The U.S. never had control of OPEC. Trump was probably able to garner a bit more control than Biden had but Biden's fully embraced green climate activism and instead of negoatiting more oil production, he'll double down on unreliable renewable energy sources. Per the bloomberg article: The administration will continue to work with all producers and consumers to ensure energy markets support economic growth and lower prices for American consumers, the spokesperson said, citing a decline in US retail gasoline prices by more than $1.50 per gallon since a peak last summer.
The White House is giving themselves credit for reducing the price of gasoline from a peak that was created by themselves. Utterly shameless. The U.S. economy ought to be in recession if not already, and energy prices are going up. Bad combination. |
|
|
|
With the recent news, UK banks are not accepting any Crypto-associated users and companies to open their bank accounts with them, banks are also freezing the accounts of current users/companies, and those who have accounts already approved, are asking for more and more documentation.
People often forget, or don't read, the terms of service when they deposit their funds into banks. Banks are within the law in most jurisdictions to completely freeze your entire balance and require you to produce all sorts of documents in order to access your funds. They reserve the right to deny the documents and keep you in an cumbersome loop in order access your funds, if not entirely forfeiting your balance for violating of terms of service. When you trust someone else with your funds, consider yourself to not be the "true" owner of the funds. |
|
|
|
There are also other reasons why Russia has tried to use the Chinese yuan instead of the dollar. Of particular importance here are the US sanctions imposed against Russia and the disconnection of almost all Russian banks from the SWIFT international payment system, which made it very difficult to use the dollar. In addition, Russia previously held a significant part of its foreign exchange reserves in yuan. But the Chinese yuan has fallen in price over the past year, and Russia has suffered significant losses because of this.
Experts believe that the popularity of the yuan in Russia is due to the adjustment of Russia's own policy and the constant development of Sino-Russian trade and economic cooperation. Yuan breaks trading records for
Moscow Exchange. However, the increasing role of the yuan only indicates that the currencies of unfriendly countries have been forced out or fled from Russia. Given that no one is talking about trading in rubles, it is the yuan that remains the means of payment, which allows you to somehow trade with the rest of the world, which has narrowed to China and India this year.
Sanctions always backfire to some degree. It's about how well the sanctioning country can mitigate the side effects. The U.S. did not anticipate other countries following Russia and China and dumping their currency from reserves because the U.S. didn't foresee USD inflating at 40 year highs (ironic considering the money they printed in 2020-2021). So, they went heavy with sanctions/asset forfeitures, and to no ones surprise country's became concerned that USD was not stable enough. Yuan might be better than USD in the short term, but what people don't realize is the long term strategy for China is to force dependence on Yuan and capture countries economies through this dependence. If China were to invalidate any country's reserves by not accepting Yuan, the country can bankrupt itself depending on what their reserves look like. Bitcoin would solve the trust issue. Some politicians might learn this too late and jeopardize their economy by handing it over to Xi Jinping. |
|
|
|
|
Minor correction, his name is Kevin O'Leary, not O'Neill, and he was also an FTX cheerleader and called for regulation after the exchanged collapse.
Not all of his takes are great, setting some aside, I don't disagree with him here. He's a successful investor despite his crypto related venture failures and is correct -- after a certain period, whether it be 36 months or not, businesses that are not profitable should on longer continue to operate. The institutional guys understand this. A lot of the Silicon Valley tech start ups torch money for the first years until profitability, or until they get bought out by a larger firm. After a few years, if it's not profitable the VC money stops coming in. Seemingly people that might be new entrepreneurs and get personally vested into their ventures could benefit from his advice.
|
|
|
|
My query is: How will Bitcoin's volatility diminish over time, or what is the single biggest element that could result in a reduction in Bitcoin's volatility?
