When we think of inflation we usually think of how much food, electricity or gasoline costs.

But there is another aspect as well: how much it costs us to buy financial assets.

The above chart at first glance may appear to be due to the strong performance of the 500 largest U.S. companies. But this is misleading: I believe it reflects more the effects of massive printing and inflation than how companies are doing.

The charts for the stock markets of countries with high inflation are similar: the more currency printing and inflation, the more the stock market rises.

That the S&P, which has an average return of about 10% on average has risen 30% in the last year is sobering. Let's think that in November 2020 we were already out of the stock market slump that was the COVID.

At the end of the day, anyone like me who has money invested in the S&P 500 can't be too happy about the 30% return because if we discount inflation it comes to almost nothing.

I agree with the others. No. Correlation does not imply causation, and it is one thing that is clearly seen in this case. It is very typical to link China with FUD but this correlation is very poor. Also, I would not call the state we are in a market decline. Rather we are in a kind of sideways.

I completely agree with this.

I don't even know how Hydrogen came up with that idea. Bartering is typical of primitive societies and is impossible to practice on a large scale in modern societies.

You can exchange with another person one thing for another, but on a large scale, let's see how you exchange a piano for apples. Or for a mixture of apples, shoes and adhesive tape. You probably need those three things and someone else needs a piano, but the three things you need are not in the same person's possession, unless they barter beforehand to get what you want to give them the piano.

In short, no.

In this we can see that in the forum it happens as outside it: at the minimum that there is a news of this style the masses only get the big picture without paying attention to the detail.


I agree. Although I suppose freelancers will still be able to collect and pay in bitcoin as long as they use it from a hardware or paper wallet, rather than custodial wallets.

My nice merit record:

Well, what you say is more incorrect today than ever in history. On the one hand you are right that most players are losers. They lose money in poker in the long run just like those who lose money in casino games. They don't bother to study and improve or they do very little.

However, about a decade ago, with the proliferation of online poker schools and all the material that can be found on the net, the percentage of players who study and improve has gone up a lot, and that has led to a tightening of the levels.

You are also right that most of those players can be found in online tournaments, because the luck factor is more important than, say, at 9 cash limit tables.

Several of those threads have already been merited so they are not what this thread is about (Report unmerited...). The others don't seem to me as clearly worth of merit but maybe some merit source will merit them.

I have caught plagiarism a few times, and at first I used google but at some point I started using free versions of plagarism checker that you can find on the web. I don't know if there is much of a difference.

How lucky you are, as the several of us who commented in that thread don't seem to have it so clear as you do.


I don't know why you make it so complicated. On a personal level, I don't care if the OP deletes the thread or doesn't delete it. Thinking that his story might be true, if he doesn't delete it he has a chance.

Since I am not as clear about rule number 7 as you are, I think that maybe a moderator will come and tell him that he can. I think that according to that rule the most likely scenario is that he would be told no, especially because he is a newbie, he has no reputation here, but as it is an unofficial rule and it seems that it is not applied 100% of the time, he has a small chance that would be ruined if he deletes the thread.

Have a look at this thread and tell me if you still think the same:

No begging - did I catch on rule #7


Do as you please but you can leave it just in case someone comes along who is willing to help you.

Or if it is clear that you can ask for donations, which I don't think you can, but maybe a moderator will come and clarify it for us.

I don't know about the psychology, but as I said before, diversifying is about reducing risk, but reducing the potential return as well.

In classical investment theory, one must diversify to avoid losing everything. If you put your money in shares of a single company, there is a very high risk that you will lose it all, even if the company is a good one. However, if you divide your investments among several stocks, properties, commodities, etc. you reduce the risk a lot.

In the crypto world this seems silly to me, as all alts have been proven time and time again to lose against Bitcoin in the long run. The only more or less solid contender is shitEthereum. There are many fancy alts that promise they are going to be the next Bitcoin but just as quickly go up as they go down.

I would recommend you diversify but into other assets. If buying crypto buy Bitcoin, and if anything a bit of Eth or some other you trust (lol) and if you want to diversify more, buy stocks, mutual funds, RE or commodities.

If this turns out to be true, I don't understand why they do it. A casino with an influx of customers earns enough to get into these messes that can end up destroying its reputation. I can believe it from casinos that have low traffic, their numbers are not doing well, and therefore they need to get money from wherever they can.

Let's wait for a stake.com representative to come here and see what he has to say.

We also hear:

“Diversification is protection against ignorance,”

or:

Diversification is selling the winners to buy the losers.



Buying only Bitcoin or at least 90% Bitcoin.


That is why it is better to invest than to play roulette (a.k.a. trading).

Exactly. It seems to me that the OP has a roulette-playing mentality. He wants to guess what the market will do and buy or sell accordingly. Since it seems to him that we are in a correction phase, he hesitates whether to buy.

From an investor's point of view, it is always a good time to buy Bitcoin, not only because of its intrinsic properties that make it appreciate in value over the long term, but because holding your wealth in fiat has the sure risk of losing purchasing power by leaps and bounds due to high inflation.

I take it "zero marging" means "zero House Edge". I guess they will do it for a season to attract customers and then they will put the HE, otherwise they will go bankrupt.


Yes, what I don't like about the news is that the result is that they are going to impoverish the people of Africa even more.

If you're talking about uploading documents to prove your story is true and asking for money, I wouldn't do it. You risk getting your account banned.

Remember the rule I mentioned earlier:



I doubt very much what you say. In general the rule is no begging but in some cases it has been allowed on the forum because the people who had created the thread had a great reputation.

I don't remember a single case of a newbie on the forum who had a begging thread left undeleted.

Same old story. Regarding Bitcoin we have two types of countries: those that turn their back on it, such as India and China, and those that embrace it, such as El Salvador.


So they are going to allow the crap cryptocurrencies they can control and they are going to ban Bitcoin and some others. I think in a few years they will realize their mistake and they will be in a hurry to buy Bitcoin.

Lol! That's wrong as well. As I said before, I ranked up to Hero last week, not in August, and I posted on this thread:


I guess the tracking is not automated, and it is easy to make mistakes. Thanks for the work anyway.

That's from when I ranked up to Full Member. I have ranked up twice since then. The last one a week ago to Hero Member and I don't see it anywhere.

Or I don't know if I don't understand you correctly.

Inflation is fine with me, but wealth inequality...I am against wealth equality.

If we are talking about very disparate societies where a few at the top have everything and the majority have nothing, as in the Middle Ages, I am against it. But in modern societies open to the market economy, being richer or poorer depends to a large extent on oneself.

Wealth equality started to be talked about with the fall of communism. Once it became clear that it was a failed system and that instead the market economy was what reduced hunger in the world in a drastic way, the former communism changed its discourse and started talking about wealth inequality, among other things.

Let us turn to the case of Bitcoin. Suppose there are a million Bitcoin that belong to Satoshi (I am not saying that this is so, some people doubt it). Now suppose Satoshi shows up and starts spending Bitcoin.

What would we have? Wealth inequality, because he would have the most Bitcoin in the world. But... does he deserve it? YES.

The problem with this discourse is that it always ends up with the solution to the problem of inequality wealth being a socialist politician imposing/raising taxes, or confiscating and redistributing as he pleases.