|
About a month ago, a goldman sachs backed startup known as "circle" bought out the crypto exchange poloniex for $400 million. Craig Wright is rumored to have received $200 million in financial backing from an unknown source to fund his start ups. When bitcoin was still above $10k there was another story in the news about unknown investors buying up $400 million in bitcoin. It seems that banks have more than one strategy for addressing bitcoin and crypto currencies & try to cover all their bases. They're buying crypto exchanges, people like Craig Wright and they could also be some of the mysterious unknown people buying up hundreds of millions in btc.
The news story about $80 billion in tether (usdt) being printed out-of-thin-air to buy up bitcoin and "maintain its value" probably was market manipulation of some type. It is possible that bankers or someone else are deliberately having fake news stories printed to decrease bitcoin's price and buy up a decent proportion of the bitcoins in existence. Even if all of this speculation is true, it is possible that even banks still aren't certain what the outcome of bitcoin is, they're simply covering their bases in case of multiple contingencies.
|
|
|
|
Deflation is really ugly since it causes prices to decrease (usually due to a large loss of labor due to automation, retirement, etc) which causes employer revenue to decrease and the employer typically responds by reducing headcount. This causes more deflation since consumers have less money to spend and creates a vicious cycle in the economy. If it is true that deflationary currencies like bitcoin increase in value over time, then prices do not truly decrease as they are compensated by appreciating value of the currency? For example, let's say that bitcoin appreciate's in value from $5,000 to $7,000. The price of a cup of coffee might decrease in btc due to the change in exchange rate between the US dollar and btc. But it doesn't imply that there is a necessary loss in value? The same with employee revenue "decreasing". As long as the value of the currency appreciates, there are no real issues--a rising tide lifts all ships? It is only if the currency declines in value that problems arise? I think that you're reciting some of the standard things taught in finance and economics classes. But that those points lack historical examples or evidence to support them and tend to be moreso urban myths rather than something resembling harder or more established science. I don't mind if you can prove me wrong here. It would be a good learning experience and I'm certain others might benefit from your explanation if you have one. So don't hold back. I'll +merit you if you can justify your stated stance well. |
|
|
|
Hello all, Today I saw this article 'Being cash-free puts us at risk of attack': Swedes turn against cashlessness. My question: Will it be possible to create a hybrid coin? NOT centralized like Ripple, Euros, British Ponds, Dollars, ectc, but decentralized. Plus: We have also cash money in our wallet. Or do I have to ask my question in a different way; It's logical, it's possible. But will the bankers cooperate, to loose their monopoly of creating money from thin air? Allready thanks for the answers. Bitcoin has a decent quantity of decentralization built into it. Its userbase is decentralized across a number of different nations. Miners were predominantly centralized in china but recently there has been a growth of support in other countries which makes it more decentralized. Important bitcoin development decisions and future policies are decentralized between the community, core developers and miners. There is no centralized body of control there. Even bitmain which once centralized ASICs will be subject to increased decentralization as nvidia, samsung, russia and others have announced plans to produce ASICs/mining hardware. It might be safe to say: bitcoin is decentralized to a good degree. Other altcoins and crypto currencies also have decent decentralization practices. In terms of how this topic ties into swedes opposing "cashlessness" I'm not certain. Recently, in the news there are stories of the european union cracking down on google for having a monopoly over the search engine sector. In the past there have been cases of governments cracking down on microsoft for having a monopoly over the operating system market. If google and microsoft are penalized for having monopolies. Will banks also be penalized or fined for seeking to have a monopoly over digital currencies? |
|
|
|
The point I want to discuss here is if we want a cryptocurrency to really act as a better alternative to fiat, its supply should necessarily be floating and depend on the needs of an economy, not on some preset, strictly deterministic algorithm, however sophisticated or complex it could be. How feasible is this? If you think it doesn't make sense, then what are your reasons?
