Some time 4 years ago, I started to save so that I can buy my dream car which was around $15,450. I was determined. I cut a lot of costs and delayed so many gratifications. For example, I stopped going out with the boys. I did a lot more recycling. I quit eating out and opted for cooking my own meal, I didn't buy new clothes, jeweries, electronic devices etc. I was pretty determined to reach my car saving goal. Before I knew what was happening inflation struck and it swept across all industries. Did you know that my dream car that was an equivalent of $15,450 rose up to $23,680...
The problem with cars is that they have gone up more than the average inflation rate. In your case they could have looked for an interest-bearing account or something similar so that the savings would yield a little, although they will always yield less than inflation. It is usually recommended that if you are saving for something but for 5 years or more, put the money in an investment, for example a fund indexed to the S&P 500 because in approximately 85% of 5-year periods it has been profitable. The downside is that you have about a 15% chance of losing money. If you don't want to bet with those positive probabilities, what happens to you is what has happened to you, that you face the inevitable loss of purchasing power due to inflation, which has been exacerbated precisely in this period. Another idea would be to put your money in Bitcoin, which although it is very volatile, with a high probability of cycle to cycle you will increase your purchasing power quite a lot. I haven't calculated what the odds are on a positive ROI on an index fund over 5 years using historical trends but it's almost impossible to lose money over, say, ~10 years. I don't even consider it to be a bet, even though there's inherent risk associated with any investment that yields any level of interest. The inherent risk being virtually zero granted the funds mature over some period of time without needing liquidity. The risk sure beats letting your funds decay with inflation. |
|
|
|
Look at Israel and Palestine. What's happening there? Why the world is silent about this matter? Did you forget what happened with Afghanistan and Pakistan? I won't invite any country to another country to solve their issue. They won't do it without any benefits.
The world's silent because it's routine for the Palestinians/Hamas to lob rockets over into Israeli territory. Shining a light on radical Islamic terrorism isn't too good for business so they rather pretend it doesn't happen. So many underdeveloped countries has been suffocated with marginalization and bad governance which has resulted to the impoverishment of the citizens where by making them to be less useful to the society and also left them with no option than to endulge in violence and division that might take many years to be curtailed. I think it will make sense if the colonial masters or the developed countries in general come to the help of this country not by reaching on a selfish agreement with them for something in return but by putting every force on ground in achieving a good leadership for the country, political office has to be made less attractive to accommodate technocrats in the system to salvage the horrible situation of the citizens of the country at large to be propagated in line with good governance also by Brick tightening all the lope holes where public funds can be embezzled or syphoned by the office holder.
On that note. Isn't it quite the phenomenon that Israel was able to take a wasteland and turn it into a country competing in the worlds economy over a period of a few generations following genocide post WW2? Turning into an non-developed country into a modernized country really is actually simple, as Israel was able to demonstrate. If you start with a culturally homogeneous group of people and allow for free and fair markets (government's only role is to preserve competition, nothing more, nothing less) then achieving developed status isn't too difficult. |
|
|
|
|
Pandemics happen all the time, so yes, a new one could be imminent depending on what your time frame is.
After having been conned by the biggest wealth transfer from the working class to the elite, while lining up the pockets of big pharma companies, I'm convinced people will be more resistent to the health recommendations from the so called "experts" after they've lost nearly all their credibility from COVID.
I suspect that the COVID hypochondriacs will be in perpetual fear for the next pandemic and they'll yell the loudest and cause unnecessary panic. They'll be the ones petitioning their government begging for action at the expense of everyone else.
|
|
|
|
The Federal Reserve won't say it out loud in public, but what do rate hikes' actually do? Kill demand and it cannot be achieved without a high unemployment rate.
Precisely. High interest rates will result in lower economic growth, and lower economic growth will result in high unemployment which then will affect inflation rates. Recession being the proximal factor to high unemployment, of course. Inflation becomes a positive feedback loop -- with employees demanding more pay, more demand gets created and inflation goes up even higher. Companies just combat it by laying off the employees. Powell gets a bad rep, to be honest. He's trying to play a balancing game with the interest rates based on the dumpster fire he's been handed that is the U.S. economy. |
|
|
|
How to save savings in inflation, there are many deposits provided by the bank, but banks often go bankrupt, does it make sense to buy gold? How is gold bought in a bank and interest is issued on it?
