that advantage, my odds of prediction against the mainstream inertia are not even as high as 50%. Yet they aren't as low as 0.1% either. At this moment, I would place the odds of my prediction some where in the low single digits percentage. Within a few weeks if developments come, I might be able to raise that higher than the teens. The key most factoid is a cpu-only coin (no GPUs!) could be a viral threat to Bitcoin, as it can spread by word-of-mouth even to those who heard of Bitcoin and want to mine some coin for free and the neato "hey I did it too" factor. If you think $550 is the bottom because we've spent some time here on the 60 minute then please do laugh at us and HODL and buy more bitcoins. I'm fine with it. My charts indicate that $550 is in no way a super bottom that will start a rally to $100000 or whatever people are dreaming of these days.
I concur. Bitcoin needs rejuvenated, emotional rocket fuel (remember this bubble is all about rationalization and not technological facts, as I pointed out the technological reality in my posts that no one wants to admit). A dip below $300 would create a frenzy of very bullish people that bought in at a price that gives them an orgasmic need to ejaculate their enthusiasm all over the boards. (I suppose you can include me in that group, since I've apparently become obsessed lately) However, that doesn't mean it must happen that way. |
|
|
|
|
"Government is the problem" - Martin Armstrong
|
|
|
|
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-22886Give me a falsifiable statement (that can be tested scientific method) to support your statement that AGW is real? You can't, it is impossible, thus this is religion and not science. It is very similar to macro economics, which is very difficult to falsify. At least with macro economics we have the entire history of mankind to use as repeating patterns to support our arguments. AGW proponents ignore all the history of normal climate change and argue with non-falsifiable models (of which there are other choices for models which refute theirs) that every thing is suddenly different. And they've been caught fabricating data, and their predictions on temperature rise failed.
|
|
|
|
Much of this analysis is circumstantial. We cannot say for certain whether or not these flows imply a shared agency in both incidents. However, it does
illustrate the power of our tool when tracing the flow of Bitcoins and generating hypotheses.
Your magic NSA database of bitcoin-address-to-identities would be a large collection of circumstantial evidence, not definitive proof of associations to identities. It could be used as probable cause for search warrants and subpenas, but without collaborating evidence, it is worthless by itself in an actual domestic criminal case.
Likewise, a magic NSA database of ip-address-to-identities is also circumstantial....
All they have is the mac address of my tablet and maybe some geo data. If that tablet is never discovered by warrant, never registered or otherwise associated with me, it can't be used as evidence linking me to the activity....
You make the claim that "governments can remove your anonymous WiFi Hotspot." I would like to see a reference to a paper explaining how this is done, or an understandable explanation based on facts.
Perhaps it's just me but I didn't read the reference to be taken literally, but as a common language explanation of anon-internet access, by wifi or whatever, becoming so difficult it may be impractical. Although you are correct, its not impossible, but your university access could make it easier to correlate you with whatever you did. Even if your not directly connected to the devices mac in any way the retailer is. Even if purchased second hand the original owner is, and your purchase probably involved email or other electronic contact a limited number of times that would pop out of the original owners records. This can be enough for a correlation. Your university puts you in a photo-hot-zone. Run the faces,weighed for proximity based on whats known and suddenly meaningless metadata on each person becomes a frighteningly powerful tool. Sure its beyond the reach of local pd at the moment, but that is changing. I am not trying to make a case for theft, but you would need to somehow access a device, and best if its not reported stolen (which would narrow your location down). Cellular access is good, but shut it off for a period of time before you rx/tx and again after and wait a while before you leave the area. Point being, its kinda impractical. Yeah you are astute. Anonymity is very impractical as it currently stands. Thus Bitcoin doesn't really have it. There are more than one research paper showing it is possible to trace coin ownership. Now if you can correlate that with IP addresses (the researchers didn't have this data, but the NSA does), then you can pinpoint identity and no longer circumstantial. |
|
|
|
CoinMode maybe you are the sock puppet of CoinCube, who they claim is my sock puppet (even we posted our photos to show it isn't true), so maybe you are my sock puppet. Sock puppets are known to create fake antagonists to create scenarios where they win arguments. Bitcoin the first attempt at Virtual Currency? No, not by far, so go do more research you ignorant curmudgeon.
First one to be decentralized. What do you think a cpu-only, botnet resistant coin can do to Bitcoin? Suddenly everyone who has heard of Bitcoin, can download and mine. Bitcoin stands no marketing chance against that, it will spread by word of mouth "hey I got free money by turning on my computer". |
|
|
|
Newsflash: you're on the wrong side of reality.
