|
There could be some confusion as to what the terms socialism and capitalism describe.
Socialism describes a centralized paradigm where the state owns everything, it wields all power and authority under a monopoly with no competition from the private sector.
Capitalism describes a decentralized paradigm where power and authority is divided between the state and the public invoking free markets, free enterprise, private ownership of land and similar tenets.
Socialism also describes state run or state managed programs while capitalism describes programs, business or associations involving the private sector.
These days it is common for there to be a blend of both as history has shown that is the most stable and reliable model. But in the past there were more attempts at centralized socialism and it didn't work well for the same reasons centralized socialism in venezuela is currently failing. Venezuela's government has waged a war against private sector capitalism and failed to solve problems, create jobs or create value as well as the private sector has in past times. Venezuela went so far as to attempt to nationalise toyota operations which drove many private entities out of the country, killing jobs, causing losses in tax revenue and economic spending, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I know, CPU's are built around multi-tasking, integer operations, multi-threaded application support with boolean logic support in the form of branch prediction and other design facets optimized @ catering towards end userbility. Designing an altcoin which made CPU miners as competitive as GPUs or ASICs could be very difficult if not impossible as cryptographic functions may always be executed much faster and in fewer clock cycles with specialized GPU/ASIC hardware in comparison to an integer optimized CPU.
I'm not certain to what degree ASIC resistant networks carry potential to be effective. It is possible any attempts made @ sabotaging ASICs by modifying the design of altcoins could be defeated by manufacturers like bitmain with a simple software patch/firmware update.
The need for ASIC resistance to diminish their monopolization of the industry is decreasing with intel, nvidia, samsung, russians and others planning to enter the ASIC market anyway.
Does anyone think commoditization of the ASIC industry could drive ASIC prices low enough to make hobbyist mining viable once again? I don't think CPU mining will ever make a comeback but market competition creating new benefits for consumers could improve circumstances which could once again decentralize mining in a healthy way.
|
|
|
|
Over the last century, we've seen hard socialist nations like russia(USSR) and china(under Mao) adopt facets of capitalism to better compete economically with the united states. While nations like venezuela who retained hard socialism whilst waging a war against capitalist enterprise have slowly but surely destroyed themselves. I'll contend that capitalism is better suited to harnessing the imagination, resourcefulness, creativity and intelligence of a population than socialism is.  Under capitalism everyone generally has the freedom to start a business, pursue their dream, invent or build something. Under socialism generally only the state has the power to do these things, which sets civilization and society back as only a fraction of the total population has the freedom to exercise their ideas of business, inventions and similar things. People forget that large corporations like google, apple and microsoft had their humble beginnings in someone's garage. Capitalism having these tiny businesses which have the freedom to grow into large megacorps in turn creating jobs and prosperity is what socialism generally lacks. And that is a big part of why socialist regimes like stalinist russia and maoist china have been forced to adopt capitalism over time, in order to compete with the united states and not be left behind. |
|
|
|
There are many universities selling straight pseudo-scams Merited for that. Over the last decade, there have been many colleges and universities who have been caught approaching homeless people on the street and signing them up for educational government assistance (aka: "state funded student loans"). This isn't done out of the kindness of their heart, its done to prey upon homeless and saddle them with mountains of debt they could never repay, in order to profit off of additional taxpayer funding under circumstances where those enrolled are very unlikely to learn anything of value which helps them or gives them a better future. There have also been cases where students have enrolled in programs which cost in excess of $50,000 that teach no useful skills and were zero help in students obtaining a job in their chosen career path. Unfortunately, "higher education" has often devolved into a money making scheme where zero information or skills of value can be learned, while students take on extreme levels of debt proportional to their future projections for wages. It is possible this "blockchain business course" won't amount to much. It could be a liberal arts equivalent to learning about bitcoin and a complete waste of money. Its always nice to hear about bitcoin and crypto currencies gaining ground and being more widely supported but it might not be an exaggeration to think that maybe ICO scams have their equivalent in higher education, here. |
|
|
|
|
Its possible loan requirement standards will need to be lowered in the near future to keep demand constant and prevent prices from declining off of a diminishing number of buyers being able to afford real estate. It is possible sellers of real estate could become desperate enough to accept crypto currencies as a form of payment. Crypto has a good market cap and decent liquidity, it could be the logical avenue to tap in case the buying market of real estate significantly declines in a way which threatens peoples businesses and livelihoods.