Currencies with floating supplies may be described as trust based systems contrasted by algorithmically determined supply which is more trustless in design. Variance between the two paradigms could accurately define context separating both schools of thought. Trustless designs could represent evolutionary progress over trust based systems given how blockchains trustless abstract has seemingly made many past trust based methods of conducting finance archaic and obsolete. On a basic analysis the less moving parts something has the less likely it is to break. Trustless designs fundamentally containing less moving parts could give it intrinsic advantages over past models of currency supply. One common argument utilized in an attempt to justify floating supply is it "satisfies the needs of an economy". At the moment both the united states and european union might be characterized as being overburdened by debt and looming deficits. On a global scale, the politics being played and policies being pushed might also be described as attempts by governments to tax, spend and print their way out of debt. If indeed currencies with variable supply serve the needs of economies, how does a transition happen whereby currencies variable supply can be leveraged to bring about more positive change? Many negatives experienced by nations are empowered by currencies with variable supply. Owning a printing machine often gives politicians and the public the false premise that if things go bad they can simply print-their-way out of trouble. The trust factor of the system is exploited. Eliminating the trust factor as crypto currencies with finite supply do, could represent a more stable and balanced economic and financial paradigm. There isn't much evidence of currencies with floating/infinite/variable supply which represent the original, printed-without-limit-out-of-thin-air criticism, do much to serve the economy in this day and age. And it is possible that currencies with fixed supply are more robust and reliable over the long term as there is less trust built into the design to soften the consistency factor. |
|
|
|
Why would you need to hide it though? In Bitcoin's case specifically, it's priced in USD so you could always use the USD value, keeping it the same while the Bitcoin equivalent decreases. It's very messy and inelegant, as I have said, but it's really the only prospective solution I personally see to make deflationary currencies viable for wages. If that isn't possible, then I don't see a way to make it work.
I've already said that I disagree with your position that the people at the top purposefully uses inflation to dock workers' pay, so if you're saying it won't work solely because they won't let it, you may ignore my comments.
I have a vague feeling the most relevent statistics and data relating to economics and finance are consistently censored and repressed. I'll give you an example.  Image link: https://i.imgur.com/IrBKk5o.jpgIf someone walked into a college classroom citing the above statistics, they would be labeled a "conspiracy theorist" and ignored. It is the most "amazing coincidence" that colleges happen to implement "safe spaces" which censor "dissenting opinions" to prevent students from coming into contact with differing views or accounts of history. One might almost say it happened by design. But I think that could be too "conspiracy theoryish" for many. It is also an "amazing coincidence" that unemployment, inflation and a host of other statistics regularly cited by the media were all redefined to illustrate a rosier image of reality awhile ago. Almost as if there were a coordinated and cooperative effort at the highest levels to hide data and statistics from the public. The key difference between fiat currency and bitcoin may be fiat offers an integral option to dock worker pay, without them realizing their pay is being docked. Bitcoin doesn't offer that option as its supply doesn't inflate at a fast enough rate to achieve the same result. The same could be said of a gold standard. I'm used to people not agreeing with me. If you did agree with me that would be shocking and surprising so no worries. |
|
|
|
Hello,
I'm new and dont know how to create a script.
I would like to create a script :
98% chance to win betbase 1 (dont care for the loss and win)
if 5 number in a row < or > 50 so change the bet base to 100, chance to 50% and multiplie by 2
if 2 number in a row > 80 or < 20 change the bet base to 100, chance to 80% and multiplie by 7
if 4 number in a row > 70 or <30 change the bet base to 100, chance to 70% and multiplie by 3,5
...
It is possible ?
Thanks in advance if someone can help me.