Bitcoin has already won. It's the most powerful
computer network in the world.
Hahaha. Watch me destroy it. |
|
|
|
If you think mattboldfield is my sock puppet, you are losing your sanity. Just study our writing styles. Consult an expert in writing analysis. mattboldfield, I must agree with you that it is important to have a life outside of this stuff, but I also agree with molecular that it is important to do something to fix the problem. Here follows another cross-post:
In practice "off-chain" just means "use something else that's better".
Not exclusively. Offchain also includes centralized exchanges such as a Mt.Gox, instead of decentralized ones (which are in development and don't exist yet). Such offchain exchanges lead to fractional reserves, fraud, and thus government regulation and take over. Eventually these offchains are banks. Then we are no longer using Bitcoin, rather government regulated fractional reserves called "Bitcoin". This is a very likely outcome, because dumb masses will never want to use decentralized exchanges.They prefer Coinbase and a bank to "secure" their coins. Then it conflicts with the fundamentals. Bitcoin usage is growing exponentially and the new users/investors need bitcoins. When they buy them, the price rises. Any TA that does not take this into account is harmful for the financial well-being of its user  Assuming no exchange is creating a massive amount of fractional reserves. Fractional reserves are possible when people are not transacting their coins, just buy and hold on the exchange such as Coinbase. But Coinbase is honest (?). The more valuable Bitcoin becomes, the more incentive to create Bitcoins from thin air. You really don't think the banksters will just sit idle and watch you become $billionaires at their expense do you? They've been doing this racket for 100s of years, and you expect them to just roll over and play dead? The time of BTC is upon us if we accept that the masses will use it if offchain regulated businesses provide fixes to all the useability problems with Bitcoin onchain (e.g. 10 - 60 minute transactions, private keys stolen, etc). I seriously doubt "offchain regulated businesses" will help Bitcoin or ANYTHING. I've asked Bitcoin developers why the BTC fees are so high for small transactions. I know some of you will want to argue about this but you might as well admit the truth: Sending big amounts of BTC is cheap, sending small amounts is expensive. It just does not work for micropayments. Bitcoin developers argument is that "but OFFCHAIN TRANSACTIONS!". Guess what? Fiat cash is a good example of an Offchain Transaction. I know this is what Bitcoin developers mean when they use that term but it's true: Cash transactions are not on the blockchain since they do not involve Bitcoin. Other "offchain" (as in NOT bitcoin) alternatives will come along and win the market for micropayments (where Bitcoin can not compete). Telling people to use "offchain" solutions to problems Bitcoin can not solve is in my opinion the same as saying "don't use Bitcoin, use something else". I've studied this in technical (not to be confused with chart TA) detail. Zero transactions fees are possible in a properly designed altcoin but not in Bitcoin's design. There are crucial things that can never change in Bitcoin's design any more. Offchain can improve other things such as the 10 - 60 minute transaction delay for Bitcoin. It is also possible to design an altcoin without such a significant delay so "nearly instant" online micropayments can remain decentralized and on chain. There will be serious competitors to Bitcoin, but see below... Then it conflicts with the fundamentals. Bitcoin usage is growing exponentially and the new users/investors need bitcoins. When they buy them, the price rises. Any TA that does not take this into account is harmful for the financial well-being of its user This is so super important. Bitcoin's fundamentals are very compelling. Until something comes along that solves nearly ALL of bitcoin's problems and overtakes it's growing network effect bitcoin continues to have a lot of built in fundamental propulsive power. Considering that many solutions to bicoin's shortcomings will be layers on top of bitcoin, there is also a possibility, in my opinion, that within bitcoin itself and its community is the solution to it's own problems. The solution to the capital gains problem is Bitcoin becomes fiat. This could happen eventually and investors could pile now in under that assumption. I see the mainstream crypto-currency has to be the government sanctioned one. There is no other way around that. Might as well just accept it, and think about the implications for yourself as an investor, specifically the witchhunt against all wealth coming as the governments tax+confiscate into oblivion and the lack of anonymity in Bitcoin as compared to gold or some hypothetical altcoin (apparently not DarkCoin nor CoinJoin though). Some have argued they don't care if society confiscates (taxes) 90% if their gains are 1000X. That is still 100X gains. Then again if there is an anonymous coin that gives you 10,000X (because it is smaller and you are earlier to invest), and you don't face taxes nor confiscation, those investors are going to be 100X higher on the totem pole, e.g. $billionaires versus $10 millionaires. Think private jets instead of old manors. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-22/imfs-property-tax-hike-proposal-comes-true-uk-imposing-mansion-tax-soon-yearIt's very easy - I have often done it myself - to get so caught up into advocating one's position that one fails to see the incoherencies in ones own case. An old saying is apposite: There are none so blind as those who will not see.
