|
Asia is not trapped in the downward spiral of the coming Economic Devastation.
Huge amount of capital of every form here (stored money, strong family values, obedient erudite youth, brand new infrastructure, abundant youth seeking opportunity, low wages, low government liabilities, small governments as a share of GDP, etc).
Asia will hiccup from 2016 to 2020, then booming again.
The West will fall into a spiraling morass because of all the dead weight that will hunt down the remaining capital that hasn't fled.
Anonymity is not as important as providing the opportunities in the new technology economy (for Asia).
I don't see Asians concerned with anonymity because tax rates are already very low, because government is a small % of GDP.
|
|
|
|
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/19/the-one-world-currency-cryptocurrencies/A one world currency seems to be the only POLITICAL solution. No single country’s currency can really be the reserve for what happens is clear right now...
...The entire problem with cryptocurrencies is the fact that government has always profited from creating money...
...I find it hard to believe that government will allow private currency in any fashion. They lose taxes and profit. Seigniorage has always been the privilege of the lord since 600BC. I remain skeptical about government accepting private currencies based solely upon history. Governments will turn against them most likely after 2015.75 when they become really desperate for cash. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/20/one-world-reserve-currency/An agreed upon one-world RESERVE currency would perhaps be a basket. I too am concerned who would be in control. I can say that the IMF is posturing already for that position. There will be the installation of corruption if the the IMF takes control. This is not my personal CHOICE. This is not about my OPINION, it is simply what is unfolding. I am certainly no fan of the IMF.
Nevertheless, the Free Markets would still prevail for each country’s currency would then float against the reserve. This would be the political solution for the major countries could then agree. The problem when one nation’s currency becomes the default world reserve currency (Babylon, Athens, Rome, Britain, Spain, France, USA, etc..), their domestic policy objectives become forced upon the world. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/20/coins-v-bullion/The nasty insane laws passed in Minnesota that anything containing 1% of precious metals must be tracked for the state is not looking very good for any exception. The more states that follow this lead warns more of a deep underground economy in the future. There would be nothing left standing when politicians strip the meat from every dead carcass. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/20/the-fair-tax-bill-is-introduced-into-congress/Back in the 90s, I donated my time to try to help the country avoid what our computer was warning we are moving into right now. I testified before Congress on Tax Reform. I even debated between Steve Forbes and the Flat Tax and the Democrats tax’em till the die policy and then grab what’s left. I tried to save Social Security transforming it into a wealth fund that would actually invest in equities when the Dow was 3500. I could not defeat my own forecasts. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/20/all-empires-die-by-deflation-not-inflation/ | This is how empires die. Taxes in Rome kept rising. Its population peaked about 180AD and as corruption began to rise, people began to leave. The higher the taxes, the more people left town. Eventually, people could not afford the taxes and were forced to just abandon their homes. This is the death-spiral of empires. They consume all wealth until none is left. |
... I warned everyone in 2010: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20327.html End Game, Gold Investors Will be Destroyed
2010 Jun 15, 2010 - 02:33 PM GMT
By: Shelby_H_Moore
Trail of tears and broken dreams (delusions) lies ahead...
Gold will go very high in fiat value, that is not the problem.
Gold investors (myself included) are trapped at the end game, and they do not even realize it yet. No physical confiscation is needed to wipeout the gold hoarders. It is much simpler than that. At the end game, the gold investors will throw their gold into the streets willingly (or bury in ground forever). The physical gold will be useless. You don't think so? I will prove it.
The blackmarket (barter) market will die in the end game. I will prove it. And gold sales are and will be increasingly taxed.
|
|
|
|
What is love?http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6627&cpage=1#comment-1402150As esr has explained in past blogs, love is obviously a bit more complex. Both sexes are optimizing their genetic mix. Men want to distribute their seed, as well select for the strongest intellectual and physical attributes for child rearing such as wide hips, larger breasts, and rarer beauty that will perpetuate the upward climb of the offspring. The woman's reproductive seed can't be distributed and she is dependent on the man and tribe for assistance in child rearing, thus her optimal strategy is social at the expense of analytical, to satiate a beta-male for support, and accepting seed from the alpha-males.