Buying gold to me is something people to do protect their wealth. If you have more money than you know what to do with, sure, get some gold as insurance. If you’re trying to maintain spending power and beat inflation though, your best bet has always been stocks. I feel like cash and gold are both lost or confiscated more than I’d feel comfortable with, but you rarely ever hear of stocks being lost or confiscated, not to mention their historical return has been quite higher than gold or cash. Once inflation stabilizes stocks will definitely see better gains than holding onto liquid cash even if the interest rates might temporarily lower the value of a portfolio. If the government wants to seize someone's assets I'm sure they'd go after someone's brokerage account. They most certainly would confiscate cash stored in a bank. IMO not even gold is safe from seizure, Bitcoin's the only asset immune from confiscation granted you take steps to protect your private keys. |
|
|
|
|
Haven't seen any authoritative source suggest this is imminent though the U.S. government needs no reason to freeze withdrawals if they think it'll stop a run on the banks. Sometimes the banks might stop withdrawals themselves. Happens all the time. Even worse, it'll usually happen when the U.S. economy is in recession.
People lose their jobs, don't have access to their funds -- sounds like a recipe for collapse.
|
|
|
|
I disagree entirely. Physical casinos are dying and people aren't going to go back. How many ways can you reinvent casino games that would make it any more attractive to a prospective gambler than already exists -- not much. The physical casinos had monopolies on the industry because the overhead on operating these physical locations are too high. Digital casinos don't have that large of an overhead nor do they need to comply with so many regulations so it's only that much more attractive.
Player side, me personally, I don't particularly care much for the experience of a physical casino. It's not that important to me.
I also think along those lines, extremely luxurious casinos could still thrive as they can attract the richest and offer them incredible service and a great experience, however I think the casinos aimed to the middle class are bound to eventually disappear, Las Vegas could thrive since gambling was basically banned everywhere on the US and anyone that wanted to gamble legally had to go there to get that experience, but now gambling is everywhere and you can even do so from your home with your smartphone, so I do not think those casino can survive with their current business model. Not just the U.S., but a lot of the online gambling regulations were reduced and you can get a online gaming license with ease granted you have the funds. Modern casinos are providing a resort like experience so the demographic they're targeting is different than the typical gambler. I make this distinction because these online casinos are thriving because of crypto-based deposits. If digital casinos can increase market share, that only increases the crypto usage. I disagree entirely. Physical casinos are dying and people aren't going to go back. How many ways can you reinvent casino games that would make it any more attractive to a prospective gambler than already exists -- not much. The physical casinos had monopolies on the industry because the overhead on operating these physical locations are too high. Digital casinos don't have that large of an overhead nor do they need to comply with so many regulations so it's only that much more attractive.
Well, physical casinos are dying, maybe yes, but I think that even in the next 50 years to come, there will still be physical casinos around that are doing very well, the physical casino might not be in every location, but it will definitely be in several part of the world, most especially, remote areas where user don't really have access to smart phones due to really poor network coverage, there are alot of places like this in some African countries now. I'm not suggesting that there won't ever be physical casinos, only that the market share that the physical casinos have will be eaten up by digital platforms. The areas that are remote won't have casinos to begin with. And if the do, their market share is minimal. |
|
|
|
It's too big. There are a lot of online gambling casinos that new casinos are going to struggle unless they provide something exceptional or something very new to the player base. If not, why would someone want to play in a new casino that has no reputation? Currently the whole industry is currently being dominated by few big casinos I guess. Marketing - We can now see celebrities endorsing the gambling sites. Even our heroes in the sport can now be paid to put the name of the gambling site in their shirts or jerseys or if they want more money, they can use their tongue and say the name of the site. Sponsorship. Every time we watch a sports event, any sport, you name it, we see their names being flashed on the screen.