.... Its very easy to create a script. The basic mechanics are the script takes the current second (zero through nine) runs it through an equation to satisfy the parameters and the end result is considered "randomized". This will work but is bad for commercial gambling use as it is easy for players to reverse engineer the script and manipulate results to win. This happens occasionally with Las Vegas slot machines where people will purchase them and reverse engineer the hardware in order to game results to guarantee they win. If your script is intended for commercial use where money is involved, a better script would need to be created which will need to be decently secure to prevent hackers and crooks from downloading the script and reverse engineering it to guarantee wins. |
|
|
|
The Trump administration Tuesday unveiled a list of roughly $50 billion in Chinese electronics, aerospace and machinery products it plans to hit with steep tariffs, the latest move in a deepening U.S.-China trade conflict. The new 25 percent import taxes are designed to penalize China for discriminatory policies that the United States says puts its companies at a disadvantage in the Chinese market. President Trump has complained that the Chinese government forces U.S. companies to surrender their proprietary technology in return for access to local customers and steals other trade secrets via cyber theft. Trump’s latest protectionist move threatens to upend global supply chains for corporations such as Apple and Dell, raise prices for American consumers who have grown accustomed to inexpensive electronics and aggravate tensions between the world’s two largest economies. “The pain will be very visible and the potential gains will be very abstract. The administration hasn’t prepared the U.S. for the downsides of a trade war,” said Brad Setser, a former White House economist in the Obama administration. With just seven months before congressional elections, that could pose a political challenge for the president, who promised his supporters he would overhaul U.S. trade policy to benefit American workers. Voters disapproved of Trump’s handling of trade policy by 54 percent to 34 percent in the latest Quinnipiac University poll, with only Republicans and white voters without a college education backing his tariff offensive. In acting, the president swept aside opposition from business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, which agree that China’s mercantilist policies must be confronted, but fear the consequences of a tit-for-tat trade conflict. “If history is any indication, these proposed tariffs will not work and will be entirely counterproductive. Tariffs penalize U.S. consumers by increasing prices on technology products and will not change China’s behavior,” said Dean Garfield, chief executive of the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents companies such as Apple, Dell, IBM and Google. “Instead, the administration should act consistent with international obligations and work with other countries to address systemic issues with China.” The office of the U.S. trade representative released a list of 1,300 proposed tariff increases, but set a 30-day period for receiving comments from affected businesses. That pause leaves an opening for the sort of negotiated settlement that business groups favor. In compiling the list, U.S. officials used algorithms to identify products that benefited from China’s state-directed campaign of technology acquisition while eliminating those whose inclusion would disrupt the U.S. economy. The list was drafted to achieve “the lowest consumer impact,” according to Robert E. Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative. So items such as clothing and toys were excluded. But Rick Helfenbein, chief executive of the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said that machinery used to make footwear or clothing will be hit with tariffs. “This would directly raise costs on domestic manufacturers and impact our ability to grow Made in USA,” he said in a statement. Parts for trash compactors, molds for the manufacture of semiconductors, motors, generators, cassette players, smart cards and high-definition color video projectors dotted the list along with unlikely items like rocket launchers and torpedoes. The administration’s estimate of $50 billion of affected Chinese imports is designed to balance the harm to the U.S. economy from China’s rapacious technology practices and “to obtain elimination of China’s harmful acts, policies and practices,” Lighthizer wrote in a statement accompanying the tariff list. Douglas Irwin, author of “Clashing Over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy,” said Trump’s action is one of the largest trade moves in more than three decades. In previous episodes, the U.S. has wielded tariffs as a tool to compel Japan or the European Union to negotiate trade conflicts, he said. But both the E.U. and Japan were U.S. allies who shared a market orientation while China is a strategic adversary commanding a state-led economy. “It’s an enormous retaliation relative to what we were doing with Japan in the 1980s,” said Irwin, an economics professor at Dartmouth College. “ ... The chances of it not working out well is much higher in this case than it was with the E.U. and Japan.” China has opposed President Trump’s tariff plan, calling it “self-defeating” and vowing to fight a trade war if the U.S. persists. Beijing earlier this week imposed tariffs on about $3 billion in American goods, in response to separate U.S. import levies on steel and aluminum. That has kept the commercial conflict between the two economic giants contained. But if China responds to this latest tariff action on a dollar-for-dollar basis, it could damage more than one-third of total U.S. exports to China and Hong Kong, said Setser, a senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. The U.S. shipped more than $130 billion in goods to China last year, plus an additional $40 billion to Hong Kong, much of which flows through the port city to the mainland. Chinese action of that magnitude would impose substantial costs on both China’s economy and that of the U.S. U.S. farm groups are especially worried about being caught in the crossfire. China’s response to Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs landed hardest on the agricultural sector, including products such fruit, wine and pork. Future Chinese action is likely to hit the farm belt even harder. The U.S. exported $12.4 billion worth of soybeans to China last year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, down almost 13 percent from the year earlier, as Chinese buyers began turning to alternative suppliers like Brazil. In Evansville, Indiana, Joe Steinkamp, 52, raises soybeans and white corn on a 40-acre plot his family has farmed for 100 years. He exports about one-third of his soybean crop to China, so if the Chinese shun American suppliers, he risks losing around $170,000 in annual income. “We’re all about trade with China. We spent the last 25 years building that trade relationship,” said Steinkamp. “I appreciate the president looking out for our entire country. We just don’t want soybeans to be the fall guy and take all the punches from the Chinese. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/04/03/trump-administration-targets-chinese-electronics-aerospace-and-machinery-goods-with-50-billion-in-tariffs/?utm_term=.026470dad731A few days ago there was a news article published entitled: "China slaps tariffs on 123 US products". Today we have the US response: "US proposes tariffs on 1,300 chinese goods". People are labeling this a "trade war". If the united states is serious about this, I don't think there will be a war. There will be a struggle, china will put up some resistance but over the long term the united states will win and china will be forced to concede and give in to demands. There could be some short term negatives but over the long term the end result could be positive for americans and the united states. Like some have said china needs the USA more than the USA needs china. This gives america leverage in the relationship and enables it to dictate terms. How do people see this panning out? |
|
|
|
|
That is a great read. Exactly the type of publicity and information crypto currencies need publicized in order to justify their value. I hope that piece counts as zerohedge publishing a pro crypto article, as their reputation for being anti-crypto has always appeared most undeserved to me. I've always liked ZH as one of the few financial and economics commentaries with something resembling an independent and reliable slant to its content.