When you are making a case to a broad audience as well as to a correspondent -- as is typical in a forum post -- your case is not well served if you refuse to see what all the other readers can easily see. Denial is not an effective strategy, either logically or rhetorically.
I see very clearly why you support the mainstream crypto-currency and normally that is the correct move (also you probably have no deep programming or technical skills so you couldn't change the situation if you were so inclined, you are reliant on the trend for your stored monetary capital, i.e. No Money Exists Without the Majority). I also see very clearly that every 80 years or so, the mainstream goes in chaos with confiscation and war. So I see failure of the mainstream 2016ish. Why should I board the Titantic? Should Google have never improved upon Yahoo? Should Facebook have not taken over from Friendster and Myspace? Can you be sure Bitcoin is an exception to the usual rule that the first one is almost never the winning one.Groupthink Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. group·think ˈgro͞opˌTHiNGk/ noun noun: groupthink; noun: group-think 1. the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility. |
|
|
|
In practice "off-chain" just means "use something else that's better".
Not exclusively. Offchain also includes centralized exchanges such as a Mt.Gox, instead of decentralized ones (which are in development and don't exist yet). Such offchain exchanges lead to fractional reserves, fraud, and thus government regulation and take over. Eventually these offchains are banks. Then we are no longer using Bitcoin, rather government regulated fractional reserves called "Bitcoin". This is a very likely outcome, because dumb masses will never want to use decentralized exchanges.They prefer Coinbase and a bank to "secure" their coins. Then it conflicts with the fundamentals. Bitcoin usage is growing exponentially and the new users/investors need bitcoins. When they buy them, the price rises. Any TA that does not take this into account is harmful for the financial well-being of its user Assuming no exchange is creating a massive amount of fractional reserves. Fractional reserves are possible when people are not transacting their coins, just buy and hold on the exchange such as Coinbase. But Coinbase is honest (?). The more valuable Bitcoin becomes, the more incentive to create Bitcoins from thin air. You really don't think the banksters will just sit idle and watch you become $billionaires at their expense do you? They've been doing this racket for 100s of years, and you expect them to just roll over and play dead? The time of BTC is upon us if we accept that the masses will use it if offchain regulated businesses provide fixes to all the useability problems with Bitcoin onchain (e.g. 10 - 60 minute transactions, private keys stolen, etc). I seriously doubt "offchain regulated businesses" will help Bitcoin or ANYTHING. I've asked Bitcoin developers why the BTC fees are so high for small transactions. I know some of you will want to argue about this but you might as well admit the truth: Sending big amounts of BTC is cheap, sending small amounts is expensive. It just does not work for micropayments. Bitcoin developers argument is that "but OFFCHAIN TRANSACTIONS!". Guess what? Fiat cash is a good example of an Offchain Transaction. I know this is what Bitcoin developers mean when they use that term but it's true: Cash transactions are not on the blockchain since they do not involve Bitcoin. Other "offchain" (as in NOT bitcoin) alternatives will come along and win the market for micropayments (where Bitcoin can not compete). Telling people to use "offchain" solutions to problems Bitcoin can not solve is in my opinion the same as saying "don't use Bitcoin, use something else". I've studied this in technical (not to be confused with chart TA) detail. Zero transactions fees are possible in a properly designed altcoin but not in Bitcoin's design. There are crucial things that can never change in Bitcoin's design any more. Offchain can improve other things such as the 10 - 60 minute transaction delay for Bitcoin. It is also possible to design an altcoin without such a significant delay so "nearly instant" online micropayments can remain decentralized and on chain. There will be serious competitors to Bitcoin, but see below... Then it conflicts with the fundamentals. Bitcoin usage is growing exponentially and the new users/investors need bitcoins. When they buy them, the price rises. Any TA that does not take this into account is harmful for the financial well-being of its user This is so super important. Bitcoin's fundamentals are very compelling. Until something comes along that solves nearly ALL of bitcoin's problems and overtakes it's growing network effect bitcoin continues to have a lot of built in fundamental propulsive power. Considering that many solutions to bicoin's shortcomings will be layers on top of bitcoin, there is also a possibility, in my opinion, that within bitcoin itself and its community is the solution to it's own problems. The solution to the capital gains problem is Bitcoin becomes fiat. This could happen eventually and investors could pile now in under that assumption. I see the mainstream crypto-currency has to be the government sanctioned one. There is no other way around that. Might as well just accept it, and think about the implications for yourself as an investor, specifically the witchhunt against all wealth coming as the governments tax+confiscate into oblivion and the lack of anonymity in Bitcoin as compared to gold or some hypothetical altcoin (apparently not DarkCoin nor CoinJoin though). Some have argued they don't care if society confiscates (taxes) 90% if their gains are 1000X. That is still 100X gains. Then again if there is an anonymous coin that gives you 10,000X (because it is smaller and you are earlier to invest), and you don't face taxes nor confiscation, those investors are going to be 100X higher on the totem pole, e.g. $billionaires versus $10 millionaires. Think private jets instead of old manors. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-22/imfs-property-tax-hike-proposal-comes-true-uk-imposing-mansion-tax-soon-yearIt's very easy - I have often done it myself - to get so caught up into advocating one's position that one fails to see the incoherencies in ones own case. An old saying is apposite: There are none so blind as those who will not see.