Those gambling industries can afford paying those celebrities and sports players hundreds of thousands of dollar, and the players are willing to accept it. Sponsorship isn't something new. The casinos do need to advertise themselves or they will end up losing the race. Yeah, it might have some negative affect on kids and will make them curious, but as far as I know some countries are banning such kind of advertisements. I disagree entirely. Physical casinos are dying and people aren't going to go back. How many ways can you reinvent casino games that would make it any more attractive to a prospective gambler than already exists -- not much. The physical casinos had monopolies on the industry because the overhead on operating these physical locations are too high. Digital casinos don't have that large of an overhead nor do they need to comply with so many regulations so it's only that much more attractive. Player side, me personally, I don't particularly care much for the experience of a physical casino. It's not that important to me. |
|
|
|
|
This doesn't sound like the typical politician town hall, it sounds like you walked into a meeting of drug lords. Maybe you might be mixing up the two.
Most politicians have an abysmal approval rating among the constituency but they keep getting reelected anyway. I don't trust politicians which is why I ask their power be limited in scope. It sounds hypocritical to rely on them but not trust them only if you don't understand what the consequences of anarchism looks like.
Crony and corrupt politicians within a democracy sound slightly better than anarchy, what do you say?
|
|
|
|
|
If the chip manufacturers entered a voluntary licensing agreement, are they the supposed victims just because they licensed to a company that happen to make a large profit disproportional to what they receive in the agreement? Apple outsources a lot of their components, they're not doing all the R&D in house and they aren't the only silicon valley company that does this. If Apple did not create a vessel for ARM chips, would ARM be in the business of manufacturing consumer electronics and turn out the same profit Apple did? Highly unlikely.
|
|
|
|
However, that it today....tomorrow is tomorrow.
As long as these states can continue to elect pro-crypto legislators, I'd anticipate the pro-crypto provisions are to stay. Some years ago I had speculated that the government on the federal level (say 3 letter agencies like the EPA) would have authority over state law and implement mining restrictions under the guise of environmental safety. A SCOTUS case last year limited the scope of the EPA to enact carbon emission reductions and under dual sovereignty, the federal government already has limited powers over how states handle legislative matters. I'm glad I was wrong because it looks like a lot of states are giving miners the freedom to mine without price gouging or regulatory hurdles. None of that can be overridden unless by the people of that state. |
|
|
|
Even the collapse of this $1 trillion crypto industry will not affect the global financial markets, SBF is nothing. Just because he's the one who caused a storm in the crypto market doesn't mean he's big enough to cause a major crash in the world's finance. I see no connection between these two events.
The collapse of the world financial system is also part of the world economy, and is inevitable. Let's not forget the failures of the past, and most recently, the economic crisis of 2008 and the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
This is correct. If you want to measure capability to cause a global financial crisis, take the total assets of an entity and subtract them by the liabilities. This applies to private companies and entire countries. Countries obviously have large debt issues so they bear risk of causing global financial issues the most. It tends to happen when their economies enter recession. The only players that actually matter are the U.S., China, and EU. If any one of these regions have issues, it can create a domino effect. FTX isn't enough within itself to affect the global economy on a level that'd be cause for concern. |
|
|
|
|
"World Bank" is a bit of a misnomer because the organization is primarily controlled by the U.S. The U.S. provides the majority of the funding and therefore they get to appoint the board members. Other countries that contribute financially don't get much veto power.
Anyways, they don't actually do a lot of banking for economic purposes, it's more of ESG initiatives for poor countries so I wouldn't imagine Ajay Banga's appointment to be very consequential. He'll be there to do the U.S.'s foreign policy bidding.
|
|
|
|
All "renewable energy" has a profitability problem. The pitch the elites gave us was that we must pay higher prices for energy in order to save the planet while they were allowed to emit more pollution than some small countries. Against the backdrop of growing economic problems in the United States, this green environmental movement is becoming more and more like a large-scale scam to develop budget funds for an initially economically unviable idea.