Great history lesson there. I never realized the history of fiat currencies was so shady. I knew about zimbabwe and germany's hyperinflationary issues but had no clue there was a history and strong precedent for printed money being prone towards that end result. There is an error there about the federal reserve being "government controlled" it is in fact owned and controlled by the private sector, probably by bankers.
Other than that, it is possible that everything in that article should be standard curriculum taught in classrooms but is being repressed or censored to some degree. Its difficult to prevent history from repeating itself, when people remain unaware of historical precedents.
|
|
|
|
It would certainly be a challenge. The move away from the gold standard was meant to address that issue, after all, as deflation was a contributing factor in the Great Depression. When Ben Bernanke was chairman of the federal reserve, he issued this apology accepting responsibility for the fed causing the great depression. There's a piece explaining it hosted on the federal reserve's website. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great_depressionThis is going to sound like a very simplistic solution, but can't employers simply adjust wages by taking deflation into account? They already do this now with inflation anyway, so the reverse should work somewhat similarly in principle. We've seen a small example of Bitcoin in this situation when it suddenly surged to $19k and some managers were forced to dock participants' pay in Bitcoin, with some even setting a USD standard. It's very messy, but it seems to have worked, at least on the surface.
Either way, I don't think Bitcoin will ever kill off fiat anyway, but rather become a global alternative, so I don't think its deflationary nature is a problem.
I think there is an explanation for what they mean when they say deflationary currencies do not "adjust downward". I'll try to give you a scenario which might illustrate it. Scenario: Imagine in the year 2010, there are $2 trillion dollars in circulation. A worker in 2010 is paid $20 an hour. Now let's say that in 2018 there are $3 trillion dollars in circulation and a worker is being paid $20/hour. The expanding money supply (inflationary) makes it easier to give raises to 1 percenters. If the amount of dollars in circulation increases from $2 trillion to $3 trillion that could represent a considerable decrease in consumer buying power. A worker who makes $20/hour when $2 trillion dollars are in circulation could also take a big pay cut if the inflationary money supply increases by 50% to 3$ trillion. That could be what they mean when they say that inflationary currencies "adjust wages downward". The expanding money supply decreases wages without most people realizing it. Workers take a big pay cut even if the numerical value they're being paid, remains the same. The same doesn't happen with deflationary currencies. Its extremely difficult to cut worker pay, without them realizing their pay is being cut. The same precedent doesn't apply to inflationary currencies where the paychecks of workers can be cut by expanding the money supply under circumstances where wages remain the same. Its a ratio and supply thing. $20 out of a $2 trillion money supply is much more valuable than $20 out of $3 trillion. The expanding money supply gives workers an indirect and stealthy pay cut(wages adjust downwards). It could be yet another economic framework designed to prop up "wealth inequality" as trickle down economics and similar methodologies before it. |
|
|
|
Best guess: Thomas Edison's stance on this where he said "Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration".  I would quote Nikola Tesla over Edison if I knew of a good quotation Tesla made which applies here. There could be interesting contrasts between Edison and Tesla that are relevent. Tesla was a big idea guy who generally lacked capital. Edison was more about hard work and smart business than big ideas and had big capital support. In the AC versus DC electrical supply contest, Tesla defeated Edison. This could mean big ideas or the right ideas win against big capital, sometimes. Your topic could apply to banks and fiat in competition to crypto currency. Banks and fiat have big capital. Bitcoin and crypto currencies have big ideas. Which is more important? Maybe we will find out. |
|
|
|
2. Which other countries are considering cryptocurrencies?
Russia’s central bank plans to talk to countries including Brazil, China, India and the five former Soviet republics about creating a supra-cryptocurrency that could cover countries with 40 percent of the world’s population. People’s Bank of China Deputy Governor Fan Yifei wrote an article broaching the possibility of a digital currency it would issue with Chinese commercial institutions. In Sweden, where use of cash is vanishing, the central bank is investigating issuing its own digital currency, the E-krona, out of concern that widespread use of other virtual currencies controlled by private actors could harm competitiveness. Very interesting. 3. Aren’t cryptocurrencies by definition non-governmental?
