It is impossible to determine where a person is better to live. This is a very subjective opinion. Local people know the specifics of their country and can live on $ 3 a day in the Philippines. Visitors in the Philippines need 15-20 dollars a day. The human immune system adapted to the specific conditions and I know how obsessed some tourists in tropical countries. And there are many reasons to admit that such surveys are incorrect.
I think here in our country that 3$ is not enough for daily consumption, it depends upon on how much you have earned in your source income every month and that will be the budget on the whole month in your daily routines. Less rent it will cost fewer expenses example if you have own house and a lot you don't need to pay for that. As for me I'm working and single so my cost of living for daily activities is $5 a day for basic need only
This is right for me 5$ daily I think that too much but at that amount, you can also save for the next day. $5 here is equivalent to 250 pesos in our currency rate that is pretty good for daily needs. This really helped to clarify a point I was trying to make with earlier posts. For those of us who are living in parts of the world that provide more opportunities it is almost impossible to consider living off of $5 a day so if we were to move to say the Philippines or similarly cheap countries we would be much better off financially but would that lead us to be happy? For some it might, for others it might not, there is much more that goes in to happiness than just your financial situation. |
|
|
|
What are you saying, that bitcoin isn't a safe investment because it is not supported by anything? What about by people wanting to use it, that's the exact same as the USD, its price is determined by money supply and money demand.
Look at the "big names" is world trade and commerce and Forex. Bitcoin is the small fish that will be eaten. And what were those big names before they became big names? They were small fish. He may be saying that and if that is what he is saying he'll soon notice that no stock is backed by anything, it's just backed by the full faith of the company which isn't anything anyway -- most stocks are worth more in stock then the company is worth with all of the assets. So yeah, if the company is liquidated nit everyone can get everything.Everything is risky, that's how investments work. Bitcoin may be more risky then other investments, though they're all a big risk.
I know stock markets are known as gambling hub/casinos etc.. So then what point is it that you are trying to make? That bitcoin will be killed by the US government or by large corporations because it is attempting to compete with them? |
|
|
|
|
What are you saying, that bitcoin isn't a safe investment because it is not supported by anything? What about by people wanting to use it, that's the exact same as the USD, its price is determined by money supply and money demand.
|
|
|
|
|
FIAT currencies have a lot less volatility than cryptocurrencies, that's a given, but their inflationary nature works against them and the economies that they serve. A stable price currency would be much better for all involved but it's difficult to think about how this would work.
|
|
|
|
I should really consider moving to Prague, it would save me a ton. I actually don't think I would mind living there, always liked Prague when I visited.
My city doesn't seem to have too high of a cost of living, but it's not exactly cheap either.
The only things my city has going for it is the good, cheap beer and relatively cheap rent. It's also very centrally located, so travel is cheap and easy.
Cheap beer and cheap rent seem like pretty good things, as well as a good location. Can I ask what city it is in which you live? Prague is a great city, I've also enjoyed my visits and know a few who have moved there at various points in their lives. |
|
|
|
|
Biggest misconception I hear is that it's not backed by anything physical and shouldn't have any worth. People don't seem to get the simple idea that all value is assigned by peoples perceptions, irrespective of it being something tangible or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't read the whole article. Stopped after the insider trading part. Coins don't pump massively from being listed on CMC so that point seemed outlandish and unfounded. I do think there's a hint of insider trading given the pattern but the reasoning that it's to profit off pumps when it lists on CMC seems misguided.
|
|
|
|
Come on, you don't think you can be happy without money? Tell that to the people who live in slums. Being happy is not to do with what you have, it's how you perceive what you have. Just like bitcoin's worth is only defined by the value people assign to it.
Are people in slums generally happier than people with appartement/house, car etc.? I don't think so. Also not having a job makes unhappy, I guess most people in slums don't have a job. I did not say that they are, it's clear there is a link between money and happiness but to suggest that happiness cannot be achieved without money is incorrect. Happiness is a chemical reaction and is all decided in your own mind and thus is a simple matter of perception.
Bravo, bro. I didn't exactly grow up dirt poor, but there was definitely not enough money for a lot of extras--toys, clothes, bicycles, etc., so I had to do without a lot of the fun stuff kids tend to enjoy. But I made do, and the biggest factor of whether I derived pleasure out of something was my own imagination. There were no smartphones when I was a child, and I didn't own a video game console until my late teenage years. Anyway, my point is that I agree that money does not equate with happiness.
There are extremely rich individuals who live in their own private hell, and all the money in the world does nothing to assuage their pain. I've met quite a few such people. Their money ends up owning them.
Right now I've got enough dough to live just how I'd like to live. I'm not wealthy by United States standards by a long shot, but I have everything I need and a lot of the things I want. I just bought a beautiful gold-plated fountain pen for $140, and it's been exceeding my expectations and keeping me very amused and satisfied throughout the day. I don't need big expensive things to keep me happy. Those are all external solutions to what amounts to an internal problem if that's what you need to be happy.
Exactly my point, happiness can be found from the littlest or cheapest of things. For example the joy of waking up to the birds singing outside or the sun, that is all free, you just need to be able to notice it and appreciate it. Mindfulness is the key.
