A joke, don't take it seriously  2 Billion internet user, say 1/10 of them are able to handle BTC without too much trouble, they put a small amount of their retirement saving into BTC as a diversification, $10,000 is a decent amount, that is 200 million people share 20 million coin, each people get 0.1 coin, each coin worth $100,000 I start to worry about that 8 decimal place might not be enough, and those who holding a lot of BTC today might have devastating influence over humanity, could be worse than FED, anyway FED do have a committee  |
|
|
|
A classic sweep stop |
|
|
|
This is almost by definition- if debt is money , and saving means saving in the form of money, then someone's saving is the other's debt. Current system force you to save in some other way, buying a property, investing, buying durable commodities. The interest part is provided by bubble in asset to create collateral to support more loans.
On further thoughts, these statements are much more complicated than I thought, for example social security, minimal wage, health care, retirement plan etc... there are many services just saved in money's form (typically a fund), I will study it more in my island model |
|
|
|
Suppose we divide everyone in the society into two corporate A and corporate B, (or similar to an island with only 2 people), each year banks loan out 1 Billion to A and 1 Billion to B, and they do production and consumption and trade with each other. They need to return the loan plus interest. Since the money supply is only 2 Billion, where is that extra interest come from?
Question 1: In this model is the assumption that there is only 2 billion in the entire world ? Question 2: If so, has this ever happened anywhere? The worst debt situation that the United States has ever faced would have been during the last recession and the great depressing when personnel approached 100% of GDP. Please raise the level of abstraction, 2 billion is just an example, add as much 0 as you want, the reasoning won't change From economy perspective, there are only 2 types of people on this planet: producers and consumers, and most of the people have both role, so it is enough to have 2 people to represent them |
|
|
|
|
Their export is very strong, when import/export involved, it is difficult to judge the net effect of national economy, they could always transfer some problem to the world outside
In a debt driven economy, one man's earning is another one's debt, so if Japan and China is earning a lot, it means US are getting more debt, it is impossible for every country in the world to have a surplus in today's financial system, at least not in dollar's form
|
|
|
|
This is almost by definition- if debt is money , and saving means saving in the form of money, then someone's saving is the other's debt. Current system force you to save in some other way, buying a property, investing, buying durable commodities. The interest part is provided by bubble in asset to create collateral to support more loans.
Oh, that's a lot of information, let me think... I agree with that the current system strongly discourage saving in cash's form, force you to invest (or the banks invest for you), but you can see that those big companies still hold tons of cash at hand without investing? Because they need a strong cash flow to face the uncertain future, and I suppose most of the people are saving in cash's form, holding cash is both traditional and a risk management strategy By the way, it is not always possible to find good investment opportunity, now asset bubble has busted, do we have to finance another asset bubble in order to pay the interest? Sounds unsustainable |
|
|
|
In the second scenario, if government really were given shells to spend, then there will be much less problem, but those politicians are fighting at house for lifting the debt limit, they are not in better shape than any average business, they can only borrow from FED It sure seems like the monetary system would be a lot simpler if the politicians just printed the money they wanted to spend, as you suggest. From the taxation in general/taxation via inflation standpoint, the results are probably the same. However, then new money only enters society via government spending, and that seems to me to be a dangerous proposition. The theoretical benefit of the "Bretton Woods II"/fiat system of money is that, when it is not abused, new money should be getting into the hands of people who are creating and innovating... But the system has been grossly distorted into one where new money gets into the hands of people who are finding ways to create and innovate themselves into more money (aka wall street and london). Was that an intended consequence? It's easy for hindsight to be 20/20, but I have some faith that the system had good intentions. The rapid advancement of technology has also made it much better for the banks and much worse for the rest of us. It is all too easily to manipulate the money supply nowadays. I have not looked from this aspect, but my point is that debt free money and debt money are very different When you earn money from a person, if that money is borrowed, the amount of your earning equals to the amount of debt he will have, he will get more debt. But if that money is his saving, the amount of your earning will just equals to the amount of saving he spent, he won't get debt. And since debt always incur an interest charge, the difference will become big after a long time So, if government are spending debt free money, then your earning will only equal to the amount of saving they spent, but if they are spending borrowed money, then your earning will add to their debt and interest burden, eventually fire back towards you But unfortunately, in today's system, government can never have debt free money, unless FED write off their debt. |
|
|
|
I'm really bad at economics so I'm still trying to wrap my head around this  In scenario one, everyone is saving and becoming more prosperous together by making their prices fair and wages fair. So the shells they earn translate evenly into the products they buy. The shell actually corresponds with the work effort. In scenario two, people are selling their goods evenly, one good for one shell, yet buying at 50% higher than normal from islander D who is attempting to make a profit. However, because islander D is a glutton/couldn't find business, he wound up keeping more than he could sell, couldn't make ends meet, and wound up owing islander C a shell plus interest. So unless islander D makes some better business, and gets his ass in gear, he's going to be islander C's bitch forever, who will continue to earn shells from islander D's bad business. Is that right?  Sorry, I have a little bit jump in the second scenario, where I also want to describe a profit making person D by buying at lower price and selling at higher price. If you can not follow, you can just use all the same numbers from scenario one, like this: A capture 3 fish, eat one, sell the other two to D for 2 shells, 1 shells are used to purchase a basket of fruit from D, and he save the rest 1 shell
B pick 3 baskets of fruit, eat one basket, sell the other two baskets for 2 shells, and then spend 1 shell to buy a fish from D, and save up 1 shell
D borrowed 4 shells to purchase 2 fish and 2 baskets of fruits, he sold 1 fish and 1 basket of fruit to get back 2 shells, eat a basket of fruit and a fish, and at the day end he have only 2 shells at hand (the other 2 shells have become A and B's saving)
So you can see, if D do not raise price, A and B will get more saving, then D will lack 2 shells to pay back his loan.