Until now, yes. Bitcoin and its many competitors and imitators have developed independently from central authority -- and intentionally so. But the blockchain technology that undergirds all cryptocurrencies doesn’t preclude centralization. In theory, a government could have greater control of a virtual currency than a paper one because it would be able to keep tabs on all transactions recorded on the blockchain ledger. Bolded: this portion seems to operate under the flawed assumption that crypto currencies are "anonymous" or operate "off grid". Everything on the internet is logged and it might be said that all transactions are traceable if they need to be. 6. What would this mean for the international monetary system?
The Western-dominated global financial system relies on a slew of internationally agreed-upon rules, norms and institutions that let countries trade and invest in each other. The U.S. exercises a degree of control over the system because the dollar and the U.S. banking system dominate. Should enough countries set up their own digital currencies, they would operate outside the existing framework, undermining the influence of traditional global central banks like the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank. Bolded: very interesting perspective. Maybe redundant. Russia began creating its own alternative to the SWIFT system, seeking to become more independent after they were banned from it under sanctions. I think some nations could have sought ways to escape US surveillance after the Snowden leaks and similar events. Seeking independence from the dollar and euro could also be a high priority for some as concern over the EU/USA deficit mounts. 7. What would this mean for banks?
In the case of national cryptocurrencies, the blockchain technology would supplant the clearing process now handled by commercial banks, undermining an important revenue stream. Banks would likely retain their role issuing mortgages and other forms of credit. Another very interesting view. This might be compared to video game consoles where companies like nintendo chose cartridges over CDs/DVDs due to them making additional profits charging developers a licensing fee for using nintendo's cartridge/disc technology. AFAIK banks derive additional profits from the clearing process and so eliminating that abstraction from the equation could come at a loss of $/control for them. |
|
|
|
|
This might sound bad. But it is much more difficult to be successful running a hedge fund with a lot of capital than it is to manage smaller portfolios. The difficulty level rises sharply the more money a person has on hand to invest due to difficulties associated with higher transaction volume and needing to find a higher number of good investments to generate positive returns over the short term. It is true what some in this thread have said about darts and monkeys, according to studies the best hedge fund managers only manage around 5% returns. Hedge funds probably aren't the best financial paradigm for generating cash. The emphasis on short term returns and investors wanting to see results could have something to do with it.
On a slightly positive note, crypto hedge funds appear to be doing much better than crypto ICOs? Wasn't it said that more than 90% of ICOs fail? Crypto hedge funds might actually look good in comparison to that.
|
|
|
|
|
Dana White said he will "never" book Tony Ferguson vs Khabib Nurmagomedov again. Dana has tried to make this fight happen since 2016.
I'm not happy Max Holloway took this fight. Was hoping another lightweight could step up on short notice. Tony Ferguson sounded very bitter, almost like the fight was over in some of the recent press conferences(like the one Tokeweed posted in this thread on march 29th) . I wonder if Ferguson was injured days or weeks ago, and they're only reporting it now that they've finally found a replacement. The timing for the news release on April 1st, April Fool's Day seems like a publicity stunt.
Oh well, its been two weeks since we've had a UFC event. At least the MMA drought will finally come to an end.
