|
Alternatively in my country the situation is absolutely inverse. Government is bolstering a cashless Economy so people are relatively more people are opening bank accounts and trusting the banks. There have been a few incidents which may have cast a significant doubt on the banking system but some incentives to account holders have motivated people to enter into the banking system.
On one side I don't think this is as a negative thing it's because this set of population was far away from modernization and entering into cryptos without a bank account today looks almost impossible. But yes there hasn't been any major negativity about the banks in my country atleast.
|
|
|
|
I should add, although we disagree completely with one another, I enjoy the discussion. If everyone agreed all the time, we would never question anything and we'd never advance.
---
Actually we don't only disagree but we are actually not able to keep our point onto each other. I would surely first of all, like to know from you your definition of "Income and Wealth"?. Why don't the governments just decide let's buy from the farmers in bulk and everyone can get that ration for free. Further that all basic necessities like simple clothes would be free for everyone let's set a limit to it that every person will get this much ration plus clothing free every month despite of what they earn/do. Why don't governments just simply increase taxes, collect revenues and run this scheme permanently? Expense of such a scheme would be much lesser than that on Universal Basic Income.
Sure, governments can do that if they want. It's kind of a throwback to Soviet-style communism, though, so I'm not sure why anyone would think it's a good idea. Also this suggestion is utterly different to UBI; I'm not sure how you've made a connection. UBI does not involve nationalising industries, forcing clothes on people, rationing food, or limiting consumer choice. UBI is simply a more equitable distribution of wealth. There is nothing to do with nationalizing Industries. What I meant was taxing the rich and using that money to provide basic necessities to everyone. Which too is a way/ mean of wealth distribution. Tell me one country which has such a scheme running for long period of time for all citizens? Any Country? NO!! because practical reality is that nothing is free and it can never be. Limited Resources, Unlimited wants. A very basic rules of Economics!
Many countries are running (or considering running) limited trials; the idea is gaining a lot of momentum. Certainly no country has been running full UBI for all citizens for a long period of time, I'll agree on that. But the argument of "this thing hasn't been done before, therefore it's a bad idea" is not particularly convincing. If everyone went along with that, we'd still be living as we were thousands of years ago. And on your point of "nothing is free and it can never be"... once again, UBI is redistribution of what is already there. There is nothing 'free' or created out of nothing. Alice has $8, Bob has $2. I redistribute this so Alice has $7 and Bob has $3. You can't argue that this is impossible, where will all this money come from? That doesn't make sense. I said this line about that free rationing scheme and not about UBI. Now coming to the second part. Let me explain you how this works. Alice has $8, Bob has $3, Casy has $4 Dobby earns nothing and Finy has $15. Now for your equitable distribution to take place total in the Economy currently is $30. Now we say everyone to has UBI of $5. Now, please help me out on calculating a proportion of tax rate we should put in this situation. Take this is as a numerical from my side. As per me this equation would never be equated at the end the large chunk of deficit would be from Deficit Financing. Fun Fact: You know how much taxes are collected in UK already? It's 36% of GDP roughly £13,500 for every adult and even then there is a fiscal deficit in the economy which means they generate more money. Now for giving every person £10,000 you will need to double the taxes roughly upto 72%.
Again, we are not giving people free money. The £10k was purely illustrative, but we are not giving people £10k on top of what they already receive after tax. We are giving on top of what they receive before tax is applied. This is a crucial difference. I am certainly not suggesting a £10k UBI involves everyone in the country gaining £10k post-tax income. The average person would not be expected to gain at all, other than having the UBI segment guaranteed rather than from employment. UBI involves taxing people more, removing the expensive welfare bureaucracy, and then giving the proceeds from these two approaches equally to everyone, to ensure that everyone can afford to live. Poor people gain. Average people see no change (other than having a safety net). Rich people lose some money. That's all. The specific figures involved are speculative, that's why countries are trialling it (or considering trialling it). Actually, at the end of the day ownership of money is changing so you are giving people free money. I would suggest you to go through a reading of Micro-Macro Paradox. Healthcare and social welfare schemes are freebies too. Giving someone free money/ freebies and naming it wealth distribution doesn't changes the fact that it's free money. Also I genuinely understand that ideals behind the UBI concept might be pretty pure and good for society but economically it's almost impossible to implement with hundreds of dynamics working together. Edit: oh yes! I forgot to add that how population charts would rise especially in developing economies due to this. For people it would mean more members in family therefore more Income. |
|
|
|
You know a concept of per capita GDP? Go and check the per capita income of different countries of the world. You will be shocked to see it being that low for many countries. Even their per capita income is so low than what a normal resident needs for it's household. You are being to naive and just doing calculations in your mind regarding taxation and everything. Leave the universal income part and See how much money is created each year by big Economies every year? You think they don't know the idea of magically reforming the tax regime as they get more money? Why devaluate their currency? UBI looks too good on paper but actual practical implications will make it more or less useless and burdensome.