When you are making a case to a broad audience as well as to a correspondent -- as is typical in a forum post -- your case is not well served if you refuse to see what all the other readers can easily see. Denial is not an effective strategy, either logically or rhetorically.
I see very clearly why you support the mainstream crypto-currency and normally that is the correct move (also you probably have no deep programming or technical skills so you couldn't change the situation if you were so inclined, you are reliant on the trend for your stored monetary capital, i.e. No Money Exists Without the Majority). I also see very clearly that every 80 years or so, the mainstream goes in chaos with confiscation and war. So I see failure of the mainstream 2016ish. Why should I board the Titantic? Should Google have never improved upon Yahoo? Should Facebook have not taken over from Friendster and Myspace? Can you be sure Bitcoin is an exception to the usual rule that the first one is almost never the winning one.Groupthink Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. group·think ˈgro͞opˌTHiNGk/ noun noun: groupthink; noun: group-think 1. the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
You forgot the choice for "no taxes". Sorry I can't vote.
Tax funds the government which enslaves us. Why would any one want to be a slave?
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind living in a so-called "dark age" with the level of technical development that has been reached. Furthermore really advanced technical development from this point on will probably be individual or at the very least decentralized any way.
Perhaps these monumental changes represent the end game as envisioned by Karl Marx and what will happen of the fall of central planning is a move into stateless society.
One that doesn't require socialized production due to technical advances such as 3D printing and quantum computing. (Marx never envisioned these technical developments and his theories have a basis in socialized production which is not really relevant now)
We were thinking similarly: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.msg5854954#msg5854954 |
|
|
|
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-22683Apologies for so many posts. I will try to make this the last one. Can anyone help me on quantifying the Philippines' total debt-to-GDP ratio? Note the breakdown from the WSJ blog for emerging markets, 14% public, 34% household & corporate, 43% financial sector, and 9% private-sector external, not including the underground (shadow banking) economy. I found the official government debt of the Philippines is 49% of GDP. External debt excluding government appears to be roughly $32 billion or 12% of GDP. Gross loans are 37% of GDP but I am not clear if that includes the 35% household debt share of GDP (that would leave only 2% for business? impossible) and the underground economy estimated at 20 - 30% of GDP. I see this underground economy, e.g. these private credit agencies that extend loans at exorbitant interest rates to those who have a vehicle or land title to provide as collateral. Thus I add it all up and get 133% x 1.3 for underground = 173% of GDP. The Banko Sentral link on gross loans shows 15% loan growth in 2011, 16% in 2012, and 18% in 2013, while the GDP has only been growing at 7% and that assumes the official 2.5% inflation figure is accurate which I doubt because minimum wage salaries have increased faster. Is it realistic to assume a -50% drop in GDP ahead for the Philippines when 50% of its OFWs lose their jobs, the credit and infrastructure bubble pops, and the global contagion ahead? That would increase the debt-to-GDP ratio to 300+% but since most of it is domestic if the central bank allows it to liquidate then we get that severe correction and then the debt level shrinks? I note Banko Sentral is now forced to start raising interest rates due to the new policy on QE and imminent end of ZIRP at the Fed. So the bubble here in Philippines should pop in 2015 when the QE is 0 and Fed starts raising rates.
|
|
|
|
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-22623I can dream about a solution to eliminate the ability of government to tax virtual knowledge. They would still be able to tax tangible commerce which is being replaced any way by virtual knowledge production.
We are moving towards maximum division-of-labor wherein the individual is his own company and call sell his knowledge production anonymously. This requires a different implementation than Bitcoin's design.