|
|
|
|
The issue, as the piece explains, is that deflation in the unit of account leads to unemployment, thanks to the fact that wages generally don't adjust downward. Mr Hearn suggests that the idea that deflation might be costly is controversial among economists. I must disagree; it really isn't. Economists would love it if he were right that deflation didn't matter—that money, in economists' parlance, is neutral. If wages adjusted quickly and cleanly then they could go back to applying really straightforward classical economic models and everyone's life would be simpler. But the data are very clear on this point; wages are "sticky", and so deflation in the currency in which wages are set is costly. What they could mean when they say that wages "don't adjust downward" is an employee who is paid 5 pieces of gold, can't be paid 4 pieces of gold later so that more gold can be paid to CEO's or one percenters. Deflationary money supplies do not inflate at a high rate which makes wealth redistribution more difficult. The way things are now, an employee who is paid $15 an hour in 1980 is paid significantly more than an employee in 2018 who makes $15 an hour due to inflation. Numerically it may seem like the pay is the same, but the money supply is inflating which reduces the actual purchasing power over time. This could be what they mean when they say "wages adjust downward". Inflating the money supply in order to give the wealthy a pay raise, without it being transparent and obvious to everyone. So, the question being debated here may be how to get away with paying employees less (wages adjusting downwards) with deflationary currencies in order to give one percenters a raise. Frameworks like trickle down economics have been devised to justify this precedent in the past. That could be the area where all of the money in economics is being thrown, and so like they say necessity is the mother of all invention. |
|
|
|
BEIJING — The Chinese government hit back Monday at President Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum by acting on a threat to put tariffs as high as 25 percent on imports of 128 American-made products, including pork and seamless steel pipes. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce indicated that the tariffs, which it first publicly suggested almost two weeks ago, were intended to pressure the Trump administration to back down from a simmering trade war. In addition to imposing additional tariffs on steel and aluminum from China and other countries, President Trump has threatened to put protective duties on other Chinese-made products worth $60 billion. “We hope that the United States will rescind its measures that violate World Trade Organization rules as quickly as possible,” the ministry said in an online statement about China’s retaliatory tariffs. “China and the United States are the world’s two biggest economies, and cooperation is the only correct choice. Both sides should use dialogue and consultation to resolve their mutual concerns.” The Chinese retaliation was no surprise. But Beijing appeared to go a step beyond its initial threat last month to counter the United States’ tariffs on steel and aluminum. The Ministry of Commerce said then that it could impose tariffs in two stages: first, a 15 percent duty on 120 products, including fruit and wine, and then, after further assessing the impact of the United States’ tariffs, a 25 percent tariff on eight other products, including pork, an important moneymaker, especially in farming regions in states that voted for Mr. Trump. But the latest announcement said the tariffs that will take effect on Monday covered all 128 products, including the 25 percent charge on pork. The ministry said it had Chinese public opinion on its side after asking for views about the trade measures. Over recent weeks, China’s state-run news media has condemned the Trump administration’s protectionist steps and presented China as the innocent defender of open trade. In fact, China imposes relatively high barriers on many imports and on foreign investment in many sectors. “Many members of the public voiced their support for the measures and the product list through telephone calls, emails and other means,” the ministry said. “After an assessment, it was decided to implement the measures described on 128 products imported from the United States.” Mr. Trump’s threatened tariffs on $60 billion worth of other Chinese-made products are likely to prompt more retaliation from China, which could single out more valuable American exports such as soybeans and hurt Apple and other companies that rely heavily on Chinese consumers. Liu He, a Chinese vice premier and economic adviser to President Xi Jinping, told Steven Mnuchin, the American Treasury secretary, in a phone call just more than a week ago that the two countries should “stay rational and work together to maintain the overall stability of their economic and trade relations.” But Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has been visiting Beijing, said on Saturday that Chinese officials she met, including Mr. Liu, “have not deviated from their talking points” about the Trump administration’s tariffs. “America is waking up to the loss of its technological advantage through China’s restrictions on access to its internal markets,” she told reporters. “That is now a place where policy is beginning to change.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/world/asia/china-tariffs-united-states.html.... The DOW hit 23,444.16 today. Possibly the decline came off yesterdays news of china issuing new tariff hikes.  Image link: http://i63.tinypic.com/21bktu.jpgLooks like Donald Trump won't bow down and be subservient to china as our previous US President's have done. Is this good policy or bad policy? I think everyone admits american trade policy with china has been questionable over the last 10-20 years. We have had a trade deficit as everyone admits. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing has been subject to a considerable amount of debate. Not certain what impact this looming "trade war" with china could have upon crypto currencies. There is a chance crypto's value and market cap could increase if whales pull capital out of fiat based investments and decide crypto is a better investment. But given bitcoin's recent decline there is a chance people could wait awhile for a better future outlook before making any major commitments. |
|
|
|
