Interesting to listen what Rocky aka Sylvester Stallone thinks about upcoming fight Mike Tyson vs Roy Jones Jr ?
He is giving a big advantage to Tyson and saying he is a a wrecking ball. Roy Jones is moving good but he better watch out for Tyson punch Speed kills It would be ironic and in a way even iconic if Roy outboxed Tyson just like Tyson had outboxed his opposition in his early professional years, i.e. before 1990s. We could see something like the Floyd Mayweather vs Manny Pacquiao fight, where a strong puncher (Pacquiao) could do nothing against a defensive counter-puncher (Mayweather). Floyd was just too fast and agile for Manny to employ his devastating striking potential. For comparison, see the Pacquiao vs Hatton fight to get an idea of Pacquiao's punching power and what damage it could wreak. Then get back to Tyson |
|
|
|
But even if it is possible to fool the public for a year or two, it won't be possible for a decade or so as the errors will necessarily be adding up and discrepancies accumulate over years.
If that were true, people would be looking at the difference between last few years and now and wouldn't be fooled to begin with. It's not like we get to pretend the prices increases we've already experienced haven't happened and that this is some new and sudden phenomenon I'm not sure if I got your perspective right Regardless, if what you say comes down to governments substantially lowering inflation rates for years, if not decades, we could look at the historical prices of some foods as they were, say, 15 years ago, check the official inflation rates for every year of this period of 15 years, and then easily calculate how much that basket of goods should be worth today according to the government figures If these stats were all wrong throughout these years (to the downside), the difference between today's real prices that you actually see in the mall and the official "inflation-adjusted" prices that you worked out on paper would be huge and impossible to hide. That's how I understand it |
|
|
|
There are so many ways to manipulate inflation figures. It's ridiculous. The latest ploy is to lower food standards, so they can charge the same or more for the food but use ingredients that are cheaper because they were produced under worse hygiene standards. Before that, we had "shrinkflation" where they charged the same or more, but made the portions smaller. Clearly no one should be taking any government's "official" figures too seriously But what's the point? Okay, we can assume for a moment that the official figures are way off the mark compared to real inflation rates. But even if it is possible to fool the public for a year or two, it won't be possible for a decade or so as the errors will necessarily be adding up and discrepancies accumulating over the years. In short, the effect would the opposite of the desired (to make it look like everything is okey-dokey economically). I'm not saying that governments aren't fabricating the stats as they all apparently do but not in the way most people seem to assume |
|
|
|
It's pretty simple, Iran doesn't lack the means of paying its partners, it lacks partners! You mentioned China and Russia And these seem to be Iran's best partners right now (especially China). Besides, there is also Europe, which is not as strict on Iran as America (read, Iran will be buying Airbus instead of Boeing). As far as I know, Iran can still use euro, that is to say, European banks, which means it is not as bad for the ayatollahs as it it is reported in the mass media. A few years ago Russia was rumored to be selling more oil than it had been producing. Whose oil was that or whose oil was balancing out these exports provided the rumors had some relevance to reality? So while it is possible for them to accept cryptocurrency as the payment, how is it possible for them to export their commodities without attracting unwanted attention? Iran has been selling crude oil to China. This is not a secret |
|
|
|
^ I must agree with OP if Biden will be the president and be able to create a higher demand on dollars then definitely it will make their currency stronger however it might slow down the recovery of their economy for citizens will need to consider the usage of their dollars and if so, it will create slow to moderate movement in the market which may weaken the economy. Nevertheless, this can still be speculative since we have not seen the real platforms of Biden and how he can put it into actions but once he became the president he will then know what are the things he needs to put into considerations before implementing his platforms No one can print dollars indefinitely Neither Trump nor Biden. It works pretty much like the law of diminishing returns. In fact, it is the law itself in its pristine form. In more concrete terms, sooner or later new money will make inflation unbearable, and that will mark reaching the turning point (you can also think of it as a point of no return, in a sense) after which more easing will only do harm to the economy, any potential recovery included If it weren't so, every country could easily print their way out of any economic predicament they might get into. It doesn't work like that, see the Zimbabwean dollar and its dark fate as an illustrative example of lunatic monetary policies and what they ultimately end up with |
|
|
|
it doesn't have to be repetition of previous year but the past 3 years are the repetition of the 3 years before 2017 (from 2014 to 2017 and now from 2017 to 2021 is being repeated) History may love to repeat itself, but does it teach us anything? I daresay history teaches us little except how little we learn from it. And if you think about it, this repetition (and many other such repetitions) is the genuine proof of that since if we were to learn something, let's say a trick or two, we wouldn't see it repeated again and again, would we? Regarding the question of when, we can draw on this regretful fact. More specifically, we should expect coming back to square one as soon as most people forget what they have been supposed to learn |
