hugolp,
can you share how you installed catalyst 11.6 on a linuxcoin 0.2a?
TIA
spiccioli I didnt. I got 11.6 in my regular linux HD install. Im playing around with LinuxCoin but I am still not using it. When LinuxCoin includes 11.6 Ill give it another try. |
|
|
|
If you are looking for a low capital Bitcoin project with an insanely high, skill based barrier to entry (for the other guys) I got a fun freebie.
You might want to specify what kind of engineering is required. Engineering is very broad with a lot of specialities and different types of skills. |
|
|
|
And again the government debt that the Federal Reserve holds does not reperesent an expense for the government because the Fed returns its benefits to the same government (weekly). The government does not pay interest to the bank.
These kind of manipulations is why I say that the guy is a nutjob and dishonest. And he will hate Bitcoin because he wants the government to force a monopolly on money onto the people, because its the only way to have a inflationary currency.
Anyway, I am done for today with my humanitarian task of trying to warn people of the charlatans that are trying to fool them. Do your research and decide.
Hey Hugolp, we understand you are the hardest working moderator on this forum, keeping trolls in control and also educating people, but dont throw the towel with your humanitarian task!!  Seriously I am learning a lot in this thread. Hey, you say that the whole process of money creation does not mean government pay debt on created money. Thanks for clarifying this, I had that exact doubt. Now consider this, as banks create the money, does this mean that PEOPLE, not governments have to pay interest for "the privilege" of having money in the economy? In other words, the whole society has to pay banks just to have money circulating, because we have to borrow money for it to exist? Is as we had to pay banks to have blood circulating through our bodies, instead of creating our own blood? Maybe that was the meaning of the movie. Your thoughs? Tomorrow more. I have to write an article about the end of QE2 and the posibility of QE3 due today. |
|
|
|
The movie not only wants to end fractional reserve banking as hugolp explains, but also end the creation of money out of debt. The movie explains that governments can't create dollars directly. Yes it does. What I said is 100% accurate. It is because when the central bank monetizes government debt its roughtly equivalent to the government printing money. So a big part of QE1 and all of QE2 is basically financing the government with newly printed money. Its exactly what he wants to do and it is exactly what already happens. The problem is that there are several stages in the middle making the process complicated. And again the government debt that the Federal Reserve holds does not reperesent an expense for the government because the Fed returns its benefits to the same government (weekly). The government does not pay interest to the bank. These kind of manipulations is why I say that the guy is a nutjob and dishonest. And he will hate Bitcoin because he wants the government to force a monopolly on money onto the people, because its the only way to have a inflationary currency. Anyway, I am done for today with my humanitarian task of trying to warn people of the charlatans that are trying to fool them. Do your research and decide. PS: You might want to think about why it is better that the government finances with inflation, that is not controllable by the people because it has long term effects and people dont see them, than with direct taxation, that is more controllable by the people because people see right away how much money they have to give away. Financing through inflation is much more undemocractic than financing through direct taxation. PS2: And while you are doing your research check the examples of nations that applied his theories. They all hyperinflated. |
|
|
|
EDIT: Also, this does not explain why the Fed and Krugman said commodity prices would not affect consumer prices and called names to the people saying the contrary, while now admiting that commodity prices have indeed affected consumer prices. Why are you lumping Krugman and the Fed together? Krugman works for the NYT, and he regularly disagrees with the Fed's policies (he thinks the Fed hasn't been worrying enough about jobs lately). I lump them together because Krugman is a Fed apologist. He might disagree here and there with some of their policies, but he wants and defends a central bank system. He is an apologist of the system. Btw, price inflation does not create sustainable jobs. Its not something the Fed can do. I have not been able to find Krugman saying commodity prices would not effect consumer prices. There you go: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/commodity-prices-and-inflation/I, personally, have a lot of respect for Krugman. He warned of the dot-com bubble, housing crisis, federal deficit when the economy was doing ok, etc... Actually, he didnt call the housing crisis. Krugman always writes one thing and a couple of week later he writes the contrary. When the time comes he chooses one as proof he is right. Check this video @ 2:55 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnekzRuu8wo) Krugman says that he does not know if there is going to be a recession or not, in December 2007, when we were less than a year from the crash. How is that calling the housing crisis? He didnt. In some of his writtings he said there could be a crisis and in some others he said that maybe not. So when the housing crisis arrive he said: Hey! I called it. Its how he works. Btw, Krugman also said after the dotcom bubble that the USA needed lower interest rates and more investment in housing... How did that work? I dont understand why he is getting away when he is guilty of helping create the housing bubble. His biggest argument is that government should spend during recessions, and save during normal times to smooth everything out and keep things stable. The problem is this is nonsense. Its long to explian so if you are interested we can go in more detail into this only. Now, I don't agree with the system we have (basing economies on debt is crazy), but as far as working with the system we have, Krugman makes a lot of sense. No. You mean the rest of the currencies that central banks are also printing like crazy? Have you seen the balance sheet of the ECB? Bank of England? Any of the BRICS? Saying that commodities are going up in the rest of the currencies supporst the idea that its due to monetary causes. Taiwan has been going through a lot of deflation. Prices have still increased. This does not answer my argument. Taiwan is so small that its monetary policies do not have influence over a commodity market. But I have to admit that I dont follow Taiwan monetary policies with detail so I really dont know what they are doing. Anyway, its not important. But the best indicator is this: Last year, from April 23rd through to August 27th, the Fed allowed its balance sheet to shrink from $1.207 trillion to $1.057 trillion for a 12% contraction as QE1 drew to a close.
