It's a bit of a gimmick but it's an interesting idea for the fact it expands the Overton window with respect to crypto currency and the Washington D.C. status quo. I'd note that Ted Cruz is perhaps one of the most pro-crypto politicians in the U.S. and his crypto advocacy doesn't just encompass crypto vending machines at Capitol Hill. https://twitter.com/sentedcruz/status/1528891825477455872Bitcoin and crypto represent freedom. It's not surprising that there is tremendous pushback from most Democrats because they cannot control cryptocurrencies. Thank you to the @Heritage Foundation for hosting this exciting discussion tonight. Seems refreshing for there to be a politician that isn't aligned with the central banks and is open to competitors of state sponsored currency. Bring on the crypto vending machines! |
|
|
|
That is undoubtedly true online casinos do not all offer 100% payout rates. Some of them do. It's crucial to conduct some research and learn the payout rates of various casinos and games before you play. And you are correct, some slot machines include software that makes them pay out less often than they are supposed to, which is questionable. Nothing obligates a casino to treat its customers fairly.
There isn't a casino out there that offers a 100% RTP. A casino without a house edge is a charity. Different games have different RTP's and slots are just about the worst game you could play and it's a commonality at every casino. If you're playing at a legitimate casino the software used on slots will guarantee the casino a payout over time so as long as the spins are verifiable then there shouldn't be an issue. Table games will generally have the same house edge regardless of the casino because the math works out the same using standard decks of playing cards. The only modifications of the house edge that you might see are modified payouts which will increase the house edge (ie 3:2 blackjack and 6:5 blackjack). |
|
|
|
Unless the majority of the world abandons the US Dollar, China will still be dependent in using it for foreign trades. Only a few select countries are willing to trade goods in exchange for CNY, and the rest of the world still deals with USD a lot. Even if they were the first one to introduce the digitization of their currency, most of the success of their CBDC will still be dependent on the amount of people willing to use and receive it. They can force their people to use it as long as they like, but outside of China, it'll be a hard task to do that since there really isn't any incentive to use digital Yuan just yet.
Doesn't seem to me there'd be any benefit of holding digitalized Yuan ever unless China compelled bilateral transactions be conducted in their own currencies (at which point countries would just conduct commerce elsewhere). This just seems like a move to introduce more fiscal control over Chinese citizens. I wouldn't expect the global commerce sector to pick up worthless digital tokens that are controlled on a whim by the communist Chinese party. It's taking a large gamble. |
|
|
|
|
The untold truth is that traditional banking institutions work the same way FTX did but with slightly less corruption. Banks do not hold cash -- if every single client at a local bank withdrew the digital balance they have on their accounts at once, the bank would run into the same liquidity issue FTX did. I suppose it would be possible for CBDC's to create new digital tokens if there was a problem with liquidity but the central banks already have the power to control the money supply anyways and most of it's digital. It's not as if they're physically printing cash.
|
|
|
|
CBS is propaganda rag. They've had many of the doomsdayers on their 60 Minutes broadcast and they all say the same thing: Humanity is doomed due to climate change unless we act now. The "act now" portion is where they demand government pour money into their organizations which haven't produced any material solutions because the problem is nonexistent to begin with. there is no over population nor food shortages. there is just the society decisions of the elites .. and waste
Not only is there no food shortages, there are food surpluses. There is so much food available that a plurality of those living in developed nations are obese. |
|
|
|
|
His Truth social contract limits what he can post on other social media sites so it's probably useless. In terms of his reelection campaign, some of his Truth social posts has been dabbling in the Q-anon stuff. It's in his best interest to stay off social media. MSM doesn't cover his Truth social posts as closely as they did everything else and I'd argue his unhinged Truth posts do nothing beneficial for him even if his staunch supporters like it.
|
|
|
|
|
So China spends up to 5.4B (estimate) or as little as 1.6B. The figure seemed low on first glance. I thought China was at the forefront of AI R&D spending a lot more than what they are. They steal a bunch of proprietary research from the U.S. so perhaps that might reduce their budget a bit. U.S. should be spending a bit more -- better that they get AI figured out before China does and it's not like they can't afford it.
|
|
|
|
There are 2 questions in this thread and the answer is the same in both cases.
1. Should Ukraine surrender at this point?
No. It's winning! Russians were pushed back and Ukraine managed to perform successful attacks on various infrastructure within Russia.
They're burning through fighting aged men. So is Russia, but no one can reasonably act like this is sustainable. The U.S. wants a positive ROI on the military spending they've done on behalf of Ukraine, so they won't let it end too soon. The U.S. is hoping to save money in the Middle East when fighting Russian backed groups by having Ukraine decimate the Russian army for them. While Russia is in Ukraine, they won't be in the Middle East or supporting U.S. adversaries in the Middle East. I haven't checked if the math quite works out -- that the 50B+ the U.S. has spent in Ukraine is more/less than that spent in Middle Eastern proxy wars against Russia, but I'm sure the U.S. is hoping to get their money back and then some. |
|
|
|
I haven't seen a country successfully pull off a crypto ban yet but China has floated the idea in the past (in fact they might have already implemented a formal ban, but their enforcement is nonexistent).
