...
This is because lack of education in under developed nations. In some developed nations, the birth rate is going down. It takes no effort to pump out as many children as you can when half of them die before the age of 5 and live in absolute poverty. There's a cultural reason for it that preexists the economic hardships which have originated over the last couple of years, but I can imagine the problem's going to get a lot worse now that the global economy is entering a downturn. Has nothing to do with laziness. There's an issue with labor shortages and not enough young workers subsidizing old retired workers. If there's a birth rate collapse, then you're going to have a lot of old folks that are going to be impoverished. |
|
|
|
|
The lack of liquidity is a problem, not the only problem.
First of all, there's a lot of ambiguity in where the assets of an exchange exist and whether they're liquid assets or not. I imagine they do this purposefully because most exchanges are great at mismanaging their users' funds. I don't anticipate many enterprises are willing to disclose proof of reserves to any degree of certainty.
Say you had a real time checking mechanism to determine the underlying liquidity an exchange has, that still doesn't matter -- you transfer any funds into an online account and those funds are not yours. They're an assurance that the funds will exist if you choose to withdraw, and that assurance is worthless. You're still liable to hacks or getting locked from your account for whatever arbitrary reason.
Proof of reserves help but they don't solve the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
1 in 4 seems awfully high, but in any event, this shouldn't come as a surprise when inflation has outpaced wage growth. People think they might be getting a pay increase when the reality is that employers are paying them less relative to the value of what the employee would have been worth in the past due to inflation.
If the economic projections are correct and GDP growth will be negative for Q4 2022 or Q1 2023, then people will be in a really bad spot of high inflation, low wage growth, and economic recession.
|
|
|
|
|
Normally the young workers subsidize the cost of of older retired workers but the ratio isn't proportional anymore with how high the life expectancy is and how low the birth rates are, so perhaps countries with lower birth rates could loosen up the immigration laws and import more labor for lower skilled jobs and allow immigrants to work up the economic ladder. There are millions of immigrants ready to immigrate to newer countries if given the opportunity -- cultural assimilation would be a barrier, but I figure it's a low cost to pay if your population isn't able to maintain itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Inflation will normalize if the currency hasn't completely collapsed as long as there isn't an increase in spending or money supply. You'll just have to pay higher prices for goods than you did in the past. Central banks will be successful but that isn't really the point. The point is that there's a systematic process by the banks and government to keep inflation at 1-2% yearly in order to promote currency usage and there isn't even a guarantee that the banks can hit this target. If the government decides to print more money, it's their prerogative without advisory from the citizens.
Citizens get their purchasing power reduced, and there isn't anything they can do about it even after inflation is stabilized.
|
|
|
|
so why is the biden administration only handing out $16b which is only 3% of households
It gives them their headline that they can push when it comes reelection time. $13B is pennies. Ukraine has gotten over 50 billion alone by the U.S. in direct aid, for reference. To modernize the energy infrastructure of a country with 330 million people, it would easily cost hundreds of billions of dollars. And the way these government expenditures work is that out of 13 billion, a plurality will go to "administrative" fees paid to specific government contractors that are closely aligned with the politicians. These projects are never on time and never on budget. These ambitious proposals could contain more facts and details. They claim these plans will improve circumstances for everyone, yet the intricate methods they plan to use to achieve these goals are usually not disclosed.
Precisely the point. You'd think if they were to spend that much, they'd at least be more expansive on the details. However, I suspect very little of these funds will actually go to infrastructure, but will rather fill the pockets of business executives. |
|
|
|
Elon Musk open to offering amnesty for banned accounts: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1595473875847942146Should Twitter offer a general amnesty to suspended accounts, provided that they have not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam?
Suspended accounts pre-Musk could've been banned for whatever arbitrary reason and the ban appeals process was nonsense. Clear double standard in enforcing Twitter rules which invalidate some number of suspensions. Though, Elon said he wouldn't bring Alex Jones back. I find Alex Jones distasteful, but he never broke any laws. |
|
|
|
Making Bitcoin a legal tender means when a person goes to purchase a commodity, instead of paying with dollar or whatever currency is being used, they pay with BTC.
