Bitcoin Forum
June 20, 2024, 03:37:31 PM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 [132] 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 ... 213 »
2621  Economy / Economics / Re: Is America a failed nation? on: March 05, 2016, 04:22:37 AM
I think it would be wrong to call the US a failed nation, the people still have a pretty high living standard compared to the rest of the world.
There is also relative peace and stability if you look at the grand scheme of things. I would call North Korea a failed nation, or Syria, Iraq in their current state.

It's interesting that you bring up North Korea, among the other examples of Syria and Iraq. Of the three, North Korea seems like the least "failed" to me. Syria and Iraq are both undergoing violent instability that threatens the cohesion of the nation, but not so in North Korea. Now granted, that's because North Korea has a vice-like grip over the populace, but that doesn't at all equate to being a failed state. Brutal authoritarianism doesn't make a state a failed nation.
2622  Economy / Economics / Re: Why Socialism is the key on: March 05, 2016, 03:50:27 AM
Your freedom must be limited by the freedom of others. In order to enforce this freedom you need violence. You'll soon find that, as I tried to hint at earlier, you'll need a monopoly of violence. What you've suggested earlier is sometimes called the state of nature, but more accurately to be thought of as a state of war. Now... a monopoly of violence can be a rather depressing thing if it's randomly applied. So you'll want a rechtsstaat or some kind of rule of law. This is best achieved in a democracy. But not just any democracy, you'll want a representative democracy with separation of powers between the courts, the lawmakers, and the ruler.

I'm with you up to the democracy part, because I don't think freedom is best achieved in a democracy if your version of democracy is that popular ideas are deemed moral because they're the most popular. That doesn't follow logically. If there are no absolute freedoms, democracy is rather worthless in my opinion. So it has to be a democracy that doesn't have the power to infringe on the freedom of the individual, and now we're back to a moral government.

Ok, so far, so good. Now you have a sound foundation for regulating society in a way that secures the freedom of every citizen. But what is freedom? Now we're back to what I mentioned in the beginning. Your freedom must be limited by the freedom of others. That is the extent and limit of your freedom... [snip] But to answer your question: if you retreat from your civic duties to be "left alone" you're infringing on the freedom of others and damaging this entire construct aimed at ensuring the freedom of all.

All this means is nobody's freedom takes precedence over any other person's freedom. No one can assign a "civic duty" to you without your consent, as such an action would be immoral. You are not born with an obligation to anyone, and any construct of such is artificial.


2623  Economy / Economics / Re: Big Crash coming on: March 05, 2016, 03:10:56 AM
I don't think we'll see any colossal crash that will make history but we will see something for sure.

The banks are going to abuse the public, just as they did in 2009, and, unless we choose the right leadership in November, we'll be bailing out those exact banks when they do "collapse".

Of course this will only benefit Bitcoin when it does happen, however I don't totally agree that the price will rise to $10,000. I think you just pulled that number up randomly. The price would not soar so quickly but definitely very large.

I would think that very soon, seeing as what has developed in China, Bitcoin will be benefiting from our corrupt markets.

People peddling this fiction that bitcoin is going to thrive in an economic meltdown are completely disconnected from reality. Bitcoin becomes worthless in a world-wide economic meltdown because it can only be used to buy a tiny fraction of the things needed to have a functioning economy. Not to mention the network is currently operating at capacity and literally can't handle any more growth. Have you noticed how long it takes to get a transaction in a block these days? It's a wonder the price has held above $400 under the current network conditions, as all signs are pointing towards slower and slower confirmartions, and therefore less and less utility as a currency.
2624  Economy / Economics / Re: Long term OIL on: March 05, 2016, 02:52:55 AM
With batteries orders of magnitude better than we have today you could almost buy the car and throw it away when the battery is depleated  Cheesy


If was so easy to improve battery technology by orders of magnitude, we would be seeing it incrementally over time on a scale similar to Moore's Law and computing. But battery technology doesn't make those types of leaps.
2625  Economy / Economics / Re: Long term OIL on: March 05, 2016, 02:50:05 AM
The amount of active rigs has reached the amount from 2009. The daily production in 2009 was 1/3 of the current production. If everything is going to get normalized then the production has to fall to this level again.

This is just with respect to US production, correct? The supply side is one aspect. What we are all seeing is the effect of the demand side, given that expected offtake from global growth is not happening.

