 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
|
Selling a hero account. It has no negative trust, 480+ activity, and around 480 posts aswell.
Can proove ownership with original email adress and staked adress
Discord:
we can also meet irl for safer transaction, i live on spain.
|
|
|
|
|
A ver si algun abogado, contable o alguien que sepa de esto me puede responder.
Si me cojo una tarjeta de crédito extranjera, no anónima pero asociada a un banco extranjero y la voy recargando con bitcoins, tengo que declarar algo en España? Porque en teoría el dinero está siempre fuera de España con lo cual no cuenta como actividad económica en España. Si usara esa tarjeta localmente entonces tendría que pagar impuestos por la compra y si la usara para comprar en el extranjero tendría que pagar aduanas, pero en cuanto a declarar el dinero en la declaración de la renta no debería hacerlo porque el dinero está en el extranjero, correcto?
También se agradecerían sugerencias sobre tarjetas de crédito recargables. He visto la de OKPay y las comisiones no parecen exhorbitantes.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi
I have a question for the chinese subforum, excuse the english.
Im looking for a Taobao agent that accepts bitcoins. Google has turned nothing. Maybe someone in the forum is willing to act as Taobao agent for me?
Thanks,
Hugo
|
|
|
|
|
Pues eso, creeis que hemos tocado fondo ya o vamos a bajar de los 60$/btc que vimos ayer?
|
|
|
|
|
Im looking for a framework/library to program a trading bot. Ideally Python but java or even C would be acceptable. Anyone can recommend any?
Just to be clear, Im not looking for an already programmed bot or strategies. Im looking for a library that it will facilitate writting my own.
|
|
|
|
The conclussion of the article: But there is some reason to be hopeful because very bright and creative folks are experimenting with private monies on the Internet. Advances in computing power and encryption technologies are increasingly making it possible for people to get around the destructive government money monopoly. With some luck and some support from countries that are not part of the U.S. dollar, euro and Japanese yen blocs, free money might yet succeed. If not, we will continue to be doomed to a life of boom and bust, and inflation and deflation, as the central banks continue to nail all of us on the cross of government monopoly money. Wonder what he is talking about  The whole article is worth the read: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13798 |
|
|
|
Ive been quite inactive in the forums lately but the horrible reporting Ive seen lately has pushed me to post this. Bad reporting is nothing new for Bitcoin. I have not seen worse reporting in my life than with Bitcoin, but the last articles deserve an answer. First, it should be clear to anyone that Bitcoin was not and is not a bubble. Its not a bubble bursting or at least it shows very little of a bubble pattern. A bubble happens because investors missjudge an asset (or group of assets) and overinvest in it. The reason for this are bad signals by wrong monetary policy usually coupled with fiscal policy and press hype. Some economists blame "psicology" but thats like saying nothing, since everything humans does is due to "phisicologic causes". When everybody sees that the investments are not performing there is a panic and the price collapses as investors try to get rid of the assets as quick as the can. Thats why we see this patter: "slow" build up and "quick" collapse. For example, the housing bubble:  With Bitcoin we have seen the opposite pattern, a "quick" build up and a "slow" downturn:  You can see the decline has been steady. Even after the MyBitcoin "situation" the price recovered quickly showing there was confidence in the currency. Maybe the collapse from $30 to $20 can be asigned to a bubble pattern, as you can see in the graph. The rest of the decline does not follow a bubble pattern. The reason is very simple and I really dont understand why the press does not mention it. Bitcoin monetary inflation is huge, as Bitcoin is in distribution phase. Bitcoin monetary inflation is around 30%. That is huge. And the pattern of the steady decline shows that this huge supply is overpowering demand. Its that simple. This is how it was designed and it will change in a year when the Bitcoin monetary creation halves. |
|
|
|
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/taleb1/EnglishThe Great Bank Robbery
Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Mark Spitznagel
NEW YORK – For the American economy – and for many other developed economies – the elephant in the room is the amount of money paid to bankers over the last five years. In the United States, the sum stands at an astounding $2.2 trillion. Extrapolating over the coming decade, the numbers would approach $5 trillion, an amount vastly larger than what both President Barack Obama’s administration and his Republican opponents seem willing to cut from further government deficits.
