So let me just say this: It's gonna be a constant back-and-forth -> legislation to increase control and cencorship vs innovation to protect privacy and freedom.
Subtle attempts to control crypto and Bitcoin specifically will be more efficient and are more scary than direct bans - because these things can happen unnoticed to the majority of Bitcoin users, which is far more scary than direct attacks (which would probably have an opposite effect because there would be a lot of resistence in freedom based societies).
Some such subtle attempts would be taxation in my opinion. Non-Bitcoiners wouldn't be particularly interested because it isn't their income that's being taxed. Bitcoiners would probably comply because it's the lawful thing to do, but others would probably divest from Bitcoin or just invest into other cryptos if the tax was targeted towards Bitcoin in particular. Taxing would be more effective than a ban because a ban would compel people to circumvent the government's efforts, whereas taxation would compel compliance. |
|
|
|
|
You're probably correct because the GOP base has become accustom to losing. They would prefer to have Trump run again after losing once before to the same person, who I may remind you is in some vegetative state.
Trump only needs a plurality in the Republican primary. He can get away with a win even if a majority of primary voters vote against him. It's how he was able to win the primaries in 2016. DeSantis would need the support of everyone else except for Trump voters, which is difficult in a crowded primary field where the vote is going to be split a dozen different ways.
So if Trump wins the primary, he will lose again to Joe Biden as nearly every head-to-head poll shows Trump losing to Joe Biden. If DeSantis miraculously wins the primary, he would lose to Biden only because ~5% of GOP voters would rather stay home and let Biden win instead of voting for the man that beat out their guy in the primaries.
Don't see any foreseeable way Joe Biden leaves office in 2024 meaning a dementia patient will continue to oversee global order.
|
|
|
|
...
China has the upper hand because there isn't any separation between central banks, government, and "private" banks. I use private loosely, because the Chinese government has complete control over them even if they're designated as non-state entities. If the Chinese government were so inclined, they could compel all their citizens to use CBDC's. They haven't hesitated to use authoritarianism in the past for compliance and most all banking in China is digitalized so it'd be pretty simple to introduce. |
|
|
|
They can also provide hedge against inflation and currency devaluation.
This alone allows for Bitcoin to provide financial freedom. It's hard to see anyone content with the current inflation rates for major currencies and to recognize the systematic reduction in purchasing power and incorporate crypto into your currency holdings is about the greatest independence you can gain. I'm not knocking fiat itself. It's the controlling powers that operate at the big banks who manipulate the currency for their own gain. If fiat currency had physical backing, I wouldn't be so opposed to holding it. Of course, that's not the world we live in. |
|
|
|
The economic fight is over power in the world.
Eu and china want to move over Green energy.
The russia and USA power Will be dominant if old oil is king Same goes for AE arab countries.
Eu and china are much more advanched in green energy then russia or USA.
Green energy is mostly solar power. Solar panels are made from processed silicon. Which is essentially sand heated into glass. The barrier to entry for solar power may not be high. The issue behind most major nations of the world not becoming more involved in solar power likely has to do with lack of funding, skilled labor and expertise. Much of the existing technology behind patented solar based intellectual property has its origins in the united states. With production being moved to china in an effort to leverage lower labor costs. In terms of efficiency, I think the advantage is with green energy given its potential for growth and scaling. Electric motors can reach 80%+ efficiency. While internal combustion engines are usually rated around 15% efficiency. The difference comes from fossil fuels having on average greater energy density as a fuel source. It could be guaranteed that oil and fossil fuels would not last forever. At some point, we could be forced to abandon them or find alternatives when supply runs out. Perhaps its better to begin the transition now, rather than wait until its too late. Nuclear energy is one of the most efficient forms of energy there is with modern nuclear technology but the climate change radicals sometimes don't consider that to be a viable option for whatever reason. EV's aren't part of the solution for clean energy consumption because of the raw materials needed to manufacture batteries and the fact that EV's are charged through fossil fuels. EV's just give people a temporary solution to a problem they've created. These people have not even considered whether electrical grids could handle the strain that EV's would introduce either. If they were serious, they'd adopt nuclear energy. |
|
|
|
Read his full press release from Rep. Emmer's website: https://emmer.house.gov/2022/1/emmer-introduces-legislation-to-prevent-unilateral-fed-control-of-a-u-s-digital-currencyWashington, D.C.— Today, Congressman Tom Emmer (MN-06) introduced a bill prohibiting the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) directly to individuals.
“As other countries, like China, develop CBDCs that fundamentally omit the benefits and protections of cash, it is more important than ever to ensure the United States’ digital currency policy protects financial privacy, maintains the dollar’s dominance, and cultivates innovation. CBDCs that fail to adhere to these three basic principles could enable an entity like the Federal Reserve to mobilize itself into a retail bank, collect personally identifiable information on users, and track their transactions indefinitely,” Emmer said. “Not only would this CBDC model centralize Americans’ financial information, leaving it vulnerable to attack, but it could also be used as a surveillance tool that Americans should never tolerate from their own government.”
