|
I think there's nothing groundbreaking here. Everyone has long known that we've been on a path towards digitization. It started decades ago when you could pay over the phone with a credit card. It has naturally accelerated as the internet has made electronic communications cheap and easy. I don't think those portends well for crypto necessarily. USD and Euro-denominated digital transactions are not a weakness in need of crypto's solution. Crypto doesn't really do anything better there, so there's no reason to pick crypto over the mainstream digital alternative. Crypto is likely to only continue to satisfy a niche market.
|
|
|
|
It's interesting to see that during my lifetime I've seen of the three big bailouts in the United States history, not that that is something I am proud of , but an interesting point in history to be living in. I think depending on the type of bailout, or how the bailout is set up, determines if it is a good idea for a country or a bad idea. Personally I think it's a good idea when the bailout does have strings attached, i.e. "you take this bailout, and we will become part owners of the company going forward". The U.S. government has already showed it's too inept to run businesses ( US postal service for example ).
The USPS doesn't operate in a free market so it's not a suitable example "government bad" strawman. It is mandated by law to charge rates below cost in order to subsidize mail delivery in rural parts of the country. They are mandated by law to make pension payments to a pension plan years in advance of needing to and without an ability to raise rates to compensate for the costs that are saddled on them by law and not because it's the normal cost of doing business. |
|
|
|
Religious views won't help you get there either since just about all major religions are based on a hierarchy and have spent hundreds of years preserving traditional and oppressive power structures.
From this we can see that religious values are absolute and can be used as standardization and, their application in everyday life, can be used as indicators, whether civilized humans or not. We cannot separate religious values from our daily lives. A healthy civilization's thirst is based on awareness of reality. Like the joys of life represented by democracy and liberalism must be transformed into the principle of reality. If socialism and capitalism cannot bring prosperity to mankind on earth, then maybe we should review that the fault lies in their goals or strategies. Sure we can. Morality doesn't come from religion, religion just hijacked the concept in an attempt preserve the favored status their members have historically enjoyed in different societies by telling you that there are arbiters of morality and you need them to believe you're a good person in order to have eternal life. Organized religion governs through fear. The regularity with which religious folks violate their own rules proves what a scam it is, and they're the ones trying to tell everyone else how to live. |
|
|
|
There's a lot of people who don't believe in the said pandemic, that they quote "It is a way of the government to subjugate their freedom". This kind of people tend to do things in a lot in different ways other than what is needed to be done. therefore food waste will still exist even though we're in pandemic.
As for the scarcity of food supply, it MAY exist if the pandemic continues for a long period of time where the supplies will decline as the demand increases. People with below-average income may not be able to afford enough foods to feed their families thus results to hunger. This situation is if and only if the PANDEMIC CONTINUES FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
Yeah, but those people are - to put it mildly - wrong. Nobody created the virus to subjugate people. They don't need a virus to do that, it doesn't make any sense. It's easier to subjugate people the normal way. Just because we're in a pandemic doesn't mean food demand increases. Food demand stays stable relative to population. So the threat of food shortages comes from the supply side. It's a non-zero risk, sure, but not a serious risk by any means. There is enough of a social safety net to prevent wide-scale hunger in the US. |
|
|
|
What’s with all the people who think China created the virus? Originated does not mean invented. There is no proof it was invented. There is no proof it was intentionally released. What, you think some group is dumb enough to release a virus nobody can control out into the world just for giggles? What’s the end goal? “We invented this virus we can’t control or cure, let’s release it into the general population and all take our chances on who is going to die.” Does that sound likely to you?
Many people only see the global world from the perspective of countries, even though in international relations non-state actors also have considerable influence, especially the actions of the world's big bankers and "the real money owners" who control the global economic system. Corona is not a problem for China America anymore, it's a problem of "who the real controller of the world". We can find out the actors, from analysis, which party will benefit the most from the pandemic? The fact is America, Europe, and China and almost all countries in the world have been hit by the pandemic. And you can see who created the billion dollars during a pandemic. After the pandemic has lasted several months and many countries have fallen into recession, we can begin to imagine and describe the post-pandemic global social conditions, where the gap between rich and poor is getting steeper. Due to the fact that the more money the stronger the immune system fends off the impact of the pandemic. The whole "secret money runs the world" thing is nonsense. Nobody released the virus to get richer. People just hate on the rich because they're not rich, and they want to blame someone for the fact they're not rich themselves. So people just heap a bunch of nonsense on to "the rich" and blame them for all sorts of things. Global pandemic? Well someone must have created and released it so they could be richer. Of course, makes total sense. /s |
|
|
|
There are many desires that can lead the economy in the US to increase highly. However, is it the real data or not? As we know, the US also faces a difficult moment because of the recession and this pandemic like most countries in the world. But, how can they recover the economy so suddenly? they are a big country and it may not be so difficult to recover it. But, we can see the updates of how the development because it is also heading to the election??