And if D raise the price to 2 shells per sold fish/fruit, he will be able to get back all the investment while A and B won't have any savingThe point is to illustrate, in an closed system (without import/export), if the money supplied is coming from a loan, the system as a whole could not have net saving in money's form |
|
|
|
Totally confused, what is the purpose of this letter |
|
|
|
|
I'm lucky enough to get my refund, but I was fully prepared for losing all the investment, since at that time, no one knows if all these ASIC things are scam or not, it was a high risk investment, until Avalon officially published their prototype, you can not rule out that possibility
|
|
|
|
|
I also believe they are trying the best to refund, but it is bad that they are not open about their situation
I guess some of the funds are lost due to whatever reason, but if they communicate with their customer like Greece did with the debtors, they might be able to let the investors share the loss, and return those lost fund at a later time. At least that could reduce the impact on any single customer
|
|
|
|
Satellite are almost invisible, put it in a ballon and hang it above the center of the city will be enough  |
|
|
|
|
I added some correction to the previous conclusion, although the society as a whole can not have saving in money's form, that do not stop people from generating saving in other form
Of course in a money driven society, most of the products are produced to be sold, e.g. exchange for money, there might be some small amount of saving in other form, but they are not significant
|
|
|
|
Read that paper years ago, now after I totally understood the current system, I read this paper again I am sure that either the chicago fed do not understand how it works ( ), or they just play those tricks again to spread the misinformation. Most possibly the later, since they are repeating that FRB money-multiplier story in this paper. That story has proved to be a scam. But it is amazing when you talk to those people graduated from financial schools, the most heard story is this FRB money-multiplier thing A link to my analysis of the current system: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=142880.0 |
|
|
|
|
MV=PY
An ideal currency from economy theory point of view, it only works as a medium of exchange (not store of value for long term), have stable value, and the amount of currency always corresponding to the amount of goods and services exchanged each year, so that all the transaction need can be satisfied
But such a simplified model only exist in school, in reality there are lot of other factors affect the equation, to achieve these goal, currency issurer must continously study macro economy statistics and adjust the money supply level. Even those statistics do not really show the whole picture, so they have to use inflation to push the real interest rate below 0 to make sure people spend their money
Anyway I think some money are still being hoarded due to psychological/historical reasons, even people know that currency are losing value slowly
|
|
|
|
It depends on how restrictive the firewall is.
Usually it doesn't matter what port your client uses.
If port 80 is not being blocked then you only need someone running a client on port 80 to connect to it.
If a client is running on port 80, will it be able to connect to rest of the network? |
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing the video! I like the girl, she asked the core question: Why couldn't we just write off the private sector debts? Duncan said that one people's debt is another people's asset, this is true in micro level, but when it finally reached FED, it is not true anymore. From moral reason FED should not write off the debt (to create unfairness), but from technical point of view, they could write off the debt of the whole society (and create hyperinflation at meantime) And I think Duncan mix the government with FED. Government and FED still have formal business relationship, government can not create credit as they wish, they have to lift debt limit first and FED has to buy their bond to give them cash |
|
|
|
100% serious read Richard duncan "the new great depression" read james richards "currency wars" The fed can print all it likes if people dont take out loans it will not enter the money supply. The fed can print but there are limits on the printing too. I would say that i am a free market, Austrian, but peter schiff is wrong about hyper inflation and the gold price, steve keen, nicole foss, richard duncan are right. We will have a deflationary collapse. Tradefortress you so understand what i mean when i say money is debt right? You do get that total debt must always grow right? You do understand that the only way the public sector could cut its debt is for the private sector to raise it debt right? You do understand that understand that all money is lent into existence right? and you do understand that if all debt where to be paid off public and private that money would no longer exist right?
Wow, that is very good description of today's debt driven system Since FED is the lender of the last resort, there is a final solution: FED just burn those securites they bought from government and banks After this, government and banks will be happy, all of their debts at FED are gone, no one lose anything. Of course FED took the loss, but since all their loss is just some digits, that affect nothing Then next step, government and banks will have so much cash at hand and they will start to spend BIG, and there will be hyperinflation So, FED still have lots of weapons in the reserve, they have not fired them yet. Recently they are buying MBS with a premium, that is a start of unloading the debt for banks, it is not the same as buying government bonds, but few has noticed that |
|
|
|
|
If I block port 8333, will it still work?
Or simply, can I use port 80 in a node?
|
|
|
|
I do hope from time to time there are 60% retracements, so that BTC attract only true believers, speculators will definitely get shaked out by a 60% retracement and stay away
...
Speculators mostly use TA, but none of TA can deal with a fast crash which break all the indicators in a very short time frame, either it is trend following based or momentum based/ swing trading. And from a risk management point of view, suddenly lose 60% of holding value is also not acceptable
fast crashes occur less and less often as the market matures I think in electronic trading era, flash crash like those happened in stock market may 2010 will become a norm, unless exchange have some daily range limit |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