|
|
|
 Fishing is a jerk at one end of the line waiting for a jerk at the other end of the line |
|
|
|
I have gambled a bit today but I have never checked the minimum withdrawal amount before until today, which I find a bit higher than should be. I didn't had too much money left to gamble for today so I just sent my 6-7 bucks into wolf.bet to have some fun, it was definitely a good amount of money and I gambled for a good long while, at the end I had about 12-13 bucks and I said to myself since I doubled my profit I should probably cash out and leave for a while before I restart You didn't say what coin you've been gambling with If it is Bitcoin, then the reason for so high a minimum withdrawal amount may have to do with high network fees (just a hunch). The minimum withdrawal amount for doges is same as before, i.e. 2,000 doges (I just checked it out), which is way lower than 0.04 BTC in case you were playing with bitcoins He said that it's 0.04 and that's particularly for the minimum withdrawal amount for Ethereum. That can be seen on https://wolf.bet/faqThanks for doing this instead of me Anyway, given how high Ethereum network fees can be, raising the minimum withdrawal amount is not something you should be particularly surprised in. But there can be other reasons, of course. As an aside (not related to Wolf.bet), I had my ETH transaction not confirmed for two months (sic) until I had to cancel it by creating a self-transaction with the same nonce. I sent bitcoins with very low fees in the past, and all transactions were confirmed in the end, even though it had taken days. With Ethereum, however, it never occurred |
|
|
|
It should be stable with respect to its underlying asset, that is to say, the American dollar. It is a stablecoin whose value is pegged to the dollar, and as long as this peg is maintained, it is rightfully considered stable regardless of how much the dollar itself depreciates. Therefore, you can't say that USDT will be losing "value" along with the dollar. Fundamentally, you are implicitly trying to redefine the idea of a stablecoin but that only destroys it
That is what I am talking about. It s definitely a stable coin in the sense that unless tether as a company bankrupts or runs away with our money (which is a possibility that very few people considered unfortunately) 1 usdt will always worth 1 usd and that is the stable part people talk about. However I do not like the word stable in this sense since it makes people think that the more usdt you have the richer you will get and that is not the word for rich neither, if you are not beating inflation even if you have more dollars that means you didn't get richer. If I buy a house worth 100k dollars today and in 5 years that house worths 150k while some other guy kept his usdt and his 100k became 120k, he "lost" money while he was still stable and that is what I am talking about You are only further confusing matters Stable in stablecoin has a very specific and established meaning. It means a peg and being stable means being able to keep or maintain this peg. You, on the other hand, are at first implicitly and then openly attributing a totally different meaning like being able to beat, or stay on par with, inflation. For this, there already exists a term which pretty much speaks for itself and which is inflation-protected, say, inflation-protected bonds and, hypothetically, inflation-protected coins |
|
|
|
How do you think the hole got there in the first place? You tell us? No, I not tell you. Do you think I am a mind reader? Here we go again |
|
|
|
I have gambled a bit today but I have never checked the minimum withdrawal amount before until today, which I find a bit higher than should be. I didn't had too much money left to gamble for today so I just sent my 6-7 bucks into wolf.bet to have some fun, it was definitely a good amount of money and I gambled for a good long while, at the end I had about 12-13 bucks and I said to myself since I doubled my profit I should probably cash out and leave for a while before I restart You didn't say what coin you've been gambling with If it is Bitcoin, then the reason for so high a minimum withdrawal amount may have to do with high network fees (just a hunch). The minimum withdrawal amount for doges is same as before, i.e. 2,000 doges (I just checked it out), which is way lower than 0.04 BTC in case you were playing with bitcoins |
|
|
|
How do you think the hole got there in the first place? You tell us? |
|
|
|
Банки ФРС и раньше спасала (это одна из её функций), а вот корпорации - ни разу до 2020 Ну хорошо, пусть будет так. Как говорится, пожуем - увидим, чем там Федрезерв затарится и будет ли это иметь отношение к спасению утопающих, которое, как известно, дело рук самих утопающих |
|
|
|
That's the whole point about the proper bankroll management
Are you talking about Casino fund management? "Bankroll management" seems to be the accepted term in these circles Indeed, it can relate to either a gambler's bankroll or a casino's, but in this case, I refer to the bankroll of the casino itself, which should be obvious from the context. Moreover, it is one of the most complex and important things that requires prior expertise in the field (read, book knowledge won't do) Otherwise, you ("the casino") risk losing your bankroll as there are enough big whales with deep pockets that can easily take you out. That's the reason why so many such efforts end up with nothing and have to close the shop (probably, pulling an exit scam at the end of it) |
|
|
|
...