Now over that interval ...
S&P 500 sagged from 1,217 to 1,064.
S&P 600 small caps fell from 394 to 330.
The best performing equity sectors were telecom services, utilities, consumer staples, and health care. In other words — the defensives. The worst performers were financials, tech, energy, and consumer discretionary.
Baa spreads widened +56bps from 237bps to 296bps
CRB futures dropped from 279 to 267.
Oil went from $84.30 a barrel to $75.20. Source.The starting date chosen is "conveniently" right at a peak before a fall-off in oil prices, and the end date right before a rally. This makes me believe the source was being dishonest. But, anyways, oil is very volatile; you have to look at overall trends, and not just a couple points in time. The dates are not chosen conveniently. He is just showing the period choosed by the Fed to reduce its balance. Its not David Rosenberg choosing the dates, so there can be no dishonesty on his part. He is just saying that when the Fed was easing the price of petrol was going up. When the Fed stopped easing and contracted the balance sheet, the price of petrol started going down. Finally when the Fed started easing again the price of petrol started going up again. This is not random. Yes, you may have a point there. But that's not the same thing as monetary inflation. Depending on the monetary aggregate you choose, but its just a matter of definitions and its not important here. Oil, silver, gold, etc... are extremely noisy (volatile). They go up and down all the time. These markets are casinos for the rich. However, the overall long-term trends should, in theory, reflect real world conditions. If you look at the chart of oil prices over the last few years, you'll see that the peaks and valleys like the one presented above are very common, and not out of the ordinary at all. Yes, they are volatile and you can add some populism, still it does not explain why they went up when the Fed was easing, went down when stopped and went up again when the Fed started to ease again. You can decide to ignore the empircial correlation but then you wont understand what is going on. Not sure if you can chalk everything up to monetary policies; just seems like an easy way out. Economies are complex systems, and monetary policies are just one component. The oil shocks in the 70s were caused by decreased domestic production and discovery coupled with rising demand. If you're not familiar with the concept, you may want to read up on Peak Oil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oilI know the history. And I am not denying that there were some disruptions on the supply due to conflicts (that is what I meant by geopolitical events) but there was no peak oil (and I dont deny that we might get some day to peak oil or that we might be close, its just that we werent at peak oil back then). But the USA had been manipulating the price of gold since the 40's even before Bretton Wood, and finally it could not respond to its obligations and Nixon defaulted. This was expected since Bretton Woods was flawed. But the point is that the rise in the price of gold meant heavy price inflation for the USA. The arabs said publicy at the begginning fo the 70's that they would peg the price of oil to the price of gold, and so it happen. The USA government tried to blame them and said they were a cartel, but it is completely understandable that the arabs wanted something that they deemed worthy in exchange for their most precious resource and refused to accept a currency that the USA government could print "at will". Then you have Nixon asking the then chairman Burns to print more to create a mini-bubble to win the election and it was the perfect storm: Stagflation. |
|
|
|
The Fed already returns its benefits to the Treasury. So when the Fed monetizes government debt is roughtly equivalent to the government printing money. We are already more or less in the system the movie demands.
