You're talking about a moving average
I am not talking about any moving averages. Yes, you are. The asset doesn't move perfectly fitted to a "constant trajectory," you said so yourself. A rocket moves at a "constant trajectory." Stocks don't - not even fictitious examples of stocks - unless they completely lack volatility. In your example, you can only be talking about the trajectory of a price as being defined by its moving average. If its not, its not "constant." Your argument was that volatility is equivalent to risk, which is generally wrong. Neither contains much, if any, information about the other.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used an equal sign to imply that the two are strongly correlated (which they are). They are indeed not equivalents of each other and do not possess the same definition. To show to you that this is not the case I've tried to give you examples of assets that directly contradict your assertion.
You gave me an example of an asset that doesn't exist. In the 'basket of all stocks' you have no risk in the long-term, because your expected loss (= risk) is strictly negative and hence your expected return is strictly positive, because the realized total return converges towards 10% p.a. (in the case of the US stock market) over time.
Despite that, the asset itself has been volatile. Hence, volatility does not imply anything about risk nor vice versa. The only thing that matters for risk is your strategy and nothing else.
That's a classic example of an average risk, average volatility asset. Its a benchmark for both risk and volatility. You're proving my point for me. You can have a perpetually flat asset with high risk, or you can have highly volatile assets without any risk (Bitcoin - which does not mean that you are guaranteed to make money).
No, you can't. "Perpetually flat asset" implies zero volatility and zero risk. How do you lose money on something whose value never changes? And saying bitcoin has no risk is absurd. Does anybody else feel like bitcoin is a "risk-free" investment? You can get volatility and risk in any combination and neither implies the other.
Okay, I'm willing to concede that they do not imply one another 100% of the time, but as a general rule of thumb, they do. Risk is a statistical measure, e.g. the expected loss of a strategy, asset or portfolio.
Not quite. Its the probability that a gain or a loss will differ significantly from what is expected. Just like the expected value of a dice roll is 3.5 = 1/6 times sum of all potential results.
Not trying to troll you but this is a horrible example as you can never roll a "3.5" -- that would be a highly unexpected outcome. With risk the results are potential price trajectories in the market and the probabilities are obviously different and depend on all sorts of parameters.
Realized returns on the other hand are what you end up with in reality, and while risk can give you an idea of a region that you'll land in, it'll never tell you what will really happen for individual 'games'.
I don't disagree with this. Here's another attempt to make the point clear.
Assume you have volatility but it's always the same. Basically, your price follows a 100% predictable pattern no matter how many people buy or sell. In that case you have volatility, but 100% insight and hence can generate profits without any risk whatsoever.
Obviously this isn't going to happen in real markets (though it does in many games), but it should be sufficiently illustrative to show that volatility and risk aren't related.
Dude. Volatility that is always the same is not volatility. That's stability, and thus not risk. As you said, obviously this isn't going to happen in real markets, and it won't, ever. Nobody has 100% insight into any market. If your best real-world example of an asset that has high volatility and "no risk" is bitcoin, I'm going to stick by my original assertion that you are just looking at this from an after-the-fact standpoint. |
|
|
|
Is the trajectory constant or not? You are employing a loose definition of the word "constant" to make your case here. Within the "random deviations from the trajectory" could exist several other trajectories, depending on what span of time we're talking about. Within the cluster of those sub-trajectories exists risk if you are a shorter-term trader.
You didn't even know the trajectory was upward until after it had taken place, so to say it was a "risk free" investment is a statement made after the fact, and basically meaningless. Its like making a prediction on 2015's price of bitcoin in 2020. Sure, after the fact, we can say that the overall trajectory was up, and there existed a lot of volatility in the middle. But nobody knew it was a risk-free investment in 2015.