If not, I would guess there are ways around the standard requirements. Loan requirement standards are falling all the time and government programs to subsidize real estate loans in an effort to keep demand constant have been a priority in the past in order to help bailout our too-big-too-fail banks. So, its possible market forces and fundamentals are in favor of crypto being somewhat supported in real estate transactions leading into the future.
If not "creative financing" for real estate has been on the rise for awhile now. People don't have money to afford real estate or rent and so deals are being made. Bitcoin and crypto could have a place in this, assuming they do not already.
|
|
|
|
The case with Artem Lobov is different, as he was talking a ton of shit about Khabib and calling him chicken in an Russian interview and that is the reason Khabib questioned this when they met in the hotel lobby and now it is a big drama show, even though the UFC lost some fights because of the altercation i am sure this will be the biggest pay per view fight and it will be a big one for them and they even started promoting the fight.  Did Artem really call Khabib a "chicken" in russian?  Artem did not look too happy about it @ 0:53 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4TUsyQ7i4YI'm surprised Artem said anything to Khabib. Artem has a tendency to freeze against wrestlers/grapplers and go into survival mode. Khabib is one of the worst possible match ups for Artem. This embedded ep probably has the most video footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za0qXbofvc0Maybe a good place to start if anyone is interested in figuring out whether it was staged or real. |
|
|
|
With Bitcoin leading the pack (even though Ethereum is running to overtake it maybe this year) I would be interested to hear reasons why people favor ethereum. Why does (eth) have so much hype behind it? Is (eth)'s variable supply, which can be printed without limit similar to fiat currencies, deemed superior to bitcoin's limited supply which is algorithmically limited? It might be said that eth is almost identical to fiat. Bitcoin could have an advantage in that its qualities contrast with fiat currencies in ways which could make bitcoin superior in terms of long term stability and reliability. My ListNagaCoin ~ 0.49$RequestNetwork ~ 0.16$ Polymath ~0.30$ Ardor ~ 0.22$ COSS Coin ~ 0.18$Bancor ~ 2.17$ SingularityNet ~ 0.11$SWFTC ~ 0.008$ Blackmoon ~ 0.55$ Sirin Labs ~ 0.23$Hicky (ICO completed recently, still not listed) NOTE I:I highlighted my favourite ones for either long term reasons or because pays dividends NOTE II:I did not provide the necessary links for the content I reported here but for anyone interested, a quick search will answer all questions Good luck out there  Thanks for the list. Many have asked for crypto investing advice, specifically which alts are good and unfortunately I've never seen anyone in this section offer this type of advice before aside from a few who favored coins like stellar. Will try to go over the list, do some research and get back to you on this. |
|
|
|
|
America's trade relationship with china mirrors its relationship with the UN, NATO and other organizations where the united states pays more, makes greater sacrifices and does far more than its fair share in comparison to other nations like china are given a far easier path to, economic growth prosperity and elevated standard of living.
It looks like there could be a WTO (World Trade Organization) lawsuit leveled at china in the future with the USA, japan and possibly the EU filing complaints against china for its theft or infringement upon patented, intellectual and copyrighted property. Trump has been attempting to recruit other countries to be allies with america against china in this trade dispute. Will Trump be successful, who can say.
There could well be other nations who disagree with the privileged role china assumes in trade and business and there could well be incentive to level the playing field more and take measures globally to decrease trade deficits and produce farirer and more equal trade.
|
|
|
|
why is the years that the rich get richer and the poor become poorer and more oppressed?