That is an interesting point about the Fed. However, we are not “more or less in the system the movie demands” because there are a few major differences. Currently our government has to spend money to pay interest on our debt because we don't just owe the Fed. Also, the Fed currently controls the money supply and the movie advocates that the government should be in control of a nations money supply. Also, we currently have a fractional reserve banking system and the movie wants to do away with fractional reserve banking. Yes, the only difference is that the movie demands no fractional reserve while now its allowed. For the rest, we are in the system they demand. He makes it like he wants a different monetary system, but its not like that. Currently our government has to spend money to pay interest on our debt because we don't just owe the Fed. I dont understand what you mean. Also, the Fed currently controls the money supply and the movie advocates that the government should be in control of a nations money supply. The part of the Fed that controls the money supply is the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Bernanke and the rest of the gang) and it is a federal government agency. So the government is already controlling the money supply. As I say the guy shows half truths and lies to give the impression that we are in a system that is very different from what he wants, but appart from not allowing the banks to perform fractional reserve, the monetary part is right now how he wants it. |
|
|
|
BubbleBoy, you are the troll with more knowledge in this forum, but you have serveral mistakes in this post. Your monetary policy part is lacking. If I were to plot the evolution of money it would be this:
1. Commodity money: gold, bitcoins; massively deflationary, prevent the economy from growing and reaching it's full potential, by artificially clamping the aggregate demand. Everybody is worse off and poorer, huge resources are wasted for acquiring an otherwise much less useful commodity. Decentralized, cannot be manipulated, but creates a self-enforcing plutocracy - the holders of the commodity.
2. Government-issued fiat. Solves the primary flaw of scarce commodity money and allows for real economic growth and improved welfare. Entirely dependent on the moods of the rulers. History has shown that both tyrants and democratically elected rules will abuse the money creation privilege, either for building palaces or for getting themselves reelected, and print much more than the economy needs, therefore stealing wealth from everybody. This is what various non-functional states like Zimbabwe have.
3. Independent central bank that loans money into existence. The prevalent system nowadays, far better than the preceding ones, but with it's unique flaws. The government can't print it's own money and is just another borrower competing along side private productive entities. In theory this should reduce it's appetite for money - it has to give it back. If too much money is loaned into existence and creates inflation, the central bank should, again, in theory, hike the interest rates and diminish everyone's appetite for money thus controlling inflation, wile allowing the money supply to grow as the economy grows.
In practice this system creates multiple instances of moral hazard:
a. the central bank will always print more money to help private banks who are overexposed - for fear it might bring about meltdown
b. the parliament, as the central bank's overseer, will always pressure it to go for low interest, low unemployment policies at the expense of inflation
c. the government's appetite for money is not curbed; banks would much rather borrow the government that take risks with productive business
Overall, the system allows private banks to profit at the expense of the society because they have a key position where they can blackmail both the public and the politicians with systemic collapse. Massive misappropriation of resources ensues, skewing the price signals of the free market, various bubbles occur etc.
The Bitcoin crowd is still at point 1. entangled in a matrix scheme disguised with elementary economic fallacies.
The Oz guy wants us to go back to point 2., and watch our leaders print all our wealth away.
The current model 3. is clearly wrong.
I think it's time to start working on number 4:
4. Decentralized democratic fiat currency. Printed to the benefit on democratically elected charities, so as to target zero long term deflation/inflation, and circulated through a Bitcoin-like open network. Banks are not involved in creating the base money supply - they and their depositors are entirely responsible for the risk the take on when expanding M2. Governments have no say either, and are responsible to the voters when the debt spirals out of control.
I apologize to the TL;DR low attention span crowd.
|
|
|
|
Its sad the effect the nujob movies has on the people. Look, you are probably not a bad guy, but you should not talk like this to people you dont know, who know a lot more tahn you in monetary policy and that are taking time to explain to you how a nutjob has fooled you with a very well produced movie. Yes, the Fed returns its benefits to the Treasury weekly (and btw that link is irrelevant to this issue). |
|
|
|
Bitcoin world, where one day of stability is a big deal  |
|
|
|
gold is backed by thousands of years of history.
Salt was backed by thousands of years of history ... until somebody invented the refrigerator. In spanish, wage is called "salario", and that comes from being payed with "sal" (salt). |
|
|
|
The Fed already returns its benefits to the Treasury. So when the Fed monetizes government debt is roughtly equivalent to the government printing money. We are already more or less in the system the movie demands.
