Wait a minute. I may be confused by the term "bank deposit" as I attribute multiple meanings to it. When they say they're taking 0.03% of all bank deposits, does that mean they're taking 0.03% of all money that has already been deposited in a bank, or does that mean that they're taking 0.03% of all money that is newly deposited in a bank? I've been interpreting it as the former.
They are taking 0.03% that was on deposit on x day Ok, so that really is awful. I could maybe see putting a "tax" on deposits with the idiotic idea of trying to get people to spend their money rather than put it in the bank, but taking money that's already there is just wrong. Does anyone know what their rationale is for doing this over raising taxes? No one likes higher taxes, but raising taxes of one form or another at least doesn't risk destabilizing the banking system like this does. |
|
|
|
For the last 4 weeks every day people post charts that show how we are about to go up. If anything we go down.
Could it be that drawing lines on a chart is completely and totally useless?
Perception is reality in auction-based markets like bitcoin. What matters most is what everyone believes. If enough people believe it's going up, then it will go up, and vice-versa. That's why chart patterns work fairly often. Most people look at the same or similar charts. So if a classic pattern like a wedge, double-top/bottom, head and shoulders, etc., sets up, a lot of people are looking for it to follow through. They act based on that, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of course there are other things that can change perception, like fundamentals. But in the absence of ground-shaking news, technical analysis tends to do pretty well. |
|
|
|
From experience we see that when the value of money goes down, we have more export and less bankruptcies, and house owner with debt profits. The problem is that we do not want this, we want cross border trade to be neutral, bancruptcies to exist for creative destruction, and we do not want the spenders to profit off savers. When the euphoria passes, we have a non-optimal capital structure and most people lose wealth and immediate spending power.
Who are you referring to when you say "we" in "we do not want this, we want cross border trade to be neutral, bancruptcies to exist for creative destruction, and we do not want the spenders to profit off savers"? Corporations that export goods like a weak currency because their goods are more competitive overseas. Banks certainly don't want bankruptcies. And the spenders, which seem to outnumber the savers, obviously prefer to profit. So it would seem like a majority of people prefer things the way they are (at least until they blow up). So by "we", are you just referring to those of us who would actually prefer a more stable economic/financial system? He's saying the economy as a whole. Without bankruptcies (or at least repayment with a positive real interest rate) money is valueless. Without valuable money, savers don't have a reliable store of value and thus must speculate to preserve their wealth. Forced speculation creates uncertainty. Uncertainty is a net destroyer of wealth as it discourages investment. Without savers and investment, the future holds less wealth than the present, which is basically the ultimate sin of any monetary system. Ah, I see. Thanks--that's a good explanation. As repayment with a positive real interest rate is generally more desirable than debt destruction (default/bankruptcy), does this basically imply that inflation is required for a healthy economic system? |
|
|
|
|
Wait a minute. I may be confused by the term "bank deposit" as I attribute multiple meanings to it. When they say they're taking 0.03% of all bank deposits, does that mean they're taking 0.03% of all money that has already been deposited in a bank, or does that mean that they're taking 0.03% of all money that is newly deposited in a bank? I've been interpreting it as the former.
|
|
|
|
I use 2FA on everything that supports it. You never know when your password is going to get taken, then it's the difference between nothing happening and losing all of your money. It's well worth the extra 15 seconds.
I agree if I'm trying to protect hundreds of dollars. But if I'm literally trying to protect $2, it's a huge waste of time. |
|
|
|
I guess it depends on what you mean by just around the corner. From what I've read and watched, there's still a chance it will never happen. And if it does, it might be Q4 of this year. But we can always hope for sooner.  From what I have heard the fact that they have have a "ticker" and are updating their prospectus everything is looking really good for launching: From Bloomberg: "there were several very specific changes added to the risk section of the prospectus. That's worth noting, since plenty of ETFs are filed with the SEC but don't get updated (or reserve tickers)." See for more info: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-10/bitcoin-by-bitcoin-the-winklevii-etf-inches-closer-to-reality.htmlI agree that they seem to be making good progress, and I hope they're able to roll it out in the next few months. However, it's nowhere close to being guaranteed. From that same article, "There's still no guarantee COIN will be approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission. There are more than a thousand prospectuses for ETFs sitting with the SEC, and hundreds of reserved tickers sitting with stock exchanges." I would think that as long as the twins are persistent, they'll eventually be able to launch it. But I don't know much about the different things that can prevent an ETF from seeing the light of day. |
|
|
|
But the amount taken was very small, less the what Spaniards likely earned in interest in their bank accounts in one year so the net effect was essentially zero.
