I suggest we send Trace Mayer to talk to Alex. That would be great.
We could send Max Keiser... but he needs a teeny bit more education himself first. It's funny how we want to send Trace everywhere  . He's doing an awesome job wherever he pops up. Max Keiser has been on Alex's show and they did talk a little about Bitcoin. I think Alex just doesn't get Bitcoin and probably never will. Kinda like magnets, but he still uses them. |
|
|
|
Incorrect. Hamas wishes to exterminate the jews. It's always been about jihad for islam.
That's a racist statement and doesn't belong on this forum. Last time I checked hamas isn't a race. Neither is islam. There are over a billion of them, so what's the difference if you believe it or not? Seriously? You can't tell the difference between a religion, a terrorist organization and a race? No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that nobody cares about the shit that comes out of you. Islam has not "always been about jihad" you dickweed. There are over a billion members of islam. Troll. |
|
|
|
|
Judges have no Constitutional power to "overturn" laws made by Congress. What should happen is that someone sues the government over violating Constitutional rights and receives a settlement if they prove their case. The people lined up in court to make similar suits would force the local statute to be rescinded. The idiots that made the laws would face re-election and no longer be around to make such stupid laws. How we got to the point where a group of un-elected lifetime appointees make the law of the land defies logic. The system is broken, this small victory notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin development is going pretty fast even though it will probably be a few years before it is ready for mass adoption. At that point Bitcoin will be worth several orders of magnitude beyond current value. All it will take for speculators to kick it up a notch is a killer app. These will be plethora when m-of-n transactions become available.
m-of-n transactions are available, we just need the apps to be built Yeah, I'm starting to think that will be a couple more years away. Well, more time for me to buy cheap bitcoins! |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin development is going pretty fast even though it will probably be a few years before it is ready for mass adoption. At that point Bitcoin will be worth several orders of magnitude beyond current value. All it will take for speculators to kick it up a notch is a killer app. These will be plethora when m-of-n transactions become available.
|
|
|
|
"Bitcoin might be a solution."
Two seconds later, "There is no way to pay with cash on the internet."
I guess cash only means state paper to him still.
He have a compartmental mind. He needs an analogy he can relate to. Maybe the fact that Bitcoin is an open-source currency. |
|
|
|
I think import private key should not be exposed to average users. Sweep private key should be offered instead.
Users are apt to believe that once they import a private key they have ownership of the funds. But someone else who has the private key can still swipe them, a rude awakening. Offering sweep solves this.
+1 +1 Yes, please. |
|
|
|
Fear not from what you see and hear, for they can be identified through investigation. It's what you cannot see and hear that you must be concerned about.  |
|
|
|
But, but... it's not backed by the government.  Oh but it is: the governments of the west are printing money. Bless their hearts! They are increasing Bitcoin's value with each inflation of government currency. So you could say that Bitcoin is partially backed by government currency inflation. |
|
|
|
Whose corporations are doing this? Germany's? France's? Italy's? Please be more specific?
Yes. Also America's, Russia's, Japan's and other's Russia's time is coming, but not yet. They are still recovering from communist dictatorship. The other countries have protectionist trade laws that make such imports not so beneficial. *words* Oh godamnit, no! I said corporations are investing in China, you asked which countries' corporations, and I replied that corporations that are based in Germany, France, Italy, America, Russia, and Japan are all investing in China. Not that other corporations are investing in those other countries, but that all countries around the world are investing in China. Also, Mexico is way to f'in expensive to outsource to. Their labor is way too expensive, for the same reason that China's is getting expensive. It's why we stopped outsourcing to Mexico and started to Outsource to China and India. It's also why we're slowing down outsourcing to China/India, and exploring the options of outsourcing to Kenya and the rest of Africa. Just to be clear, we are talking about investing in China to take advantage of cheap labor and cheap imports, right? Both must exist for a corporation to find an advantage. We still have cheap imports from Mexico, just not so cheap labor anymore. We used to do the same with Korea and Japan. Again, this may be a good opportunity for opportunists to take advantage of China, but I have a feeling that China will not react the same way as Korea and Japan. In fact they are building their factories in specialized zones. This way they get trained labor forces that are geographically based. It is an ideal way to plan for possible nationalization of these factories. So go ahead and use China as a gleaming example of unrestricted capitalism via no-minimum-wage. Time will tell. I am still skeptical. I will classify using China to make you argument as special pleading. |
|
|
|
The Internet was invented precisely because it can not be blacked out. Though if you are talking about blacking out access to the Internet, then I guess that's a possibility. In that case, electronic bitcoin transaction will be impossible, though physical bitcoins can still be used as cash.