What do you think should be done to keep this economic gap from continuing? Social divides relating to wage and wealth inequality invoke historical connotations relating to class warfare. Educational institutions, the media and other sources seem to twist anything relating to class warfare into a racial issue. Rather than profits or money being the motive for wealth/wage gaps, its spun into a vaporware, smoke and mirrors, fiction whereby "racism" is the motive behind wealth/wage inequality. Right wingers and conservatives are the main demographics targeted. First step to bringing "equality" to the global economy is the public becoming more informed and sidestepping political spin routinely applied to the debate. For wealth/wage disparity to be solved we must be informed and aware of what real issues are and how they can be addressed. There is some misinformation and inaccuracy spammed on the topic by sources people know and trust which prevents people from being united and supporting the right things for a fairer and more equal world to exist. |
|
|
|
|
Story so far: Conor was stripped of both the UFC featherweight belt @ 145 lbs and the lightweight belt @ 155 lbs. He is mad about that. Then Khabib and his team cornered Conor's teammate, Artem Lobov and there is a video clip of Khabib lightly slapping Artem on the head floating around youtube. Afterward Conor flew from ireland to new york to throw things through the windows of Khabib's bus in retaliation.
I think Conor's court hearing is in june or july 2018. He'll have to return to new york and face whatever charges people file against him. Initially Dana White said Conor would be sued to the full extent of the law. Later on, Dana seemed to calm down and said what Conor did wasn't as bad as things which happen in other sports. I don't think Conor will be sued too badly the damage he inflicted didn't seem too severe. Michael Chiesa got a few small cuts. And Ray Borg might have gotten glass in his eye. Don't think either injuries were too bad though.
|
|
|
|
Similar news was making the rounds, around 1 year ago. Rothschild Investment Corporation Becomes Bitcoin StakeholderJul 25, 2017A major mainstream investment company, Rothschild Investment Corporation, has embraced cryptocurrency by investing in bitcoin. The company recently filed a holdings report that solidified this investment move. They bought shares of the GBTC, or the bitcoin investment trust, which acts as a share that tacks its value to bitcoin’s price. https://news.bitcoin.com/rothschild-investment-corporation-becomes-bitcoin-stakeholder/ It might be safe to say Rothschilds, Soros or other big names buying into bitcoin for whatever purpose is nothing new. What is different about George Soros is, when he gets seriously involved in the economies of nations he has been known to make or break them. An influx of capital can result in a prosperous economy and good living standards. At the same time, in cases where Soros has withdrawn his money from a country it has meant economic ruin in some cases. Not necessarily because the loss of capital was disastrous but moreso as other investors and businessmen often follow George Soros' lead and emulate him hoping to re-enact his success. So even if Soros has no real plans for bitcoin at the moment(which is what I expect). Maybe in the future he could choose to invest or take part in crypto markets. |
|
|
|
Why is Bitcoin's daily price fluctuations getting smaller and smaller? How do you view the current price of Bitcoin and how we should handle the transaction in the later period?
Volatility decreasing has been an ongoing theme for awhile now. Back when the first bitcoin fork announcements were made the effect on bitcoin's price was very noticeable. The next bitcoin fork announcement had less of an effect on btc price. The 3rd fork announcement was weaker than the 2nd. The same precedent applies to price movements. As time passes and we gain more information on how events and news affect valuation, people increasingly confident about what will happen or how bitcoins price will be affected which causes decreased volatility. A good part of volatility also may have been attributable to the large number of new and inexperienced traders who were buying and selling in all of the wrong places which contributed to larger price movements. Many less experienced rookie traders likely quit causing decreased liquidity and reduced buying on bust cycles could have tightened things up. As time passes we all learn more about how bitcoin's price performs under different conditions. This produces less uncertainty which in turn contributes towards reduced price volatility. Also at the moment there probably isn't a high expectation for bitcoin's price to move one way or the other. If something big happens we might see volatility increase again. |
|
|
|
We are in the midst of watching the subprime auto lending bubble burst in its entirety. Smaller subprime auto lenders are starting to implode, and we all know what comes next: the larger companies go bust, inciting real capitulation. In addition to our coverage out just days ago talking about how the subprime bubble has burst and, since then since has been crunched even further, additional reports today are showing that smaller subprime lenders are starting to simply implode after being faced with losses and defaults. In addition to losses and defaults, Bloomberg reported this morning that there have been allegations of fraud and under reporting losses, tactics that are clearly reminiscent of <throw a dart at any financial crisis/bubble burst over the last 30 years>: Growing numbers of small subprime auto lenders are closing or shutting down after loan losses and slim margins spur banks and private equity owners to cut off funding.