I'm starting to feel like you're trolling me now. What part about "a constant trajectory around which the price oscillates" do you not understand? Not even going to address the rest of the post until we've established why you refuse to understand this and keep repeating the same wrong thing over and over even when it's pointed out to you. "Volatility, in essence, is nothing but a random oscillation around a potentially unknown trajectory." You're talking about a moving average that could only be established after a bunch of data points had been collected, which is the main thing I have an issue with. In order for something to be a "risk free investment", you're implying that somehow the trajectory could be established prior to it happening. I'm saying it couldn't. Only after the fact could it be demonstrated to be risk free. It just sounds like you ascribe to trend following, which is fine, but that doesn't negate the correlation between volatility and risk. So what am I getting wrong? You don't have to bother addressing the rest of the post if you don't want to. |
|
|
|
Again, a "constant upward trajectory" creates zero volatility. Reading comprehension. I was never talking about "constant upward trajectory", but about "constant upward trajectory with volatility around the trajectory"; or in other words random deviations from the trajectory. Is the trajectory constant or not? You are employing a loose definition of the word "constant" to make your case here. Within the "random deviations from the trajectory" could exist several other trajectories, depending on what span of time we're talking about. Within the cluster of those sub-trajectories exists risk if you are a shorter-term trader. You didn't even know the trajectory was upward until after it had taken place, so to say it was a "risk free" investment is a statement made after the fact, and basically meaningless. Its like making a prediction on 2015's price of bitcoin in 2020. Sure, after the fact, we can say that the overall trajectory was up, and there existed a lot of volatility in the middle. But nobody knew it was a risk-free investment in 2015. Volatility, in essence, is nothing but a random oscillation around a potentially unknown trajectory.
This, again, means that you can have assets of arbitrary volatility that fall into all three categories of: 1.) negative risk 2.) positive risk and 3.) neutral risk.
This all has to do with the span and timing of your trades/investments. Stocks and other assets go up and down and many have several different trajectories within their lifespans. Bitcoin is just one of a countless number of assets and has no relevance to the definition of volatility.
It may serve as an example for an asset with high volatility and negative risk (e.g. an expected long-term return greater zero) that may, despite having a positive expected return, still reduce your capital to ashes; which makes it a rather interesting case.
It makes it risky is what it makes it. Who gets to decide bitcoin has a "positive expected return"? And for what period of time? But that does not imply that all volatile assets are risky.
Everything that is traded under the sun has a certain degree of volatility and a certain degree of risk. The more volatile something is, the greater chance exists for financial ruin. It seems to be a no-brainer. Don't know why you would argue against that. Arguing about hypothetical situations taken advantage of to the maximum degree doesn't negate the correlation between risk and volatility. You should probably give this a read through: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/volatility.asp |
|
|
|
Volatility absolutely equals risk.
No, it most certainly does not. If you had a constant upward trajectory with a slope of p, then any "constant" (e.g. predictable) form of volatility around that trajectory would provide a 100% risk-free and arbitrarily volatile long-term investment with an expected positive annual return of p. In other words, volatility can but need not be a factor in risk. If 'ifs' and 'and' were pots and pans, well, guess what happens next. Again, a "constant upward trajectory" creates zero volatility. You have the same gain being made on a daily basis, which means it has a standard deviation of zero across any given time period, which means it has a complete lack of volatility. Anything that moves up or down to any varying degree is volatile, and therefore subject to risk (I suppose the exception would be if it only ever moved in the up direction to varying degrees, then you could have volatility with zero risk). If you are a long-term trader, then sure, the overall trend of bitcoin has been up, but that does not mean that it completely lacks volatility and risk. |
|
|
|
If you think you are safe behind your PC A letter from a lawyer to Namecheap with all the information I've gathered here and we know the domain owner After that everything goes very quickly, trust me Disclosure of your IP data and email address Internet provider query The same applies to Mallyx This conversation will not be continued here, but will be recorded and followed up in any case.  Nope. You would need a court order issued in the U.S. for this information to be released. As far as I know, theymos has only complied with the most serious of law enforcement requests involving the investigation of major, federal crimes. Exposing a fake DEX for having a shitty backend does not fall into this category. What's far more likely is he would tell your lawyer to go fuck themselves. If you now operate as a DEX should be, I will remove my complaint. Else I will keep showing proof of inegibility.
It's best for you to comply with you own engagements.