I've seen this complacency happen before. People become so comfortable with the state of affairs they actively seek matters to complain about for the sake of activism. Climate change activism is a career for some people. Greta Thunberg has the climate change grift down to a science so much so the UN asked her to give a speech. |
|
|
|
But to me it’s better a company increases their price and maintain their quality and quantity, people that really know the quality of your products will still patronize, but most company owners don’t really know this.
"Shrinkflation" is based on misleading people into thinking they're getting the same value for their money. Increasing the price takes the deception away because most consumers pay attention to the price relative to the price per unit of product. I've seen companies demonized over this practice. While deceptive, people should rather be angry at their own government for inflating their currency beyond recognition. As if the private sector has any say on how much currency gets printed. |
|
|
|
You are forgetting the polution generated from the manufacture and distribution of new cars, and the poillution resulting from over complex engines that drivers can no longer maintain themselves, or afford to have garages maintain then. I drive a 1988 Volvo 740, and several reports state that it will take 20 years or more of my driving to equal the pollution created as a result oif the manufacture of one mid range Tesla. That doesn't include to pollution and damage resulting from the generation of the electricity to power it.
The cobalt mines for these EV's sure look like they produce a lot of pollution: https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/15/22933022/cobalt-mining-ev-electriv-vehicle-working-conditions-congoSo much for human rights as long as people get their EV's and fulfil their environmental sanctimony. A lot of these mines are in African countries so the large battery manufacture don't have to bear the burden of paying for safety measures. |
|
|
|
I continue to stand and defend my personal point of view that the impact of Bitcoin is highly dependent on the context of each nation.
Argentina, Venezuela and Nigerian are examples of countries where Bitcoin and other altcoins have increased in adoption and volume, because the traditional banking and financial instruments have failed or are very weak in the pursue to provide to their people with reliable means of managing money and secure value.
This is the correct analysis. Economies are too diverse for anyone to make broad generalizations as to how Bitcoin woulda actually affect a countries economy. Take the larger economies and Bitcoin doesn't even make a small fraction dent into the GDP. I'm not minimizing crypto currencies impact -- it seems a few people get lost on the scale of the global economy and don't realize how small the crypto space actually is. That's today, of course. Some decades down the line the landscape looks very different. |
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1636797265317867520Here's his tweet. Doesn't seem like there's anything nefarious about it. The receiver "James Medlock" seems like a genuine account. Anyways, it was a ridiculous bet to take. USD is more resilient than a few banking collapses as we saw in 2008. If the currency can handle itself from one crisis to the next, it'll take much longer for it to something actually catastrophic to come along and completely wipe it off the map. USD will eventually fail, it'll take a bit more time than some of the crypto bros might predict.
|
|
|
|
Couple of hours ago there is in news on Twitter saying BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) are developing a new currency. It was mentioned by State Duma Deputy Chairmen btw.
As I can see all these things to manipulate BTC right? What are your thoughts about this?
The BRICS countries couldn't care less about manipulating Bitcoin. How did you come up with this weird theory? They simply want to dump the US dollar completely. I doubt that their attempt at creating an alternative global currency would be successful. Using their own national currencies instead of the US dollar would be a way more successful approach. It's very easy to check my version. Let's compare the economy of the USA + the West, and the economy of the group of these "lucky ones"? And especially in the context of today's goals of creating BRICS. Let's make it even simpler, imagine and simulate 2 situations:
- the United States and the collective West, with their economies, will disappear. What is happening on Earth?
- BRICS is disappearing - what is happening on Earth? The economy of the so called "west" is artificially pumped by the money printing machines. BRICS countries have a big enough population and natural resources to survive without the "west". Can the "west" survive without the BRICS countries? Most likely yes, but at the cost of lowering the standard of living of the western middle class. I wouldn't put it past them. The only country to worry about in "BRICS" would be China. India's economy is not yet large enough and they're more democratized than the CCP. China's looking to form dependence on Yuan by other countries -- does it seem so wildly speculative that China predicts Bitcoin to be a future threat? Do not think short term -- think 10-20 years down the line. Could there reasonably be a world in which countries use decentralized currencies to conduct bilateral trades/transactions that would cause China some concern if their long term goal is Yuan dependence onto other countries? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