The recession though isn't caused by any fundamental weakness in the economy, but by the need to reduce economic activity to combat the spread of the virus. Since the economy was artificially slowed and did not lose momentum on its own, this gives us reason to hope that the recovery will be similarly as swift. It's not a lack of demand harming the economy, it's health concerns causing demand to drop. Remove the health concern, remove the artificial recession. |
|
|
|
Lots of articles that show Gold price prediction performance, and like the prediction in the opening post it shows that Gold really is
good as a safe investment. That's why big investors like Warren Buffet finally decided to buy Gold. This has become strong evidence
that Gold is indeed a safe investment. And some of the articles I read show Gold is getting popular in 2020. In my opinion Bitcoin
and land property are another safe investment alternative besides Gold.
You're misreading the situation. Warren Buffet hasn't bought gold. Warren Buffet has a long history of speaking on the record of what he thinks of gold as an investment, and he thinks it's trash. Buffet bought a stake in a gold mining company. He's not interested in the gold they produce, he's interested in the cash flow the mining operations produce because he feels the business is undervalued based on the fundamentals of the business. Buffet is a value investor. He buys businesses that produce cash flow when the current value of the business is lower than the expected future cash flows the business will generate. Since bitcoin and gold are not a business and do not produce cash flow, Buffet isn't interested in trying to value them and it's the reason he will never own them. |
|
|
|
Socialism can only work of everyone in society ignores basic human nature and millions of years of evolutionary biology that have ingrained the need to be selfish for survival into our genes. Our survival is now longer predicated on that level of selfishness, but you're not going to reverse the wiring in our brains that reward it.
I agree with the point that evolutionary biology has rewarded a degree of selfishness, and that natural selection has embedded it in our natures. But I would argue that our evolutionary history has in general only rewarded mild degrees of selfishness, and that higher levels of selfishness have been counterproductive to an individual's survival and ability to pass on their genes. We have evolved as social animals, living in tribal groups of somewhere of the order of 100 people. Arguably much of our intelligence has evolved through the need to build and maintain a complex web of inter-personal bonds, knowing who to trust and who not to, and establishing reciprocal altruism. We can argue convincingly that for a species of solitary creature, selfishness will certainly be selected for, and selflessness will not. I think we are on less solid ground arguing the same for social animals. Beyond this... I'm not in favour of outright communist-style absolute equality of outcome, I'm more in favour of democratic socialism, a capitalism-lite where truly progressive taxation of both income and wealth work to remove some of the most egregious excesses, and government intervention works for the benefit of the whole population, and removes all innate privilege. This may be a dream that is unlikely to see reality. I would say that most modern national governments do exhibit extremely selfish tendencies, but I think this is not because all or most people are extremely selfish, but rather that the sort of people who seek power tend to be more selfish than those who do not. If instead we base our assessment of human nature not on politicians, but on volunteers and charity workers, and for example the employees of MSF, who could work extremely well-paid jobs in private healthcare, but instead choose to risk their lives in war zones in the most troubled parts of the world... if we base our assessment on these people, then I would say humans don't seem particularly selfish at all. It's a fair point on the degree of selfishness being destructive at a point, however economics and money is an entirely man-made construct, it doesn't exist in nature. Money is just a stand-in for food or anything that allows you to survive, and in terms of survival, those with the most are the ones who are most likely to pass their genes along. Society thrives in groups, but man survives without it just fine. It's society that is threatened by excessive selfishness, not necessarily the individual. |
|
|
|
I do not understand the economical warfare situation between the big world powers. I mean they are already big, they are already doing well, they really do not need to fight each other at all, they could simply live a great life without any problem at all.
Why do they insist on making things worse for themselves? Don't get me wrong I am not saying they should be friends and patting each others backs, but China and USA helping each other could mean both of those nations could be even better in financial situation but also politically as well, getting those two nations friendlier would mean votes for whoever does it (well for USA, china is a dictatorship). In any case, if they want to do that, they can do that, it wouldn't matter to me, they fighting means they will want allies.