Why would I be shocked that some countries have very low GDP per capita? I'm sure that's obvious to everyone. UBI is a form of wealth redistribution. It doesn't involve creating new money out of nothing, it doesn't magically make everyone rich or eliminate corruption or raise entire countries out of poverty. No-one ever suggested that solves all the problems in the world. But it does reduce inequality. Haha either you are not pretty familiar with concepts of Economics and taxation or maybe you are too lame to explain your idea.
It's not my idea. Although my example illustration should be fairly simple to understand. Think of it you are saying govt will abolish minimum tax slab and will get revenue of 2.5k pounds each? Using this they will distribute 10k pounds each to half of the country? Makes sense? No!!
No, I'm not saying that, please read it again. I said: "There would have to be some tax changes, yes, particularly at the top-end". The bit about the tax-free allowance is saying that UBI partially funds itself. If you get £10k UBI, that increases the amount of tax you pay on your earnings even without adjusting tax bands, because the UBI takes up most of your tax free allowance. UK tax bands up to £150k income: up to £12.5k - no tax £12.5k - 50k - 20% tax £50k - 150k - 40% tax Say you earn £60k a year, the first £12.5k is tax free, the next £37.5k is taxed at basic rate 20%, the next £10k is taxed at higher rate 40%. Now say you get paid £10k per year UBI. You still earn your £60k from your job, but now of that £60k, the first £2.5k is tax free, the next £37.5k is taxed at 20%, the final £20k is taxed at 40%. Obviously this increases tax revenue, which can partially fund UBI. It can also partially be funded by the massive simplification to the welfare system - everyone gets the same basic amount, eliminating wasteful bureaucracy. But this won't fully fund it. You'd also need to increase tax percentages. Take that person who earns £60k, a fairly decent salary in the UK. It might be reasonable to increase tax such that with their £10k UBI plus their income, they have the same amount of money coming in from UBI + salary as they did from salary alone in the old system. Poor people would tend to gain under UBI. Rich people would tend to lose. Average people would not really notice much of a change. The difference being that the UBI is guaranteed, a universal safety net. UBI does not mean giving out new money to everyone, it does not mean everyone becoming richer.... it's just a form of wealth redistribution! Okay leave everything aside. Let's agree with you that tax revamping can do this. If it's so easy to restructure tax revenues and everything. Why don't governments just make daily necessities of life free for every citizen? Why don't the governments just decide let's buy from the farmers in bulk and everyone can get that ration for free. Further that all basic necessities like simple clothes would be free for everyone let's set a limit to it that every person will get this much ration plus clothing free every month despite of what they earn/do. Why don't governments just simply increase taxes, collect revenues and run this scheme permanently? Expense of such a scheme would be much lesser than that on Universal Basic Income. Tell me one country which has such a scheme running for long period of time for all citizens? Any Country? NO!! because practical reality is that nothing is free and it can never be. Limited Resources, Unlimited wants. A very basic rules of Economics! Fun Fact: You know how much taxes are collected in UK already? It's 36% of GDP roughly £13,500 for every adult and even then there is a fiscal deficit in the economy which means they generate more money. Now for giving every person £10,000 you will need to double the taxes roughly upto 72%. Source of these numbers: Google. And yes UK is one of those countries with highest GDP per capita think of rest of the world. Wealth redistribution looks good in theory only practical problems are the reason why no government/state has been able to do it ever. |
|
|
|
money isn't free. When it's created it reduces the overall credibility of the currency UBI would mean creating more and more currency. Imagine govt aren't able to meet our expenses with 30-50% taxes how much taxes do you want?
