Most of us have heard of hyperinflation. As of today, Venezuela and Turkey are the common examples. However, the western economies are less likely to fall into hyperinflation yet quite likely to fall in stagflation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagflation

Stagflation is typically created by an offer shock (sudden increase in prices of raw materials or other) and that is pretty much what is happening with the energy as of today in UK, parts of US and most Europe. This situation raises prices at the same time that slows growth and is difficult to be dealt with.

On this case, historically, the assets that perform well are Gold and commodities. Bitcoin has not been tested yet, but it does share a lot in common with gold and commodities (much more in common than with fiat currency indeed). My take is that bitcoin will perform well if this scenario materialises.

Being an average Joe on the street is by no means contradictory with being an investor. Nowadays investing is much easier in most countries than it used to be in the past. Many apps and platforms allow all short of strategies, even rounding up on expenses and sending the change to your investment accounts and the like. A bit crazy if you ask me.

For me, the real difference between the dude in the street and what you could call a proper investor is the ability to have a solid reason and method behind the investment decissions.

You are questioning the need for a government on the grounds of being unnecessary to build roads and having people working on it that do not add value.

I agree that governments tend to be inefficient, not necessarily run by parasites (no more than in other places anyway), as they do some work, even if you consider it does not add value for you individually.

Road can be privately financed. The problem is that is an approach that tends to widen the wealth gap between different parts of a nation or territory and generates social tension. There is case for private road and a case for public works.

Hoy unas cuantas frases de Ford. El creador del famoso Modelo T - "Pueden elegir el color mientras sea negro".

Hay también que poner la noticia en su contexto. La senadora en cuestión es conocida por poner bastantes pegas a lo que otros hacen, particularmente la grandes tecnológicas y aportar muy poco. Eso es en general un problema que es apreciable en muchas facetas de la vida y que, por lo menos yo, procuro resolver como el señor Ford:

The term parasite describe some rich and some poor. Not all of them certainly, as said before in response to another poster.

It is curios how most people do not consider the rich a parasite, because he pays for his (her bills). However, this is not about how much you own, but about how much are you delivering to the society and to others. If the answer is "just taking", the wealth you own is irrelevant.

No, the "rich" parasite does not add any value by paying others. He is not creating anything for anyone. You do not understand the difference between money and value.

Please, read a bit more carefully and see if I say that all poor are parasites in any part of my post.

In politics and economics, I can live with many things, but there is two types of people that I just cannot stand:

The poor parasite

The poor parasite intends to live without adding any value to the economy and society in which he (or she) lives. He will look and learn about all the possible ways to trick others into paying his bills, caring for his children and providing. If that does not happen, he will create social unrest, commit crimes or be a problem for the rest.

Due to this people, many think that poorer people should be left to their own means and that any opportunity you give them is money wasted.


The rich parasite

The rich parasite intends to live without adding any value to the economy and society in which he (or she lives). He will look and learn about all the possible ways to avoid contributing to the country or state he lives in, while demanding full legal protection of his assets and lifestyle. If that does not happen, they will create social unrest, take funds to tax havens a pay politicians to make his will.

Due to this people, many think that rich people should be taxed to death and that the political systems is essentially corrupt.

Both are parasites, both damage the economy.

Awww, extracting the argument and ignoring the usual "you are a communist so you are already wrong, a probably eat children alive".

It seems that for some people in the forum anything that sounds like taxes, equal opportunity and redistribution is "communism". It is not. It is perfectly compatible with solidly democratic systems that work for the many and not for the few. There are several countries in Northern Europe that have clarity on where the market sits, where the state does better and what way of redistribution works without creating parasites.

You say that it is all right that a few are in control of such a level of wealth because that does not make others poorer and because that is how a market economy works.

Firstly, the fact that they control such a fortune does influence the politics and policies and effectively makes a society more unequal, which is the point of the post. You argue, correctly, that wealth is not a zero sum game, but at the end of the day, that influence in policies and the ability to create loopholes on taxes mean that they contribute less to the common expenses.

Secondly, you argue that this is a consequence of the market and is part of creating common wealth. That is not correct. That is just one interpretation of the markets (the  Austrian School, Chicago and the like way of thinking). No, having free market does not mean that wealth has to be more fairly distributed.

Thirdly, redistribution of wealth does not hinder progress at all. On the contrary, more equal opportunity unveils the talent of people who otherwise could have been lost due to lack of opportunity.

In sum, a society that works for just a few is inadequate and particularly prone to create disorder and unhappiness.


That is not true. Again, anything that sound like taxes and redistribution you catalogue as Communism. There is democratic and social way or running a state and it has little to do with Marx, who can only be understood in the context of its time.

Re tragedies, please notice that most wars are created by imperialism and nationalism. Communism tends to do poorly simply because it has never been applied as conceived. In my view it cannot work due to obvious misalignments in the incentive system.