“Requiring users to open up an account at the Fed to access a U.S. CBDC would put the Fed on an insidious path akin to China’s digital authoritarianism,” Emmer continued. “It is important to note that the Fed does not, and should not, have the authority to offer retail bank accounts. Regardless, any CBDC implemented by the Fed must be open, permissionless, and private. This means that any digital dollar must be accessible to all, transact on a blockchain that is transparent to all, and maintain the privacy elements of cash”
“In order to maintain the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency in a digital age, it is important that the United States lead with a posture that prioritizes innovation and does not aim to compete with the private sector,” Emmer continued. Bill can be found here: https://emmer.house.gov/_cache/files/e/3/e3f3f683-d983-4456-9f34-8ac493730582/6724255AB4BCC4F46F5F41DAE08F63BD.emmer-045-xml.pdfSeems refreshing for a bill to not be hundreds of pages of legal jargon. Emmer's attempts will be futile, unfortunately. The central banks are too powerful for their own good. They exist to maintain the interests of the federal government. And, it is within the interest of the federal government to introduce CBDC's as an attempt to resurrect their highly inflating currencies. A lot of these bills are grandstanding and political posturing anyways. But it acts as a way to mark something for the record so the rest of the Congress has the opportunity to sign onto a bill if they support it. I'm assuming there wouldn't be much support. |
|
|
|
I wonder what kind of sentence would convince people that SFB wasn't getting any favors from his donations. Death sentence perhaps?
I mean as the OP said, he is faced with 12 criminal charges. Is this a procedure that happens to everyone who are protected by the all mighty elite?
Or are people just waiting he walks free after all this spotlight. Thatw would need a miracle now.
Even if that were on the table, they wouldn't give the death penalty for even the worse financial crimes. The guidelines for non-violent crimes wouldn't even allow the judge to sentence criminals to death. Bernie Madoff stole roughly 20 billion and he was sentence to 150 years, most people seem okay with a life sentence. Guidelines would allow a judge to sentence SBF to prison for the rest of his life if convicted, but they get discretion. Also possible the prosecutors would request a lesser sentence to the judge as well instead of aiming for the maximum penalty. |
|
|
|
Why did they file for bankruptcy?
- rising interest rates
- high inflation
- Difficulty hiring
- ongoing war in Ukraine
I'd consider COVID related matters to be the biggest driver of bankruptcy within the last two years. Interest rates, inflation, labor shortages are all a result of COVID lockdowns causing the government to begin printing money as a form of economic stimulation. All the meanwhile, businesses are forced to close down. To the extent government can force you to close your business, I don't know what an entrepreneur is suppose to do to combat that. Being flexible with e-commerce might be a mitigating factor but that isn't feasible for a lot of businesses. |
|
|
|
^^^ Seems to me that the dioxin poison has been proven to produce cancer. And this has been known for ages. It might be simple to apply what is already known in a court action.  I'm certain they do. But if the highly paid lawyers for the Norfolk Southern Railway argue that they can't be liable for a future illness that may not even strike the victim, hopefully there's still remedy for East Palestine residents. It'll be the games the lawyers will play, meanwhile the compensation of citizens will hang in the balance. The railroad corporations have a lot of legal protections apparently. |
|
|
|
|
I don't have any doubt the chemicals are carcinogens but for the sake of a civil suit, we'll only see the incidents of cancer increase only after two or three decades. So in what way will plaintiffs be properly compensated for the potential of getting cancer long after the company responsible ceases to exist?
Surely the company responsible will go bankrupt and perhaps some executives could be held criminally liable. Of course, trying to collect your due compensation when your impending cancer has not yet been identified is challenging. Maybe the compensation package will account for this.
|
|
|
|
|
Inflation induced by reckless spending doesn't directly control Bitcoin stability. But generally speaking, Bitcoin could provide some level of relief for inflation because it isn't inherently designed to reduce purchasing power.
Keep in mind, a consumer who only holds Bitcoin is going to be affected by inflation the same way someone with fiat would be if the inflation isn't induced via money printing but rather consumer goods increasing in price collectively due to external circumstances (ie a war). But with fiat, once new dollars are printed, it becomes difficult to remove them from circulation so your purchasing power will go down proportional to the amount of new dollars introduced.
|
|
|
|
I hope what am doing isn't a bad idea for not saving funds?
Depends if you would need liquidity short term. Only you would be aware of your financial situation to make that call. Should you hold enough fiat to not require liquidity within the next few years, then you're probably in a reasonable position. I'd also add -- it's wise not to hold onto a currency that is systematically stealing your purchasing power by 2% yearly at a minimum. Of course, 2% is what the central banks aim for on a good year. Over recent years it's been near double digits for some currency. |
|
|
|
|
Market manipulation and trading bots have been around for years. The algorithm they use just hasn't been any good so it hasn't been up for discussion. Presumably at some point it would be possible for AI to outperform some of the top traders but we're a long time out from that point, and it's not as if all risk calculation is gone.
Could crypto be at risk for market manipulation? Sure. But that risk exists today too. I wouldn't be afraid of dabbling in crypto if your only fear is AI marketing manipulation.
|
|
|
|
I would expect tribalism to have the inverse effect, not produce a one world currency. We have different cultures, tribes, race, ethnicity, policy, environments, climates, way of life and thinking as well as many other diverse factors that make every human race slightly different in the way of life and co-operation.