This is my initial reaction too. 0.03% is honestly too small a percentage to have any significant effect. Others have argued that government can take a higher percentage next time. They sure can, but there is a limit of times they can tax deposits before a national uproar. True. And I would guess that if they try it again with a larger percentage, there may be an international uproar. They're idiots playing with fire. If everyone starts to think that their country is going to go after their bank deposits, bank runs will start. |
|
|
|
I guess it depends on what you mean by just around the corner. From what I've read and watched, there's still a chance it will never happen. And if it does, it might be Q4 of this year. But we can always hope for sooner. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is very similar to the US Dollar, but instead of being backed by the US economy, bitcoin is backed by the bitcoin network aka the miners.
This is something that concerns me a little bit. How do you ascribe a particular value to the network/miners? |
|
|
|
if you can not spare 3 seconds to type in 2FA key you need to re asses you time management skills.
it should be a priority!
It takes a lot more time than that if you don't have a smartphone. And if it's a one-time thing every week or two, then it's not a big deal. But if you have to do it multiple times each day, it gets really annoying. |
|
|
|
|
I like having the option of using 2FA, but under most circumstances, I hate being forced to use it. I generally find it to be more of a pain than useful, especially when pools have it. I really hate it when pools make you check your e-mail to enable account detail changes. Sure, it's nice and secure, but I don't care--it's not worth the trouble for me. My hash rate is pretty low, and I typically check on my mining at least once a day, so if someone hacked one of my pool accounts, I'd lose less than a day's worth of mining profits, which is maybe a couple of bucks. I use strong passwords (truly random character strings), and I've never had a problem.
However, I do appreciate 2FA on Coinbase, and I'd probably use it there even if it weren't required. Additionally, they have a nice hybrid system where you have the security of 2FA with the convenience of only having to authenticate with 2FA once every 30 days.
|
|
|
|
It's just like theft, but they call it politics.
Now try to picture it with bitcoin... nah
They may not be able to just skim a little off the top with bitcoin, but they could kill it. If a large government or other organization wants to destroy bitcoin, there are a number of things they could do that would at least damage it. As for Spain's "confiscation," it sounds like an experiment to me--see what kind of reaction it draws from its citizens and the financial markets to gauge the feasibility of doing it again, probably with a higher percentage. I mean really--how much good would 0.03% do for their economy anyway? It's just a drop in the bucket. That's not going to help anything. They would definitely kill it. Or at least lose a lot of its value. But i guess there would be so many different coins that they can't "regulate" them all. Maybe things will be different in the future, but at least right now, I think all cryptos hinge on the success of bitcoin. If bitcoin falls, they all go down. And I'm not just talking about regulation. Regulating bitcoin into oblivion would be the "nice" way of killing it. There are other much more nasty ways. |
|
|
|
It's just like theft, but they call it politics.
Now try to picture it with bitcoin... nah
They may not be able to just skim a little off the top with bitcoin, but they could kill it. If a large government or other organization wants to destroy bitcoin, there are a number of things they could do that would at least damage it. As for Spain's "confiscation," it sounds like an experiment to me--see what kind of reaction it draws from its citizens and the financial markets to gauge the feasibility of doing it again, probably with a higher percentage. I mean really--how much good would 0.03% do for their economy anyway? It's just a drop in the bucket. That's not going to help anything. |
|
|
|
It just occurred to me that something very important is missing from this thread.
Define economic growth.
Excellent point. Also: define inflation (there's monetary inflation and price inflation) Growth is usually measured by GDP And inflation measured by CPI and PPI Correct GDP for inflation. What do the last hundred years look like? Also compare purchasing power of the average household, also corrected for inflation. The GDP numbers would show slower growth, but it would still show growth. Purchasing power has also increased, although the amount of the increase would be underreported as our standard of living has increased a lot. The average house used to cost two yearly salaries. This is no longer the case. Same for most other stuff. As for re: academics: nobody who care about their personal financial future takes them seriously. Look at what is, not what you are told there is. This brings up another point: yearly salaries. Things have changed a lot with a lot of households moving from having a single earner to two. Not only do houses often cost more than 2 yearly salaries, they often cost more than 4 yearly person-salaries. |
|
|
|
Why didn't you just sell the house and purchase a cheaper property you can actually afford?