It seems to me that slum dwellers need to be asked why they live like this and what they have done to live better? Man himself is to blame in their problems. I often see the poor begging. But these same poor people vote for politicians who brought the country's economy to such a state. Our living conditions are the price we paid for what we did or didn't do.
That's a big generalization, many are in bad circumstances because of their actions but many are there because of circumstance. It's also a judgment thing, can we really judge people for being homeless and addicted to drugs, we do not know their circumstance and what lead them to make the decisions that they did. We of course can choose not give them money because we see it as contributing to their problems.
I don't quite understand what your point is. Do you want to say that people living in slums are happy? Some of them may well be, but most will readily change their surroundings for something better if given an opportunity. Let's not be hypocrites here. Your well-being is determined by how wealthy you are. There are outliers, of course, but they just prove the general rule, which can be summarized as follows: most people would be happier if they had more money in their pocket.
You're entirely right and I wasn't disagreeing with that. If you see my first response in this message that might clear things up. |
|
|
|
|
The internet is home to lots of horrific things and facilitates them, that still exists and people would be unable to function in their day to day lives without the internet. Because a select group use something for bad does not mean you can punish the many for it. They will only find another way to sin if you remove their current one.
|
|
|
|
Cost of living is something everyone should consider and even more so for those of us who can make our living anywhere in the world, but there is more to life than just cost of living, you also have to consider how happy you will be in a certain place. If we look at the countries with the highest happiness ratings we'll often find that they are also among the happiest countries.
The cost of living is actually affecting a happy state of certain persons in most cases. If people don't have enough of financial stability which will provide the security for a life they also cannot enjoy that same life. Those countries with the high cost of living actually have the higher standards so someone from a different country cannot consider his/her move to that country if he doesn't have the steady work there. Happiness is connected with the financial situation and no one cannot deny that. There are few cases where the rich people are not happy with all their wealth but that are only a few cases where the certain people have low morale and will. Come on, you don't think you can be happy without money? Tell that to the people who live in slums. Being happy is not to do with what you have, it's how you perceive what you have. Just like bitcoin's worth is only defined by the value people assign to it. |
|
|
|
|
Until bitcoin volatility is reduced and more importantly the fees and transaction times are low and stable then there will likely not be anyone new supporting bitcoin or anyone that supported it previously. The thing with the fee argument is, what difference does it makes to the company accepting the funds? I guess it's because they have to convert that btc in to fiat and that costs them a large portion of their profit?
|
|
|
|
|
One thing people have missed from this recommendation is that it is not a recommendation of no regulation. It just does not recommend creating new regulation specifically for cryptocurrency. There is a difference and a significant one. It just means traditional regulation will be used for cryptocurrency.
|
|
|
|
It will influence the price but I don't think google and facebook bans had that significant of an influence on price anyway. I think price fell and people attributed it to the news instead of it being the cause behind it. Twitter is the lesser of the 3 anyway so any fall will be lessened. |
|
|
|
It's possible we could see bitcoin as high as 91,000 or even higher. I think given the current market if people were offered for bitcoin to be at even $20,000 for March 2020 then they would take that. Last time we had a crash close to the current one was 2014 and it took near 3 years to return to the previous ATH. That would mean it won't be until near the end of 2020 or early 2021.
Gosh, you are right! Didn't know that the 2014 crash took 3 years to recover! Yup, and 2011 was about 2 years. Law of averages says 2.5 years until we see 20k again but such predictions are exactly what TA is based upon and they're so primitive and relatively useless. The past does not define the future. |
|
|
|
|
It's possible we could see bitcoin as high as 91,000 or even higher. I think given the current market if people were offered for bitcoin to be at even $20,000 for March 2020 then they would take that. Last time we had a crash close to the current one was 2014 and it took near 3 years to return to the previous ATH. That would mean it won't be until near the end of 2020 or early 2021.
|
|
|
|
|
If bitcoin breaks 6k then Ethereum will go under $300, if it doesn't then it won't. That's my guess. Ethereum is hurt by the bans much more than any other currency because its value is greatly inflated by all of the ICOs that use it and these will be less successful without advertising.
|
|
|
|
All Altcoins are in red. What causes this dump and does this mean that it's over for certain amount of Altcoins? We are talking about more then -10% for a lot of coins: ChartsIf we are going to be in a long bear market then I would suspect that at least 80% of alts will fail in that time. There is no confidence in them right now and the market is much too saturated, there is no need to have over 1500 different projects. There are only 50 or so alt-coin projects with real merit. |
|
|
|
|
A 'huge' rally I'm considering would be at least a 100% growth. That would take probably billions of dollars so there would only be a very select few in the world who could do that and it's not likely. But to answer your question, yes it's possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Bearish markets aren't easy but context is your best friend. If you started anytime before 6 months ago you should still be in profit. You can predict with certainty that the price would fall so don't be hard on yourself and say 'I used to have so much more'
|
|
|
|
|
You're right, if renewable energy can be found then there will not be a problem with POW and it will then be the preferred method. Until that date comes there will be pressure to move away from POW and it doesn't seem like it will come all too soon. It's the skeptic in me speaking but I wouldn't bet that there isn't already a renewable energy source that's been discovered but is being kept hidden so the large corporations can continue to profit.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