UBI doesn't mean creating more money. There would have to be some tax changes, yes, particularly at the top-end, but I don't think it would be excessive. Removal of the tax-free allowance on its own would generate huge revenue. People currently aren't taxed on the first £12.5k (for the UK)... if we had £10k UBI, then you'd only earn £2.5k before you'd get taxed, so an extra £10k would become taxable... and if you're a higher-rate tax payer, then an extra £10k at higher rate, too... and that's without adjusting the bands at all. I would use every UBI payment I got as capital towards building and maintaining my businesses.
If you already have a decent income, chances are that UBI wouldn't mean that your total income would increase, because of off-setting through tax changes. What it would mean is that if your business failed completely, you'd still have some guaranteed UBI coming in. UBI isn't magic money printer, it's a form of wealth redistribution. If you already have a decent income, chances are you wouldn't gain - except through living in a more equitable and harmonious society. If people only have just enough to put food on the table and not much else, they're still going to need work, and all the power will remain with employers all the same. That's why I think it has to be enough to lift people above the poverty line.
You're probably right. But even if the UBI takes people up to the poverty line and no further, they'd still gain some small amount of power. Haha either you are not pretty familiar with concepts of Economics and taxation or maybe you are too lame to explain your idea. You know a concept of per capita GDP? Go and check the per capita income of different countries of the world. You will be shocked to see it being that low for many countries. Even their per capita income is so low than what a normal resident needs for it's household. You are being to naive and just doing calculations in your mind regarding taxation and everything. Leave the universal income part and See how much money is created each year by big Economies every year? You think they don't know the idea of magically reforming the tax regime as they get more money? Why devaluate their currency? UBI looks too good on paper but actual practical implications will make it more or less useless and burdensome. Think of it you are saying govt will abolish minimum tax slab and will get revenue of 2.5k pounds each? Using this they will distribute 10k pounds each to half of the country? Makes sense? No!! |
|
|
|
~
I don't agree with this assessment at all. You are talking about people trying to outbid each other for very limited quantities of products. And we aren't talking about giving everyone extra money; UBI is a form of wealth redistribution. Tax brackets will have to be adjusted accordingly. It may be that if you earn $50k after tax now, you would still earn $50k after tax under UBI, the difference being with say the bottom $10k guaranteed as UBI, and the upper $40k coming from your employment (at a higher tax rate, or without the initial lower-earnings tax-free threshold). UBI is not about magically creating free money. Even in that situation the general price level of the economy would rise. What you aren't keeping in mind is that money isn't free. When it's created it reduces the overall credibility of the currency UBI would mean creating more and more currency. Imagine govt aren't able to meet our expenses with 30-50% taxes how much taxes do you want? It would ultimately be a deficit only thereby govt creating more and more currency and increasing general level of economic inflation. Either you are planning to pay 70% taxes it's not a good idea at all. |
|
|
|
Cnut237 and I were having a conversation about wealth distribution in this thread, where he mentions UBI. So rather than derailing that thread I'm going to open it here. In case you don't know what UBI means it is a program for all citizens of a country, rich and poor, to be paid a fixed amount by their government and the goal of this program is to make sure everyone can pay for what they need. There are obviously many challenges to address before this works out, the most basic ones are: - How much to pay? Since they're paying millions of people, they need to ensure they have enough money set aside for that, or UBI payments will deplete the government's money. - What time interval to pay in - If this is not controlled we get the same consequence as paying too much at a time. - Should people be filtered out based on financial status (EDIT: and employment status as well)? Presumably finance ministries of governments have records of every citizen's earnings (as in profit not balance), and a UBI proposal needs to be crafted meticulously to be very precise in the criteria for organizing everyone into (only a few) financial wellness categories, a vague set of requirements can be challenged by parliaments and get the proposal blocked. - Corruption: Some of the budget can be stolen and laundered by people in charge of safekeeping it. Look at 1MDB for example, $700million was stolen from them with the help of the prime minister. Let's assume people will be filtered by status, since giving everyone a fixed amount while keeping withing the budget risks not giving the most needy people enough money, the main hurdle faced here is parliamentary consensus of how to classify everyone in different categories so they can set different incomes for each group. And that's complicated because government budgets decrease and sometimes increase so you have politicians arguing that the income should be raised or lowered accordingly and this just entangles entire proposals. We basically have nobody in power agreeing with each other on how much money to pay each person. Hey hey no no you are absolutely wrong. Economy doesn't works like this. Otherwise every country would be doing this. It's because of few basic concepts of inflation. Income is equals to purchasing power of any person. The purchasing power in hands of every person would