|
I have been using phoenix for some time, but CGminer have the most powerful and beautiful interface I have ever seen, a master piece!
Really loved it and run it through screen in auto-start script, but sometimes that screen session just disappeared and I have to restart the machine to get it back to work, is it due to overclocking of the card or network problem? Anyone have same experience?
|
|
|
|
This is why I gave up on discussions like this. People like johny throw their opinions around about RBE that have not read anything about it. There is just no point in trying to have a discussion with someone completely uninterested in the subject matter.
Technology has never been a problem, but inequality is, and the solution seldom lies in technology Overproduction has been happening in China since 4th century but many people still starved, and they did not have the modern technology/monetary system then |
|
|
|
Why should money refinance debt just because it is in circulation?
How do you prevent an explosion of interest rate on government debt that would cancel out its benefits after a write-off? Or is the intention to delete all and have all the banks die?
Sorry, but this doesn't refute any of my points.
If you get 5% return by refinance someone's debt, it is better than sitting there and collect 0 interest In reality, governments can never write the debt off, they just refinance, and this refinance could go as long as several centuries... Have you heard the FED reinvesting short term loan income and principals into long term loans? For those who can borrow without debt limit, the only cost is interest, and that interest could be 0 (Germany bonds already reached negative interest) |
|
|
|
|
Just got a thought:
Cash or money brings a standard measurement of value so that people can easily compare the value of goods/services on micro level (Why do they compare? It is driven by human nature of requiring justice and balance), and at macro level, it brings unbalance
You and your neighbor both mowed lawn for one hour and earned 20$, this could be regarded as quite fair, although you have 1 million$ and your neighbor has only 10,000$. Since the market can be regarded as unlimited and the service relatively limited
But at macro level, it's all about market share: Both you and your neighbor invest your money to produce auto mowing machine, if you have much more money than your neighbor, you will produce robot faster thus occupy the market before your neighbor's robot produced
This type of inequality due to capital size increase the gap between wealthier and poorer, so that unbalance is the ultimate result. It is the weakness of any monetary system
A better designed system should be able to reduce the competitiveness of wealthier, so that small investors always get good return and big investors always get poor return
But that is not easy, since a big investor can always split itself into many small investors
Seems taxation aimed at individual is the way to go, but an individual could have little wealth but control several international corporations
In a resource based economy, same problem still exists, the inequality of each individual will eventually bring unbalance into the system, unless that system could outsmart the most smart people on the earth
|
|
|
|
Artificial scarcity, a very special character of BTC, in a world that almost everything can be mass produced without limit
What world you live in is what I'm starting to wonder. I just been to china, you better come to see how many gold mines have been opened here this year. Soon, gold will flood the market like chinese made shoes, at the same time as people getting out of the panic of post financial crisis... The reason gold price hold relatively stable is because people have replaced most of its use with fiat money, otherwise the price of gold already skyrocketed to a unheard level |
|
|
|
This is coming up a lot in this thread. In any case:
Of all the persons I know coming from highly wealthy families, I would estimate that only 10-20% will end up in low-paying jobs or unemployed, consuming what wealth their parents have given to them. The rest typically follow in their parents footsteps: I have one friend who is an executive, and all 5 of his children are either working in high tier finance, are executives themselves, or are high ranking government officials. Of the low income families I know, I would say it's closer to 80% of the progeny failing to exceed the earning potential of their parents. Unless someone has a lot of hard data on thousands of families, I really find this all hard to believe, that rich parents are unlikely to produce rich offspring.
The fact of the matter is, the more money you have as a parent, the easier it is to send your child to a private school for K-12, hire nannies and educators to ensure an upbringing that produces a well-functioning adult, and provide the financial means to enter Ivy league universities (not to mention social networking connections the parents have).
Push this further to corporate entities. Ford and GE have been around for extremely long amounts of time, and many financial companies even longer (Bear Stearns: 1923, Goldman Sachs: 1869). Their durations of existing are quickly surpasses those of humans, and their wealth exponentially increasing.