Feminism and the $157+ trillion debt bubble of the current round of collectivism has skewed the female strategy and radically lowered the fertility of western civilization. The global sovereign debt collapse correction will begin in earnest in 2016. The collapsing velocity-of-money, oil, copper, and Euro is the signal of collapsing global demand. The marginal-utility-of-debt is now likely negative; meaning saturation of ghost cities, bridges to no where, and duplicitous gas stations/strip malls every 500 meters.
An alpha-male possess[es] superior analytical powers that foster the strategies which create the status. A beta-male settles for lack of fearlessness, determination, genetics (e.g. strong immune system, etc), creativity, and analytical powers.
Competition is the generative essence of love. Perhaps beta-males (and females) wish for it to be easier, and vote for statism and other shortcut "insurances" that cement a collective lower status. Michael Jordan said in his famous Nike commercial, "...or maybe you are just making excuses".
In the fledgling Knowledge Age, are we in the process of transcending genetics where distributing our knowledge is a more robust evolutionary strategy? Why men protect womenhttp://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6617&cpage=1#comment-1402088> men are outer guard and women are inner guard – female reproductive
> capacity is scarcer so women are not to be risked except in the utmost
> extreme First time I read that, I thought you were implying the duration of each women’s reproductive period is shorter than a man’s. I came back to post the thought that one man could impregnate an entire tribe of women but not vice versa, which I realize on second reading could be your implied meaning.
|
|
|
|
Everything is declining or even collapsing, except the dollar. Include the Euro, copper, oil, emerging markets.  |
|
|
|
But I would argue they've always been manipulated. I think the free market finds its way around such Coasian barriers, but many dumb people have to be destroyed in the process on the long-tail distribution adjustments. Smart people follow something like Armstrong's computer model which can correlate 32,000 variables and make sense of the nonsense. This is why I say never even imagine that we will have one perfect asset class. We have a massive system of relativity. That is reality. http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/12/global-view-of-silver/ |
|
|
|
|
What he meant is that when needed production is insufficient to meet demand, thus prices rising due to scarcity of production, then investment will increase. That is in a non-manipulated free market.
When prices are rising because a central bank is trying to prevent free market adjustments, then you have false demand created by overissuance of debt. In that case, everyone is batshit insane because there is no free market.
The point is that when the supply of money can't be manipulated by those who want to prevent a free market, then the free market will optimize the outcome.
|
|
|
|
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2015/01/11/minnesota-hunting-bullion-government-is-raging-against-the-dying-of-the-light/ | Minnesota Hunting Bullion – Government is Raging Against the Dying of the Light
Minnesota passed a law that is totally insane. They require anyone buying or selling bullion to register, keep records, and pay taxes besides handing over info.
Normal antique coins, even Roman, can no longer be shipped to Minnesota. Dealers will not ship any coins, even collector coins, to Minnesota. Why? Because the politicians have defined “bullion” as ANY COIN containing more than just 1% of gold, silver, or platinum. Bullion is defined in Minnesota Statutes §80G.01, subd. 2 and means any coin containing more than one percent by weight of silver, gold platinum, or other.precious metal.
We face SERIOUS DEFLATION which is the kind that destroys society. They will not go quietly or gentle into the dying light printing money in a happy-go-lucky manner. Government will rage against the dying of the light and destroy civilization if we do not wake the hell up. Instead of telling people not to read me because you are trying to influence them to make your gold rise, you better start grasping what is really going on here before there is nothing left to fight for. |
I warned everyone in 2010: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20327.html End Game, Gold Investors Will be Destroyed
2010 Jun 15, 2010 - 02:33 PM GMT
By: Shelby_H_Moore
Trail of tears and broken dreams (delusions) lies ahead...
Gold will go very high in fiat value, that is not the problem.
Gold investors (myself included) are trapped at the end game, and they do not even realize it yet. No physical confiscation is needed to wipeout the gold hoarders. It is much simpler than that. At the end game, the gold investors will throw their gold into the streets willingly (or bury in ground forever). The physical gold will be useless. You don't think so? I will prove it.