mean that every person in the Economy would be willing to pay higher price for goods. Let me explain this with an example: For example there is a good named X. There is only one quantity of X. Then there are only two people A & B in the economy having disposable incomes A of $80 and B of $100. Now if both want to buy the good they will bid on the prices which would increase the prices to a certain point but as here A is having merely $80 his purchasing power would end at $80 and B could quote anything above $80 let's say 90 to buy the product. Which would become the price Now if every person in the Economy gets $100 basic income which means A has $180 and B has $200. the purchasing power would go up they will be willing to take prices upto $180 as after that A can't afford it and B would buy it. Now the same commodity priced at 90 would get priced at $190. Think of this at the whole economic level because the goods/resources will always be limited. But the wants will always be unlimited. Some here argue the utility of the product doesn't increases with increased income so why would someone pay $180? But it's not because of utility of the product but diminution of currency that X get's a higher price. I hope I was clear. This makes the idea of Universal basic income useless. |
|
|
|
|
Read this article yesterday. On one side it's too much presence of mind exercised by the trader but we cannot deny the fact that this was due to a inherent flaw in the system. These USDC,USDT and other Dollar tethered currencies have always been in some attention due to their lack of stability. But yes I must say there was a huge ridk involved on part of Trader too. But I don't know I am not able to join ends who would compensate for this loss made by the arbitrageur? The platform definitely won't suffer I think it would be the other people trying this stunt who will face a loss.
|
|
|
|
|
370,450,000
Username : Teosanru
|
|
|
|
Pardon me, but I still firmly consider bitcoin as a mode of payment/global currency rather than calling that as a form of investment/digital gold. I might be proven wrong in a couple of years or I might be proven correct if the adoption of bitcoin as a currency increases at a larger rate. The adoption rate of bitcoin as a currency is influenced by two major factors : - The scalability/privacy of bitcoin which can be achieved through protocol developments such as Schnorr signatures or Taproot
- The adoption by the global population.
Today at the current adoption rate, it's not really possible to scale without the adoption from the public to consider it as a currency. How much of us are trying to spend bitcoin for a service as it is in the original form without converting them to INR? It's very less because, the services or owners of the products are not willing to accept bitcoin as a form of currency and many of them are not even aware of such a currency exists.
In developed countries like Australia or USA, bitcoin is being used both as a mode of currency and as an asset class. But here, scam artists are using bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as a way to scam poor newbies and nothing more than that. Creating more and more crypto exchanges around India will never increase the adoption as a currency but rather it will make them as a trading asset class. On the other hand, if we have dedicated research labs set up to scale/develop the protocol that will indeed pave way for better innovation as well as freedom from Congress and BJP governments. On top of that, I also completely agree with what @TheUltraElite and @webtricks said about the gold investments. Let me ask you a question, what is the purpose of bitcoin if they are being used as a asset class? Do you wear them and show off as we do with gold ornaments? Have you invested in any company for them to rise in popularity and there by get returns? As of now (~10 years) we are using bitcoin as a speculative investment to get rich and this will probably limit us towards a newbie mindset towards bitcoin! Do we really need freedom from banks (controlled by governments) or are we going to continue investing in a currency speculating that it might reach the moon some day? Excellent point. This is what I have been telling everybody. Bitcoin is atleast in it's natural form a currency. It can be called an asset but there are different class of assets. When we talk about currency as a class of assets it's value will depend upon two factors one is the adoption of that currency and the second thing is the Purchasing Power Parity it has in the country it is used in terms of other currencies. The latter not being applicable to bitcoin so the whole value is derived merely from the wider adoption of currency and nothing else. So it's value would rise as an asset only if people use it more as a currency. Consider it this way. How many people from India buy US dollar as a long term investment? ZERO. You know why? Because our RBI prohibits that and so does generally every central bank. But you know why do they prohibit that? Because people would start buying USD considering that it's value always rises and slowly you will USD actually rising exponentially due to the speculative value it gets. Yes people can trade in Forex that is allowed because short term trades in futures don't cast a great impact on values. Alternatively, Crude prices have given us a great example that if there is no utility of something you can see the price of that commodity going to rock bottom. So this asset class mentality for Bitcoin in longer term will be destructive for bitcoin. It cannot become another gold. |
|
|
|
|
What an genius you are to bring up this idea? Isn't it? Let me give you a contrary view in this scenario. Most of the people do think the way you are thinking right now. They assume this is the market bottom and it can't get worse so best thing is to just buy stocks by taking debt and then we will repay the debt while earning a much higher amount but this thing can backfire with much larger damage.