Summit Financial Corp., a Plantation, Florida-based subprime car finance company, filed for bankruptcy late last month after lenders including Bank of America Corp. said it had misreported losses from soured loans. And a creditor to Spring Tree Lending, an Atlanta-based subprime auto lender, filed to force the company into bankruptcy last week, after a separate group of investors accused the company of fraud. Private equity-backed Pelican Auto Finance, which specialized in “deep subprime” borrowers, finished winding down last month after seeing its profit margins shrink.  Image link: ]https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/c1_0.png The article continues: The pain among smaller lenders has parallels with the subprime mortgage crisis last decade, when the demise of finance companies like Ownit Mortgage and Sebring Capital Partners were a harbinger that bigger losses for the financial system were coming. In both cases, rising interest rates helped trigger more loan losses.
“There’s been a lot of generosity and not a lot of discretion on the part of lenders and investors,” said Chris Gillock, a banker at Colonnade Advisors, which advises companies on subprime auto investments. “There’s going to be more capitulation.”
Representatives for Spring Tree didn’t respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Summit said "restructuring in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding is the best strategy to ensure its long term success" and the company is working with its vendors and lenders to meet its obligations. Astonishingly and ridiculously, the article goes on to talk about this implosion as if it was expected to happen and as if it's what would have happened during the normal course of business if ridiculous debt and engineered interest rates weren’t a mainstay of current economic policy: This time around, the financial system’s losses are expected to be much more manageable, because auto lending is a smaller business relative to mortgages, and Wall Street hasn’t packaged as many of the loans into complicated securities and derivatives. As of the end of September, there were about $280 billion of subprime auto loans outstanding, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, compared with around $1.3 trillion in subprime mortgage debt at the start of 2007. There isn’t a standardized definition of subprime borrowers, though it generally encompasses borrowers with FICO credit scores below 600 to 640 on an 850 point scale. Take, for example, this gem of cognitive dissonance: "When you think about the effects of housing versus autos, they’re a lot different," said Kevin Barker, a stock analyst covering specialty finance companies at Piper Jaffray & Co. Losses tend to be less severe for car loans because they are smaller than mortgages and borrowers pay them down faster, he said, and the collateral is easier to repossess. With home loans, in many states foreclosures require a lengthy court process. As we all saw from the housing crisis, the smaller shops are usually the first ones to go. The law of large numbers plays to the advantage of bigger corporations and usually buys them more time. The bigger the company, the more the government and institutions care if it goes bust. Smaller companies come and go like it's nothing, because they have no tangible effect on major financial institutions or the US economy. However, this generally only exacerbates the size of the ticking time bomb to come. In early March of this year, we posted our "Signs of the Peak: 10 Charts Reveal an Auto Bubble on the Brink". Our timing couldn't have been better. In that article we pointed out that the key data which seems to suggest that the auto bubble may have run its course comes from the following charts which reveal that traditional banks and finance companies are starting to aggressively slash their share of new auto originations while OEM captives are being forced to pick up the slack in an effort to keep their ponzi schemes going just a little longer.  Image link: https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/exp%205_0.jpgAnd while some can claim that this is just a natural result of healthy competition between lenders, what is likely causing sleepless nights at banks who have tens of billions in outstanding loans, is the coming tsunami of lease returns which will lead to a shock repricing for both car prices and existing LTVs once the millions in new cars come back to dealer lots...  