Bitcoin's volatility is a turn-off for those who are not used to fast-moving markets. maybe those who are familiar with the stock market and gold will indeed avoid the Bitcoin market because of the high volatility. but not too different. the stock market also sometimes has extraordinary movements when something happens to the project. and it affects the stock price. I'm not sure this volatility can be suppressed or controlled. but what I realized, many of them entered the Bitcoin market because of the volatility that gave them the urge to play in the market. Not every Bitcoin user is using it as an investment, though. It's not reasonable to expect someone who relies on Bitcoin for their finances to have large shifts in their purchasing power so I understand where the concern is. IMO it's Bitcoin's biggest hurdle to widespread adoption. I do offer the counter point to concerns of volatility that Bitcoin's deflationary nature will insure that the purchasing power you have with crypto won't systematically be decreased by any central authority. No one can predict the inflation rate so it's not as if fiat doesn't have its own volatility issue. If you're dealing with unstable government, the currency can only exist as long as the government exists. There's nothing more unstable for fiat currencies than regime changes. |
|
|
|
Keep them ignorant, why bother? After all it is your advantage anyway because you will keep accumulating bitcoin as it's price keeps increasing and then you can dump on these no-coiners with sky high prices, profits for you 😈
The only reason Bitcoin is valuable is because there's a demand for it. Prices increase with demand. It is against the interests of a Bitcoin holder for the public perspective of crypto to be negative because that means less users, less demands, and a lower price. And we can only hope the mainstream accepts Bitcoin sooner rather than later, because the attempts from government I've seen to regulate crypto have been concerning. Any passive observer would probably not be too receptive to such regulations, but they don't care enough because they aren't crypto users. These are the type of people we need on board if crypto has a chance against government derangement/ineptitude. |
|
|
|
Lifelong learning will become essential in the future of work. With the rapid pace of technological change, workers will need to be constantly learning and adapting to new technologies and job requirements. Lifelong learning will become essential to staying competitive in the job market.
The role of government and employers will also be crucial in the future of work. Governments and employers will need to invest in training and education programs to help workers transition to new jobs and acquire new skills. This will be particularly important for workers in industries that are being automated.
For example, governments can offer retraining programs, educational subsidies, or tax incentives to encourage workers to acquire new skills. Employers can also offer on-the-job training, flexible work arrangements, and career development opportunities to support their employees in adapting to new roles.
Ultimately, the future of work will be characterized by both disruption and opportunity. Workers who are able to adapt to new technologies and acquire new skills will be well-positioned to succeed in the job market, while those who are unable or unwilling to adapt may find themselves left behind.
To thrive in the future of work, workers will need to be proactive in their approach to learning and development. They will need to be willing to invest time and effort into acquiring new skills and adapting to new job requirements.
Keep in mind that people believed the industrial revolution and rise of computer technology would also have the same effect of displacing workers forcing people to adapt new skillsets in order to compete in the labor market. It did happen; however, standard of living also increases due to the new technology. It isn't a zero sum game, there's always a net benefit to new technologies making the standard of living better even though it might displace unspecialized skillsets. My remedy, however, wouldn't be for the government to step in with incentives unless AI truly met level of immediate intervention, which is mass unemployment (double digits or higher). I think within the natural course of action, any prudent person would understand they themselves would need education/training to compete in the labor market in a generation where AI replaces certain work. |
|
|
|
