 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
I would do: "Send the equivalent in Ƀ to the address given"
Nevertheless, I would use a more expensive exchangerate than I used to get my coins.
|
|
|
|
|
Grundsätzlich sehe ich ja (wurde immer wieder auch angedacht) die Chance,
dass das "Krediteinsammeln" über eine Genossenschaft funktioniert.
Die Kredite sind dann "Eigenkapital" einer Genossenschaft, die dann entscheidet, wer welche Mengen an Geld bekommt.
Die Zinsen kommen der Gesellschaft wieder zu gute und werden an die Genossenschafter ausgezalt/wiederveranlagt.
|
|
|
|
Derzeit kocht in Östereich eine massive Diskussion bezüglich privat vergebener/erhaltener/eingesammelter Kredite, deren Rechtmäßigkeit und das Vorgehen der Finanzmarkaufsicht mit den angeblichen Rechtsbrechern. Siehe: http://diepresse.com/home/wirtschaft/economist/1313303/Leitl-unterstuetzt-KreditRebellenBei der Diskussion geht es um rechtliche Sicherheit, Haftungsfragen, das coole/böse von finanziellen "Revolutionären" und bashing auf eine Agentur. Der obige Bericht zeigt aber auch - wie wenig die Menschen über finanzielle Möglichkeiten wissen
- dass der Wirtschaftskammer-Präsident Crowdfunding mit P2P-Kredite gleich setzt (was falscher nicht geht, und mir wirklich Sorgen macht)
- dass in Österreich ein riesiger Bedarf an Alternativen Investionsmethoden besteht
Ich würde gerne über mögliche Umsetzungen von - Crowdfunding
- P2P-Finance
- Venture-Capital
diskutieren. Ein paar Ideen hätte ich, wie man über "Eigenkapital" die Chancen abbilden kann, ich würde aber gerne auch die Meinung anderer abrufen. |
|
|
|
|
Warum bin ich (noch) hier?
Grundsätzlich, weil mich Bitcoin technisch interessiert. Leider habe ich zu wenig Zeit mich wirklich damit auseinanderzusetzen. Trotzdem ist das Forum ein gutes "up to date-Halten".
2. Sache, die wahrscheinlich noch wichtiger ist:
Als Wirtschaftsinformatiker interessiert mich auch das Einsatzgebiet selbst und früher gab es gute und konstruktive Diskussionen in dem Forum.
Ich habe aber auch das Gefühl, dass das Traden immer wichtiger wurde und die "realwirtschaftlichen" Möglichkeiten/Auswirkungen und legistische Fragen vollkommen uninteressant sind.
So gesehen leidet für mich dieses Forum an gleichen Problem wie die derzeitige Wirtschaftspolitik:
Finanzwirtschaftliche Tools werden als Lösungsstrategien gesehen.
|
|
|
|
I think he means monetary deflation rather than price deflation.
Wikipedia (once again): "In economics, deflation is a decrease in the general price level of goods and services." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeflationIt's about the price, means: How many coins for a good? It's always about buying goods. There are several causes for the changes. Most of them are because of the "economy" and not because of "printing money". Printing money is one of the most obvious, but in a developed economy wages, technology-changes, velocity of money and prices of resources are much more important. |
|
|
|
One thing is true - Bitcoin is the world's FIRST truly deflationary currency and it is an social experiment I'm very excited to have the opportunity to participate in - although I might not ever live long enough to see how it turns out.
There are more than one causes for inflation/deflation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation#CausesInflation/deflation always depends on the prices/size of an economy. So (hyper)inflation can happen in an bitcoin-economy too. The only reason, why deflation in a bitcoin-economy is more likely, is: In the end the amount of coins is fixed. However: If prices are rising (because of bad weather, bankruptcy of an imporant manufacturer, ...), you will see inflation, with or without more fiat-money. |
|
|
|
Mhmmm, I think this is why you're saying that deflation won't be a problem if it's under the capital yields. You expect the nominal interest rate to be reduced linearly with interest with the only lower limit of 0% nominal interest.