Corporations maybe last longer, since they can be lead by different people who have the same high incentive, and there will always be new managers full of incentive In my experience, no matter how good background, education and social network a person have, if he grow up with almost every need fulfilled, he seldom can pass his parents in achievements, since lacking of incentive No need to get data for thousands of families, just look through all the people in the fobes 500 list and check if any of them have a even richer children Banking families are exception, maybe due to the special position of bank or special character of Jewish people, it seems they have very high incentive for accumulating money generation after generation |
|
|
|
|
Artificial scarcity, a very special character of BTC, in a world that almost everything can be mass produced without limit
|
|
|
|
Even there is no problem, money still needs to be printed more and more every year, and printing more money does not necessary cause inflation, as long as printed money have somewhere to go (in this case paying the debt), and the productivity of goods and services can catch up
Actually this will encourage the loan activities, since the borrower will always be backed by printed money in a worst case scenario
Am I the only one who thinks this is completely insane? You can't fix the speculators at negative interest rates after inflation, and if you don't, they will end up with more money, causing inflation, bang feedback to the interest, game over. You have to trust the governments to not play a Tragedy of the Commons in which they compete to borrow just at the limit and spend, inflation, double feedback to the banks, kills you in just a few years. But simply deleting the debt gets you a burst of bankruptcy filings together with the financial equivalent of an MW 9 earthquake due to illiquid markets. How the hell is this supposed to work? Who should pay the bill of the debt that is never intended to be paid back? I don't have the feeling that someone thought this through to the end. One simple question is: once locked in debt feedbacks, can you ever reduce inflation again without the governments dying instantly? Too extreme, most of the time it's in the middle. The concept of debt is vague, depends on peoples relationship, the debt can be write off. I just send 1000 dollar to my father to celebrate his birthday, does he owe me that sum of money? I have seen many private debts end up with nothing, either paid back in a discounted form, or not at all. At government level I think it is more or less the same Printing money to pay back the debt is a very good test of how much money actually there is available. If there is really a liquidity problem, then newly injected money will not cause inflation. Otherwise, if injected money caused high inflation, then there are plenty of money in circulation, these money will be able to refinance those debts easily |
|
|
|
An attempt to solve the problem with printing money.
Even there is no problem, money still needs to be printed more and more every year, and printing more money does not necessary cause inflation, as long as printed money have somewhere to go (in this case paying the debt), and the productivity of goods and services can catch up Actually this will encourage the loan activities, since the borrower will always be backed by printed money in a worst case scenario |
|
|
|
You're completely incorrect. Prices cannot do anything BUT stabilize in the long-run.
Now, in a Bitcoin world we may see the price for a coin change every day, but that change will asymptotically shrink over years and decades.
What's important in a currency is that changes in money supply are A) minimal, B) predictable, C)not arbitrarily decided by specific actors. Bitcoin satisfies these requirements - and in fact Bitcoin offers the most predictable money supply ever created in any form of money.
I'm not economically confused. Bitcoin is a virtual commodity that happens to have properties that allow for easy exchange. Like any commodity, or any other good/service on the market for that matter, an increase in demand leads to an increase in prices, leading to an increase in production/supply, which decreases prices to balance them out. Normally on the market, this process yields stable prices (technically, it leads to decreasing prices due to greater efficiency of capital with time, but Bitcoin supply increases the same amount regardless of capital so capital efficiency cannot improve for Bitcoin). As a result, I theorize that Bitcoin price increases exponentially the more demand exceeds supply, and decreases exponentially the more supply exceeds demand. This off-the-top-of-my-head theory was concocted by reasoning that moving up/down on a demand curve exponentially increases the area between it and its corresponding supply curve. Given the relatively small user base we have, demand is going to be finite over a small period of time. So once demand decreases beyond the equilibrium point, boom turns to bust and we have an exponentially decreasing price even with just a linear increase in sellers. I predict that with an increase in user base, the boom/bust cycles will take longer and be larger but still occur. Now my theory and prediction could be complete nonsense, but the bit about prices being unstable (without trying to quantify) should be accurate. Unstable price will attract speculators, and today almost everything is to be speculated, bitcoin will be the best candidate for speculation, due to its limited supply nature |
|
|
|
|
There is an assumption that all saved money now is for spending at a later time, and this is the basic of modern economic theories
One single person might have very high incentive to accumulate wealth throughout his entire life (because he was so poor before), but his son/daughter might not, and his grandson/granddaughter might not, wealth seldom last more than 3 generations
What kind of people have the incentive to accumulate wealth across many generations, and why do they have such incentive?
|
|
|
|
Mostly agreed, but its worse than that; if governments would take those free loans, it would be fine. After all, assuming a functional democracy, government==people. The reality is that its only the banks getting the virtually free loans, while the governments are lending from those banks at substantial interest rates. So think about it, EU governments allow the ECB to create the money and lend to banks at 1%, then those very same governments lend from those very same banks at 3,4, or if you are Italy, 7+%. Now that is insanity. Or genius if you will, but its definitely how you transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.
China is another extreme. Chinese central bank is controlled by government, so their government will surely get free loan at the first place, thus increased purchase power for state-owned enterprises and organizations. But that does not necessary mean low efficiency, Chinese GDP is increasing by almost 10% per year I think government can spend money more efficient than private corporation, since they have influence at much higher level, they can set higher and higher ISO standards, thus drive the quality of living forward. Chinese now can take high speed trains travel around in the country cheaply, due to government's investment in infrastructure |
|
|
|
That's a huge "if". The thing is that government is not wiser than free people. Most of the time it just wastes the money into stupid things.