Given the unstable nature of cryptocurrencies, and the untraceable nature, would you suggest it wise for countries to adopt Bitcoin as a legal tender?
Recently, El Salvador and Central African Republic announced that they have adopted Bitcoin as a legal tender.
You don't actually need to make Bitcoin legal tender for it to have major presence. Legal tender status gives you the ability to pay off debt to the government or a private party with whatever currency. I'm not against making crypto legal tender, but it's not a large hurdle. Most transactions aren't facilitated to or by the government, so it doesn't matter much if you can't pay off a government debt with Bitcoin. That still gives you the ability to pay all private debt with Bitcoin, and most transactions in a free economy are done privately to begin with. |
|
|
|
The value of Bitcoin is comparable to that of gold. Bitcoin cannot be used as legal tender. Even the legal currency of a country is to save the country's economy and does not want to rely on the US dollar for development.
Bitcoin is an emergency safe-haven solution. It cannot be said that Bitcoin is the future of money, it can only be said that Bitcoin will exist for a long time in the future.
The whole '"legal tender" ordeal isn't actually relevant for Bitcoin. Legal tender, for all intents and purposes, just means the government has a stamp of approval on a currency which can be used for transactions. If you're issuing funds to the government or by order of government to another party, you can only use the currency regarded as "legal tender." For anything else, it's up to you and the other party what currency you use. Of course, you don't actually need the government's permission to conduct commerce in free countries so whether Bitcoin's classified as legal tender or not is entirely irrelevant. Most transactions are private in nature and therefore the currency does not need to be legal tender. Bitcoin will exist forever. Whether or not people use it the software will be there and be forever accessible. Fiat currencies exist in a transient state because governments are forever temporary. There is no guarantee that even the strongest currencies will, for certain, exist in the future because that would require with absolute certainty that the issuer will continue to operate. |
|
|
|
Casino's business is to make money and they will not give you free spins just to have good rewards and cash it out, there's hidden agenda on these free spins you can win using free spins but the wagering requirement will make you deposit or use your winning to reach that wagering requirement, and before you reach that wagering requirement, you will eventually lose all that you achieve in those free spins.
It's good to have free spins but if you want to really enjoy the game and have no attachment or requirement with your winning use your own money.
There's really the intention of making the gambler win with those free spins. If you're wise enough, you'll take the money and never go back to them. But that just adds to the excitement and confidence that you'll win again and that's why you're coming back and that's the feeling that they want each of their gamblers to feel. To those that just want to have fun and spin all day long, it's for them and if luckily they reach those requirements then they're free to take it out. Intention is to keep the player coming back whether they win or not. "Free spins" are hardly free. They have some insane roll overs that you need to meet before withdrawing so you rarely are able to cash out off free spins. It's possible you might win some small amount, but you'd need to wager X amount before having access to the withdrawal. Slots have the highest house edge out of any casino game, usually. Even if the the roll over isn't high, RTP is still low. |
|
|
|
Op I hope you know that it is expensive to live in the UK and even US. Are you ready to face the taxation there? The economy run on taxing the people which is one major source of income generation and they don't joke with that, this means even evading tax is not taken easy, it is a crime and you are going to face the offense. In UK or US, you don't make money if you are not doing a business or job that you can earn like $5-10k monthly because of all the taxes coming down on the salary. It is not easy anywhere and this is what you have to know
Cost of living is high in any developed country. The salaries usually are proportional to the cost of living. It also goes without saying that the cost of living in developed countries is also proportional to the standard of living. "Get what you pay for" in a sense. I'd agree that taxes are pretty high, but it mostly applies to corporations more than anything. UK might have higher taxes with and only till recent higher energy costs, but that's the price to live in a developed nation. |
|
|
|
Orange Hitler's account has been reinstated! They wiped all of his followers through. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrumpIIRC Trump said he would stay on Truth Social, but if he wants his Presidential campaign to gain any sort of traction at all, he needs Twitter (which is slightly ironic considering, IMO, he lost the 2020 election due to his rampant unhinged tweets.) He needs to tone just slightly. ...