But I'm not sure about it. I could even accept that a 1% deflation and 5% capital yields would "produce" a 4% nominal interest instead of moving the minimum profitable capital yield to 6%.
But will 4.5% deflation and 5% capital yields produce a 0.5% nominal rates?
Not sure that relationship is really linear.
Take into account that not all the money must be necessarily spent or invested. It can be hoarded too and in fact deflation is an incentives that. And hoarding is supposed to rise interest rates and make prices drop.
I think, that deflation never reduces the nominal interest rate, because you don't get the interest rate for investing the money, you are getting them for taking the risk to loose it. With or without deflation, the risk exists. In a economy with deflation, keeping your money under your bed is really cool. If an investor asks you for it, it's riskier than keeping it warm and save. And you know, that there is a risk, for not getting back. The 5% are the "insurance"-fee. So the rates are always summing up. |
|
|
|
That's not really correct. Fossil fuels are the biomass of past ages. When we burn them, that carbon is released. Currently we release 400 years of biomass every year. The issue is not efficiency - its values. What value do we place on the environment our grandchildren will live in and can we get a market to reflect that value?
The answer would seem to be that we don't really care that much about the environment our grandchildren will live in and thus it has no market value.
A lot of people think in the other direction. "I invest values now (making a debt), so my children and grandchildren will have a better live." And I don't think, that most of the people don't have the feeling, that burning oil causes a "debt". We know that a technology can be substituted by another one. So, why not using oil. Our grandchildren will use something else. |
|
|
|
|
I didn't get, which liberitarian society we are talking about.
Are enforceable rules possible? Are judges allowed?
For me yes.
A real example:
In Japan every year experts are checking which electronic products are the least consuming ones. They best ones are the standard for the next year. And after some years (2 or so), no product less than this standard are allowed. No costs, just better products. This can be applied for a lot of products (cars for example).
Just ideas:
Every year/month/week there is a vote how much a kilometre on the street is. Every car-driver has to pay for it. The revenue is divided and payed to all voters.
An "exchange" for carbon-licences:
When you want to use a carbon-containing resource (oil, coal, wood, ...) you have to buy a license for it. Anyone who produces electricity or has trees is allowed to "mine" licenses following defined rules, and trade it on a stock-exchange.
Every company has to explain, how the product was produced. Which steps, from whom, where, ....
If a fault in the chain is found by anyone, rules like for cigarette-manufactures are applied: No commercial, no sponsoring, warnings...
Companies have to find a rating-agency, which controls the competitors.
The results of the agencies have to be public and handed out when ever you are buying a product. If not, all products in the shop are free.
There are platforms for p2p-financing of improvement-projects. For every liter of oil, which is bought, you have to decide, which project is financed and how much you are paying (at least 2%? of the price). The retailer has to double the amount.
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the discussion about global warming are about CO2-emissions,
but not about the reason for it: We all spend too much resources, and we spend them in an ineffizient way.
We know a mechansim, which forces us to do things efficiently: markets.
Why don't they work against wasting resources like oil, coal, water, electricity ...
A lot of important things have no price, that's why they don't cause costs, and so nobody optimizes them.
Which costs are caused by the air-pollution in the US: I read today 184 billion dollars a year. Just a study of Yale, not real economy.
But there are costs, when people have to go to the hospital because of it, or the reduced crops of farmers.
Which costs are caused, when the US buys oil from Equatorial Guinea?
Which costs are caused, when kids in asia are producing my clothes?
In a really libertarian society it's quite complicate to cope with it. Normally these systems tend to melt down, when the "not payed costs" get to high.
In a society with a government and judges it would be easier, if the community wants it.
For me the solution has to be: Pollution, wasting of resources has to have cost/consequences. There are some, ...
Till now it's quite easy to talk about it.
There is always an excuse to help the economy and not the people.
|
|
|
|
|
Why a lot of people think, that markets do not need external rules.
Rules don't emerge on their own, because of "moral hazard" and the Prisener's dilemma. There is no reason, why not breaking the rules, when it is for my advantage.