Oil consumption is pretty steady and predictable on a global level. The current price issue is supply-side.
2626  Economy / Economics / Re: Why Socialism is the key on: March 05, 2016, 02:16:28 AM
I don't have a choice? I'd say that's my argument in a nutshell. That's why socialism is morally wrong, the use of force against others to force them to comply because they don't have a choice.

Let me explain further my last post, because it seems maybe my point wasn't clear. Because all judgments are subjective, you eliminate arbitrary law by making all men equal under the law. Take out all subjective judgments and institute only those things which are objectively true: All men are created equal, and all men are equal under the law, and no one has any more right to do anything than anyone else. In this way, everyone has equal rights. Under this style of government, you are free to do whatever you want so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of anyone else. All men have the right to life, liberty, and property they've justly earned. No one has the right to take away anyone else's life, liberty, or property. That's equality. And it's the opposite of socialism, which demands taking away, at the very least, the property of others. People who use the power of government to force other people to act in a way they want are morally bankrupt.

So it doesn't matter what 70% of the population believes, and it doesn't matter what the "elites" (as you say) believe. If it takes away someone's life, liberty, or property, it's morally wrong.

In which way is socialism not compatible with what you're saying? The fact that no one should tell you what to do or take parts of what you have/earn?
Well it's already the case no?

And you're saying this as if all men were not equal in a socialist country! Why shouldn't they be all equal in the eyes of the law?

If a group of men have the power or the right to take the possessions of another person, then those men are not equal under the law. That is how socialism is not compatible with what I am saying.
2627  Economy / Economics / Re: Is America a failed nation? on: March 05, 2016, 02:09:37 AM
surprising me,and hard to choose between yes or no,but because i'm nt american,so i will really respect to them,US is NOT failed nation,every nation have debt,every nation ever feel economic collapse,but i never see aountry like america who have very strong military,busy country in the world,so many big companies there,and its make America still lead the world.
We all see how America leads world to economic disaster.
Also all those military actions only brought more problem to rest of the world especially EU,  and as accomplice now have major problem with migrations..

America are not the leaders in pulling down the world economy... We saw several other countries in the EU during the previous economic disaster {2008} who did just

that, for example Greece / Portugal / Ireland / Spain .... There are many other countries closer than economic collapse than the USA will ever be. The debt problem is

a global sickness, but also a driving force of economic growth. Not all debt is bad... some debt create businesses and those businesses create jobs.  Wink
Exactly. The US might not be the role model for economic progress, but there are other countries far worse than it such as the countries you mentioned.

The US does have some inherent advantages that allow for them to avoid issues that other EU countries face, such as having the largest economy in the world and the world reserve currency, however. It would be interesting to see what would happen to them if they didn't have the same advantages.

You make it sound like the US just lucked into having the world's largest economy. You know how that happened? They built it. When America broke ties with Europe in the 18th century, they also broke ties with a lot of the class structure and political anchors that were weighing Europe down. America was successful because they didn't have wasteful monarchies tying them down, and because to a large extent, it was a meritocracy, where the best ideas and the most innovative people win. That's what created the world's largest economy. It wasn't luck, it was earned.
2628  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: [Pool] - Coinotron --- LTC PPS 3%, Ethereum pool = Stratum, RBPPS, PPLNS on: March 04, 2016, 08:00:58 PM
FYI

We temporarily disabled FTC pool. This morning poll's wallet stopped accepting new blocks.

We are investigating this issue.

Update:

We contacted Peter Bushnell. It seems to be fork in FTC network. Different clients are on different blockchains.


What will be the result of this? (Will/when will mining come back online?)
2629  Economy / Economics / Re: Why Socialism is the key on: February 25, 2016, 03:15:04 AM
I would really like to know WTF the US is thinking with the new thing in congress about trade TPP i think it's called it lets china and few others in the west tell us what to do if it passes one of the laws in it ,we won't have the right to know were the meat we eat is coming from or what it is or whats in it , and other things.

What we need to do here is stop helping others and help our self then think about helping others again or do what our first Pres said and that was don't get in involved in the A fairs of others trade with them help them if they ask for it maintain peace but above all things don't get involved beyond watching and helping as needed when asked to don't fight there wars unless it involve us like ww2 . the leaders fight to much over riches and don't care much for the people anymore in the US but this  trade agreement is the worse thing yet they want to do or try  i had no idea was going on . it is as bad as when bash tried to sell off the Baltimore docks to the Arabs and homeland security said there was no issues it was safe to do.