It's about nationalism and national pride to an extent, but mostly about self-determination. China cannot become a world power if it cannot be the preeminent regional power in Asia. The United States understands this, and this is why we prop up competitors and rivals to China's preeminence. Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines. Our military and economic aid to all these countries is designed to keep China from projecting power outside of their immediate sphere of influence. This is also why we keep challenging them in the South China sea. The US is trying to prevent them from challenging US on the global stage by creating regional roadblocks. China wants to overcome those for the same reason - projecting power globally. As for why, both sides' style of government is a threat to the other. China is authoritarian and keeps power by suppressing freedom and controlling information. An open and free style of government is a threat to those who hold power. In the US, the spread of an authoritarian government to other areas of the globe is a threat to our freedoms. We cannot allow ourselves to be in a position of weakness against a ruthless country that would oppress its own people; what do you think they'd do to foreigners? |
|
|
|
Well exactly, and any time a new merchant comes online, which increases the use case or at the very least doesn’t shrink it, there would only be upward pressure at best and no change at worse. So I’m baffled by the question that the two would be linked. It doesn’t make supply and demand sense.
If we talk about supply/demand relations, then we would have noticed a spike after May 2020, as a result of the block reward halving. The spike didn't occurred then. A small spike was noticed during August, but again after one month the exchange rates went down. It looks to me that whales are manipulating the exchange rates to some extent. Any impact from Pornhub should be minuscule. Crypto exchanges are largely unregulated, so the types of things that would be illegal in stock trading (like spoofing orders for example to manipulate price) are not prohibited. So I absolutely believe that there is real fraud and manipulation going on in crypto, caused by people with real money on the line pushing the price around to increase their profits. |
|
|
|
Anyone know if Nitro is under new ownership?
I was looking for link but fail because few months back I read somewhere there is some changes happen here on this site and new management now in control but sadly its old enough now not available but I will try again hopefully I will able to post here proof about this because I am also on nitro for very long time but now not able to use this. New ownership? haven't heard of that TBH. However, if it's really under the new ownership, how would things will change? it's still the same site and in fact they have improve the UI with their upgrade. Am I the only one who doesn't like the new UI? It's too bulky and less functional and harder to get around. As a player, I don't give much weight to fancy graphics, just functionality. The old UI was clean and efficient. Also, the move to denominating everything in mbtc is a negative in my book. They should code in the ability to let people denominate their account however they want. Years of placing bets in btc makes mbtc an inconvenience. It's not the worst thing, just inconvenient. |
|
|
|
That risk is with the US dollar as much as bitcoin. Both only have value because everyone agrees they do. Value stability is the most important aspect of a currency, so unless we enter hyperinflation in the US, the dollar is always going to be a superior currency.
The winner takes all. Through dollars, the real money owner wants to make his wealth last. Through the dollar, they built a system from telex to swift which caused acute dependence on the dollar. Even if in the end the dollar loses value due to hyperinflation, even though it is impossible because even though the dollar is printed out of thin air, America's gold reserves are still the largest in the world. So to shift, the domination of the American currency, is only false wishful thinking, because America wants to keep the system running the way they want it forever. There's a good bit of inertia behind the dollar being the world's reserve currency. It will take a lot to displace it due to this. But one of the things that can certainly do that is rapid inflation, or at least losing value faster than the alternatives. The US monetary policy has a lot at stake because it has to protect the reserve currency status of the dollar. |
|
|
|
Full on socialism has never worked and there’s no reason to expect that to change in the future. It requires suppressing with force a market’s natural tendencies and is therefore inherently violent. Countries with a mostly market system and strong social programs (free healthcare and education) have worked well and are probably as close to socialism as you want to get. But it’s not socialism per se.