This person has a fantastic career as a screenwriter ahead of him.
Edit: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1849635/000119312522150801/d226205ds4.htmFrom December 22, 2021, until the expiration of 18 months thereafter, (the “TMTG Social Media Exclusivity Term”), President Trump has agreed to first channel any and all social media communications and posts coming from his personal profile to the Truth Social platform before posting that same social media communication and/or post to any other social media platform that is not Truth Social (collectively, “Non-TMTG Social Media”) until the expiration of “DJT/TMTG Social Media 6-Hour Exclusive” which means the period commencing when DJT posts any social media communication onto the Truth Social Platform and ending six (6) hours thereafter; provided that he may post social media communications from his personal profile that specifically relates to political messaging, political fundraising or get-out-the vote efforts at any time on any Non-TMTG social media platforms. Unless notice is given, the TMTG Social Media Exclusivity Term extends in perpetuity for additional 180-day terms. In the event of a force majeure as described in the License Agreement that lasts longer than 30 days, President Trump shall have the right to invoke the suspension of the “DJT/TMTG Social Media 6-Hour Exclusive.” If the Social Media Exclusivity Term were to expire but the License Agreement remained in effect, President Trump would be required to post contemporaneously to TruthSocial and Non-TMTG Social Media.
|
|
|
|
|
Twitter has a problem with bot accounts promoting crypto frauds. I'm just now learning they had a "crypto head" because seemingly crypto presence on Twitter was only relegated to those bot accounts manipulating the algorithm and appearing at the top to replies of popular tweets.
If this was the best Twitter had to offer in regards to their crypto division, then perhaps it's in everyone's interest that he leave and someone else take his place that would actually be able to integrate crypto into twitter in a meaningful way.
|
|
|
|
But despite my expectations of there being few who would support measures which would likely raise prices and cause shortages of essential necessities in supply chains. I would guess there will still be a large number of people who will support these measures. Whether because they love the environment and consider it an extremely high priority. Or due to other reasons. That has been the trend I have observed so far.
These climate regulation is untimely and would have a negative impact on both the maritime sector and the global economy in general. Switching to environmental friendly ships would cost a whole lot of money and I don't think most shipping companies have such money to spend. Does the International Maritime Organization (IMO) have any provision to support these companies financially as they switch to green energy? The most challenging part of it is that this regulations would definitely cause an increase in shipping cost which would be transferred to consumers. Of course not. These folks don't understand that elevated prices always get passed to the consumers. Corporations are not inclined to eat the cost of climate change activism. In order to stay competitive, they will be forced to raise prices. I myself haven't ever heard of IMO but seems like another organization that's keen on social activism via climate change. Social activism doesn't cost them anything so it's easy to be sanctimonious, merely places a burden on other people. Citizens of most countries are already battling inflation and high cost of goods and services and adding more burden with this policy would not be a good decision. International Maritime Organization (IMO) and European Union should suspend the implementation of these policies until the world economy recover from this downturn. Precisely. Post COVID supply chains still are under duress with demand issues and they choose now to implement these regulations. Incredible. |
|
|
|
If it's true Elon's losing 4M USD a day, he might file for bankruptcy and the company will collapse within itself soon enough. Problem with twitter is that it couldn't monetize its users to the extent facebook can so he'll have to rely on Twitter blue revenue which is 8 USD/month. Entire company is dependent on whether Twitter blue can generate sufficient revenue. That is to say, twitter is doomed.
If Twitter were only dependent on Twitter blue revenue, it would be still unstable in the long term and of course it's doomed. What if Elon brings more revenue channels and makes the revenues continuous ? It seems like he is doing some experiment on Twitter and we'll have to wait for the final result. I'm trying to imagine what that would look like but the recent news of the "twitter shutdown" seem very real with staff leaving and the company bleeding money. Elon continually tweets that Twitter usage is at an all time high -- but those metrics are meaningless if advertisers are dropping twitter. If active users do not contribute to monetization of some sort, twitter's dead. When I anticipated Twitter's demise, I had not factored in the employees packing up their bags and leaving the company to rot now that they had to actually do work instead of being paid to chat. I can only assume this will accelerate the downfall. |
|
|
|
|
It's true you shouldn't be making emotional investing decisions given the history of exchanges collapsing, but as a side note: Bitcoin's resilient enough to handle these enterprises collapsing, but I don't think it's a long term strategy to brush these corrupt exchanges off as not having immense power in the long run. They clearly effect Bitcoin's price significantly and I'm fearful that regulators are going to look at these collapses as an excuse to regulate Bitcoin into the ground.