Let me Explain you pretty simple situation, Let's assume you buy gold/ stock or something. There can be two ways of how you can take a loan for buying assets:
1. First way to take loan is buy approaching any unorganized sector lender for personal because no way you are going to get a loan from bank solely for buying shares.
2. Second way is you would directly take leverage from the broker while buying such assets.
Talking about the second way first. In such a case just as a person with no skills you have done investment without any knowledge in shares/gold let's say upon recommendation of some expert. Now what will happen is that if that share/gold goes down 5-10% before jumping up. You will be liquidated. Your position will be liquidated and you would lose all your money even if the stock touches the rooftop after that.
In the second situation when you have chosen some unorganized lender for taking such loan. When the stock will go down by 10% you yourself will think of the mistake you have done by buying this stock through a loan and you could end up in two situations:
i. You would sell at that point which is 10% less because you know going down from here means your networth becomes negative.
ii. Or you would take up another debt to repay that debt ending up in a debt spiral or debt trap what we say.
And trust me both of them are situations in which no one really wants to be.
So my advise is making money like you said is not possible unless you are really very lucky. But if you are just betting on your better try casino. Moreover never ever go in debt for buying stocks unless you have skills of market.
PS: Just in case you are thinking same thing is applicable for cryptos also. I haven't mentioned cryptos because only an idiot would think of taking a loan to buy cryptos. Because crypto are too volatile. No person in sane mind would do that.
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I know crypto faucets have been around for a long time, but I never bothered to try any of them.
I recently noticed that some faucets still attract so much traffic, and it really got me curious whether using faucets daily is actually worth your time.
Please share your opinions about them, and your experience with them if you actually used it for some time.
Thanks in advance.
Faucets are nothing but waste of time. Success of faucet comes from time where faucets paid people less money but the price of bitcoin boomed so much that it looked as if faucets are actually rewarding. Moreover it's popularity primarily comes from bloggers and youtuber who I don't know why keep it on the top of list of "ways of earning bitcoin". Faucets are just great for the advertisers and middle men you will just be paid peanuts. I would instead try to learn some skill and sell it in the time it takes you to do faucets. |
|
|
|
Hi
some of you guys may remember me I'm the guy who said it almost seems impossible to buy bitcoin because of some conditions and got a lot of good response from the forum.
I ended up doing a full verification with a local exchange and it turned out to be pretty easy after that.
anyway since then I put a lot of hours on learning about futures trading , talking to a lot of people with experience , watching and monitoring the scales and price changing and how it acts , putting a lot of hours in binance testnet and etc . after about 3 months I felt ready and decided to actually put something in . I traded very safe (although there is no 100% safe in futures trading ) , had both loss and profit and after a week I doubled my investment and it felt pretty easy . although I didn't put in a lot it was 100 bucks .
now my question is this : should I go bigger and put more in or still go small ? because this looks really promising to me . am I missing anything here ? does everyone makes this profits at first ?
and keep in mind I'm solely doing this because the university is closed due to covid and I don't have much to do at home . this was more of a hobby since the start I'm not looking to make career out of this .
I am surprised you made profit in the very beginning. Generally most of the traders lose a lot of money when they start. But best thing you did was starting on Binance and Testnet for the first few months. You might have lost some money there but those learning helped you to perform better in the real market. You are absolutely not missing anything. This is what trading is and this is what traders do. Although it gets a bit difficult to double your money when you increase your capital but still you can take it upto 1k Bucks for sure. If you are confident that you won't blow it in a day or week. Go Slow and steady making small profits on daily basis you might be in losses a few times but key is to maintain a health risk/reward ratio and be profitable on cumulative basis. Remember no trader is ever able to survive merely in profits. Also stick to your strategy with discipline. |
|
|
|
~snip~
Yeah exactly India i believe never plays a less than 3 test series when it comes to big nations while I feel some countries do play 2 match series because test cricket isn't that developed in those countries and does not attract viewers. But If ICC goes deeper into this fixtures deciding role on how many matches will each country play, then national boards might have problem with it especially India/ Australia who have enough viewers and like things to be mandated as per their requirements so yes it's the best available scenario we have. India play 5 test match series with only England, With Australia (4 tests) this might change in the future, Ind-Aus rivalry matured enough to get 5 test match series. South Africa (3 tests), New Zealand (2 tests) disappointing. Yeah, but I would still say that nothing can beat Indo-Pak Rivalry. I really want to see the stage set once again for an Indo-Pak encounter. I know it might hurt nationalist sentiments of many people but keeping that apart considering a cricket match it would be too entertaining and I doubt anyone can miss that. Also when many people compare Babar Azam with Virat Kohli a direct match between both these players as captain would be something really fantastic. England's player are little bit weak against spin bowler. and you know, India has some world class spin bowlers. Main thing is England team is more stable, and they know much better how to defeat the opponent. may England won't win the series, but there is no doubt that we will going to see an exciting and entertaining series. best of luck for England team.