Waiting to hear your next review. Even if the exchange did fix their problems, I still would not trust it until the smart contract which interacted with Metamask or whatever was thoroughly scrutinized. |
|
|
|
|
I would change the flag. It kind of looks like a math puzzle at the moment. I would change it to a big, badass eagle ripping into the neck of a snake. Maybe have him standing on some cactuses. With a backdrop of three red, white and green vertical stripes -- green replacing blue because I like green better.
|
|
|
|
I explained in other thread
I never took even one bet
Okay hold up. - You skipped the 1 week free trial and paid him $25 for 1 month up front - You never took one bet, so you didn't actually lose any money from his tips - After 1 wrong pick (the 2nd pick you are complaining about was a win, not a loss -- you never mentioned the details of the 1st wrong pick) you decided the guy was a fraud and demanded a refund, without deciding to wait and see how the rest of the month played out. From your trust history, it would appear that you take pleasure in being scammed. You've apparently not learned a single thing in your various investment/gambling adventures over the years. I got scammed one time in 2017 over something that I thought was genuinely legit -- I even encouraged other people to invest in it and felt bad about that. After that, I learned my lesson and have done everything I can to make sure that I would never be scammed again. I guess my question is, why do you keep making yourself a victim? |
|
|
|
In order to "manufacture timelines", one has to present a false order of events.
FTFY. You feel you have some kind of right to not only demand I explain why I included these people, but that it must be done in such a manner commensurate with your demands
Not at all. You have every much a right to include who you want as I do to assume you were fishing for reciprocal inclusions. or else I am "manufacturing timelines".
Again, no. The fact that you were presenting events out of order is why you were manufacturing timelines. Not only that there were private communications as well, there is also the fact that I thought their trust lists were also positive additions. Some of the users I added for the simple reason that I agreed with their trust list. Okay. You are again changing the story from what you said months earlier: You want to REALLY know why I added those Turkish users? Because they were just barely off the DT and I wanted to see it more diverse. Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in. The Turkish community was obviously being targeted. I don't believe it was for racist reasons though, I just think the clowns feel like they can't keep their iron grip of nepotism if more groups are included. All this circus is, is punishment for working to bust up their little clown cartel, and it is painfully transparent.
But since I admittedly can't prove that I know what you were actually thinking or what your actual motivations were, I ask that people look at the body of evidence presented and come to their own conclusions. BTW, I don't necessarily agree with Vod's negative rating for you over this issue. I think you are quite capable of delivering packages and that you aren't a scammer. However, I do think its a reason why you shouldn't be in DT. |
|
|
|
Been thinking about it a bit more. Bitcoin does not produce anything. There is no dependency on any supply chain being functional or not. Dumping your precious bitcoins like a company stock because of a non computer virus makes absolutely no sense. It is an irrational decision unless your purpose is to try an buy them back cheaper, and we all know how that worked out over the last 10+ years for Joe Average.
The problem is that a fair amount of BTC is owned or at least manipulated by Wall Street and large institutions like Bakkt and the CME. Wall Street views bitcoin has an extremely high risk asset, meaning it is the first asset to get sold off whenever there is a panic of sorts. Only after Wall Street has minimized its involvement with BTC and regular folks feel comfortable with their amount of fiat money will BTC's price begin to stabilize. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's what I believe. And that is where sellers of any size are wrong. First volatility != risk. Retail investors often act emotional (the human monkey brain has a hard time dealing with ‘losing’) but institutions/algorithms know better. Bitcoin until today is volatile in only one direction: up. It is therefore more likely institutions involved in Bitcoin are selling to compensate for their recent losses in stocks, which is probably why gold went down as well after its multi year high: profit taking. Second Bitcoin is an uncorrelated asset. It does not care about China, the stock market, covid-19, or even bitebits posting in the WO. Selling bitcoins for any other reason than permanently getting out is stupidity and you will get burnt, whether you are Wall Street or Joe Average. The <=2015 days when Bitcoin actually was a risky investment are long gone. To those who did I salute you. Volatility absolutely equals risk. That's what makes risky asset categories risky. High risk, high reward. If an asset simply rises, that's not volatility -- that's stability. However, bitcoin doesn't do that. Previous to cryptocurrency, Wall Street's highest risk asset category was emerging markets, for the exact same reason: they are highly volatile. Traditionally, there has been zero correlation between BTC in the stock market; however, the stock market has been in a bull run for almost the entirety of bitcoin's existence, and Wall Street only started really getting into bitcoin in the last couple years. We have yet to see how bitcoin will react to a bear stock market. |
|
|
|
So now you decide for me now what is a good reason to add people? This justifies the use of a negative rating how? Also, BTW, I never said those were the exclusive reasons I added them, I actually explained several reasons why I did which predate the flag event, but that doesn't work well with your accusation does it, so you have to accuse me again, this time of "manufacturing" reasons. I think you are "manufacturing" yourself, lots of bullshit to serve your personal vendettas. Also notice you totally ignored a neutral 3rd party, why is that Nutilduuuh? Is it because you can't simply just accuse them of things and pretend as if they are trying to cover something up as your sole form of argument?