Elizabeth Warren is a washed politician with no leg to stand on, so she chooses to die on the hill of crypto regulation. She did run for President in 2020 -- her run accumulated in the evaporation in millions of dollars of campaign funds as she would drop out with hardly any votes. She isn't popular any where outside of her jurisdiction, and I'd wager that her own constituency does not find her that favorable with her incumbency pushing her over the finish line every election cycle. Unless someone's prepared to primary her and has a lot of money on hand, she'll win reelection. The most concerning thing that could come from this campaign is someone looking at it and thinking, "Yes, this makes me want to vote for Elizabeth Warren". As a non-politically involved/non-government individual, who in their right mind is thinking that an "anti-crypto army" is something that would be directly beneficial to them and their community? I can only see people who have been scammed in some way that involved cryptocurrency seeing this as a good thing. Elizabeth Warren probably got duped herself, that would explain why she is so anti-crypto  Analysis aside. The campaign image is a great meme. Warren isn't an overt socialist but she's close to it. She wants the federal government involved in all aspects of economic and currency regulation so it shouldn't come as a surprise that she thinks it's a great idea to force crypto companies to adhere to all sorts of governmental red tape. All her wackiness and she still gets reelected over and over again by her voters. |
|
|
|
It's how all these crypto casinos do their marketing. They'll usually spot the bankroll entirely and let the player keep all or a percentage of the winnings. If they lose, they're not under any obligation to pay any of the money back and to the observer, it seems as if the balance is unlimited. I've never been a fan of these sort of marketing initiatives. It gives players the false illusion of losses. When the balance is refilling constantly, a player's winnings is highlighted more than what they lose. It gives the impression that the odds might not be as bad as they usually are. Even when the player discloses they're sponsored by the casino, how many viewers would understand that the balance is not legitimate funds the player puts in? |
|
|
|
China's strategy for long term development is that they offer economic concessions to certain countries and make the country dependent on them. When that dependence forms, the country is at the whim of China -- should they ever be at odds, China cuts off the economic ties and isolates the dependent country. They tried this strategy in some African countries in the 90's and early 2000's. Ditching the dollar for the adoption of Yuan makes USD weaker and merely puts a bandage onto a bigger problem which is centralized currency. Basically the whole world (even US allies) have always wanted to dump the dollar after Nixon administration, but for a lot of reasons (including lack of independence) they have been slow. This is also why we are currently only seeing countries with more independence from US dumping the dollar while others slowly joining in at a smaller scale.
Although Saudi regime as the 51st US state is an exception, they have no independence but are joining in because they were forced to; essentially after Aramco was hit and their oil production was cut by half.
Unfortunately the U.S. became too heavy handed with sanctions and countries are realizing it isn't worth it to have an unstable country that pegged directly to U.S. foreign policy. |
|
|
|
|
Trump is partially responsible, Biden is mainly responsible.
The so called regulations that Biden thinks would have stopped a run on the banks would not have changed anything. Banks simply do not carry enough cash on hand that would allow for their creditors to immediately withdraw their holdings contemporaneous to one another. If the U.S. economy were not in such bad shape, SVB would not have needed to sell off their assets at a discount causing the run in the first place. Remember -- treasury bonds were never supposed to be a high risk investment for SVB. They become high risk when the central banks begin raising interest rates. Those interest rates hikes are because Trump, but mainly Biden, printed more money than the U.S. economy could handle during the COVID era. To Trump's credit, he tried to end the government welfare state quickly after it was created but by that time, the world economy/supply chains had already caved in. Biden would come into office and only extend the COVID era.
|
|
|
|
But government was suppose to watch over it's citizens welfares and development, creates jobs opportunities, improves banking system, open sea ports and airports for importation of foreign goods, increase security strength, eliminates corruption. That's a change we desire.
My wish for politicians/government is to do the bare minimum. When you ask a politician to take over the pillars of government, even the most auspicious politicians fall victim to their own egos. Allow a free market to oversee economic issues, let the private sector operate their own banking systems and let the consumer choose which one is compatible for their needs. The private sector is what creates the jobs, not government. We really only need government around to maintain basic civil liberties, but those liberties exist innately. It's not government that provides them to us, they merely guarantee that even under their authority, those basic civil liberties will be maintained. |
|
|
|
|
AI bots have the power to change public perception on politically contentious issues because of herd mentality so you can begin to amplify certain viewpoints that initially begin as unpopular. The AI generated pictures are not concerning to me. Photoshop has existed for years and any amateur PS user could create realistic altered images. It's a bit surprising that this picture opened peoples eyes to the danger of AI, as if the threat was not glaring before.