I guess I never stepped back and realize that there were this many platforms that either got "hacked" or ran away with clients' funds. It's a bit shocking.
|
|
|
|
|
Centralized exchanges may have their place in a crypto economy but what happened with FTX is not even an indictment on exchanges, it's just the muddiness that exists with shady financial platforms that prefer to dabble in the crypto currency market because of its decentralization. I'm not an advocate for exchanges, of course. We should be correct in address the underlying issue which was bad faith actors who belong in a jail cell for ripping off clients.
The FTX fraud existed in the housing bubble that caused the global economic meltdown in 2008, this is not a unique type of enterprise. Liquidity issues due to irresponsible fund management has always existed and most banks engage in the same reckless behavior unbeknownst to consumers.
Seems the focus is all on FTX the exchange and not Bankman-Fried the conman because it's easier to blame Bitcoin for the corruption. I'd add, Bankman-Friedman was a big political donor...so perhaps there's a reason why not much focus is on him by the authorities.
|
|
|
|
Aside from exchanges or P2P commerce on larger scales (thinking digital commerce), I do recall gambling sites being some of the early pioneers in private enterprises using Bitcoin in large capacity. Granted, a lot of the earlier digital casinos were hardly considered legitimate operations -- most aren't around anymore, but they did help create a multibillion dollar industry that's generally immune from the price regressions we see with Bitcoin. 2. Many people take gambling companies as something dirty. People might as well take bitcoin as something dirty too. And bitcoin's decentralized form as a good way to evade authorities and government regulations.
People think bitcoin is 'dirty' because it is heavily associated with illicit activities and substances (fraud, money laundering, drugs), and not because of gambling. People are somewhat okay with the thought of gamblers proliferating and using a lot of media to gamble, so long as its industry provides something back to the community. It's like accepting something 'bad' can still give out something good if kept checked at all times. I don't agree with the characterization of Bitcoin being "dirty". I can understand why people would think that though -- media platforms what their disparaging headlines, nothing new. What else are people to believe? |
|
|
|
What happened on FTX exchange isn't a Ponzi scheme, it is a mismanagement of funds and a possible fraud from the management. It is obvious that the anti-crypto media will take this opportunity to throw stones at the cryptocurrency industry. So we just need time for the event to cool down.
As we know Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.[1] but FTX does not offer a quick return on their investment that is paid by the later investors. FTX is an exchange and somehow uses their client money for other purposes.
I agree that a Ponzi is predicated on an enterprise that doesn't exist, but in a way, FTX was riding on a house of cards that were one tap from collapsing, and they knew it too. When FTX had billions loaned to Alameda, it wasn't until recently that I learned those funds were then funneled back to Bankman-Fried to the tune of a billion USD. Without a doubt fraud, misleading investors, and to me, nothing more credible than a Ponzi because the underlying enterprise were based on lies. |
|
|
|
|
And this is what people have been saying for ages. Global warming will occur regardless of the carbon emissions that humans produce over the course of centuries as part of the earth's natural climate cycle. It's only been as of the last 10-15 years where activists have convinced politicians that climate change acts as an existential threat to humans which require fundamental shifts in energy policy. None of these folks have even explained the exact reduction in global temperatures carbon emission curtailment would ever produce.
Carbon emissions contribute to global warming, insofar as human pollution is concerned. That being said, the private sectors across the world are already leading the way in reducing emissions, there isn't any need for the average consumer to participate in the climate change delusion by paying elevated prices for energy.
Whether one region heats up faster than another isn't cause for extremist energy policy. Entire globe is heating regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