That $5 trillion dollars is not money invested in building roads, schools, and other long-term projects, but is directly transferred from the American economy to the personal accounts of bank executives and employees. Such transfers represent as cunning a tax on everyone else as one can imagine. It feels quite iniquitous that bankers, having helped cause today’s financial and economic troubles, are the only class that is not suffering from them – and in many cases are actually benefiting.
Mainstream megabanks are puzzling in many respects. It is (now) no secret that they have operated so far as large sophisticated compensation schemes, masking probabilities of low-risk, high-impact “Black Swan” events and benefiting from the free backstop of implicit public guarantees. Excessive leverage, rather than skills, can be seen as the source of their resulting profits, which then flow disproportionately to employees, and of their sometimes-massive losses, which are borne by shareholders and taxpayers.
In other words, banks take risks, get paid for the upside, and then transfer the downside to shareholders, taxpayers, and even retirees. In order to rescue the banking system, the Federal Reserve, for example, put interest rates at artificially low levels; as was disclosed recently, it also has provided secret loans of $1.2 trillion to banks. The main effect so far has been to help bankers generate bonuses (rather than attract borrowers) by hiding exposures.
Taxpayers end up paying for these exposures, as do retirees and others who rely on returns from their savings. Moreover, low-interest-rate policies transfer inflation risk to all savers – and to future generations. Perhaps the greatest insult to taxpayers, then, is that bankers’ compensation last year was back at its pre-crisis level.
Of course, before being bailed out by governments, banks had never made any return in their history, assuming that their assets are properly marked to market. Nor should they produce any return in the long run, as their business model remains identical to what it was before, with only cosmetic modifications concerning trading risks.
So the facts are clear. But, as individual taxpayers, we are helpless, because we do not control outcomes, owing to the concerted efforts of lobbyists, or, worse, economic policymakers. Our subsidizing of bank managers and executives is completely involuntary.
But the puzzle represents an even bigger elephant. Why does any investment manager buy the stocks of banks that pay out very large portions of their earnings to their employees?
The promise of replicating past returns cannot be the reason, given the inadequacy of those returns. In fact, filtering out stocks in accordance with payouts would have lowered the draw-downs on investment in the financial sector by well over half over the past 20 years, with no loss in returns.
Why do portfolio and pension-fund managers hope to receive impunity from their investors? Isn’t it obvious to investors that they are voluntarily transferring their clients’ funds to the pockets of bankers? Aren’t fund managers violating both fiduciary responsibilities and moral rules? Are they missing the only opportunity we have to discipline the banks and force them to compete for responsible risk-taking?
It is hard to understand why the market mechanism does not eliminate such questions. A well-functioning market would produce outcomes that favor banks with the right exposures, the right compensation schemes, the right risk-sharing, and therefore the right corporate governance.
One may wonder: If investment managers and their clients don’t receive high returns on bank stocks, as they would if they were profiting from bankers’ externalization of risk onto taxpayers, why do they hold them at all? The answer is the so-called “beta”: banks represent a large share of the S&P 500, and managers need to be invested in them.
We don’t believe that regulation is a panacea for this state of affairs. The largest, most sophisticated banks have become expert at remaining one step ahead of regulators – constantly creating complex financial products and derivatives that skirt the letter of the rules. In these circumstances, more complicated regulations merely mean more billable hours for lawyers, more income for regulators switching sides, and more profits for derivatives traders.
Investment managers have a moral and professional responsibility to play their role in bringing some discipline into the banking system. Their first step should be to separate banks according to their compensation criteria.