That is the common misconception about what equality means. It is not about everyone having the same, it is about equal opportunities or, even more, giving opportunities for everyone. And yes, some people do not deserve it, but still, it is the mission of a modern society to provide that opportunity.

Please, read carefully, this is not about subsidizing, is about providing means for everyone to grow and contribute eventually to the common good.

I would not say #1 and let me explain. On any asset you have to take into account the price relative to fiat and other things as well. One of these is the volatility. Bitcoin is extremely volatile up to the point of doubling in a week and the like. Some investors would argue that inflation is rarely 100% in a week, so bitcoin as a protection may not be effective in short periods of time and may not be the best for everyone.

It takes a while to understand things, and the problem of not understanding is that you would not have confidence in what you are doing and the first downturn will simply kill you unrealistic expectations of a gold paved road that is always higher and higher and led you to sell. The problem with many newbies is that they are also so in life and in investing and just do not understand patience in investing.

I have to say that it is very likely that we will see ATH again this year, but my view is that it does not matter that much. There is no particular event that may cause an ATH that is well beyond current price and expectations, so if there is an ATH at just 5000 more that last it would not make much of a difference for me and for most of the hodlers out there. It is about how high, not about having or not ATH.

IMHO it cannot replace fully a non-circular economy. There is a law that says that "entropy can only grow on a closed system" - so it would never be perfectly circular in any case.  There is case to have an economy "as circular as possible", the problem being that, as of now, it is cheaper not to. Sustainability in general has to be incentivised artificially by, for example, introducing taxes and rights to the carbon emissions.

If you want to refurb, repair, etc... you would need to introduce heavier taxes for not doing it. The problem is that would depress the economy, which is something no govmnt. likes.

Let's face it - recreational hard drugs are there to stay. Do war on drugs or pretend that all is because people south of Rio Grande are all "rapists and gangsters" - ignoring the fact that millions in US are willing to blow just about anything in their noses or gulp any funny looking pill that promises them a minute of fun, none of that matters. They are there.

And the real victims of it are not the narcos and are not the people who actually use drugs - nobody is forcing them to put stuff into their bodies if they do not choose to (at least in 99% of the cases). Nope, the victims are the people south of Rio Grande who actually would love to have a decent country and go about their legitimate business without being at risk of being killed or knowing that it is even worse to call the Police and that the political and justice system is so broken that they basically on their own.

It is not going to go away. The DEA will be there self-justifying by capturing a few, more will take their place and the circle will go on and on.

It is time to assume the truth and legalize. And get taxes from it. Is that ethical? I think so.

The impact on Central America would be huge, as this huge market would surface and there would be no need for all the violence that surrounds it. It will give a decent chance of survival to a number of government systems that are failing against the might of the cartels and contribute with taxes and exports.

In US, just as when the "Prohibition" ended in US, the dark economy was greatly reduced. Drugs would have controls and would be no different from Alcohol (a drug arguably) and the recently legalised cannabis.

The world likes lists, it kind of creates a framework for competition to be included. One of those is the list of richest in the world, recently:



https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/012715/5-richest-people-world.asp

But now, some unofficial figures for less public people are worth a second thought. For example:


25B in 1989 would make Pablo one of the richest persons on earth. By comparison, today's most notorious narcos are not making the cut. It seems like "the business" has become more complicated than before.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/el-chapo-12-richest-drug-214253459.html

Awww, again. It has value because there is a community of people that has decided so, a network worldwide that enables exchanging it, an underlying system with the right incentives and the right technology...  Now, ask yourself, why does a 100 USD bill have value? Because people trust it and because there is a community (USA) that accepts it as legal tender.

Why the change in price respective to other fiat? Offer and demand, there is no more to it. More people accept bitcoin, funds want to have it, countries accept it... less supply,... No need for a Elliptic Equation for this.

Yeah keep on thinking that Barca will be fine. They are still trying to digest loosing their main player after years of relaying 50% of their result on that single person. The only thing to their advantage is that many teams are effectively digesting the very low budgets that they were able to come up this year. I would expect a deplorable result, only matching the level of confusion across the whole La Liga.

It may be worth doing some "experiments" and start switching players and styles. I am not sure of the underlying logic, but there has to be a factor of penalty on repeating too often. This strategy would require preparing a team that has some wildcard players that may be less effective for an specific task, but can in exchange be adapted to the opponent better.

Metaverse is well linked to NTFs and crypto in general. I think that there are many complementary technologies that can make on-line gaming a much more enjoyable experience, for example mixing "second life" style metaverses with competition for NFT that can potentially be traded and all that with a number of casino and ability games imbedded into the metaverse. This looks a bit futuristic, but I think we are heading there.

I agree, while young people normally have less experience of life, sometimes they are simply born astute, while others are not. And it also works differently in different aspects of life, for example, someone may be a very accomplished professional on some aspects of life and even be a tough negotiator, but then be quite gullible on regards to personal relations or gaming. Age is not determinant.