I don't think anyone is waiting around.  From that article: "As a whole, the U.S. installed 4.3GW of PV solar arrays this year, a 27% increase over 2012."  A 27% increase is a lot.  It takes time to ramp up manufacturing.  You can't just increase solar cell production by 100x in a year.  Besides, there's only so much demand.  It's not cost-effective (yet?) to replace existing power plants that work with solar plants, so demand is mostly going to come from the need for more electricity and from the need to replace old power plants that have reached the end of their useful life.  It also takes a lot of land area and of course the right climate to build a solar plant, so you can't just do it anywhere.

Oh, man, how can you bash Minnesota like that!  I love the north woods!   But I don't live there, so it's a treat to go for me.

Anyway, there are a lot of places, of course, where solar is not as cost-effective.  You really need dry, desert areas.  The southwest part of the US would likely be the best place in the country.

Well, it's your call, of course, but as with any risky investment, make sure you don't invest more than you can lose.  Markets are forward-looking, so if it were a guarantee that the price of bitcoin were going to be thousands of dollars or more, it would already be there.  And also consider how you would feel if the price starts dropping significantly.  Make sure you have the stomach to handle it if you have all of your wealth invested and the price drops $200.  And be sure you don't fall into the trap of thinking that you'll just sell if it drops $100.  Emotions start to kick in and you start to hope it will recover instead of being willing to admit that you were wrong and take a loss.

The stats in this article only go through 2013, but I think this is the kind of thing you're looking for:

http://www.coindesk.com/mit-report-bitcoin-more-likely-spent-hoarded/

In 2013, the vast majority of bitcoins were spent within 24 hours of being bought.  If the pattern in that article has held, then there isn't much hoarding of purchased bitcoins going on.  Of course there are also mined coins...

That's a sad outlook on life.  I would have more money if I didn't have a family, but there's no way I'd make that trade.  What's the point in having a lot of money if you don't have someone to share it with?

That's possible, but you don't know that for sure.  I doubt that merchants would dump a bunch of coins all at the same time.  I would think that they'd convert them as soon as they get them to avoid potential loss.  It's also possible that a whale just decided to dump a bunch of BTC, whether to cash some in or push the market down or whatever.

I, too, am hoping that the price continues upward.  But you can't completely discount the possibility that we're headed to 0 (or at least close to it).  Purely from a trading perspective, we're not.  But there's always the possibility of unexpected bad events that could lead to things like the banning of bitcoin worldwide.

Oh, be careful what you wish for.  You just might get it.

If we can't hold the $600 level, it will likely get quite exciting.

Hopefully the stability and adoption will provide a platform for future increases, even if they're smaller.  Stability leads to trust, and bitcoin needs more trust....or an ETF.

The best way to win at day trading is to be the whale that moves the market.  That way you take out the guesswork.  The one danger, of course, is if there's an even bigger whale out there that gobbles you up.

I hate to agree, but this is probably correct.  There's an awful lot of selling pressure above, and the price seems kind of fragile right now, especially with a couple shorter term technical supports being breached.

Edit: if it can't hold on to $600, then $550 is the next major support, so it would probably end up there pretty quickly.

Will we have more recessions, financial crises, and market crashes?  Of course.  That happens every several years.  Will we have one that's as severe or worse than 2008?  Almost certainly.  Will the next one be that bad?  I really don't know, but I think it's possible.  Reserve banks are still overextended, interest rates are still ridiculously low in some countries, and some economies still aren't doing all that well.  During the next crisis, governments and reserve banks may not have the wiggle room they did in 2008.

That could be, but I can't imagine that making a bot to do those jigsaw puzzle confirmations would be easy.

Having more money to spend on cars and groceries doesn't necessarily mean prices will go up over the longer term (although they may in the short term).  Yes, one way for a market to balance when demand increases is for prices to increase (short-term effect).  But the other way for it to balance is to increase supply (long-term effect).  If demand steadily increases, that drives industry expansion and increased production, which creates more jobs and economic growth.

So you're right that real estate may not be the best example because supply will eventually respond to demand.  However, such rebalancing happens much slower in real estate that most other industries.


I agree that investment increases production, but over the long term, increased production means nothing without increased consumption.

I think we're basically getting into the classical debate here between supply-side and demand-side economics.  First, let me say that I think the ideal situation is when the two are balanced.  If demand greatly outweighs supply or vice-versa, you have all kinds of problems.  I think it's best if production proactively keeps up with anticipated future demand so that you get efficient markets with few price fluctuations.

That said, I prefer demand-side to supply-side because, IMO, focusing on increasing demand before supply leads to a more guaranteed and predictable rate of growth.  The drawback is that it can lead to higher prices.

My basic argument here is that you can increase production all you want, but if typical consumers don't have money to buy your products because it was taken away by taxes, then it makes no difference.  I understand that the idea behind what you're saying is that investing money in, say, factories will create more jobs, thus putting more money in the hands of consumers, which will drive demand.  In theory, that sounds good.  But who, other than venture capitalists, invests in more factories when the demand doesn't exist yet, and they're unsure if or when it will?  Now, if the economy is chugging along and there are clear indications of increasing demand, then sure--that would help to achieve the ideal balance I was talking about before.  But if it's not, why would you increase supply?

Reading through what I've written, I realized that my take on things is probably very colored by the 2008-09 financial crisis.  Most of what I said is based on unhealthy, uncertain economic times when you don't know when demand is going to increase again.

How does Sweden determine who goes to college and who doesn't?  Can anyone go who wants to, or is it very selective?

In the US, it's a supply and demand problem.  Demand for a college education keeps increasing, and the student loans business and government enable it by approving a lot of loans that perhaps they shouldn't approve.  It seems like a lot of times, more emphasis is placed on getting a college education than on getting a good or worthwhile college education.

How do you figure that investing helps the economy more than spending?  I agree that investment money is very important, but you only need so much of it, which is dependent on how much demand there is for it.  Let's say you have to figure out where to get $100B in extra tax money.  If you take it from the rich, then the poor and middle class get to keep $100B, most of which will be spent soon thereafter, which drives the economy.  If you take it from the poor and middle class, then the rich get to keep that $100B.  They already have plenty of money, so most of that goes into the stock market and real estate.  That increases stock prices, which mostly helps the rich get richer, and it increases real estate prices, which makes it even harder for the poor and middle class to afford it (e.g., houses).

Actually, small quantum computers do exist.  I don't know much about the details, but the company D-Wave claimed they did an 84-qbit (quantum bit) computation in 2012.  See wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_computing#2012

I disagree.  I think everyone should be taxed something, but the more you make, the higher your tax rate should be.  I think a progressive system is both fair and better economically.  The rich benefit more from a capitalistic society than the poor, so it seems fair for them to contribute more to it in taxes.  Additionally, taking more money from the poor and middle class hurts the economy.  They spend most or all of what they make.  Whereas taking more money from the rich just decreases the amount that they can invest in stocks, real estate, etc.

Of course the flip side is that tax rates should be reasonable, and the government should spend money wisely.

Yes, most of these things could be used (although it would depend on why the internet is down; some things that would shut down the internet would shut down some of these things, too), but would they be?  Plus, most of these things don't interface easily with computers, so trying to organize one of these things, especially without the internet, would be difficult to impossible.

That is likely true.


True for some fields, but necessary for others.  Although I'm also biased because I got my degrees over a decade ago when prices were a lot cheaper.  I was able to get a BS for around $40k for everything, including books and R&B.