Socialism can only be perfect if each human being does not live only for himself, but lives for the needs of the common society. In a socialist system, the people should have a direct voice in matters related to the state and the livelihoods of many people, what is currently happening is democratic socialism. Socialism will be perfect if it is bound by moral and religious values. The true basis of the socialist society is egality and brotherhood. Socialism was originally a communist philosophy that was based on the unity and integrity of society as a community in which socialism entered the economic realm so that it had a political-economic foundation. With the aim that the country's wealth could be enjoyed by the majority of the people, especially the peasants and poor workers - a movement to erode the various political, social, and economic impacts caused by colonialism and imperialism. Socialism has a weak resistance compared to capitalism even though its basic ideas are equality and brotherhood because socialism is rigid and not flexible to the changes demanded by history. Right, this is my point. Socialism can only work of everyone in society ignores basic human nature and millions of years of evolutionary biology that have ingrained the need to be selfish for survival into our genes. Our survival is now longer predicated on that level of selfishness, but you're not going to reverse the wiring in our brains that reward it. Religious views won't help you get there either since just about all major religions are based on a hierarchy and have spent hundreds of years preserving traditional and oppressive power structures. |
|
|
|
Putting Bitcoin as a safe investment along with gold and silver is laughable. Things that routinely fluctuate 10% or 20% in a day are not safe havens to store wealth. Gold has thousands of years of history as a (relatively) stable store of value, but bitcoin has barely a decade and it's rife with horrific crashes. There's no way you can make a credible argument that something that volatile can be a safe haven. Agreed, but I do think Bitcoin's monetary policy lends itself to being a store of value. It just can't be done overnight. This volatile price discovery is theoretically just part of the early adopter phase, for the same reason startup penny stocks can be so volatile. Investors are speculating on a rather binary situation: mass adoption (or capturing major market share)......or failure. If the first scenario plays out, I could see price plateauing an order of magnitude or two higher than now, with volatility gradually declining as the speculative nature of Bitcoin becomes fully priced in over time. Gold is still considered a rather volatile asset, easily fluctuating 1-5% in a day (it fell 6% in a day last month). I could see BTC eventually occupying a similar store of value niche and degree of volatility to gold, or certainly silver. It might take decades to get there, and maybe I won't live to see it. In theory, the artificial scarcity should help rather than hurt the price, but there are a couple of caveats to consider. For one, plenty of things are scarce and not valuable, so scarcity itself doesn't equal an ability to be valuable or hold value. Value has to come from somewhere else, like utility. On that front, there are plenty of cryptos that are more useful than Bitcoin (faster, cheaper, etc.). Pretty much the only thing Bitcoin has going for it is first mover advantage and inertia. I don't see Bitcoin ever reaching the kind of mass adoption you're envisioning because on just about every functional utility criteria you can measure it against, there's another crypto that does it better. For these reasons, I never see Bitcoin entering a phase of price stability necessary for it to be a long term store of value. |
|
|
|
How would the causation work in your mind here? A new website is taking crypto and the price declines. How are the two related? No, there is no cause here. These two events are not related. Further, there’s no correlation here either. For a correlation to exist, there needs to be multiple data points showing a trend. This is 1 data point. At best you can call this a coincidence.
It is ridiculous and illogical to even link the crash in exchange rates to the acceptance of Bitcoin payments by PornHub. I am sure that more than 90% of the Bitcoin users haven't even heard about this news. PornHub is not a major online enterprise like Amazon or Ebay, to influence the exchange rates of Bitcoin. As far as I know, their annual revenue is less than $1 billion (for comparison, the same figure for Apple is close to $300 billion). Well exactly, and any time a new merchant comes online, which increases the use case or at the very least doesn’t shrink it, there would only be upward pressure at best and no change at worse. So I’m baffled by the question that the two would be linked. It doesn’t make supply and demand sense. |
|
|
|
Definitely it's a good thing. there is no way to solve bitcoin volatility unless somebody wanted to invest a lot of money to stabilize the price, buying bitcoin when the price relative to a particular fiat currency goes below the target, and selling bitcoin when the price goes above the target. Without such a stabilizing force, bitcoin will remain volatile while it is in the early stages of adoption and demand is fluctuating and ultimately unknown. when more institutional investors come to the Bitcoin market, we should see volatility decrease, and this problem will be solved soon. Hence, institutional investors help a greater adoption with their funds.