Let's make a case for some stupid things  On an island with only 2 people and one central bank, both A and B loaned 1 million dollar at the start of the day, the loan have 0 interest but must be returned at day end A paid B 1 million dollar for B to sing a song, and B paied A 1 million dollar for him to dance in the court A and B will be able to return the loan at day end. We could say that both A and B were doing stupid things but as long as they are doing it together, there will be no problem What if only A paid 1 million for entertainment but B do not order 1 million entertainment from A? Then A will not be able to return the loan and B will have some saving, and B think A is a stupid guy: paying 1 million for a song It's a typical "race of thrift", if one of them can live a low standard life by spending much less than the other, he will accumulate money and put the other into debt This is what happened when US is doing business with China: Chinese can live a lower standard life by spending much less compared with US worker, this put US consumer/government into deep debt and chinese government into high surplus |
|
|
|
As you are there, let me ask OT: Is the lack of young women from selective abortion really so extreme that many angry young men may disrupt society?
I could not get that deep into everyone's private life, but I'm sure there are many young people who simply do not want to find a partner and have children  And, as the same as economy, they could always shift the potential partner to next generation if they could not find one in the current generation |
|
|
|
|
I'm in china for vacation and studying their way of spending "Junk Money"
They put 20% increase each year for income for government employee and retirees (with government debt which is financed through central bank), thus increase the general purchasing power of these people
Their purchasing power changed the pattern of consumption: Many of these people could have 3-4 babysitters to take care of their baby, those babysitters typically are private service provider without government background and earn 1/10th of income compared with those government employee
I don't know how well this scheme works in long run, but in china, government is above central bank, so it is only accountable for itself, they could keep spending junk money as long as there are enough production/service made by the lower income class
|
|
|
|
|
After I read about that china has become the biggest gold supplier in the world, and there are many source indicated abundant of gold mine store under 500 meter depth, I started to short gold
With help of today's machinery, mining gold can be as fast as pumping out oil, and I don't think chinese will act like OPEC countries to limit the gold output in order to hold the price stable
|
|
|
|
If central bank will be little bit generous and lend those unemployed alcoholics some cash, we won't run into all these mess. It's an interesting thought. Like how so much online now seems to be add funded by everything else in a sort of pointless loop that never-the-less tricks us into thinking everything is being held up by something. The effort we spend moving money around in elabrote ways dosn't do anything usefull, like grow crops, or design software. In fact the best software is designed by people who mostly ignore how money is moving around. Lot's of money are created after financial crisis, based on FED's balance sheet, that's about 2 trillion Dollars  Now the question is: Where should all these money go, to get the best effect? Suppose that there are 30 million people out of work, then if FED just loan the 2 trillion dollars to these people, that's $66667 per person in a 3 years' period, about $22222 per year, quite enough to support their daily spending and mortgage, and bring stability to the economy And the reality is that the money goes to banks to purchase mortgage backed securities, or to purchase government bonds. Jobless rate stay high, and government pay social benefit for those jobless people. Of course in such a distribution the average $ spent per jobless person is much lower, banks benefit most, but the economy as a whole are in a much worse shape and the society will experience some turbulence How could those jobless people payback their loan? But the same is valid for banks: How could they payback the bailout money? They payback these loan by loaning more in the future, and jobless people can do the same if FED provide help, and if economy keeps going good, after they find job they will start to payback the loan |
|
|
|
What a pitty! If central bank will be little bit generous and lend those unemployed alcoholics some cash, we won't run into all these mess...  |
|
|
|
And interest rate is always in some percentage of loaned money, so volume of loaned money has to grow exponentially. When it can't (unsustainable debt, limited resources), the system is broken and we need a reset. It's unavoidable!
Exactly, loaned money will grow exponentially, but that do not necessarily cause problem, as long as A and B can borrow money to payback their debt, they do not need to worry about the debt, it is almost free, since those money are produced almost without any cost In the real world, money-creating is money-stealing-from-savers. When savers loose confidence and start dumping money, the cycle is broken. A and B can borrow and repay, but the value behind will be lost. Borrowing and repaying worthless paper. Not entirely worthless though, you can burn it or use as a toilet paper. Sounds crazy, but borrowing and repaying worthless paper is what those banks doing daily, even worse, only numbers on the account. But, if you have ever played <fallout 3> or any kind of similar RPG game with merchants who have limited amount of coin, you will understand if a merchant are running out of coin, then most of the business activities will come to a halt if you do not have the item that specific merchant wants In an island with only 2 people, it is easy to see that both A and B could not have any savings (Their loan must be paid back, if one of them get more than 1 billion euro thus save the extra money, then the other one can not pay back the loan) This is actually what happened in reality: While some people managed to get some saving, other people will accumulate debt. Of course there is a belief that those who save the money will eventually spend their saving at a later time, thus bring the system back into balance some time in the future |
|
|
|
A and B could create (using the capital supplied by the bank) something that the bank wants. Then when the bank wants to purchase that something, A and B could negotiate a reduction in the debt in exchange.
The money on the island would still be 2 million euros, but the debt would be less than 2 million euros. Ta, da; welcome to capitalism functioning as it should.
One might even argue that the 2 million euros are then worth more than they were -- forcing other prices on the island lower.
"Aghhhhh, no, no, deflationary spiral. Things are cheaper!"
Well, let's suppose central bank on the island is just a machine  Actually in real world, people seldom can impress central bank, since those bankers already have everything they want, and there are only a handful of central bankers, they would never create enough consumption for the whole economy |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