The blackmarket (barter) market will die in the end game. I will prove it. And gold sales are and will be increasingly taxed.
|
|
|
|
|
Comparing those who earn 10% ROI to those who earn 5% ROI, then regardless of the growth rate of the economy, in 0%, 5%, and 10% debasement scenarios, the former earns 5% more purchasing power than the later.
Thus the economic growth rate is an independent variable, and thus your claim is vacuous.
Your mathematical error is given any level of production of the economy, the relative shares of the pie remain the same regardless what the debasement rate it.
Rather it is second-order effects that cause redistribution, i.e. the Iron Law of Political Economics and the economics of usury, which I claim are enabled by centralized capture of the debasement.
Also you did even address the fact that there isn't one debasement rate in the economy, because there isn't just one asset class.
The debate is going no where. We are losing valuable time.
|
|
|
|
You are not addressing my fundamental argument.
Yes I am. ... Furthermore, there is no single frictional cost of time. It is a multiplicitous vector. Our differences appear to boil down to two issues: 1) You do not feel the frictional cost of time calculable and I believe it can be estimated and is equal to aggregate economic growth. 2) You do not feel that debasement above the frictional cost of time is a theft paradigm and I do. I do not have further arguments to add to the ones above so I will leave you with the last word. How can I respond when you've made no argument? 1. It is exceedingly obvious that different people have different opportunity cost matrix. 2. How can reducing the productivity of society by directing more stagnant claims on capital to the less productive not be a theft paradigm? More saliently, why are we even arguing something that doesn't exist? There is never only one asset for people to store their wealth. They can choose the asset with the debasement rate they prefer. So how can I steal from the less productive who decide to hold gold or Bitcoin instead of an altcoin with a 5% debasement rate? Maybe you are thinking of reserve currency status (e.g. the dollar) and the effects it has. But that is precisely what we are trying upend with decentralized crypto-currency. What you are really trying to say is that any collective without choice (e.g. one currency and one asset that everyone is forced to use with no alternatives) is a theft paradigm.In others words, lack of choice, i.e. lack of free market, is the theft paradigm. The fact that we can't model the complexity of the free market in action, is precisely Adam Smith's Invisible Hand. Reality check. The market will chose what it prefers, regardless of your pronouncements. I really don't understand why you are making a such a big deal out of something that doesn't exist. I really think you should take the last word. You always give it to me. But please make an argument, else admit you don't have one. |
|
|
|
You are not addressing my fundamental argument.
Yes I am. There is a frictional cost of time and if you set debasement above this frictional cost you simply create a new theft paradigm. The elite knowledge workers would take the banksters place as undeserved recipients of the wealth of society. Furthermore a debasement rate below the frictional cost of time is also a theft paradigm as you demonstrated upthread.
The power-law distribution of effort, knowledge, sacrifice, and wealth will always exist. If you are jealous of that, go join with Karl Marx. That is not theft. It brings greater prosperity to all, by expanding productivity at the highest rate. You are trying to equate a lower-productive mode (low debasement) to a highly productive mode (higher debasement). If you slow down incentives for production in order to supposedly protect the stored wealth of the less productive, you actually destroy the less productive because they lose the higher productivity gains that were destroyed. Competition is what makes the free market efficient. Furthermore and most saliently, there is no single frictional cost of time. It is a multiplicitous vector. Furthermore there isn't just one asset to store wealth in. There are a smorgasbord of choices of debasement levels to choose from. Sorry socialists always want to top-down plan things which are not even top-down definable. They grant themselves non-existent, omniscience by decree (i.e. fiat). fi·at ˈfēət,ˈfēˌät/ noun noun: fiat; plural noun: fiats a formal authorization or proposition; a decree.