I agree that institutional capital is good for Bitcoin, especially in terms of adoption, however I don't think that will influence the Bitcoin's volatility. Bitcoin is not functioning as traditional currencies and volatility is part of it's functioning, Bitcoin is not stable but its nature. No amount of investment will make Bitcoin to become stable currency. Bitcoin is like a product to which its value will depend on the demand of its consumers. Institutional investment is all about having money to purchase like real estate property to which it is more solid form of investment compared to bitcoin. However, it needs a huge capital which only few could afford to do it. Besides even if one can afford to invest in real estate property but still bitcoin has the edge of earning huge compared to institutional investment but it could be more risky than institutional investment. That's not what institutional investment is. Institutional investors are simply people who manage large pools of assets on behalf of a group, like a sovereign wealth fund or pension managers. When seeking capital, companies like to target institutional investors because of the large pools of capital they have and are looking for investment. The amount of institutional investment happening in crypto is extremely small And why is it so small? Right, because all those sovereign wealth fund and pension managers cannot invest in cryptocurrencies as their investment declarations don't list crypto as a legitimate asset for investment. Aside from that, you wouldn't really want your pension money invested in a speculative asset with nearly zero real life use. From their point of view (and it is not very far from how things stand in practice), crypto is just one big casino. Would you play with your life savings in a casino? Even if you would, most people wouldn't . Couldn’t agree more. I would not my retirement assets invested in risky assets that are nothing better than a pure gamble. The problem with crypto is it doesn’t create cash flow and it never will, which means the only way you can ever make money on it is to sell it to someone else for more than you paid for it. Hard pass. |
|
|
|
Will the advent of CBDC's forgo the necessity of filing taxes?
Since they will be able to see every single transaction you make.....
Not at all, you are generally taxed on income but not every receipt transaction represents income. If they were just going off receipts, they would tag refunds, any time you split a bill for someone and they pay you back, etc. Further, in the US for example, the government already knows how much you make because it's reported by your employer, but you still have to file your taxes. The tax rate is overly complicated, as there are all sorts of deductions and tax breaks available that you have to file to make use of. The tax filing itself is the true up of what you owe vs. what was withheld, so it tells you what you either have to pay to settle up or what you're owed for overpaying after your deductions. This wouldn't change with a CBDC, the system would be the same. |
|
|
|
I just read about the prediction that the price of gold will go to the moon
Not only gold but silver prices will also rise high. Both Gold and silver are safe heaven if you are looking to invest your money. Unsafe Investments: Stocks / Land Property / Fiat Money Safe Investments: Gold / Silver / Bitcoin Putting Bitcoin as a safe investment along with gold and silver is laughable. Things that routinely fluctuate 10% or 20% in a day are not safe havens to store wealth. Gold has thousands of years of history as a (relatively) stable store of value, but bitcoin has barely a decade and it's rife with horrific crashes. There's no way you can make a credible argument that something that volatile can be a safe haven. And to be clear, investing in gold and silver doesn't make you rich, it protects what you already have from inflation (generally speaking). So that's why people call them safe havens. On the whole, they're rather terrible investments though. |
|
|
|
There might be fortnite players strongly supporting this decision , see the thing is these large companies are doing nothing but using the small developers and paying even less than a minimum wage to a worker working for them in underdeveloped and developing countries. All they care about is profit. Problem with this would be : security But at the same time we can create a third party open source system which might run on blockchain and at the same time get the thing done.The small developers can work together to make it secure and this way they can even beat the google play and even apple with right direction. This will indeed start a revolution. Apple after asking word press showed how greedy and jealous these big companies are, I like the idea but execution will be a little difficult. How is a phone operating system going to run on blockchain? Honestly, people just throw blockchain out as a solution to everything without giving it any thought about if it's actually a solution or just a bunch of buzzwords strung together into a sentence. If things are truly as bad as everyone is claiming with Apple, then there is a huge incentive for a competitor to come and do things properly. That's not the case though. But Apple has a strong disincentive to allow anyone to jack around with their operating system since they won't be able to control any of the adverse consequences. There's a reason the majority of android phones are infected with unknown malware and Apple phones are largely unaffected by it. |
|
|
|
... I am sorry but what type of company bankrupts after few months of not working? Have they never invested or saved a single cent in that company?
...
Most of them. It's only the largest corporations that can survive three months of no or severely reduced cash flow. Same as most. Majority of people live paycheck to paycheck. You cut off their income for three months, bills go unpaid; rent, mortgages, car payments. The consequences for individuals are slower. You're not immediately thrown out of your house, your car isn't immediately repossessed. Business is different. Vast majority of businesses are financed through debt, and the debt covenants give control of the business to the lenders when they miss debt payments. The mechanisms are much faster and much more disruptive when businesses go under because they tend to ripple through the economy. A big company goes under, it loses a lot of jobs. Those lost incomes ripple through the economy. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