Image link: https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/2016.12.09%20-%20Auto%20Lease%20Volume_0.JPGWe have seen this bubble coming from a mile away. Also, just as we expected, between record prices (courtesy of what until recently was easy, cheap debt), record loan terms, and rising rates, shoppers with shaky credit and tight budgets have suddenly been squeezed out of the market. In fact in the first two months of this year, sales were flat among the highest-rated borrowers, while deliveries to those with subprime scores slumped 9 percent, according to J.D. Power.  Image link: https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/subprime%20jd%20power_0.jpgConfirming our observations, Bloomberg notes that while lenders took chances on consumers with lower FICO scores after the recession, partially on the notion that borrowers prioritize car payments ahead of other expenses, several financial companies started to tighten their standards more than a year ago. The result is a surge in the amount of captive financing shown in the chart above, which as we warned is the clearest indication yet of the popping car bubble. We also predicted back in December of last year that certain PE firms would start to feel the pain of their subprime auto bets. However, no one wants to make the point that subprime auto also followed in the footsteps of the financial crisis because it was a bubble that was engineered due to the Fed making it easy to take on cheap debt in order to fuel our nonsense "recovery".
The continued focus on borrowing and spending, instead of saving and underconsumption, will ensure not only that these bubbles continue to happen going forward, but they will get larger in size as time progresses. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04-08/subprime-auto-implosion-full-effect-lenders-start-dropping-flies.... (I tried to bold key parts of the article...) This is an interesting story which is unlikely to be reported on much by mainstream news unless it develops into a perfect storm of a crisis. The basic underlying theme here appears to be wages not increasingly fast enough proportionate to inflation and cost of living. This disparity creates a growing divide between things like student loans, car payments and real estate becoming less affordable over time. As fewer are able to afford these things, loan qualification standards are being lowered in an effort to keep demand steady. Unfortunately, decreasing loan standards is only short term damage control which does nothing to address the underlying issues. And so we inevitably reach a point where we lack a sufficient number of people keeping up with their loan payments, which in turn decreases demand and causes big losses on the price corrections which follow. Interesting theme. One we may see more of in the future. One interesting thing here is zerohedge is probably one of the few places which is covering this topic with an independent and objective slant. Possibly one reason why they have a negative reputation. |
|
|
|
Government issued wallets on a government blockchain will be here rather sooner than later. I don't think government issued crypto will necessarily become a reality anytime soon. The last time the united states rolled out an IT product, it was the US healthcare website, I think after the Affordable Care Act (see: "Obamacare") was passed. The website alone cost $1 billion dollars in taxpayer funding and did not work properly. I don't know if governments are well suited towards producing IT products in an efficient and cost effective manner to the public. Also with 100% of the budget accounted for and additional borrowing often being necessary to fund the federal government's current programs, it is possible that projects like government issued crypto could not become a reality without tax hikes funding them. At the moment there is a lot of competition for programs funded by tax hikes. There is universal healthcare which some would gladly accept tax hikes for. That are future defense plans for things like robotic submarines and assorted weaponry which are unfunded. The F-35 program is still uncompleted and future cost overruns are likely. Fitting yet another unfunded project in somewhere, may not be so easy. Here is the problem: traditional economists like the one that interviewed me, don’t take crypto serious “Sir, I covered the IMF and World Bank. I am an economist. Your idea will not work”. I rate him as a highly professional journalist and I was honored he contacted me. But these old-school economists must realize the earth is not any longer flat.