P.S. - AMAZIN'!
TL;DR "I got caught manipulating the trust system and then lying about it, so let me shift the argument to a personal one." I actually explained several reasons why I did which predate the flag event Where? From what I can see you had zero public interaction with them before Sept 6th. But I could be mistaken, so please feel free to point out what I missed. but that doesn't work well with your accusation does it, so you have to accuse me again, this time of "manufacturing" reasons I didn't accuse you of manufacturing "reasons," I accused you of manufacturing a timeline, which you did. you totally ignored a neutral 3rd party While I don't consider their tone to be "neutral," I did address their request in my following post. |
|
|
|
There is no evidence. You said it yourself, it is an assumption. These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents, but claim to know who I have and have not communicated with. Furthermore, the cooperation I received from these users when they responded positively to suggestions to remove support for invalid flags led me to conclude they would be positive additions to the trust system.
Again, you are manufacturing a false timeline. We've been over this before. You were adding (and removing) these users months before the whole Timelord fake flag bonanza. This is the 3rd time I am bringing it up in this thread, let's see if you ignore it yet again: You also never addressed this post where I correct your mistaken timeline of events regarding your involvement with the Turkish community: That said, if you review the original thread Vod bases his accusation on, you will see I made an effort to mutually resolve a conflict between members of the Turkish community and Timelord. This lead to several interactions with several of the members of the Turkish community, of which I gained respect for because of how they handled the response. I must assume they felt the same way and this is why they added me. I didn't do anything I wasn't supposed to and these accusations are nothing but a tall tale designed to make sure I wasn't allowed to be put back on the default trust instigated by people with very long time, publicly documented animus against me. Your timeline is off. The trust trading was happening well before your involvement with Timelord's fake flag bonanza. The post you linked is dated September 7th, and you were playing trust games with Russian and Turkish local board posters from July through August. The only reason these users were on your radar was because they had recently been promoted to DT1, and like you, were either off or barely hanging on by 1-2 votes. Your other great rationale for adding local board posters is because somebody like Foxpup, suchmoon or myself distrust them, which according to you, "makes them interesting." Still a terrible reason to include someone in your trust list, and evidence you don't belong on DT. Seems like you wouldn't have to lie about this if you had actual interactions with these members before September. I am not manufacturing anything. You did though. You clearly lied about the timing of your intervention with the Turkish community flags issue, making up a story about how it preceded your adding them to your trust list. It did not. Let's spell it out again. Your first involvement with the flag issue was on September 6th. You started adding Turkish members over a month prior to this event.  You had included Turkish users bobita Matthias9515 PHI1618 by rallier (later excluded) weeks prior to September 6th. Sometime between August 31st and September 7th, you addedVispilio Kalemder* Let's say you added these 2 members on September 7th, moments/hours after they withdrew their support for the flag against Timelord, and moments/hours before Loyce uploaded that week's trust list. Is that a good reason to include these members in your trust list? All because they withdrew support for a bullshit, retaliatory flag, created by them? Not exactly a great reason to change your trust list IMO. What's far more likely is