Investors have used ethical grounds in the past – excluding, say, tobacco companies or corporations abetting apartheid in South Africa – and have been successful in generating pressure on the underlying stocks. Investing in banks constitutes a double breach – ethical and professional. Investors, and the rest of us, would be much better off if these funds flowed to more productive companies, perhaps with an amount equivalent to what would be transferred to bankers’ bonuses redirected to well-managed charities.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb is Professor of Risk Engineering at New York University and the author of The Black Swan. Mark Spitznagel is a hedge-fund manager. The authors own positions that profit if bank stocks decline in value.
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself. The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be. Therefore the Master says: I let go of the law, and people become honest. I let go of economics, and people become prosperous. I let go of religion, and people become serene. I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass.
- Tao Te Ching (Mitchell translation), Chapter 57
They say everything is invented and we just keep rediscovering things, and there is some true to this as proven by the Tao. The last sentence is the one that I liked more.
|
|
|
|
|
So forced by the circumstances (their currency hyperinflated or almost hyperinflated depending on your definitions) Iceland had to repudiate the debt (tehncially it didnt, it refused to acknowledge the debt). This is what most economist of the austrian school of economics recommend and basically is the classical solution: If someone can not pay the debt it has to default on it. But keynesians and others defend the idea that its better to get rid of the debt through inflation promoting ideas like systemic risk and Too Big To Fail, to justify their rejection of defaults. In fact, Krugman defended the bank bailouts in the USA although he had some (sensible I must say) complains at the way it was done.
Well, unsurprisingly the country that did not follow the keynesian ideas and just refused to pay the debt, Iceland, has been the first country to get out of the depression and the unemployment is going dow to normal levels. The situation is still dire, but all the indicators are improving.
But Krugman has no shame to vindicate this contradiction of his ideas as a triumph, lying to his audience about who defends default as a solution.
hxxp://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/01/iceland-exits/
|
|
|
|
According to keynesianism wages can not go up when there is high unemployment. And because of this, they argue, prices wont go up much, because any upward presure will meet people having stagnant wages. This is their explanation of why printing money in a depression is ok. But reality begs to differ. The problem with the stated above is that they are looking at the economy through aggregates, which is a horrible way of looking at the economy and leads to big mistakes. What happens in reality is that not all workers are competition for the rest of the workers. For example, a guy with experience on the housing industry that is now unemployed is no competition for a engineer working at Google, therefore when the Google engineer negotiates his next increase it does not affect him much that there is a lot of construction workers unemployed or not. Thats why in the last year we have seen a lot of the more skilled workers getting better wages, even in the face of high unemployment. Now the raise in wages is starting to move onto less skilled workers and its the first evidence for the wave of high inflation that we will see. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/08/first-significant-hint-of-wage-price.htmlFirst Significant Hint of Wage Price Inflation Beyond Silicon Valley
U.S. trucking companies may face a 30 percent surge in wage bills by 2014 as rising demand for freight shipments threatens to push the industry’s driver shortage to the longest on record, reports Reuters.
Aside from Reuters technical error on "shortages" (There are no such things when markets are allowed to clear), this is a very interesting data point. Up to now, the strongest wage gains have been seen for highly skilled specialist software engineers in the Silicon Valley area. Upward pressure on trucking wages indicates developing wage inflation in the blue collar sector.
Company-employed drivers, who don’t own their rigs, earn average salaries in the mid-$40,000 range, based on figures from Norita Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association in Grain Valley, Missouri, according to Reuters.
But, forget the 2014 forecasts. Here's what is going on right now, according to Reuters:
Saia Inc. said this month it would increase wages by 2.5 percent for drivers and many other employees.
J.B. Hunt’s spending on wages, salaries and benefits rose 12 percent last quarter from a year earlier.
Bottom line: Price inflation, as expected is starting to spread. At some point, it gets real ugly. |
|
|
|
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/08/libertarian-anticapitalism/Libertarian Anticapitalism
For most of the 20th century, American libertarians were mostly seen as — and mostly saw themselves as — defenders of capitalism. Was that an accurate view of 20th century libertarians were about? If accurate, is that a good thing about libertarianism, or a defect that should be amended and avoided?