Even Greenspan thought that banks don't need regulations because they would appear, when needed, and caused the suprime-crisis and some other problems for the Us. Ooops. Happens from time to time. It was all for the economy.
And then he regulated the market via money-printing and buying of bonds.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't get it.
I voted for the law, that prohibts you to earn money, because you don't have my amount of education, companies ...
Stop talking and go to work! Ah I forgot to tell you.
Because of the economic crisis we voted:
that all not "female europeans" have to work 65 hours a week, and they will get the money for their work on the first of April 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
It's extremly easy. You would loose,
because there are some people like me, who have got so much money, that they take your money too, and you have to work for them. Like a slave.
Sounds unfair for you. But I don't care, poor boy.
|
|
|
|
Why Mozambique ?
What exactly do you suggest to buy there ?
Find a mircocredit-organisation you trust, and check that you get paid back in "meticals". That will make more sense, and you don't depend on crazy politicans and irrational bankers. The big companies are going up and with the price of alu,or other properties. They are a little bit too risky. |
|
|
|
The UK national debt is only 62% and people pay to lend money to the UK. For every £100 lent to the UK government for 1 year, you get £97 back as the inflation rate is way higher than the interest rate.
The 62% are a nice number, the important line is the red one at http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ under "Debt including Financial sector intervention" This is the amount, the government has to finance, and to cope with it. The banks with a huge profit can pay back the money. But these (most of them) banks are taking huge risks. So they are the "bank run"-candidates. Your point about Austria is correct. However, the same logic does not apply to places like Greece and Spain as they are not important partners of Germany.
The really important partners are euro-zone-partners. It's the same. The problem is, that the EU-money didn't cause changes in the economic structure. |
|
|
|
thats a good example, also very simple place to start
Im imagining the best place to start would be one company that services all of europe or one company that services all of the states.
Would these rail passes be for s pecific country in Europe only?
I don't know a european-wide card. It's quite complicate to get foreign tickets. If you order one, you can pay with the "businesscard". There are travel agencies, which sell tickets all over europe, but I don't know, how they do it. |
|
|
|
Italy's problems are due to its lack of fiat money. It gave up its own currency and is now paying the price. To understand it, try to imagine if the US gave up the Dollar and adopted the Japanese Yen and had zero influence on Japanese monetary policy.
The UK hasn't got the Euro and they have got pretty the same problem: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/The former currency of Austria was: "Schilling". It was connected to the "Deutsche Mark" for decades. Nobody was able to change the exchange rate 1:7. And nobody complained. Why? Because it secured the exchange rate to a very important partner and it kept the economy fit. It was one of the keys to a quite stable and successful economy. Just printing money, doesn't make sense. It's really easy for the government to get rid of the debts. The tax-payers and the companies are getting the bill. |
|
|
|
|
At the most railway-companies in Europe a company/coops gets a "business-card".
They are credit-cards. You can buy you tickets at the stations, and at the end of the month you get charged.
The bill shows in detail which card was used for which ticket. --> So the amount for the "customers" is easy to calculate.
The customer gets a discount of 20% (if she hasn't an other card) and the company 1% to 3%.
So the tickets can be paid in bitcoins and the coop pays in euro.
|
|
|
|
|
When you have got enough money and time to watch the charts
--> Short term trading. And then your short/long-positions change very often.
If not: Hands off.
Spend your money in investments, which keep their values:
properties, blueChips (eastern europeans maybe, us/eurs are still to expensive), or small caps you know.
And if you "need" money-investments: Brasilia? Argentina? South Africa? Mozambique!
|
|
|
|
I would say that if one needs to ask that question, then any advice more sophisticated than a straight answer is probably wasted.
Maybe I'm not the average one, However, for me it seems that people around starting to think about it. They are searching the bank-ratings, choose fonds with blueChips, invest directly, ... I think this really changed. And they are discussing about the system itself. Not just these "bankster"-stories. So the euro will get less important. Values and Venture-capital-investments will be get more important. Maybe this is a possibility for bitcoin as a tool to: Raise money, and help starting companies/coops. |
|
|
|
|