Nonsense!!!!! War, is one example. An example of what? "The Internet was invented precisely because it can not be blacked out." 1. The internet was not invented for that reason. 2. "it can not be blacked out", war is an example of it being blacked out, either in part of in full. Correct. The "Internet" was not created to avoid being blacked out. ArpaNet was invented to avoid being blacked out. The Internet was built upon ArpaNet though and serves the same function. Also incorrect............. (wikipedia after verifying references) "Although the ARPANET was designed to survive subordinate-network losses, the principal reason was that the switching nodes and network links were unreliable, even without any nuclear attacks. About the resource scarcity that spurred the creation of the ARPANET, Charles Herzfeld, ARPA Director (1965–1967), said: The ARPANET was not started to create a Command and Control System that would survive a nuclear attack, as many now claim. To build such a system was, clearly, a major military need, but it was not ARPA's mission to do this; in fact, we would have been severely criticized had we tried. Rather, the ARPANET came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators, who should have access to them, were geographically separated from them.[13]" lets face it, in the last 5 years an earthquake off Taiwan and a few chinks in a fishing trawler,took down the Asian side of the network for a few hours. Well I never mentioned nuclear war. IIRC it was modelled after the original American colonies that could not be conquered easily by the British. Because each state had an independent militia, taking over one state had little affect on the overall campaign. I can't comment on the claim of a former director. It was built on the ideas of many brilliant people with many diverse ideas. I would not discount any claim as being partially true. |
|
|
|
You use China as an example. A communist dictatorship. This is your model for the study of markets? Lets give them a couple decades to develop before using them for study.
Yes, I am using China, a communist dictatorship, which despite that STILL has very plainly visible market forces at work in their labor sector. Labor there is "free market," even if the rest of the business isn't. It's why our capitalist corporations invest there. Whose corporations are doing this? Germany's? France's? Italy's? Please be more specific? Yes. Also America's, Russia's, Japan's and other's Russia's time is coming, but not yet. They are still recovering from communist dictatorship. The other countries have protectionist trade laws that make such imports not so beneficial. They may do it to some degree, but not nearly as much as the USA. American laws tend to swing like pendulum. It is very likely that future investment in China will be based on things other than labor cost like in Japan and Korea. In fact, it's starting to happen. China is starting to invest in American labor as do the Koreans because our labor is very cheap. This won't last. If it was successful, then Chinese companies would be owning business in Germany, France, and Italy as well. I'm surprised you didn't mention Mexico. There is a marvelous model of cheap labor and its awesome benefits. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be nice if the real [world] worked like it does on a chalkboard?
I see. Economics only works if it agrees with your preconceptions, huh? Sorry, princess, that's not science. That's fantasy. I was using the definition of science used by every scientist on the planet. You now resort to ad hominem which tells me your hypothalamus is heating up. How does that make you feel? Ad hominem attacks? Where? Telling you that you're fantasizing instead of using science is not an ad hominem. And, on that note, welcome to my shit-list. Bye-bye, princess. lol |
|
|
|
Back to the topic, programing is still a good job, but I see for each programmer hired, 3-4 traditional workers will be fired, and since his salary (and consumption) can not be 4x of those fired workers, the total consumption of the society is on the way down. I think in the latest 100 years, every such a wave of efficiency lift generated a huge recession
Not true. Just as machines freed up farmers, and those farmers went on to do other jobs, after programs free up traditional workers, they will go on and do other jobs as well. Despite HUGE advances in technology in the 20th century, and many many jobs being replaced or made obsolete, the unemployment rate has largely remained the same. That suggests that plenty of new, more higher level (and leaner/white-collar) jobs were created, as well as that people have to work less (need fewer jobs) in order to stay prosperous (e.g. we don't bust our backs on farms of in factories from 6am to 9pm any more) Mechanization has always displaced workers, and those workers have always found something else to do. When all needs are met by a machine, well, that'll be a pretty nice problem to have. Wouldn't it be nice if the real [world] worked like it does on a chalkboard?