Let's analyze why power-law distribution exists. How many Michael Jordan's exist? Subject: Pride in ourself Please watch this VERY SHORT (60 seconds) video from Michael Jordan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH8nTfxwByYListen carefully to every word of that video. Everything that needs to be said is entirely contained in that video. If one listens carefully to that video, they can't possibly see their teenage peers as anything but stoopid! I am the coach, and I want to inspire you to greatness. In my life, I have been down at times, and I have been great at times. Greatness is the best by far, there is no comparison. How can I convey from far away the tiger feeling, the grit of my teeth, and the determination to win and seek greatness! I want you to watch the video of Jordan playing 1 against 5! That is superman. How did he do it? It was his desire. He worked out every day, worked out longer and harder than anyone else. Watch this please, it is amazing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvAOYwuwcBchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LOVTGjXahwMichael Jordan understood that these mental character traits are what made him so much better than all the other players who were also physically talented. Jordan had the mental desire to kill himself to be great. I feel that coming back to me. I was 3 days in the gym, pushing my sore muscles. And I feel that tiger feeling come back to me - Thank GOD! I want you to watch Jordan play a championship game with an amoeba stomach virus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxXoHRwhD24That is way I feel sometimes when I workout because of my illness. I look exhausted and can't even smile, but I still try to push through it. I am coming 50 years old this June 28. Yet if the other guys my age ask me to play a pickup game, I laugh inside, because I want to play against the 20 year olds (and do!). Excuses are for losers. We want to aspire to greatness. Learn to love the struggle. It is in fact from the pain of struggle, that we feel greatness. It is not actually the greatness that feels great, but it is knowing that we fought hard and conquered our demons, that is what makes a person feel greatness. Then you can smile, and know you are great. Greatness comes from within your own fire and desire to prove to yourself you are great. Just say NO to drugs. Zero tolerance policy for yourself. Learn to be great. Learn to struggle and fight for it! It is the best way of life. Let's stop wallowing in the mud. Hold you head up high and prove to yourself how great you can be. Subject: Today start a new life Get in the car, grab the rear view mirror, tear it off and toss it out the window! Don't look back. Today begin a new life with all the determination of fierce bull with a gentle heart. This is my motto. Struggle for it. Taste it every minute because you want it so much. I want my athletics back! Normal people in my condition go down and end up crippled. But I want it so much to be able to do the moves and things I used to be able to do. I want my greatness back. The past is gone. The mirror is thrown out. |
|
|
|
Exactly. By targeting low ROI, you actually defeat yourself, because nature has dictated that low ROI is the antithesis of investment. The Bible explains this in the Parable of the Talents. Matthew 25:14-30
The Parable of the Talents
14 “Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15 To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag,[a] each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17 So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18 But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19 “After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’
21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22 “The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
23 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
24 “Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26 “His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28 “‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ |
|
|
|
You entirely missed my point. When an investor makes a decision whether to invest now or delay, he is not entertaining any investments with a projected 1% ROI, because that low ROI would not even counteract the risk of variance nor risk of failure for an investment, the latter of which is typically at least 33%. It has nothing to do with the Knowledge Age. This is just the reality of investment.
Sorry you really need to think more holistically on the game theory.
Ok let’s say for the moment that you are correct and that there are no low risk/low reward investment opportunities in a future knowledge age. To the degree that this is true it only strengthens my overall argument that a debasement rate greater than the rate of aggregate economic growth is detrimental. In a world without low risk investment options both low productivity individuals and the elderly are excluded from the investment market. Add in a large debasement and these individuals lose the realistic option to ever defer an immediate claim on real capital. Excess consumption results. We entirely and emphatically disagree. We are not even close to agreeing. First of all, there are no low ROI investments now, never mind the changes the Knowledge Age will introduce. You persist in repeating this same error. The only "investments" which return a low ROI (and they must be guaranteed by FDIC insurance and/or the full faith of the US government with Treasury bonds) are not investments! They are theft programs which have bankrupted Western society and will end up confiscating all the retirements of all those indigents you are concerned about. As person with socialist tendencies, I am not surprised that you don't intuitively understand that the government can't guarantee something which nature has said is failure. Simply put, low ROI doesn't exist. It is a figment of the socialist's imagination, which is megadeath and failure. Yet it is also not surprising that socialists never admit that they destroy the indigents they claim to be protecting. I hope this slamdunk is enough to convince you, because I view you as a rational person. Surely I will agree with you when you write rational logic. A debasement rate that matches the overall aggregate economic growth is the maximum debasement rate at which purchasing power is maintained relative to the time it was earned.