I don't understand what kind of enforcement you'd expect, I think there are a lot of written sanctions in that country for violators. At this point, China is very serious about its policy if it remembers that the first catch is a penalty with severe consequences such as fines and imprisonment. In fact, no violations have been detected, so it's as if nothing happened. It's China -- if they were so inclined they could have law enforcement monitor online financial activity and penalize anyone conducting transactions through crypto. They haven't hesitated on using authoritarianism against anyone they deem to be offenders in the past, of course. I haven't seen reports of severe Bitcoin crackdowns in China but I'm open to being amended if it turns out to be the case from any crypto users subject to Xi Jinping's tyranny. |
|
|
|
1. The government cannot earn through Bitcoin in terms of investments, taxes and others.
It'll ultimately come down to this. Banning Bitcoin doesn't really do much for them, except prevent them from regulating it, and therefore profiting from it. So, most countries that do ban Bitcoin, tend to unban it at a later date. Barring any major changes to how people view Bitcoin, I imagine most countries will adopt the latter approach, and start taxing it. I haven't seen a country successfully pull off a crypto ban yet but China has floated the idea in the past (in fact they might have already implemented a formal ban, but their enforcement is nonexistent). I think the regulation portion of Bitcoin is the way most countries would go about banning bitcoin by proxy. If they can dissuade people into holding/using crypto by excessive taxes or governmental red tape, that would have the same effect as an outright ban -- and they wouldn't need to invest resources related to enforcement. That being said, to your point, if the government sees an opportunity to profit off crypto they would not hesitate to capitalize. |
|
|
|
You might not know the importance of Taiwan now until it is invaded. An instability in Taiwan would affect all the sectors of the world. The world is higher interrelated and interdependent. I never knew that the price of gas, crude, electricity, fuel, bread, in fact everything would increase.
Hate to say it but no one would care if Taiwan was invaded if it were not for TSMC dominating the semiconductor market. U.S. has an interest in ensuring the semiconductor supply and that also effects Europe. Of course the U.S. has been the only country supporting war efforts in Ukraine, Europe has done little to nothing. So I'm sure if China did pull the trigger and finally invade Taiwan, then I'm sure we'd see a replication of current events with the U.S. taking all the action and financial burden (by action I don't mean military intervention.) |
|
|
|
Actually, WW3 has been going on for a long time, now. After WW2, the Korean War was probably the start of WW3. When you look at all the countries the US has invaded since WW2, and especially the ones with some form of CIA or military violence, WW3 has been going on for a long time. Now it's coming to the US, slowly. World War Three already started
https://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=215302Much talked about as a possibility, World War Three has already started, said Gerald Celente. The flash points, provoked by the West, will keep escalating until nuclear weapons are used. The United States President Joe Biden is building it up until eventually global thermal nuclear war erupts. And the Western media is salivating for the awaiting moment as publications such as the Business Insider acclimate the public into war, noting: On US soil could happen a nuclear attack that would most likely target one of six cities: New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Washington DC. And would cause any of these cities to struggle, says a public-health expert, to provide emergency services to the wounded. No longer designated as fallout shelters, are those in the cities, to protect people from radiation. The only advice FEMA could offer citizens, is to get inside, stay inside, and stay tuned... ...
 Belarus already joined Russia - they are doing the drill and it will long till Feb 1 - Iran already selling their drones to Russia UK - France and Poland have promised to provide the arms and ammunition - Ukraine Allies grapple with sending more military aid that is true its world war3 in making China is still doing military exercises with Russia but it doesn't seem to me that China would be willing to participate on behalf of Russia at the expense of their own prosperity. Their economy is having issues that don't make war feasible. Iran and Belarus don't have enough firepower to aid Russia. India's been a bit cozy with Russia, in fact Modi has met with Putin not too long ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksybo68KYqg Of course I wouldn't call India a direct ally of Russia in the event of war. Modi himself is a bit of a nationalist so he's used Russian oil to help advance the economy and he wouldn't sacrifice that economy for nothing. |
|
|
|
... WH would rather continue their spending spree and make no efforts towards reducing spending.