India "had" some world class spin bowlers. But I am not sure whether that is the case now. Bowlers such as Ravichandran Ashwin and Ravindra Jadeja, who can't perform in overseas conditions can't be termed as world class players. Anyway, Ashwin is close to retirement age. India had world class spinners, such as Harbhajan Singh. But the current bunch (Ashwin, Kuldeep, Yuzvendra.etc) are not at the same level. Right now, the Indian pace lineup looks world class, but not the spinners. I think it's because of the recent dependence of India on there Chinaman bowlers. The recent concept of China man, unorthodox styles of bowling ended career of Ashwin and Jadeja who were actually performing pretty well. But India somehow following the new trend went to on with "Kul-Cha" duo for sometime and in the mean time these two big world class spinners Ashwin and Jadeja's career got deteriorated. Now the batsmen around the world are pretty comfortable with these unorthodox players because these bowlers don't have anything new to offer than their action and now team is suffering due to this. |
|
|
|
|
How can just market capitalisation and liquidity determine the best coins to invest in? These two things can only ensure lower amount of volatility and nothing else. I think if you actually want to make a magnitude of wealth in cryptocurrencies you have to buy some alts. It should be like 50% of your portfolio should always be bitcoin while 20% should comprise of these top coins and the remaining 20% should go for lower market cap alts which you can consider have rank of 5-25 on coinmarketcap and 10% or maybe even less for some people should be some coins of even lower market cap which you believe in. So all on all it's best if you keep combination of risky as well safe assets in your portfolio to make sure you are in win-win situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Trading isn't something you can read in the books. Trading isn't just learning the techniques of fundamental and technical analysis. Irony is that the bookish knowledge of fundamental and technical analysis comprises of just 20% of your trading strategy or even less. The best part comes after that. So what does an overall strategy looks like:
20% Fundamental/technical analysis
40% Risk/Reward Analysis
40% Emotional Strength
Yes this might sound absurd but truth is that other two things are more prominent when it comes to trading. Trading is just like any other business so Risk and reward analysis is very important. Many a times people analyse the stock without knowing their targets or stop losses which are too important. Now underlying concept behind is that use stocks/coins as a tool to trade not like love of your life. People tend to develop emotions for coins for example If I purchase Bitcoin now I am emotionally attached that it will go upwards now for example if for once it does reaches that point next time you would feel that bitcoin is my darling and it always reaches the point where I target so let's go for it. This is where your destruction starts
Secondly, discipline, it's a very common thing to see that coins often rise much above the metrics that you have analysed and this makes you uncomfortable about selling at a lower price but this should never happen. As soon as you close a trade just stop looking at that coin anymore. For example think of it like a train. If your journey was from station A to B why would you see the train after getting down on station B? Realize the fact that it could have happened thr other way too if you might not have sold at such price and the price went down you might lose everything. Alternatively if you really feel that you should atleast give a try to fetch such higher price you can go for trailing stop loss strategy.
Thirdly staying in the game is the most important thing so preservation of capital is of utmost important, realize it this way if you have $100 today and you lose 50% of it and come down to $100 now you have to earn a profit of 100% to go back to that point which makes it double difficult. So always stay in the mindset of preservation of capital. Keep a Maximum risk percentage you will take each day or from each trade and keep a minimum percentage of money you will earn each day or from each trade. It can be 1% or 2% but try to keep risk to reward ration at 2:1.