Bolded: 100%. It does seem as if many of the economists and experts who comment on bitcoin and crypto currencies do not know much about them or understand what they bring to the table. At least that's the impression I get. |
|
|
|
The mega-rally towards the end of last year was, in part, due to things like CME & CBOE futures and LedgerX options launching. There was a sense that institutional money was about to get in the game and people wanted to front run that money. However, volume stayed relatively flat after those launches and new money didn’t flow in as much as some people expected. I don't know if volume was a first cause or a prime mover in the cause and effect of why bitcoin's value faded. There were a series of central banks which sought to ban or illegalize bitcoin and crypto currencies. There were claims of tether printing $80 billion dollars of (usdt) out-of-thin-air to push artificially inflate bitcoin's price. Banks began to seek a role of "regulating bitcoin" in many nations economies. Banks began to roll out new features to make them more competitive against bitcoin. Whatever positives there may have been in robinhood's financial platform gaining around 1 million new accounts after announcing crypto trading and coinbase reporting as much as 100,000 new sign ups in a day with statistics claiming the total number of crypto currency end users doubled every 16 months or so. It does seem as if the negatives could outweigh the positives, at least as they're being reported by the media. I know I'm forgetting many of the important events in my summary, but I suspect negative anti crypto media spin and bankers revealing a more anti crypto stance could be bigger culprits than trading volume. |
|
|
|
"Bitcoin's true value the cost to mine one" Why do some people think this is accurate? Markets and economies do not function with 100% efficiency, in a non-profit, sense where the cost of products equals the cost of manufacture. On a fundamental level, high profits could be correlated with high inefficiency. This old quotation by Lewis Mumford does a decent job of summarizing the vast majority of how markets and economies function: The aim of industry is not primarily to satisfy essential human needs with a minimal productive effort, but to multiply the number of needs, factitious and fictitious, and accommodate them to the maximum mechanical capacity to produce profits. These are the sacred principle of the power complex. Not the least effort of this system is that of replacing selectivity and quantitative restriction by indiscriminate and incontinent consumption.
THE PENTAGON OF POWER, Lewis Mumford, 1970 It might be fair to say the production or mining of bitcoin and crypto currencies were initially designed to be efficient and provide coins to end users at a minimal cost in as highly efficient a manner as possible. But of course, as industry becomes more prevalent the paradigm shift could be in favor of finding ways to make bitcoin production more inefficient and as the above quotation says "multiply the number of needs, factitious and fictitious, and accommodate them to the maximum mechanical capacity to produce profits". We might describe this in terms of miners finding ways to artificially increase transfer fees higher than necessary and also implementing ways to artificially congest network transaction traffic to achieve an identical effect. There are mansions which might only cost $1 million dollars to build which are sold on real estate markets for $30 million. Price mark ups in real estate and elsewhere could be far worse in comparison to bitcoin. Unfortunately, we see little or no media coverage on this which could give people an inaccurate view of how things function in the real world in terms of markets. |
|
|
|
One would be quite hard-pressed to find a positive thing that well-distinguished economists had to say about crypto. However, it could be argued that, since crypto is an attack on traditional economics - the field most of them devoted their lives to - they feel there is nothing that crypto, and by extension Bitcoin, can bring to the table. This is not a new thing, though: most great inventions were brought into the world while old people were complaining that it was all better in their day. And while the opinions of Nobel Prize awardees should count for something - who was ever stopped by that? Here is a summary of what six of them said, with pictures: https://cryptonews.com/exclusives/what-six-nobel-laureate-economists-have-to-say-about-crypto-1402.htmI don't agree with the view of bitcoin representing an "attack" on traditional economics. I think collectively we should welcome bitcoin and crypto currencies with open arms due to the much needed competition they bring to markets. They introduce incentives which will drive banking and finance industries to offer better terms to consumers and distribute more investment towards industry wide advancement. Bitcoin also provides an opportunity for experimentation and broadening economic and financial knowledge, which can be invaluable in terms of satisfying the learning curve. This could gives us better and more reliable real world knowledge of deflationary currencies, which could be superior to much of what "traditional economics" says about deflationary money. It is possible that the nobel prize system has lost credibility and is no longer legitimate. There were brows raised when Obama was awarded a nobel peace prize. Al Gore's nobel peace prize for a slideshow on global warming may also have been questionable. Recent economics winners of the nobel prize like Paul Krugman have not offered much beyond "we're obligated to kick the debt can down the road, as we previously have done with debt". Ridiculous for someone whose job it is to help maintain the stability and prosperity of our economy. The nobel prize system also might be traced back to bankers who fund the system and maintain it indirectly. In which case, they may not function as an independent or unbiased body of work. They may have had much more credibility in past decades than in recent times. |
|
|
|
|
Its easy to become attached to the concept of bitcoin being a bouncing ball that will *bounce* back like a ball making contact with pavement everytime the price falls by a significant margin. Bitcoin has by far won more than it has lost over the last 18 months. Its easy to perceive that inertia as representing the largest slice of momentum and to assume btc will *bounce back* as it has in the past whenever we worried over price declines.