Makes sense, since the currently political path or plan of the democrat party requires significant spending or investment. It is easy to talk about green energy, defense of Ukraine, healthcare, etc. But the money won't appear out of nowhere. Even if they are not willing to sit down and make a deal with the house of representatives, I assume the White house will find another way to raise the debt ceiling without their approval. They're not even practicing any sense of fiscal responsibility at all. Going back to H.W. Bush Republicans have not focused on fiscal conservatism at all but if the economy is growing at a reasonable rate, then there's the prospect of creating debt and bank on future growth to pay it off. Bill Clinton was able to accomplish this, perhaps the last democrat to balance the budget, where he turned a budget surplus in the last few years of his presidency. The modern democratic party is on a spending spree with reliance on the central banks to do their dirty work for them. Fed hiking the interest rates after the post COVID spending spree in addition to the trillion dollar spending packages that were passed while democrats had congressional control. It makes perfect sense why the liberals would offer no concessions -- at least as U.S. politics is concerned, they've been ensconced in the social welfare state for quiet some time. And there are no consequences as long as you can keep printing money. |
|
|
|
|
The debt ceiling is meaningless because Congress doesn't have any reason to not raise the ceiling every time they choose to negligently spend. The WH and Republicans in congress say they will make no concessions, but of course, they will eventually cave in as they always do. Republicans want the debt ceiling rise to be tied to spending reductions which is entirely reasonable. WH would rather continue their spending spree and make no efforts towards reducing spending.
|
|
|
|
|
People are already looking back at the utter derangement the global health community and rejecting their antics when they see for themselves COVID was not as dangerous as they purported.
Just about every country that had any wealth hoarded decided to wipe away trillions from the global economy over a disease dangerous to geriatrics. They kept young, healthy, people locked at home, shut down businesses deemed "nonessential" and began printing as much money as possible to offset. And somehow, people are confused why global recession is inbound with top currencies inflating at rates inconsistent with wage growth. As if they believed shutting down entire economies for months would have no ramifications as long as the central banks did their part in creating money out of thin air.
The COVID fanatics that have yet to realize they were conned will double down and say it was all worth it. Nothing short of Stockholm syndrome for these folks that have difficulty coping with the fact they were deceived.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps other people's experiences might be different but nearly all the welcome offers for these casinos are nonsense. Deposit bonuses, free spins, they all require a certain rollover before you can withdraw and the math hardly ends up being worth it. It doesn't cost anything for casinos to blow up inboxes which is why I don't sign up on platforms that I don't intend to deposit.
Even if you're interested in welcome offers they're usually there from the start. No point in signing up and waiting for them. There hasn't been anyone that has turned gambling profitable by relying on welcome offers.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not against these sort of regulations but I only caution that the general trend is more regulations equals higher costs. Americans are already grappling with inflation and if food companies increase their operating costs in order to comply with regulations, consumers bear the cost. And the government regulates "upwards" meaning they only get more stringent once guidelines are in place.
I suppose informing consumers whether their food is drenched with poison is worth the price to pay. U.S. is pretty liberal with the pesticides they allow compared to other places.
|
|
|
|
If banks in 2007 had a glitch like this one, the american people would not have cared. But things may have changed to a point where people are becoming much more savvy and connected to current events. In which case, I don't know if financial institutions want this type of negative publicity, considering the fallout could be more serious and widespread today than in previous eras.
These types of casual glitches also make it difficult for banking industry CEOs like Jamie Dimon to comment on crypto or bitcoin.
I hope people are aware of events like these and taking steps to adapt and prepare to our shifting economic climate.
The global banking system hinges on pixels on a screen. With blockchain related technology the pixels that appear on a screen are at least verifiable -- with the modern banking system there is no actual account of any funds because they become generated by the government on their whim. ...
To be fair, that isn't an issue with the banking system, that's an issue with criminals. There wouldn't be any protection BTC would provide to this person had she transferred funds via crypto. |
|
|
|
As a trend indead Bitcoin has really show it's potential value, as in case of society currently are about to change which will automatically make both investors and government agencies to change their currency into Bitcoin inorder to safe guard their money it is a note that there are every probability that in time to come cryptocurrency will be officially adopted so I encourage everyone to go into cryptocurrency either in terms of trading or investment.
Government changing their currency to bitcoin? That's one way to totally send a huge majority of their people deeper into poverty and definitely one effective way for the people to not vote for them again. It's like expecting Apple to be selling their iPhones running Android OS. Well if it ever got to the point that the government overhauled their currency and adopted crypto, the existing currency was probably already worthless to begin with. The Zimbabwean dollar hyperinflating to the point of no return already displaced citizens out of any reasonable purchasing power so they were essentially starting at zero to begin with. Can't have a sustainable economy with a hyperinflating currency -- they would have been wise to switch to crypto (of course back in 07 during the peak of the inflation crisis crypto didn't exist, but the principle applies to hyperinflating currencies now). |
|
|
|
|
Some form of mental illness that's conditioned environmentally. Doesn't seem likely to me that someone would be genetically disposed to suicide or clinical depression. Evolutionarily, people more prone to suicide would not have reproduced and passed along these genetic deficiencies. Seems to me it's more of a recent phenomenon in human history.
Plus suicide is more common in the developed world with a higher standard of living than it is in third world countries with extreme poverty and the treatment is take a depressed person and pump them up with as many SSRIs as the dosing will allow and hope for the best. It's possible SSRI's might be contributing to the suicide rate but who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