Well, it depends. Specifically, it depends on what you mean by “capitalism.” Now, I’ve had something to say about this before, and my friend Gary Chartier has broached the subject here at Bleeding Heart Libertarians, but I think the ground might be worth covering again in some more detail. (Partly because it may help as an introduction to where I come from on questions of freed markets, economic privilege, social justice, et cetera; and partly because some of the comments on Gary’s earlier post lead me to believe that a closer approach to the definitional question might help clear up communication.) First, though, let’s take a bit of a detour — to New York City.
About a year ago, the Wall Street Journal‘s Metropolis blog ran an item by Aaron Rutkoff on zoning and advertising in Times Square, called “Good Taste in Times Square? It’s Illegal.” As it turns out, the bright lights and “colorful corporate orgy” of Times Square advertising — as paradigmatic a symbol of American capitalism as you could hope for — is the result, not of unfettered free-market commercialism, but of a detailed set of mandates handed down in New York City’s special zoning ordinance for the “Special Midtown District:”
For those with the stomach to navigate the bureaucratic language, the zoning regulations make for interesting reading. What appears totally haphazard to the untrained tourist’s eye is actually planned down to the last square foot, with copious rules about how much of any surface must be covered in signage.
Own a building on Broadway but detest the flashing lights? Too bad. As the code states:
There shall be a minimum of one #illuminated sign# with a #surface area# of not less than 1,000 square feet for each 50 linear feet, or part thereof, of #street# frontage.
There are instructions for precisely which direction Times Square’s signage must face and extraordinarily detailed diagrams for how the brightness of mandatory illuminated displays shall be measured.
Does your building feature a blinking sign? The rules require that the unlit phase not exceed three seconds. When can the bright lights be switched off? No earlier than 1:00 a.m.
–Adam Rutkoff, “Good Taste in Times Square? It’s Illegal,”
Wall Street Journal Metropolis blog, 12 August 2010
The WSJ decided to sum up their findings by saying:
In a way, the zoning code governing the signs is wonderfully ironic. The bright lights of Times Square, one of the most visible and iconic testaments to the city’s hyper-capitalist verve, are maintained not by Adam Smith’s invisible hand but by little-known government regulations.
–Adam Rutkoff, “Good Taste in Times Square? It’s Illegal,”
Wall Street Journal Metropolis blog, 12 August 2010
Well. Whether or not something comes off as “ironic” depends upon your expectations; and on this point, I guess it may not be surprising that my expectations are not the same as those at the Wall Street Journal. In fact, I would say that a story like that of the Times Square zoning code is not only not especially “ironic;” it’s really paradigmatic — a illustratively typical example of how large-scale, in-your-face commerce typically works in these United States, and how it interacts with the corporate economy throughout the world. That’s why I have often referred to myself (following the example of Kevin Carson) a “free market anticapitalist” — because I believe in a really broad and radical version of property rights and market freedom in economic ownership and exchange, but (unlike, say, the Wall Street Journal) I think that the features conventionally associated with American capitalism — large-scale, top-down firms, the predominance of wage labor, corporate domination of economic and social life, the commercialization of social space etc. — are as often as not the products of state intervention, not of market dynamics. And, further, that a genuinely and consistently freed market would tend to undermine the prevalence and significance of these features in everyday life.
But “free market anticapitalism” is a term that raises eyebrows. Mainly because it doesn’t seem to make any sense. The reason I use it is because of the eyebrows it raises — not because I enjoy confusion or confrontation for its own sake, but because I think that existing ideas about the relationships between markets and capitalism are already confused, and that a superficial overlap in language tends to obscure the confusions that already exist. In particular, the term “capitalism” is used by almost all sides in economic debates as if it were obviously the ideal governing libertarian policy proposals, and is debated over both by nominal pro-”capitalists” and by nominal anti-”capitalists” as if it were perfectly obvious to everyone what it means.
.........
|
|
|
|
|