My rent is $440 a month, PLEASE PLEASE do show me a mortage where my interest rates are less than that.. any house near me is +200k.... The house when I bought it was 179... Me and a freind bought it with the plan to fix it up and sell it in 5 years, we stuck to the plan added a 2nd bath. Sold for 245. Now I rent at $440 a month.. even with a mortage of $800 + $220 a month property tax that's $1020. That $220 is a total waste. So $220 vs 800.... now if I save $680 every month instead of paying it into a house over 20 years that's $163,200.00 Now to actually take out a loan of $163,200.00 would cost me $1,103.00 a month for 20 years. It would literally cost me double to own a house. This also does not include realstate fees, lawyer fees, land transfer tax... Very well said !! 99% of people are not able to do these simple maths. I was doing a little more thinking about this, and I realized that you didn't factor inflation into your rent calculations. You may only be paying $440 a month in rent now, but at 3% inflation, you'll be paying close to $800/month 20 years from now. With these numbers, it's true that over 20 years your rent will always be lower than a mortgage. But after that time, you'll also have equity in the house, whereas with renting of course you'll have nothing. And when looking at that equity, don't forget that that will also be affected by inflation. So that $165k house that you could have bought now would also have almost doubled in value (again assuming the same 3% inflation rate). And finally, don't forget about what happens after 20 years. If you stay in that house, you now pay nothing except property taxes, which should be a lot less than rent, which would continue to increase. So in the long run, owning still has a good shot at beating renting, but it obviously depends on your particular situation. All of that said, of course, the math is very different if you buy during a bubble. Edit: Even once you own your home, you'd still be paying homeowners insurance in addition to property taxes...forgot about that. Yes you will pay property tax + insurance that also increase every year. Then it's a gamble : you have no guarantee that the bubble (housing market) will continue to grow at that rate in the next 20 years. 20 years ! Come on, with all the events that are happening right now, how can someone make a plan for the next 20 years ?? Any shit can happen, any time. This old thinking of taking a 20 years mortgage for owning your house is obsolete. We do not live in the same world as our parents and grandparents. The world has changed, rules as changed and the speed of changes is increasing exponentially. The are 2 kinds of people : dead and alive. We all die but the ones who adapt the changes of time tend to live much longer and better. Yes, property tax and insurance increase, too, but prop tax + ins is a lot less than the rent I would pay on the same size house. So both will grow, but rent will grow more in absolute terms. I don't think there's any single solution that works best for everyone. If you're single and move fairly often, then renting makes a lot of sense. If you have kids and intend to stay in the same area for a long period of time, then owning makes more sense. And as I said, the state of the housing market certainly matters. It will be much harder for an investment in a house to pay off if you buy at the top of a bubble period. But as long as your timing isn't too bad, I think you will end up with more wealth in the end if you own rather than rent. Look at it this way: if you own, you pay mortgage, interest, property tax, insurance, and maintenance. If you rent, unless the owner paid for the property with cash, you're basically paying all of those things plus profit; you're just paying them all through your landlord. And when renting, after 20 or 30 years, your landlord still owns the property, not you. |
|
|
|
From experience we see that when the value of money goes down, we have more export and less bankruptcies, and house owner with debt profits. The problem is that we do not want this, we want cross border trade to be neutral, bancruptcies to exist for creative destruction, and we do not want the spenders to profit off savers. When the euphoria passes, we have a non-optimal capital structure and most people lose wealth and immediate spending power.
Who are you referring to when you say "we" in "we do not want this, we want cross border trade to be neutral, bancruptcies to exist for creative destruction, and we do not want the spenders to profit off savers"? Corporations that export goods like a weak currency because their goods are more competitive overseas. Banks certainly don't want bankruptcies. And the spenders, which seem to outnumber the savers, obviously prefer to profit. So it would seem like a majority of people prefer things the way they are (at least until they blow up). So by "we", are you just referring to those of us who would actually prefer a more stable economic/financial system? |
|
|
|
Why didn't you just sell the house and purchase a cheaper property you can actually afford?