That is delusion and fantasy. People have to produce at high ROI in order to maintain wealth against the friction of time. That is a fact of nature. They can either accumulate enough excess wealth to outlast the friction or they can plant some children who will be productive and take care of them in their elderly non-productive years. It is not me who is not being compassionate, but rather you who wants to sentence society to megadeath failure which is the antithesis of compassion. You know I like you, so please don't take this the wrong way. I am simply trying to wake you up from a stupor. I am probably not against some minimum level of welfare, but I want it administered at the local government (or church) level, so that the problems of political capture and lack of ability to vote with one's feet are avoided. See the bolded and underlined quote. I did not declare anything as optimum.
Ok in my zeal to copy your prior logic word for word I inadvertently strengthened your statement. You stated that 5%+ debasement was probably correct and admitted uncertainty. Nevertheless you have presented no logic to support that number that you believe to be probably correct. Whereas, I am presenting logic for why a debasement rate greater then the aggregate economic growth is not optimum. My logic is that 5% has been the historical average for the USA since the 1800s when we had a free market of private banking (AnonyMint presented the data in the Peter Schiff thread in 2013). Other than that, I have stated that I think the discussion is noise, because I don't see any way someone can know the ideal rate. I don't even know if an ideal rate exists. Besides Gresham's Law says bad money drives good money out-of-circulation, thus any person is free to hold gold or Bitcoin if they don't like high debasement. Nobody is pointing a gun at your head telling you which altcoin to hold your savings in. So let the free market decide. P.S. There is a very important point for designing an altcoin. Try to never hardcode an arbitrary constant. Try to structure the design so that the market sets all the parameters. I am not sure if that is possible with the debasement rate. I did suggest upthread modulating the debasement rate by the rate of transactions squared divided by the market cap (to obey the Metcalf's Law relationship Peter R charted). |
|
|
|
Why would the government do this other than to mess with him? Is it because of his connection to Bitcoin or because he renounced his citizenship? If you renounce your citizenship you can't go to the U.S. anymore?
It's because he clearly and admittedly renounced his citizenship for the purpose of not paying U.S. taxes. That bolded part is important. We don't need any conspiracy theories here, it's been U.S. policy for many years that if you renounce your citizenship for the purpose of not paying U.S. taxes you are not to be admitted back into the country. Eduardo Saverin (co-founder of Facebook) is likely in the same boat, since he also clearly renounced his citizenship to avoid taxes. Of course, it could also have something to do with the fact that Ver was convicted of selling explosives on eBay, that's something I'd think most governments (not just the U.S.) wouldn't take too lightly.. but no, let's forget about any plausible explanations based on long-standing U.S. laws and policies and just assume it's a conspiracy against Bitcoin. Correct. The expert says: http://www.nestmann.com/the-real-reasons-americans-give-up-their-us-citizenshipIn 2012, and again in 2013, Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced legislation that would retroactively punish wealthy expatriates like Saverin. Under their most recent proposal, expatriates with a net worth exceeding $2 million, or with an average income tax liability exceeding $155,000 for the five years preceding expatriation, would be presumed to have given up US citizenship for tax avoidance purposes. If they couldn't prove otherwise to the IRS, they would be permanently barred from ever coming back to the US – even as visitors.
Such “covered” expatriates would also face a 30% percent tax on future gains from US investments, no matter where they live. In contrast, all other non-US citizens who invest in the US enjoy substantial tax advantages.
And get this… both the tax and re-entry provisions are retroactive for anyone who expatriated during the 10-year period prior to the time the law comes into effect.