you stepped in briefly to help out your newfound friends from incorrectly using the new flag system, which admittedly was a good thing to do, regardless of the circumstances. And thanks to them and a few Russians which you included because people you disagree with have them excluded, you are currently back on DT1, so congratulations, enjoy it while it lasts. *Edit: Vispilio was the only Turkish member you added after Loyce's update on 9/7: Let's take a look at his include/exclude history according to BPIP: 7/23/2019 9:34:59 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts by rallier (2) 7/28/2019 3:18:28 AM TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts by rallier 7/23/2019 9:45:04 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts PHI1618 (1) 8/2/2019 5:33:52 PM Matthias9515* (2) trusts TECSHARE 8/2/2019 8:25:25 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Matthias9515 (2) 8/4/2019 10:00:19 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts bobita (2) 8/5/2019 10:07:57 AM bobita (2) trusts TECSHARE (0) 9/4/2019 4:43:55 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1)9/6/2019 5:32:09 AM TECSHARE (0) no longer trusts Kalemder (1) 9/6/2019 5:24:47 PM TECSHARE (0) trusts Kalemder (1) 9/7/2019 2:29:57 AM Kalemder (1) trusts TECSHARE (0) 9/7/2019 3:50:44 AM TECSHARE (0) trusts mhanbostanci (2) 9/7/2019 10:13:59 AM mhanbostanci (2) trusts TECSHARE (0) *became DT1 at this time As you can see, Matthias9515 was the only member to trust TECSHARE first, and TS didn't get a reciprocal trust from by rallier or PHI1618. He also added Vispilio to his list, who recently fell off DT1 for not having the minimum requirements. He also did the same thing with WhiteManWhite: (sometime between 3/31 and 4/6) TECSHARE trusts WhiteManWhite 5/30/2019 2:39:17 PM WhiteManWhite (2) trusts TECSHARE (0) Would you trust somebody who goes around adding new DT1s to his trust list despite having no previous interaction with them whatsoever, and who doesn't speak their native tongue? I wouldn't. I can forgive the new DTs for not really having a respect for or knowledge of how the trust system works, but as TECSHARE is one of the more veteran members of the forum, he should really know better than this by now. You are supposed to be adding members to your trust list who you _trust_, and who you think do a good job of leaving feedback, not out of hopes that they will reciprocate by adding you to their lists. Allowing this kind of thing to happen without calling it out sets a dangerous precedent going forward. **2nd edit. In TECSHARE's own words: You want to REALLY know why I added those Turkish users? Because they were just barely off the DT and I wanted to see it more diverse. Additionally because anyone the resident clowns exclude I immediately find interest in. The Turkish community was obviously being targeted. I don't believe it was for racist reasons though, I just think the clowns feel like they can't keep their iron grip of nepotism if more groups are included. All this circus is, is punishment for working to bust up their little clown cartel, and it is painfully transparent.
None of these are great reasons for someone to be including members into their trust list, but admittedly that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
 Salud! Both better choices over Corona. I'd say Pacifico is as well, but I draw the line at Modelo... I'd drink Corona with a lime, though. Makes it a bit smoother. People should have stopped drinking Corona already, but they had excellent marketing.   But I don't think anything is going to help them overcome their current problems, not even this...  |
|
|
|
There is no evidence. You said it yourself, it is an assumption. These accusations claim to know not only my thoughts, intents, but claim to know who I have and have not communicated with. Furthermore, the cooperation I received from these users when they responded positively to suggestions to remove support for invalid flags led me to conclude they would be positive additions to the trust system.