It's these reasons exactly why there would never be a true one world currency and why the globalist tend to underestimate the complexity of foreign policy as it relates to other countries. They don't understand that varying culture creates divergence. Probably rooted in tribal instinct, but who really knows. |
|
|
|
I have a vague memory when it comes to celebrities and their opinions on cryptocurrencies, but it seems to me that most of them are not very expert when it comes to this topic. I know that some have been mentioned in relation to FTX, as well as that some have invested in various crypto projects, but this is not enough to give ratings and assess the intelligence of the actor in question. It is interesting that Bitcoin was not mentioned (at least as far as the quoted text is concerned), which perhaps best says that everyone wants something new with potential big profits.
With FTX the issue was celebrities were being paid quite a bit of money to promote the concept of cryptocurrency/centralized exchanges without having any idea how they operate. They were just happily collecting a check. There isn't anything wrong with sponsorship deals, but perhaps they can be used to mislead the reputability of companies and celebrities owe it to people to exercise caution. Kevin O'Leary is a prime example of this, financial guy who was the prime cheerleader for FTX and received financial compensation from them. He was abundantly clear about his partnership, but of course he probably should have done a bit more research into what type of unstable business venture he was getting into (IMO all centralized exchanges are unstable). I don't see any issue with what Keanu Reeves is saying. He's not supporting a specific project, merely talking about the philosophy of crypto. |
|
|
|
Again it was a similar reply but now it wrote me the reason why these countries are best suited to adopt Bitcoin. Do you think this prediction would be correct or do you have any other country in your mind?
Predictably, ChatGPT performed a one dimensional analysis and gave you the first country it could find with Bitcoin legal status, which was the country that has certified Bitcoin as legal tender. Of course, it is completely irrelevant whether crypto's utilized as legal tender because that classification, or lack thereof, does not dictate whether it can be utilized as a core currency in a country. It's probably true that some Latin American countries would be quicker to adopt Bitcoin than westernized countries because of the stringent regulations, though. I would infer that westernized countries would be the first to "ban" Bitcoin if they ever got the chance. |
|
|
|
I do not care about the news about AAPL, it is a giant company in the United States and has become an obsession for many middle-class people who will buy its products no matter how bad they become, so investing in them is not a big problem. As for why he decided to reduce investments in TSMC, is this because of the CHIPS Act? Which was signed into law on August 9, 2022, and the main goal is to enhance the competitiveness of the United States, as many manufacturers are now forced to convert to the United States? Read more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_ActBringing semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States will change a lot of investment. I speculated this because there's something like ~300 billion that the government is providing to private companies to aid in semiconductor research. Though, it's entirely a gamble given how much further TSMC is in chip development. Apple would not have decided to invest their resources into Iphone development using TSMC unless they were market leaders. Perhaps more grim, I'm also thinking it's because the prospects of a Chinese invasion seem more and more probable, at which point TSMC becomes worthless. |
|
|
|
|
As what happens with a lot of financial institutions when destabilizing events happen. The value of their assets crash and they can't sustain the balance of their depositors. Of course Lebanese corruption stemmed all of this and crashed the Lebanese currency. Courts ruled that overseas depositors were entitled to their funds, and that left people who were late to withdraw out of their cash.
If every depositor were to go to the banks and withdraw their balances, the bank will collapse. This applies to banks that aren't riddled with corruption too. The moment funds leave your hands and consumed into the banking system, your trust network extends far beyond that individual bank. Whatever dealings the institution has, you're forced to trust them because that's who has your funds.
|
|
|
|
|
These economic institutions don't take cyber security seriously because they expect the federal government to jump in should any of their systems be compromised and client funds get stolen. There's already been countless data breaches, probably being used for espionage or terrorism, and seemingly the FDIC still finds banking systems to be subject to attack. I wouldn't say the U.S. has advanced cyber security laws because the U.S. congress themselves are technologically inept unable to piece together legislation that would protect consumers. And of course the banking lobbyist would push back against any regulations that would force banks to increase their cyber security costs.
|
|
|
|
As Westerners we think of the Taliban as really bad people, terrorists, people who are not human. When you think about it though, the US robs & pillages their country. Bombs are sent by the US that kills innocent people. How do we know some of these Taliban didn’t lose family members to stray US missiles?
I do not like to judge people until I know the full details. There are two sides to every story. I know that if US soldiers killed my Mother or Father I would consider revenge if i was able. Maybe if the US stopped fighting for oil, gold & minerals there would be no terrorism.
Radical Islam has existed for ages. All religions were violent until secularist societies developed. The U.S. were one of the first to pull it off successfully but many countries in the Middle East still insist on implementing theocratic law (sharia) on their citizens. The real problem is the Quran. Violent holy book with the commitment for all nonbelievers to be killed. You should not be surprised of the violent tendencies of anyone foolish enough to follow the literal text. The bible also has violent verses, too, except Christians have accepted modern cultural values. Islam still is going through the modernization. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