The government won't be able to tax that (if it comes to fruition and works as envisioned), thus the backstop for public debt won't be possible. The tangible commerce world is orders-of-magnitude less productive than the intangible knowledge work, e.g. look what the laser printer did for decentralized publishing, then the internet did to decentralized publishing, and now the 3D printer will do to decentralized manufacturing.
The key is the anonymous money has to become a unit-of-account via decentralized exchange and mining. This requires certain technical feats, which have yet to be demonstrated.
P.S. I would have preferred to have written "one of the more prolific and astute". There is no way to edit posts here and I'm in a rush and don't proof read.
|
|
|
|
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-22623I can dream about a solution to eliminate the ability of government to tax virtual knowledge. They would still be able to tax tangible commerce which is being replaced any way by virtual knowledge production.
We are moving towards maximum division-of-labor wherein the individual is his own company and call sell his knowledge production anonymously. This requires a different implementation than Bitcoin's design.
The government won't be able to tax that (if it comes to fruition and works as envisioned), thus the backstop for public debt won't be possible. The tangible commerce world is orders-of-magnitude less productive than the intangible knowledge work, e.g. look what the laser printer did for decentralized publishing, then the internet did to decentralized publishing, and now the 3D printer will do to decentralized manufacturing.
The key is the anonymous money has to become a unit-of-account via decentralized exchange and mining. This requires certain technical feats, which have yet to be demonstrated.
P.S. I would have preferred to have written "one of the more prolific and astute". There is no way to edit posts here and I'm in a rush and don't proof read. http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-22888DVD, the keyword phrase that I wanted to changed was from "the most" to "one of the more".
My suggestion should be real before the end of 2014, then we can judge if it is practical and workeable.
Note by definition, it is impossible to save that part of the economy which is uneconomic, i.e. all those who didn't and won't obtain the correct skills and who will fight for more government aid and debt instead. You proposal will simply allow them to continue longer.
We stand at a crossroads. I chose to the individualism, decentralized, bottom-up fork in the road. You choose the double-down on more top-down management while stomping on decentralized annealing fork.
Btw, I think both forks will be enacted and run in parallel. And I am confident which fork dominates over time as it gains size and the other withers.
|
|
|
|
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-22609I can keep this on topic about debt bubbles and emerging markets, because one of the reasons Rome collapsed is declining productivity of the farms, which was due to indiscriminate clearing, over intensive farming, etc which polluted and over taxed the irrigation, etc.. because there was a debt bubble that was causing too much oversupply in farming (as well as an ever increasing taxes forcing farmers to take on more debt and increase production to stay afloat). What you see in China's large cities is the same effect of too much debt, causing a misallocation of priorities. One of Professor Pettis's significant points has been the infrastructure exceeds the level of social capital development, i.e. they've moved too fast on industrialization and modern cities without first diversifying their education and skills. And now they will be forced to reprioritize, and then the environment will improve again too. I live in Davao and absolutely no problems with pollution here. I would guess most of China and developing countries are beautiful when you get outside the zones of too much debt infrastructure spending.
We don't need to invent Malthusian fiction and make plans for a global carbon tax in order to understand and fix the environment side-effects of the carry trade of ZIRP on the developing world.
Man-made global warming (AGW) can't be falsified, which is the fundamental requirement of the scientific method. Thus by definition it is not science. It is "pulling arbitrary models out of my arse" because there is no way to isolate all the variables and falsify the accusation of "man-made" global climate change. Btw, the warmers failed so miserably on their prediction of temperature rise, that they now changed the propaganda to "man-made made climate change" and trying to make models to show that our carbon emission are causing global cooling too. It is so ridiculous and obvious to see they are a fraud. http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/will-emerging-markets-come-back/#comment-22618Add the environmental degradation due to overuse of debt leading to lower productivity is another symptom of the marginal-utility-of-debt going negative globally, which apparently occurred just recently or on tap for 2015 which is why the global economic implosion has begun with (initially retail to be followed by institutional) capital has started fleeing emerging markets (note there is a mini-deadcat bounce at the moment) rushing back into the safe haven currencies (of which they think Euro is still one, but this will be squashed when the IMF suggestion for 10% confiscation of EU deposits kicks in). In short, the global flash crash Minsky moment approaches 2016ish.
P.S. on the overtaxing issue, remember most of the West taxes above the Laffer limit. Westerners will not be able to adjust their pre-programmed mindset away from their belief in top-down planning and big government, e.g. how you are programmed to believe in the lie of resource constraints (which violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics). It is never about resource constraints, all limitations are due to lack of fitness. Energy is never created nor destroyed, remember your Physics. Constraints are impedance mismatches. Thus Asia will rule the global economy going forward because they have less government interference with entrepreneurialism.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