Again, you are manufacturing a false timeline. We've been over this before. You were adding (and removing) these users months before the whole Timelord fake flag bonanza. This is the 3rd time I am bringing it up in this thread, let's see if you ignore it yet again: You also never addressed this post where I correct your mistaken timeline of events regarding your involvement with the Turkish community: That said, if you review the original thread Vod bases his accusation on, you will see I made an effort to mutually resolve a conflict between members of the Turkish community and Timelord. This lead to several interactions with several of the members of the Turkish community, of which I gained respect for because of how they handled the response. I must assume they felt the same way and this is why they added me. I didn't do anything I wasn't supposed to and these accusations are nothing but a tall tale designed to make sure I wasn't allowed to be put back on the default trust instigated by people with very long time, publicly documented animus against me. Your timeline is off. The trust trading was happening well before your involvement with Timelord's fake flag bonanza. The post you linked is dated September 7th, and you were playing trust games with Russian and Turkish local board posters from July through August. The only reason these users were on your radar was because they had recently been promoted to DT1, and like you, were either off or barely hanging on by 1-2 votes. Your other great rationale for adding local board posters is because somebody like Foxpup, suchmoon or myself distrust them, which according to you, "makes them interesting." Still a terrible reason to include someone in your trust list, and evidence you don't belong on DT. Seems like you wouldn't have to lie about this if you had actual interactions with these members before September. |
|
|
|
“If you support Medicare for All, you have to be willing to end the greed of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries,” he said. “That means boldly transforming our dysfunctional system by ending the use of private health insurance, except to cover non-essential care like cosmetic surgeries.”
His plan is to mobilize his followers to pressure the government to implement these things. He said as much in a Joe Rogen interview and his followers have said as much as well. We can certainly discuss whether or not it could actually happen, but that's what his plan is. Perhaps you don't get that they view this as a "revolution".
"Ending the use of private health insurance" is certainly an overstatement, as it can't be done and won't be done. Regardless, its still not the same thing as a government-mandated closure of private health insurance companies. That can't happen, and he knows it can't happen. It was never on the table. |
|
|
|
Been thinking about it a bit more. Bitcoin does not produce anything. There is no dependency on any supply chain being functional or not. Dumping your precious bitcoins like a company stock because of a non computer virus makes absolutely no sense. It is an irrational decision unless your purpose is to try an buy them back cheaper, and we all know how that worked out over the last 10+ years for Joe Average.
The problem is that a fair amount of BTC is owned or at least manipulated by Wall Street and large institutions like Bakkt and the CME. Wall Street views bitcoin has an extremely high risk asset, meaning it is the first asset to get sold off whenever there is a panic of sorts. Only after Wall Street has minimized its involvement with BTC and regular folks feel comfortable with their amount of fiat money will BTC's price begin to stabilize. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that's what I believe. |
|
|
|
I wasn't even thinking about higher education, I was thinking about grades K-12, which is not only a fundamental right but mandatory...
Still don't agree that even that is a "right". There are lots of reasons to justify it or even make it mandatory but can't see how it's a right in any way. Though not explicitly mentioned by the U.S. constitution, the right to education has been recognized by several major international conventions, many of which the U.S. is regular participant. The U.S. also signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which right to education is an article. You can say that this is not legally-binding, but to think that the U.S. government is interested in denying any citizen of education would be mistaken, as this protection is routinely upheld by supreme courts around the country. My point was simply that it's not a right but I see so many claiming it is and they can never make a good argument for it other than say "I think it is".
Again, legally speaking, you are correct. Its not a "right." However, I believe that it should be (along with education) as its just common sense if you care at all about the prosperity of your nation. You can disagree with my previously stated rationale as to why I think it should be a right, and we can agree to disagree. Bernie will do away with virtually ALL private insurance (effectively killing off a lot of companies). That's the plan and what I thought we were talking about in general.