I see. Economics only works if it agrees with your preconceptions, huh? Sorry, princess, that's not science. That's fantasy. I was using the definition of science used by every scientist on the planet. You now resort to ad hominem which tells me your hypothalamus is heating up. How does that make you feel? |
|
|
|
You use China as an example. A communist dictatorship. This is your model for the study of markets? Lets give them a couple decades to develop before using them for study.
Yes, I am using China, a communist dictatorship, which despite that STILL has very plainly visible market forces at work in their labor sector. Labor there is "free market," even if the rest of the business isn't. It's why our capitalist corporations invest there. Whose corporations are doing this? Germany's? France's? Italy's? Please be more specific? |
|
|
|
The population of today's minimum wage workers suffers much the same choices as enslaved peoples. It's funny that most (if not all) civilized people get this and you don't. I hate pull the ad populum card, but this is a moral issue.
Please re-read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127908.msg1377300#msg1377300When there are minimum wage laws, there are more workers than jobs, and thus minimum wage workers are forced to compete for their job, because there are lots of unskilled workers who are ready and waiting to take their place. In places in China, as in my linked example, there are no minimum wage laws, and thus way more jobs that workers, meaning employers have to compete for workers instead. End result is workers are actually important, are treated better, and have a choice to change jobs if they want to, because there are plenty of employers willing to hire them on. cbeast is the wrong nickname. The right nickname is just beast. Cos that dude is a beast. Like, a brute beast. Heh, you are partly right. That is partly where my name comes from, but only when I want to win!  |
|
|
|
The population of today's minimum wage workers suffers much the same choices as enslaved peoples. It's funny that most (if not all) civilized people get this and you don't. I hate pull the ad populum card, but this is a moral issue.
Please re-read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127908.msg1377300#msg1377300When there are minimum wage laws, there are more workers than jobs, and thus minimum wage workers are forced to compete for their job, because there are lots of unskilled workers who are ready and waiting to take their place. In places in China, as in my linked example, there are no minimum wage laws, and thus way more jobs that workers, meaning employers have to compete for workers instead. End result is workers are actually important, are treated better, and have a choice to change jobs if they want to, because there are plenty of employers willing to hire them on. You use China as an example. A communist dictatorship. This is your model for the study of markets? Lets give them a couple decades to develop before using them for study. |
|
|
|
You are splitting hairs. We are talking about sets of populations, not individual cases. The population of today's minimum wage workers suffers much the same choices as enslaved peoples. It's funny that most (if not all) civilized people get this and you don't. I hate pull the ad populum card, but this is a moral issue.
Minimum wage laws create the problem you are railing against. Minimum wage laws are a price floor. Price floors, when they do anything, create a surplus in the controlled commodity.  A historical (and current) example of a price floor are minimum wage laws; in this case, employees are the suppliers of labor and the company is the consumer. When the minimum wage is set higher than the equilibrium market price for unskilled labor, unemployment is created (more people are looking for jobs than there are jobs available). A minimum wage above the equilibrium wage would induce employers to hire fewer workers as well as allow more people to enter the labor market, the result is a surplus in the amount of labor available. The equilibrium wage for a worker would be dependent upon the worker's skill sets along with market conditions. Wouldn't it be nice if the real worked like it does on a chalkboard? As smart as Newton was, even his theories don't hold up in every situation. Computer modelling gets us a little closer, but nothing in you chart speaks of laws. Laws are real world applications of theory overseen by judges and juries because simple statistics and theory don't apply in every situation. Theories about economics are surely interesting, but to be a real science they must pass experimental muster and peer review. So while you have an interesting mathematical model it is no more science than any other math. It is simply math theory, no more, no less. Math is a very important tool, but when all you have is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail. Your error is in confirmation bias. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