I’m not aware of any effort by Schumer or Casey to introduce similar legislation in 2014. But, of course, we still have nine months to go. http://www.nestmann.com/getting-out-is-hard-getting-back-in-is-harderIf you enter the USA with a foreign passport that shows that you were born in the USA, you’ll receive even greater scrutiny. My friend and colleague P.T. Freeman, who gave up his US citizenship more than a decade ago, was intensively questioned on his most recent entry into the USA. The first official he spoke to noticed that his foreign passport showed US heritage. The official—whom he actually knew from previous visits— informed P.T. that he needed to use his US passport to enter the USA. P.T. told the official that he had given up his US citizenship, along with the right to use a US passport, many years ago. The official informed him that a directive sent out to border officials last month set out a new policy for anyone entering the USA with a passport showing a US birthplace. That policy requires that anyone entering the USA with this status automatically be diverted to secondary inspection. As I’ve written previously, it’s becoming much more difficult for everyone—especially former US citizens—to obtain a visitor’s visa to the USA. Non-resident aliens (NRAs) with previous U.S. nationality or permanent residence once were treated virtually the same as other NRAs for purposes of entry or re-entry to the United States.
This status began to change in 1996, when Congress enacted the Reed Amendment to the Immigration & Nationality Act. The amendment gives the U.S. Attorney General the discretion to deny re-entry into the United States to a former U.S. citizen who renounced U.S. citizenship in order to avoid U.S. taxation. Exclusion is limited to former U.S. citizens and doesn't include former Green Card holders. (The Attorney General’s authority transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security under the Homeland Security Act of 2002.)
While the authority of the Reed Amendment has never officially been issued, some U.S. consular officials have denied visa applications from former U.S. citizens, apparently using the Reed amendment as an excuse. This is despite the fact that according to the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual,
"The Department of Homeland Security has not published implementing regulations on INA 212(a)(10)(E) (8 U.S.C. 1182), so no procedures implementing this law are currently in effect."
Then, only a few weeks ago, Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) introduced legislation (The "Ex-PATRIOT Act") that would permanently bar "covered expatriates" from ever returning to the United States. What's more, the law would be retroactive to anyone expatriating up to ten years prior to its enactment. However, in common with the Reed Amendment, it would apply only to former U.S. citizens—not to former green card holders.
Fortunately, the Ex-PATRIOT Act hasn't been enacted. But even without it, I've recently learned of a few examples where former U.S. citizens have been denied a re-entry visa to the United States. Visa denial hasn't been based on the Reed Amendment or any other tax or wealth-related justification. Instead, it's been based on section 214(b) of the Immigration & Nationality Act. In visa denials under this provision, the applicant:
"…did not overcome the presumption of immigrant intent, required by law, by sufficiently demonstrating that you have strong ties to your home country that will compel you to leave the United States at the end of your temporary stay."
In one case, the applicant had very strong ties to his adopted country, and could prove it. However, he didn't bring sufficient evidence of these ties to his visa interview, and thus was denied re-entry. Returning a few days later with a residence permit, driver's license, employment contract, rental contract, etc., he succeeded in obtaining a visitor's visa.
Therefore, if you expatriate and want to return to the United States to visit, bring as much evidence as possible to prove you're completely bound to your new country of residence. Increasingly, other countries—especially in the European Union—are demanding similar proof of permanent ties to another country before granting visitor's visas.
Perhaps you dream of "living nowhere" as a "perpetual traveler" with no ties to any country. That strategy won't work if you need to apply for visitor's visas from most countries. It can work, at least to some extent, if you have a passport that provides visa-free entry to the countries to which you wish to travel. That way, you avoid needing to apply for a visitor's visa. For instance, if you want to travel visa-free to the United States, then you should get a passport from one of the countries on this list. Unfortunately, none of these passports are easy to acquire.
The bottom line is that if you expatriate from the United States, be mentally prepared never to return. Current policy merely makes it difficult to qualify for a visitor's visa, but legislation now before Congress may place you in permanent exile. http://www.nestmann.com/why-uncle-sam-wants-these-citizenship-programs-shut-downIn November 2014, Canada imposed visa requirements on citizens of St. Kitts & Nevis. It cited “identity management practices within its Citizenship by Investment program” as the reason for ending visa-free travel to Canada by St. Kitts & Nevis passport holders.
The announcement didn’t describe the “identity management practices” with which it was concerned, but it seems safe to assume that one practice that Canada deemed objectionable was that, since 2012, St. Kitts & Nevis has issued passports that don’t display the passport-holder’s place of birth. Nor do the passports show any legal name changes.