Would be true if the fed issued money at 0%. Thats not the case. No. The interest payed for the bonds are benefits of the Fed. Those benefits are returned weekly to the government. Its like they are not payed. Look this has been discussed in this forum, and I really dont want to go through the same again. The videos are very well done, but what they explain is false. The guy is a nutjob that does a disservice to the people, like me, who want to end the Fed. |
|
|
|
gold is backed by thousands of years of history. Also, gold has some qualities that Bitcoin does not have. On the other hand, Bitcoin does have some qualities gold ddoes not have. They are complementary. |
|
|
|
|
Are we suppose to tell the truth to make the life of a hacker easier or lie to confuse him?
|
|
|
|
This. I made a send BTC button in my browser extension. Few people seem to need it. Its not that few people need it. I, for example, would not trust the browser with access to my bitcoins. I think its too risky. That's a great feedback, thanks. I will think on that. Do you trust your browser to access your bank account or ebay account, enter credit card numbers, or send through paypal? I use paypal and have used moneybookers. The difference is that those services are part of a company, are centralized and would answer if there is a hack. I think I could recover what I could loose (maybe Im wrong). But this is not an option with Bitcoin (it has other advantages but not this one) so you have to be extracareful. |
|
|
|
Lo he visto. Ya sabes que no era a este al que me refería.  |
|
|
|
The movie is very misleading, has big errors, just like the previous one from the same guy.
Yes its not perfect but I use that documentary because its pretty much the only one which says that the power to print money should be returned to the us treasury. Most of the other documentaries basically say we should use gold and silver which for our modern digital/global economy is not suitable. The Fed already returns its benefits to the Treasury. So when the Fed monetizes government debt is roughtly equivalent to the government printing money. We are already more or less in the system the movie demands. |
|
|
|
|
Problem/solution 1: It has been discussed forever (use Search) and yes, people more or less agree.
Problem/solution 2: Its not really a problem. Mining is supposed to be a specialized subset of Bitcoin. Bitcoin should attract the people because its useful as money, not because you can "mine" it. If you keep expanding the period of mining you are just attracting the wrong type of people while at the same time breaking the confidence on the currency. We dont need no more mining, we need more Bitcoin business.
|
|
|
|
|
The movie is very misleading, has big errors, just like the previous one from the same guy.
|
|
|
|
Well, when you take out certain commodities, notably oil and products that heavily depend on it, then inflation does indeed look low. So, monetary inflation is low. Another way to prove this is to look at all the other currencies of the world, and look at how much the prices of commodities have gone up in relation to their currencies. You will find that the price of these commodities have gone up in all currencies and countries. The price spikes are most likely due to supply, demand, and speculation on future supply and demand. EDIT: Also, this does not explain why the Fed and Krugman said commodity prices would not affect consumer prices and called names to the people saying the contrary, while now admiting that commodity prices have indeed affected consumer prices. You mean the rest of the currencies that central banks are also printing like crazy? Have you seen the balance sheet of the ECB? Bank of England? Any of the BRICS? Saying that commodities are going up in the rest of the currencies supporst the idea that its due to monetary causes. But the best indicator is this: Last year, from April 23rd through to August 27th, the Fed allowed its balance sheet to shrink from $1.207 trillion to $1.057 trillion for a 12% contraction as QE1 drew to a close.
Now over that interval ...
S&P 500 sagged from 1,217 to 1,064.
S&P 600 small caps fell from 394 to 330.
The best performing equity sectors were telecom services, utilities, consumer staples, and health care. In other words — the defensives. The worst performers were financials, tech, energy, and consumer discretionary.
Baa spreads widened +56bps from 237bps to 296bps
CRB futures dropped from 279 to 267.
Oil went from $84.30 a barrel to $75.20. Source.So now there are two options: 1. The monetary expansion of the Fed is promoting speculation and inproductive consumption, that stops when the Fed stops injecting money (more like expectations, but lets simplify a bit). 2. The price of petrol is mainly affected by supply and demand, so on April 23rd a new petrol field was opened making the price go down, just to be closed on August 27th when prices stopped going down... Or maybe people stopped using the car between those dates as well. Now you tell me which one you think is the correct one. The Fed propagandist are selling a story that is basically nonsense. There might be some changes in supply and demand, because there are always changes in supply and demand, but a big part of the price is due to the influence of monetary policy and the expectations it creates. Similar to the oil shocks we've had before. The "so-called" oil shocks were in big part due to monetary policy mixed with geopolitical events that had a resonating effect due to the monetary policies of that time. |
|
|
|
So the Fed and its propagandists (Krugman and the rest of the gang) denied again and again that commodity prices were going to affect consumer prices. They said it was not an issue and accused the people warning about the rise in commodities and how it was going to affect the economy as fear-mongers and economic ignorants. Yesterday the Fed admitted that the price of commodities have pushed the price of consumer goods up. The Fed also said taht this rise in prices will not last. I think we could not get a better confirmation that prices will keep rising in the future. Stagflation here we go! http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/federal-reserve-admits-price-inflation.html |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