In my state, there are A LOT of people who have full time jobs that live in their cars. They can't afford to pay rent and are homeless.  It is a tough problem to solve. There are no easy answers as far as I know. If anyone has a good response to this question I would be interested to read it. I think the basic analysis of circumstances is, cost of living is growing at a fast rate. Wages for middle class and below aren't growing much at all. Eventually, this means we could reach a point where a decent proportion of the population will be unable to afford housing. If the trend continues, other things could also become unaffordable. I would guess at some point there will be some type of correction. What form or shape that might take remains to be seen. It won't necessarily be aesthetically pleasing or elegant. Things could get messy and ugly. Maybe one reason why gun control and gun confiscation stances are being pushed so hard right now by the media. "Disarm everyone before mobs with pitchforks malcontent with the status quo show up on the doorstep of whoever people decide to blame for this." |
|
|
|
Housing, as we've pointed out in the past, is perhaps the most reliable bellwether of widening economic inequality in the US. And in its latest quarterly report on housing affordability in the US, ATTOM discovered that median-priced homes aren't affordable to average wage earners in an astounding 68% of US housing markets. In its report, the company calculated affordability by incorporating the amount of income needed to make monthly home payments - including mortgage payments, property tax payments and insurance - on a median-priced home, assuming a 3% down payment and a 28% maximum "front-end" debt-to-income ratio. That required income was then compared with the median home price.  Image link: https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/2018.03.28attom.pngThe 304 counties where a median-priced home in the first quarter was not affordable for average wage earners included Los Angeles County, California; Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona; San Diego County, California; Orange County, California; and Miami-Dade County, Florida. Meanwhile, the 142 counties (32 percent of the 446 counties analyzed in the report) where a median-priced home in the first quarter was still affordable for average wage earners included Cook County (Chicago), Illinois; Harris County (Houston), Texas; Dallas County, Texas; Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan; and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  Image link: https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/2018.03.28attomtwo.JPGAlready, the "hottest" housing markets are seeing an exodus of working- and middle-class individuals who can no longer afford to pay the high rents - let along afford to set aside enough money for a down payment. Eight of the top 10 counties with the highest median home prices in Q1 2018 posted negative net migration in 2017: Kings County (Brooklyn), New York (25,484 net migration decrease); Santa Clara County (San Jose), California (5,559 net migration decrease); New York County (Manhattan), New York (3,762 net migration decrease); Orange County, California (3,750 net migration decrease); and San Mateo, Marin, Napa and Santa Cruz counties in Northern California. Furthermore, ATTOM's data found that this problem is getting worse, not better, with 41% of housing markets less affordable than their historical average during the first quarter. That's up from 35% the quarter before
Meanwhile, a staggering 73% of markets posted worsening affordability compared with a year ago, including Los Angeles, Cook County (home to Chicago), Maricopa County (Phoenix) and Kings County (Brooklyn).  Image link: https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/2018.03.28attommthree.pngThe counties where the average wage earner would need to spend the highest share of their income to buy a median-priced home are Baltimore, Bibb County (Macon, Georgia) and Wayne County (Detroit). Continuing with the trend of home prices rising more than twice as quickly as wages, home-price appreciation outpaced wage growth in 83% of housing markets. When Fed Chairman Jerome Powell warned last month that "valuations are still elevated across a range of asset classes" and that he fears "signs of rising non-financial leverage" it's possible that he was still understating the problem. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-28/nearly-70-us-counties-average-worker-cant-afford-buy-home.... The question of whether real estate is a good long term investment has popped up on this forum more than once. This could hint at a future housing bubble. Economic and financial imbalance caused by cost of living outgrowing the growth rate of wages by a considerable margin over a lengthy period of time... The term unsustainable has popped up to describe these circumstances with many doomsdayish predictions made by economists and finnacial gurus recently possibly being linked to the negative implications. Basic analysis: for real estate prices to remain constant, demand must remain constant. If the gap between wages and the cost of real estate expands by a large enough margin, demand will fall as consumers no longer have the wages to sustain it. With falling real estate demand comes reduced prices. The market paradigm shifts in favor of buyers, it becomes a buyers market. How do people see this panning out? Is it a false alarm? Exaggerated? Will the value of US real estate be maintained by foreign demand? /Other? |
|
|
|
You mean to say that these companies are just using the name of blockchain technology or crypto currencies to spike their stocks int he real world? I mean it does look like the same in many article because there has been the similar announcement in the past but none of them seem to have any real progress in the stated theories. So sometimes it feels really shady. Corporations like kodak boosting their stock price by announcing vaporware blockchain related projects is as much of a valuation bubble as ICO's, in my opinion. Those price increases could also represent market manipulation, insider or a net effect of HFT's exaggerating price move trends. "Shady" is 100% correct. Blockchain is a wonderful thing but its value and brand name recognition are overvalued and a lot of people are cashing in on it. Bubble, bubble, bubble. Also notice one more thing that whenever there is positive thing happening in the world then crypto currencies actually get spiked and in the cases that we are discussing here, nothing like that happened. So does that mean its just coming out fo the thin air and there are no real developments going on?