CYa

The TPP is hundred of pages long. To simplify it down to 'we don't know where our meat is coming from' is a gross oversimplification, and ignores all the benefits it brings American industry. As with all things, some industries lose and some industries win when the government gets involved. But the TPP isn't really relevant to this thread, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.
2630  Economy / Economics / Re: Negative Interest Rates on: February 25, 2016, 03:10:27 AM
Negative interest rates don't just magically mean everything to do with banks operates like it's opposite day. Negative interest rates do not mean someone pays you to take out a loan. It only means banks pay the central bank for not making loans.

Paying average people to take out loans is quite possible in a cashless world.  If the central bank is "giving" a rate of -8% to banks which deposit money with it, a bank can earn a profit by loaning out the money at -2% (i.e. losing 2% a year is better than losing 8% a year, for the bank.)

For you, it still doesn't make sense to accept the loan, unless you have a special reason.  If you have no compelling reason to borrow the money, the best you can do is to park it in the bank.  But the loan only pays you 2% a year, whereas the bank will charge you a likely 12% a year for that money.  So, the same principle applies as today: borrow only for special reasons.

In a cashless, negative interest world, the part of the math that matters is higher vs. lower (i.e. being less negative is higher.)  The higher-lower comparisons will remain the same.  Where the 0-mark is relative to the various rates, is irrelevant.

Just an elegant way for the elites to continue fleecing the public.

First, your assumption uses rates that are nowhere near reality. All CBs that have negative rates are between 0 and -1%, and at rates that low below zero, the banks are just going to eat the loss. No one is loaning money out at negative interest rates, and if rates went so negative that ever became a viable reality, the economy would be so jacked up that there likely wouldn't be any liquidity to make loans at all anyway, because the lending economy would be completely paralyzed with fear of moving money at all.

Second, if the bank is charging you -2% on the loan, that means they are paying you 2% to take out the loan. So it wouldn't matter if you had a legitimate reason to take the loan out, because you would make money for doing so, so you'd take the loan and park it in a mattress and be better off. But this is not a viable happenstance anyway because banks are not giving you interest to take out a loan, so the issue is moot.

Third, banks will continue to eat the loss because they have to be competitive. No bank can get consumers to agree to pay to deposit their money unless all banks were doing it and consumers had no choice. And even then, the consumers would have the choice not to deposit their money, and that eventuality would sap much-needed liquidity from the banks and threaten the banking system, so no CB is going to push rates so negative that passing on negative rates to consumers becomes a likely outcome.
2631  Economy / Economics / Re: Why Socialism is the key on: February 25, 2016, 02:46:11 AM
Interesting comment, thanks for your constructive answer.

Well it is true that by giving the absolute power to the majority, you hence take the risk of the majority being wrong.
But a few things allow me to have faith in such a situation:
-First majority doesn't mean 51%. Majority can be higher. It would seem rather logical to write in the first constitution of such a democracy that any law needs 65% of the people vote to get approved. Being hence sure that the people really wants that and not that it's close to civil war with a big 50/50. We can also ensure some stability by saying that changing the consitution needs 80% of approval, hence only crucial changes can be written in the constitution.
-Second, I strongly believe in transformation under responsability. Indirect democracy made people weak and stupid. They're not interested in politics and easily manipulated, because they all know they can't change anything. But if tomorrow they know they have the faith of the country in their hand, I do believe they'll get much more involved on politics. Exactly as the Greeks citizens did thousands of years ago.
-Third, moral is subjective. If more than 70% of the population wants something, who are you to say it's bad? What kind of moral absolute value could you take?
-Fourth, developped countries have a high education hence strong history knowledge and shouldn't tend to repeat mistakes.

Of course I can't guarantee anything, but it's still what I believe.


Addressing the bold points, the fact that morality is subjective is exactly why you need to restrict government to the most basic rights. In the southern US in the middle 19th century, there was widespread consensus that slavery was a justifiable economic model and that black people were inferior and therefore could have no rights as human beings. The notion was so widely accepted that the Supreme Court itself ruled that blacks had no rights under the Constitution. This is clearly an immoral and unjust viewpoint, despite being widely supported. Democracy clearly failed in this instance. The popularity of an idea has no relation to its morality, so simply saying that something that enjoys 70+ percent approval does not make it a legitimate point. Because morality is subjective, we need to limit government to a role of protecting the most fundamental freedoms that everyone agrees every person possesses: life and liberty especially, and most people will also include property. As a nation, we can decide that certain people do not have the right to be free and must serve as slaves for the benefit of the rest of society, and this idea could have the approval of 99% of the population. It is still an evil notion, and the role of government is to enforce everyone's rights equally, and especially to protect the minority who the majority would otherwise take advantage of if given the opportunity. When you have unequal rights, you have arbitrary law, and arbitrary law is unequivocally evil. Arbitrary law is what the American Revolution was fought over, and the Declaration of Independence was an indictment of the British practice of instituting arbitrary law to suit their whims. And the history of socialized government is one that has repeatedly instituted some measure of arbitrary law, because there is no way you can protect all rights equally while also redistributing wealth, because it necessitates infringing some group's rights arbitrarily under the direction of popular government.