Purging AI R&D isn't the answer. China won't stop their AI development program out of concern for ethics, so neither should any of the western nations. If China beats out everyone else in the AI race, rest assured they'll immediately weaponize it against the west. It won't be to their benefit.
|
|
|
|
imagine it
paying tax on ingame purchases.. turns Steam into tax reporting agents of its customers rather than games retailers
so soon you wont be able to play online games without KYC
I'd imagine they would want you to pay taxes if you bought an in-game item and then resold it for a profit regardless of any new NFT classifications. Under these guidelines though, the seller would be subject to nearly a 30% tax presumably. Wonder how many people will inadvertently have dodged taxes not realizing their in-game item sale would be subject to the same tax as any other digital asset? That's assuming they don't make in-game items classified as a collectible. NFT's aren't physical so the Biden administration are just making useless tax provisions because they're desperate for revenue. They need to pay their trillion dollar spending packages somehow. |
|
|
|
|
The irony here is that plenty of governments will provide loans out for educational endeavors without realizing the educational institutions will raise their prices knowing that they have a young population that can be locked into a life long loan commitment with unlimited funds from the government. Perhaps the bank is doing you a favor, in the U.K. and U.S., students will graduate with tens of thousands of dollars in debt. The modern education industrial complex is a profitable endeavor depending on which end you're on.
Banks aren't entitled to give you a loan without valid collateral. An educational certificate represents earning potential, it isn't a guarantee.
|
|
|
|
...
Twitter is on the decline and there's a reasonable probability it goes bankrupt. I'm not one to normally agree with Elon Musk. However, I don't disagree with this. Bots promoting scams have overtaken the Twitter algorithm and there isn't a feasible way for manned content moderation when the platform is so large. Twitter is still free to use and there isn't a fee for participation (tweeting, replying etc. all are still free). The "for you" tab was an open market place for manipulation. If the algorithm couldn't find a way to override it, then only allowing verified accounts to appear is probably the only thing that can save it. |
|
|
|
...
https://nypost.com/2023/03/27/resentment-may-have-driven-nashville-shooter-audrey-hale-cop/Mentally ill transgender "man" left a manifesto. Outright attack on Christians among the false allegations that transgenders are facing threats from hate groups. The story will disappear in a couple of days and the radical transgender crowd of childhood indoctrination will continue to pretend they face oppression. Over the last 10 years they've gotten more radical. |
|
|
|
As a bitcoin supporter, would you consider adding bitcoin to your retirement savings, or do you prefer the traditional 401(K) or IRA? If yes, to what degree? 100%, 75 %, 50%? Also, do you think that accepting bitcoin into your retirement savings account is a form of the DCA method?
Where most people make their mistake is they don't invest early enough. The key time to begin investing is in your 20's as those contributions have the capability to grew 10 fold over a period of 40-50 years depending on when you retire. Investment accounts should be treated independently from Bitcoin investments because you can almost guarantee certain types of investments will yield you a positive return over a period 40 years. Bitcoin would almost certainly grew by some degree over the same period but perhaps it's less predictable. That being said, Bitcoin is absolutely critical to a retirement portfolio. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, diversify. People can have varying opinions as to the percentage of your portfolio being Bitcoin, but having Bitcoin as a part shouldn't be a difficult decision to make. A lot of the traditional financial advisers I've seen recommend <5-10% which isn't enough IMO -- to each his own. |
|
|
|
BTC is unlikely to become legal tender around the world as governments in many developed countries are now creating their own CBDCs. They’ll promote their CBDCs and hold back mass adoption of BTC.
But that doesn’t mean that people and companies themselves won’t want to accept and pay for many goods and services with BTC. Only in most cases it’ll be done through conversion to fiat (or CBDC), as before.
I'm amazed how many people think "legal tender" status is supposed to be the barrier to entry for crypto when legal classification could not be any less relevant than it already is. Legal classification of "legal tender" is the government's endorsement of currency. It means nothing more. Should you incur debt by the government, you're due to pay them currency that's deemed legal tender. That does not stop P2P transactions. Most transactions are not done with the government anyways, so we don't necessarily need Bitcoin to hold legal tender status. It's not like the government would bother entertaining the idea to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
The UN is the most useless international organization there is. I would not look to them to garner any movement towards decentralized currency as they engage in international posturing without any direction. I'm not aware of what the IMF believes of Bitcoin but their recommendations won't be valuable because the government of each country decides what type of currency is circulated through their economy. Seems to me the IMF would support CBDC's more than they would Bitcoin.
These organizations thrive off centralization, it's why they exist in the first place. An inherently decentralized currency is antithetical to their agenda. More control's good for business, according to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