I hope these methods help you. Feel free to ask for guidance on any other similar issue.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are playing this game the wrong way. Target with any investment is not to beat up inflation it's to create wealth over a longer term. Consider inflation is like a cost a cost which is unavoidable and all you have to focus is on greater returns that would automatically beat inflation.
Coming to the part on how to beat inflation. Inflation is like a minimum slab if you understand it.
People think of it in this way: For example if the inflation rate increases banks will automatically increase their interest rates which in turn would make you look banks are profitable but inflation is eating up your savings too.
What it actually is: Whenever there is an increase in Inflation banks increase their lending rates too. It's because banks also are profit making corporations who have to beat the lending rate. This way credit is available at a higher rate and almost all the corporations would now try to be more profitable because they have to beat the interest rate and maintain EPS too. So in short stocks are the best answer always. Go for bluechip companies which are established corporations carrying low risk.
So in short I would recommend you to go for blue-chip stocks if you are not willing to take risk and grow wealth at the same time.
|
|
|
|
It is true that when a brand becomes a verb or a noun to people, that brand has become mainstream.
That is how popular brands such as Google, Apple and Facebook have become overtime.
But, the fastest one to attain that status is Bitcoin. This digital product was developed by Nakamoto Satoshi in 2008 with the Blockchain underlying technology. Today, that product is called the technology and the technology is called the product.
What I want the forum to discuss is this:
I believe that the application of Blockchain cut across many industries such as healthcare, logistics, insurance, governement, education and so and so forth.
Why is the application of Blockchain to finance has this popularity than application of Blockchain to other sectors?
What do you think?
First reason is obvious because it was designed as a cryptocurrency and not some crypto other sector thing so people obviously would try to leverage this technology in the field of finance only. Secondly It's because everything in this world is commercialized today. Even if we imagine of implementing bitcoin or I would say cryptocurrency in any other sector it would be more or less based on how profitable that model is. But you would see most of the major companies involved in making blockchain related products try to leverage every sector that is profitable. So this assumption is wrong that only financial sector is getting implementation but yes other sectors are still in progress to be explored.
What I want the forum to discuss is this:
I believe that the application of Blockchain cut across many industries such as healthcare, logistics, insurance, governement, education and so and so forth.
Why is the application of Blockchain to finance has this popularity than application of Blockchain to other sectors?
What do you think?
First and foremost, what you need to understand is that Satoshi's inspiration was to develop a system or technology that will solve the gap in the financial ecosystem concerning how transactions are made. And since blockchain technology was introduced in the financial aspect, its very obvious that aspect will e its prime focus and popularity. This popularity is mainly because blockchain was introduced to be a financial thing. And who said you this that Satoshi wanted to solve such a gap? Whitepaper doesn't mentions the same. Even if it was his vision do you really think bitcoin is a tool which could solve such gap? I think it's much slower as compared to traditional methods so no way it's filling the time gap. |
|
|
|
|
I think bitcoin is not a new thing now that it would get a pump and dump whenever it's in news this thing used to happen in 2017 but does not works now. Take it this way that number of heists or scams take place with fiat currency or banks but how often would you see that currency having a big effect of that? Bitcoin was merely a tool used in the case and is not a cause of the whole problem. So i feel it's far related from price of bitcoin unless elon musks decides to crush cryptocurrencies with all his money.
|
|
|
|
~snip~.
This is pretty interesting infographic. India has played too many series and proved that they deserve to be called the best but still an away series with Australia would still be a real test of their skills I doubt India can win that series while home series with England might not pose much problems for them so despite of everything India might still end up on number one position after everything. But this is a good way of determining best team because each team has played each time both at home and away so gives fair results.This is a best case scenario, not perfect but its bit easy to digest. In ideal world there should have been equal matches of series for all teams. Right now some teams are playing 2-3 match series and contesting for 120 points, on the other hand some teams are playing 4-5 match series and contesting for same amount of points, so WTC has some flow but again its comes down to money/ revenue making series and schedule. Its first World Test Championship so i am okay with it but i hope they keep reforming this idea or may be some tweaks in the near future. Yeah exactly India i believe never plays a less than 3 test series when it comes to big nations while I feel some countries do play 2 match series because test cricket isn't that developed in those countries and does not attract viewers. But If ICC goes deeper into this fixtures deciding role on how many matches will each country play, then national boards might have problem with it especially India/ Australia who have enough viewers and like things to be mandated as per their requirements so yes it's the best available scenario we have. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