That seems a safe assumption, because only days after Canada imposed visa restrictions, the St. Kitts & Nevis government recalled all passports issued between January 2012 and July 2014. The passports will be reissued to add the place of birth of the passport holder and to list any name changes on the observation page. After January 31, 2015, the old passports will be invalid. http://www.nestmann.com/heres-one-fight-uncle-sam-cant-winOn May 20, FinCEN issued an “Advisory” that warned banks worldwide to apply special scrutiny to individuals identifying themselves as citizens of St. Kitts & Nevis.
Apparently, FinCEN doesn’t believe that St. Kitts & Nevis is trying hard enough to exclude Iranians from its economic citizenship program. And there’s more than just a hint of hypocrisy in that position. At least one other entrant in the economic citizenship market – Antigua – has no outright prohibition against Iranian applicants. http://www.nestmann.com/second-passports-does-uncle-sam-need-to-knowHaving a second passport and citizenship is not a reason to panic when it comes time to renew your US passport. Nothing changes, really, except for the fact that you need to include the sworn affidavit with your US passport renewal application. You do not even need to come face to face with a State Department official unless you do not qualify to renew by mail. |
|
|
|
Also: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/lg/bitcoinIn that video, I suggest paying most attention to the astute comments from Alex Daley and also at the end of the video from John Mauldin. They are correct that there is incredible potential but Bitcoin as it stands today can't be widely adopted. Yet it could surely enter another speculative frenzy bubble 2016 - 2017 with more people able to purchase Bitcoin via Paypal, etc.. But as a currency, it is still more costly (after exchanging to/from fiat) and more cumbersome tsuris than fiat world options. Edit: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.msg10058463#msg10058463 |
|
|
|
http://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/a-scary-story-for-emerging-marketsAs Raoul Pal points out in his latest issue of The Global Macro Investor, “The [US] dollar has now broken out of the massive inverse head-and-shoulders low created over the last ten years, and is about to test the trendline of the world’s biggest wedge pattern.” One “Flight to Safety” Away from an Earth-Shaking Rally? (US Dollar Index, 1967 – 2014)  Emerging-Market Financial Assets Have Nearly DOUBLED Since 2008 (Composition of financial assets, emerging markets, US$ billion)  
|
|
|
|
Nobody earns 1% on an investment that isn't usury. Investments have a high fail risk, thus no one attempts an investment with such low potential ROI, because the ROI has to compensate for the failure risk.
Weak argument I see no reason why a knowledge age would lack low risk low reward activities. The only requirement of a knowledge age is that such low ROI activities not be guaranteed or collectivized. Even if that were true (doubtful) you will still have a subgroup of bad investors (individuals who would like higher returns but on average achieve 1% returns over time). The game theory involves what investors think is important. I assure you there are no investors (except bond and savings deposits) who are targeting 1% ROI. That doesn't even cover the variance in the business. No investor would target an ROI with that low of a margin for error. Note that the lack of guarantee on the ROI (unlike bonds and savings deposits), means that the margin of error needs to be much higher. This is yet another mathematical reason that usury (banks and bankster) guaranteed ROI crap is guaranteed failure. You entirely missed my point. When an investor makes a decision whether to invest now or delay, he is not entertaining any investments with a projected 1% ROI, because that low ROI would not even counteract the risk of variance nor risk of failure for an investment, the latter of which is typically at least 33%. It has nothing to do with the Knowledge Age. This is just the reality of investment. Sorry you really need to think more holistically on the game theory. I don't know what is the correct level of debasement. But I doubt it is 2 - 3%. It is probably 5+%, which btw is the historical level of debasement of the dollar. That will provide much funding for mining security. Also you assume the GDP growth rate drives the optimum rate, but it may be synergistic where the rate of debasement drives the GDP growth rate.
Here you fall prey to your own logic upthread. You arbitrarily pick 5+% debasement out if a hat and declare it optimum, but you have presented no logic to support that arbitrary selection... See the bolded and underlined quote. I did not declare anything as optimum. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