Man, you definitely chose the wrong target. There is nothing that either you or your campaign manager can pit against me (apart from personal dislikes). So yes, your exclusion from the trust lists is well-deserved |
|
|
|
В любом случае, выкуп ФРС корпоративных облигаций на вторичном рынке - это уже факт.
А это - прямое вливание ФРС ликвидности в рынки.
Изначальный вопрос ведь, как я помню, был именно про это (про залитие ФРС денег на рынки напрямую)?
Диавол, как известно, скрывается в деталях Ну вот статья о роли ФРС и BlackRock в данном мероприятии. Из нее как раз и следует, что Федрезерв деньги напрямую на рынки не закачивает: BlackRock is acting as a fiduciary to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. As such, BlackRock will execute this mandate at the sole discretion of the bank, and in accordance with their detailed investment guidelines На всякий случай, напишу, что подобные схемы использовались и в 2008 году для выкупа ипотечных закладных – и все с той же самой BlackRock |
|
|
|
Вот только баксу в его нынешнем виде, т.е. фактически той самой системе, построенной на долге, меньше 50 лет. Условным ее началом можно считать 1971 год, когда доллар потерял свое золотое обеспечение
Финансовая система и до этого была построена на долге. Просто раньше это были долги в обеспеченной золотом валюте По нынешним временам, если долг реально обеспечен золотом, то это уже никакой не долг получается. Опять же, как минимум до конца Второй мировой войны, Штаты давали в долг, а не наоборот, за счет чего, собственно говоря, и поднялись. Англия, например, только несколько лет назад расплатилась с Америкой за долг Первой (Первой, Карл!) мировой войны Выкуп ФРС облигаций на рынках и, особенно, корпоративных облигаций (то, чего ФРС ни разу не делала до 2020) - это именно прямое вливание ликвидности в рынки Можно ссылку про объемы таких выкупов, ну и в целом про подробности всего мероприятия |
|
|
|
Okay, guys, this dude has again been promoted to some DT level I have already written to LeGaulois to remove him from the trust list
Update: the trust abuser has been removed from DT2 |
|
|
|
But the exclusion of the banking system from this process can have a detrimental effect on the banking system itself, depriving the state of a part of the taxes paid for this. This structural reform will be beneficial in the future, but may have some negative impact now It may have negative effect on some part of the system, in this case, banks However, if the changes make the financial system better off overall, it would be stupid to go for the well-being of a part of something instead of going for the betterment of the entirety of it. It is the positive net effect that counts here and which the Chinese authorities are certainly aware of and target for |
|
|
|
It is only natural that the value of Bitcoin is affected by USD performance, because most people who trade Bitcoin pairing with USDT
are backed by USD. So USD indirectly affects the price of Bitcoin, in fact all markets must be affected by the value of USD. But I don't
believe the USD will be worthless, because the American government will definitely take steps so that the USD will remain valuable.
Therefore, many countries use USD as a global currency, this proves that confidence in USD is so high.
Even after printing a shit ton of USD it still didn't fell down a lot, despite fact that only US citizens received stimulus check - that means all of the world got somewhat scammed because their USD holding were devalueted to some extent Honestly, I don't see a lot of sense in this Are you unhappy that only American citizens received stimulus checks while the rest of the world, that is the part of it that holds dollars, didn't receive anything? It seems to me that you are looking at it from the wrong angle. Americans received free money because they are Americans and not because they have dollars. But did you really expect that the Fed should have given a free premium on every dollar in existence? Anyway, no one has forced you to buy dollars in the first play. For fuck's sake, you could have bought the Venezuelan bolivar or Russian ruble instead! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