You're missing an important point:
You don't have a choice.

You're telling me "it's not because 70% of population agrees on it that it's good".
Fair enough. But then?
If it's not the people who decides, who will? An elite? Lol, we all know what "elite" do...

I don't have a choice? I'd say that's my argument in a nutshell. That's why socialism is morally wrong, the use of force against others to force them to comply because they don't have a choice.

Let me explain further my last post, because it seems maybe my point wasn't clear. Because all judgments are subjective, you eliminate arbitrary law by making all men equal under the law. Take out all subjective judgments and institute only those things which are objectively true: All men are created equal, and all men are equal under the law, and no one has any more right to do anything than anyone else. In this way, everyone has equal rights. Under this style of government, you are free to do whatever you want so long as your actions don't infringe on the freedom of anyone else. All men have the right to life, liberty, and property they've justly earned. No one has the right to take away anyone else's life, liberty, or property. That's equality. And it's the opposite of socialism, which demands taking away, at the very least, the property of others. People who use the power of government to force other people to act in a way they want are morally bankrupt.

So it doesn't matter what 70% of the population believes, and it doesn't matter what the "elites" (as you say) believe. If it takes away someone's life, liberty, or property, it's morally wrong.
2632  Economy / Economics / Re: Negative Interest Rates on: February 23, 2016, 09:23:35 PM
7)  We would pay to have "money" in the bank, but I doubt that they would pay us to borrow it...  Bigger save/borrow spread.


Yes, I really doubt they'll be paying people to borrow. Imagine if they did... anyone with half a brain would just max out their credit, withdraw the cash, and then rather than spending it they'd just keep it at home while being paid for holding it. All of this just encourages the hoarding of the cash and so that's why they must ban it.

Negative interest rates don't just magically mean everything to do with banks operates like it's opposite day. Negative interest rates do not mean someone pays you to take out a loan. It only means banks pay the central bank for not making loans.
2633  Economy / Economics / Re: Long term OIL on: February 23, 2016, 09:20:17 PM
Clean electric energy must come from somewhere?
 Answer is from coal and from oil again.
And the winner is nuclear power with all their pollution and possible horror accidents..
Don't count on power of sun and wind , this is small percentage even now.

Coal power is the most polluting form of energy ever invented in the history of the human race. You can travel to the tier-II cities of Russia and Ukraine, and experience the pollution yourself. In cities such as Konakovo, Kirishi, Nazarovo, and Sharypovo, the pollution is so intense that sometimes it is impossible to see the sun, even during daytime.

In my opinion, nuclear energy is the cleanest form of energy.

It is the cleanest but is it the safest? What to do and how to deal with it if some incident happens, how can that be avoided? I'm a bit scared of nuclear energy but that doesn't mean that I'm against it.

Would you really say that it is cleaner and safer than solar? I don't see any energy source cleaner or safer than solar, though wind might be close.
2634  Economy / Economics / Re: Why Socialism is the key on: February 23, 2016, 03:47:41 AM
I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

The one criticism I have of socialism is that majority rule and moral rule are not the same thing. Just because something is undertaken with the will of the majority does not make the action just. In your post, you seem to advocate that the crucial missing piece to a successful socialist government is simply a strong democratic element. My answer to this notion is that a tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and socialism is more prone to justifying tyranny because it is popular. This doesn't make things better necessarily, it just makes people more certain that they can't possibly be doing harm when in fact they are, or worse, that the harm they are doing is creating a greater good. Historically, a group acting with the certainty that they are morally superior generally doesn't lead to a decrease in the level of violence they commit or are willing to commit. In America, we don't believe the ends justify the means. That's why we instituted the Constitution, to limit the potentially destructive means the majority could otherwise inflict simply because they have the popularity to do so.

Interesting comment, thanks for your constructive answer.