I think by now most of us have searched for methods of diversification. Plan B in case our crypto plan A fails. There are many avenues for crypto diversification. Purchasing gold, silver, precious metals, jewels, diamonds. In more desperate cases: purchasing electronic goods like big screen TVs, gaming consoles and other devices which are more easily accessible and expected to retain good value over the short term. Real estate and vehicles like cars or trucks with decent bluebook resell values might be utilized. Then there are options which might carry the utility of being able to start a business. Purchasing lawn mowers to start a lawn moving business, seeds to grow crops which might be sold at farmer's market, maybe a guitar or musical instrument to produce music clips on youtube in an effort to earn income. People may only be limited by their imaginations here.
Hopefully, bitcoin will bounce back rather than experience a *dead cat* bounce where the price doesn't make any comeback at all. I think we should have a good indication of which it'll be by the end of 2018 with bitcoin usually experiencing a seasonal peak at year's end.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember attending a Robert Kiyosaki "how to achieve financial freedom" seminar years ago. It was disappointing. There isn't a lot of good information publicly available on this topic. All of the "financial freedom" gurus (as far as I can tell) repeat the same generic things and offer the same generic methods. A person might get better advice reading a book about financial planning and learning basic fundamentals on how to formulate and execute a financial plan for their future.
Statistically, things are very bad. The vast majority of people have no plan for retirement. They have no plan for saving money to send their children to college. And a high percentage have less than $1,000 in savings. Credit card debt, student loan debt and other forms of debt are at all time highs with many not having a forseeable future where that debt is paid off anytime soon.
It is very good that people are becoming more conscious of finance and that there is a lot of interest surrounding it. But there is neglect when it comes to people recognizing a link between finance and economics. I suspect most will never have a decent grasp of finance unless they have a tiny bit of economics knowledge. Everyone wants to discuss finance and how to achieve "financial freedom" but not many want to discuss economics. The lack of economic discussion is what will prevent many from being successful with their financial ambitions/planning.
|
|
|
|
Are they turning WWE into a joke here? The McMhons have lost it Stephenie and Shane what's wrong with the brother and sisters. I wish triple H get his balls kicked and I bet Kurt Angel will turn against his own partner. Daniel Bryan is back after a serious injury but I feel they don't have any creativity left anymore it's all going to be predictable.
Agreed. Don't like how the WWE is handling Ronda. Stephanie McMahon slapping Ronda was disrespectful and cheap clickbait. It seems the WWE is trying to elevate itself by reducing the value of people like Ronda which is a poor policy and bad business strategy. A lot of the things wrestlers say these days don't even make sense and are circular logic fails. Things are weird and their leadership are making bad decisions. Pro wrestling was always something like a dirty business where WWE wrestlers were being paid $30k/year to drive around the country in vans doing shows in an environment of substance abuse and PED's (steroids) contributing towards unhealthy lifestyles and short lifespans for their stars. Somehow it appears things could be even worse now, at least as far as the business having substance and value goes. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