No one knows how to calculate an accurate price of bitcoin/crypto. Its a new and emerging technology. There isn't a well established historical roadmap or price history for analysts to base price from. As a result news stories heavily influence crypto's value positively or negatively as no one is really certain how much the price should move when something happens. In some ways trading crypto is like being in a darkened room with other traders, communicating by sign language trying to figure out what the price should be. No one has the answer unless they're whales and they're coordinating off insider trading, etc. As far as I know, anyways. |
|
|
|
Your opinion is valid, especially it may be valid about the taxing issue. But what you are clearly lacking is constructive criticism. This topic isn't about crushing the ongoing ideas, but rather about making strategy proposals. Constructive proposals on topics like basic income are a topic interesting to me.  As I understand it, one of the reasons christianity was able to spread throughout the entire world was due to its integrated welfare programs which benefited the poor. In past eras of history, welfare programs might have functioned fairly, effectively and efficiently. The success of christianity on a historical basis, where it was able to spread and become popular across near to the entire world may be evidence of this. Based on these precedents, it might be said that concepts like basic income are not flawed on a fundamental level. Welfare too, is not something I'm against. I think there are reasons why social programs like welfare are prone towards failure. Today a large percentage of welfare programs benefit the wealthy. Large corporations receive unfair tax cuts. Enterprises undertaken by the wealthy are covered by taxpayers footing a large fraction of the costs necessary to construct facilities or fund other other liabilities. An example of this is NASA devoting taxpayer funds towards researching the viability of asteroid mining, a topic which has zero scientific value, but plenty of value to corporations which can funnel taxpayer funding towards things which serve their own self interests. Centralization is another major issue. When states have no competition for providing services towards people in the form of pensions, unemployment, welfare it leads to waste, inefficiency and fraud. In terms of real world application, there are public schools in the united states which boast per student costs rivaling the cost of harvard tuition. NASA regularly spends $60 billion dollars on rocket programs like the Ares which are vastly inferior to what private sector corporations like Space X are able to develop with more than 100 times a smaller budget. The same precedent could apply to state run economic simulus plans which create 1 minimum wage job at a cost of $300,000 to taxpayers. It could also apply to attempts @ healthcare reform, bank bailouts which the federal reserve may have profited more than $40 billion from running(if I'm remembering right). In the united states, it could apply to everything except maybe the postal service, which might be the only efficient and cost effective program the government runs. I think for programs like basic income to be successful, there needs to be some systemic incentive or new metrics which measure the efficiency of state run social programs. The trend is entirely towards redefining topics like unemployment and inflation to give people a false idea of what reality looks like. Some type of massive paradigm shift could be the only way programs like basic income will ever function effectively or efficiently and with information being so rare and difficult to come by, that may never happen. |
|
|
|
Because Iceland is too small, it's something you would almost never be able to do for a simple reason. For example, as a banker, you can take the worst decision for your bank, costing to it multiple millions, you are not really considered as the culprit, but the bank is, you represent and act in the name of the bank and not yourself. In another side, the bank is considered endorsing everything you do
I'm not 100% certain on iceland imprisoning bankers post 2008 economic crisis. There are some who attempt to downplay the issue claiming if bankers in iceland did what they did in any other country they would have been imprisoned. Based on recent precedents that appears unlikely. Banks like HSBC have routinely laundered money for terrorists and drug cartels over the past 15+ years without anyone being prosecuted or imprisoned. Has anyone heard the urban myth that iceland has a "shortage of men" and is offering migrants free money or land to travel there? That could be a myth started by bankers as a form of revenge on iceland for daring to crackdown on their schemes in that country and refusing to bow as other nations typically do. It could also imply that iceland's imprisoning of bankers for their crimes is something exceptional in this day and age. But to be honest, I'm not 100% certain one way or another. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