Well it is true that by giving the absolute power to the majority, you hence take the risk of the majority being wrong.
But a few things allow me to have faith in such a situation:
-First majority doesn't mean 51%. Majority can be higher. It would seem rather logical to write in the first constitution of such a democracy that any law needs 65% of the people vote to get approved. Being hence sure that the people really wants that and not that it's close to civil war with a big 50/50. We can also ensure some stability by saying that changing the consitution needs 80% of approval, hence only crucial changes can be written in the constitution.
-Second, I strongly believe in transformation under responsability. Indirect democracy made people weak and stupid. They're not interested in politics and easily manipulated, because they all know they can't change anything. But if tomorrow they know they have the faith of the country in their hand, I do believe they'll get much more involved on politics. Exactly as the Greeks citizens did thousands of years ago.
-Third, moral is subjective. If more than 70% of the population wants something, who are you to say it's bad? What kind of moral absolute value could you take?
-Fourth, developped countries have a high education hence strong history knowledge and shouldn't tend to repeat mistakes.

Of course I can't guarantee anything, but it's still what I believe.


Addressing the bold points, the fact that morality is subjective is exactly why you need to restrict government to the most basic rights. In the southern US in the middle 19th century, there was widespread consensus that slavery was a justifiable economic model and that black people were inferior and therefore could have no rights as human beings. The notion was so widely accepted that the Supreme Court itself ruled that blacks had no rights under the Constitution. This is clearly an immoral and unjust viewpoint, despite being widely supported. Democracy clearly failed in this instance. The popularity of an idea has no relation to its morality, so simply saying that something that enjoys 70+ percent approval does not make it a legitimate point. Because morality is subjective, we need to limit government to a role of protecting the most fundamental freedoms that everyone agrees every person possesses: life and liberty especially, and most people will also include property. As a nation, we can decide that certain people do not have the right to be free and must serve as slaves for the benefit of the rest of society, and this idea could have the approval of 99% of the population. It is still an evil notion, and the role of government is to enforce everyone's rights equally, and especially to protect the minority who the majority would otherwise take advantage of if given the opportunity. When you have unequal rights, you have arbitrary law, and arbitrary law is unequivocally evil. Arbitrary law is what the American Revolution was fought over, and the Declaration of Independence was an indictment of the British practice of instituting arbitrary law to suit their whims. And the history of socialized government is one that has repeatedly instituted some measure of arbitrary law, because there is no way you can protect all rights equally while also redistributing wealth, because it necessitates infringing some group's rights arbitrarily under the direction of popular government.
2635  Economy / Economics / Re: Negative Interest Rates on: February 23, 2016, 03:20:29 AM
This idea doesn't work... so you take out credit, and you receive interest on the credit you take out? That doesnt' make any sense. Also it would mean when you deposit money to a bank your savings decrease... Which means that everyone would be trying to take out loans, and nobody would be offering loans. Which would not work at all.

The negative rates are only charged by the central bank to the banks, not to consumers (because the banks don't pass the negative rates on so as not to alienate customers). So the theory is by penalizing banks for holding money by charging them interest to do so, they are incentive to loan it out instead, thereby creating economic activity and spurring the economy.

Which is why banks are speaking out against NIRP; they get charged and consumer demand is still on life support. Banks were borrowing at 0% and getting paid to store their excess reserves with the government. But the crux is that there is very little appetite to borrow to the level needed for a consumption driven economy. There is no recovery. That tide has gone out.

So the CB NIRP is the trial balloon for introducing NIRP to the public; once we get 'used' to the idea and the world doesn't end, it's coming. And NIRP won't necessarily mean people begin to spend, an example being the report in Japan that sales of safes have skyrocketed, pre-empting the move.

While agreeing with everything you wrote about the diminishing utility of trying to force banks to make loans, I don't necessarily agree that this is a trial run for introducing negative interest rates to the public. The banks are already being charged negative interest, so if they thought they could pass it along without alienating customers, they would be doing so already. But consumers aren't going to tolerate banks charging them to hold their money, they're going to pull it out and stuff it in a mattress, further removing liquidity from the banks and the markets. The CBs know this is an obvious and likely scenario, so they're not going to push negative rates so far that they actually become a larger risk to the system than not. At least, that's how I see it.
2636  Economy / Economics / Re: Negative Interest Rates on: February 22, 2016, 09:15:38 PM
This idea doesn't work... so you take out credit, and you receive interest on the credit you take out? That doesnt' make any sense. Also it would mean when you deposit money to a bank your savings decrease... Which means that everyone would be trying to take out loans, and nobody would be offering loans. Which would not work at all.