This is just nonsense. First of all, the president doesn't have that kind of power. Second of all, when did Bernie say he wants to "do away" with ALL private insurance, virtually or otherwise? Third of all, to think that Bernie's vision of universal healthcare will come to full fruition is naive. Of course it would ultimately be just some watered-down compromise where the jobs of those possessing the most well-funded health insurance and hospital corporation lobbyists will remain protected, and likely Bernie won't even affect any real change in the industry, similar to what happened with Obama. However, its still a step in the right direction - that we're at least willing to look at solutions to a massive problem - as the current healthcare system is heavily flawed and entirely unsustainable. |
|
|
|
And just like that, they are gone.  These tradesatoshi scammers stole almost 0.7 bitcoin from me, blocked the withdrawal of funds for no reason.  I'm starting to think that not only do they not have the BTC to repay their customers, they haven't had it in a long time. It would explain all the stupid games they've been playing for almost an entire year leading up to their closure. The last time they moved coins out of their OMNI hot wallet was November 1st of last year: https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/000706574639c86a?from_address=18rKsxwrdHxrfPjzAqNuxYr37wNNrxgrqy(the 18rK... address corresponding to the OMNI hot wallet is only one address out of many that TS used to transfer BTC, however... would need more blockchain evidence to associate other wallets) |
|
|
|
it should be a right
Based on what? I would just love to hear a good justification for that. Based on the fact that its a required element for survival. Similar to how education is a right, None of that is a right. You know. Back in the day, I mostly paid my way through my higher education by taking terms off to work etc. Jobs did the same thing. Woz did the same thing. That's what people did instead of expecting others to hold their hand and give them things. You want something, go make it happen instead of thinking you're entitled to things you're not. Most that go onto higher education don't even know what they want to do. But they're conditioned to think it's what they should do so they can start generating taxes and racking up debt, become wage slaves, as quickly as possible. There is really no rush to run off and get a higher education. I wasn't even thinking about higher education, I was thinking about grades K-12, which is not only a fundamental right but mandatory... if a society wants its population....
That's the only argument that holds sway. If the society/country decides it's in their best interest to pay for those things then fine. But it's not a right. Why not make it one? Awesome. Just let the government decide what companies should and should not exist based on... what... "feelings"... Yeah, ok then. Let's not take a more practical approach to phasing them out or working with them to shift to other things or writing actually good laws/regulations that would keep them from exploiting people. That would be far too rational. Fuck the "bad" companies. Which ones would be next I wonder? Well.. we can't shut them all down. Oh I know. The government will just take them on instead and will justify it cause.. they're "bad".. Yeah.. And people like you wonder why some get all up in arms about socialism.
I don't really understand how this addresses what I was saying in the slightest. I never suggested the government close any business, but you ran away with this notion for some reason. The existence of a medicare for all-type program (or "Public Option" as it was called in the Obama era) would place increased competition on for-profit insurers. Some of the more unsustainable ones would indeed go out of business, as they probably should. There are private insurers in every country that has socialized medicine, as it remains an economically-driven necessity. Nobody, however socialist they may be, is forcing any of them to close, and nobody thinks that would be a good idea. |
|
|
|
Though this Ryleys guy said he would do a refund and didn't do it (which is definitely a tag-able offense, no questions there), I encourage everyone to read this thread as OP isn't telling the whole story. For instance, how much did you bet on this surebet you posted you received from another tipster? ( oh sorry it was not a tennis bet )  That is false. Fogarty (the "old man") did indeed lose the match:  So OP is blaming Ryleys for something that didn't actually happen. Regardless, I will tag the Ryleys account for failing to issue a refund after promising to do so. Promise of refund quoted for reference: I will refund him fully even tho on the weekend over 10 bets won in a row, just to show i am not a scammer but i have zero interest in having you in my list or around my channel.
|
|
|
|
Legendster and actmyname are not scammers.
so actually you delivered proof that you are blind! I don't think you are blind but you don't want to see the right things and this stinks! yes he did not steal the 25$ LOL cause I donated it. you are welcome to give me also red trust cause I wrote that Ryan Fawcett Betadvisor tipster aka Ryleys Scammed me and is a Fraud oh and BTW thx for showing us your signature don't want to see the right things? I can't make this Ryleys guy refund your bitcoin but I provided a viable remedy for your situation which you completely ignored. - You were pissed that you lost the bet that was picked to win. - The bet result was later adjusted to reflect that it was a win. - Ergo, you won the bet. - Ergo, you have no reason to be pissed! My signature shows at the bottom of every post I make. Its a standard feature. I'm not going to negative trust you but I do think everyone should avoid doing any business with you whatsoever. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