My rent is $440 a month, PLEASE PLEASE do show me a mortage where my interest rates are less than that.. any house near me is +200k.... The house when I bought it was 179... Me and a freind bought it with the plan to fix it up and sell it in 5 years, we stuck to the plan added a 2nd bath. Sold for 245. Now I rent at $440 a month.. even with a mortage of $800 + $220 a month property tax that's $1020. That $220 is a total waste. So $220 vs 800.... now if I save $680 every month instead of paying it into a house over 20 years that's $163,200.00 Now to actually take out a loan of $163,200.00 would cost me $1,103.00 a month for 20 years. It would literally cost me double to own a house. This also does not include realstate fees, lawyer fees, land transfer tax... Sounds like it is better to actually rent based on what you wrote. $440 per month a really cheap if the property value itself is 200k. Now use the money wisely to generate more money (even cd is good enough, just don't burn it). Actually, this brings up an important question. Is the property that you're renting worth 200k? Or are you renting something much cheaper/smaller? I have a hard time believing that you could rent a 200k house/condo/apartment for 440 a month. The landlord would never make a profit. It would take almost 38 years just to collect enough rent to equal 200k, not to mention that they have to pay property taxes, insurance, etc. |
|
|
|
Go to college, get married, buy a home, have kids. That's what the government wants you to do. It's not the American Dream, it's the banker's dream. Those four steps right there all but guarantee that you will be a tax and interest cow for the ruling elite your entire life.
Get off the financial carousel and stay off. That is why each and every one of us found Bitcoin.
A lot of people seem to enjoy those four things, or at least 2 or 3 of them. So I'm curious--what's your dream if it doesn't include any of those? Edit: How do you believe these things help the government? Yes, you pay more taxes if you make more money, spend it on a house and kids, etc. But you also get significant tax breaks that offset at least some of that. |
|
|
|
Why didn't you just sell the house and purchase a cheaper property you can actually afford?
My rent is $440 a month, PLEASE PLEASE do show me a mortage where my interest rates are less than that.. any house near me is +200k.... The house when I bought it was 179... Me and a freind bought it with the plan to fix it up and sell it in 5 years, we stuck to the plan added a 2nd bath. Sold for 245. Now I rent at $440 a month.. even with a mortage of $800 + $220 a month property tax that's $1020. That $220 is a total waste. So $220 vs 800.... now if I save $680 every month instead of paying it into a house over 20 years that's $163,200.00 Now to actually take out a loan of $163,200.00 would cost me $1,103.00 a month for 20 years. It would literally cost me double to own a house. This also does not include realstate fees, lawyer fees, land transfer tax... Very well said !! 99% of people are not able to do these simple maths. I was doing a little more thinking about this, and I realized that you didn't factor inflation into your rent calculations. You may only be paying $440 a month in rent now, but at 3% inflation, you'll be paying close to $800/month 20 years from now. With these numbers, it's true that over 20 years your rent will always be lower than a mortgage. But after that time, you'll also have equity in the house, whereas with renting of course you'll have nothing. And when looking at that equity, don't forget that that will also be affected by inflation. So that $165k house that you could have bought now would also have almost doubled in value (again assuming the same 3% inflation rate). And finally, don't forget about what happens after 20 years. If you stay in that house, you now pay nothing except property taxes, which should be a lot less than rent, which would continue to increase. So in the long run, owning still has a good shot at beating renting, but it obviously depends on your particular situation. All of that said, of course, the math is very different if you buy during a bubble. Edit: Even once you own your home, you'd still be paying homeowners insurance in addition to property taxes...forgot about that. |
|
|
|
Done! Regarding Mintpal, we may be in big trouble here shortly. Yesterday, I actually recorded the top 30 coins in the running, even though I only posted a few. Looking at some of the other coins that are still down on the list, they're catching up very fast and could overtake us in a few days if we don't really get those votes going. This shows the change in the past day of all of the top 30 coins: Unless you guys want me to keep posting the long list of Mintpal voting coins, I'll stop. I don't want to clutter up this forum with that stuff every night. However, I will keep watching what happens and post about it if I see something interesting. Suffice it to say that what I posted yesterday looks like it will be pretty typical. There's a handful of coins that look like they will keep getting 900+ votes a day, so it's going to be hard to beat those coins. But, hopefully for us, slow and steady will win the race. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