The negative rates are only charged by the central bank to the banks, not to consumers (because the banks don't pass the negative rates on so as not to alienate customers). So the theory is by penalizing banks for holding money by charging them interest to do so, they are incentive to loan it out instead, thereby creating economic activity and spurring the economy.
2637  Economy / Economics / Re: Negative Interest Rates on: February 22, 2016, 09:13:27 PM
I dont get this negative interest rates..Maybe the government/bank wants people to take their money from banks and invest directly somewhere or to start a business.This way it can help the economy and create jobs.

This is literally the reason they have negative interest rates.
2638  Economy / Economics / Re: Is America a failed nation? on: February 22, 2016, 09:05:53 PM
No way America is a failed nation. Of course the American system has some weaknesses but compaired to other countries' they are much smaller and America will take care of them in due time. Don't worry mate America will not fail.

They all compare themselves to America because America is very good at marketing and has created a good image about itself.

Right, the Declaration of Independence was a marketing ploy, just like all that freedom and liberty propaganda.  Roll Eyes  The Founding Fathers: The Original Mad Men.
2639  Economy / Economics / Re: Why Socialism is the key on: February 22, 2016, 08:59:48 PM
I find a lots of people here saying things like "Socialism is the worst thing ever, it doesn't work and it's why the government have so much debt".

Well clearly it is not and socialism is the only way to go.
I'm French, I'm from a socialist country and solidarity is extremely important here.
Here is a common example given by people saying socialism is the worst thing ever: Healthcare costs around 2 billions of debt every year to the country.
So people are saying that we shouldn't give so much. That we shouldn't help each other so much.

I say bullshit nothing more.
The private sector of health is 36 billions every year. Just nationalize this shit and you'll get enough money to repay the health debt, triple the employment, repay part of national debt and lower the taxes!

It's the same for all sectors! What is profitable has been privatised by corrupted politician and only what costs money is left for the state! Another example? Yeah the Highways were sold to private companies! Just after they were repayed by tolls.

The only thing killing socialism is greed. Greed and corruption.

How do you fight it? By creating a democracy. but a true one not one of our shitty Western false democracies! One using the blockchain to make people vote for every law and every constitution modification! That's what should be done! Then you would see that we have far enough money, we're just letting private investors keeping it.

The one criticism I have of socialism is that majority rule and moral rule are not the same thing. Just because something is undertaken with the will of the majority does not make the action just. In your post, you seem to advocate that the crucial missing piece to a successful socialist government is simply a strong democratic element. My answer to this notion is that a tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and socialism is more prone to justifying tyranny because it is popular. This doesn't make things better necessarily, it just makes people more certain that they can't possibly be doing harm when in fact they are, or worse, that the harm they are doing is creating a greater good. Historically, a group acting with the certainty that they are morally superior generally doesn't lead to a decrease in the level of violence they commit or are willing to commit. In America, we don't believe the ends justify the means. That's why we instituted the Constitution, to limit the potentially destructive means the majority could otherwise inflict simply because they have the popularity to do so.
2640  Economy / Economics / Re: The Halving - Good or Bad for Bitcoin? on: February 22, 2016, 08:42:30 PM
128 days until the halving from now aprox. the prices can rise before than this happens...........................

Yeah, this time we can't predict whats gonna happen after halving. It is sure that price has started increase which is a great news for all users.

The price will start increasing very soon. It will before the actual halving. But it also depends on other things such as block size increase.

funny thing, is that the price will begin to increase not because of the halvng, but because everyone is assuming that it willincrease, so they will beginn to buy it en-mass, and start the actual increase of the price

so the speculator once again will be the real maker of the increase

Hehe yes that's possible.
What I'm most curious about is when it will start happen and for how long.
Will it be a constant increase over a few weeks, months? A crazy **cking ride for a few days? Or will it be an increase with some pauses and slight corrections?

It's happening right now and you're apparently not noticing. Bitcoin has doubled since August and people keep asking "when is it gonna happen, when is it gonna happen?" The question they should be asking instead is "Where have I been while it's been happening?"

It's been happening, but why people not aware of it is, just the bitcoin nature is always has a fluctuating price variation. During the past halving users observed a high percent growth than what is going on at present.

I don't think the last halving can be compared to this one. When the last halving occurred, bitcoin was far more in its infancy than it is now. Price appreciation at that time almost certainly had nothing to do with the halving and everything to do with increasing public adoption and increasing demand. I would not attribute the price increase during the last halving to the halving.
Pages: « 1 ... 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 [132] 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 ... 213 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!