|
1681
|
Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy
|
on: October 01, 2012, 11:34:03 AM
|
The only point you've made here is mine. You produce something that is not directly valuable to you, and then you trade it to someone else to whom it is more valuable than anything else you could have made, and in return they give you something that is more valuable to you than the effort you put into producing that thing for them. What does this have to do with the business cycle then? Everybody up and down the line of production just has a mass bout of stupidity every now and then? This is just a natural side effect of capitalism? Are you saying that insufficient capital investment is a moral issue? That pointing it out is the same as calling them inferior people? LOL here you go defending the production of money. You claimed they'd be "back in the stone age by Friday" without western investment. Do you not realize how condescending that is? Would Americans be "back in the stone age" without Wall Street? The primary benefit is de-funding governments by making taxes explicit. And what does making taxes explicit do other than raise the number of complaints about taxation? What does this solve? What would you like it to solve? Making taxes explicit is not some recipe for reduced taxation, after all. I don't really give a fuck about the distribution of wealth, and find the notion of equality in such a thing nonsensical.
Obviously. I'm quite sure the lords and landowners of feudalism had no problem with it either. Note that I said "distributed more equally" not "distributed equally". Do you get the difference? You know that that "distribution" does not mean "taxing and handing out equally", right? Why don't you give a fuck about the distribution of wealth? You are perfectly content with the situation of the homeless and those that live in poverty? It's their fault, right? It's totally sane that 93% of the new income in the economy in 2009-2010 went to the top 1%, right? Even though a significant portion of those people were heavily involved in the massive economic collapse? All you care about is explicit taxes, after all. I would say that they make mistakes, and if they are slow to accept and correct their mistakes, the correction can be harsh. If we use government to actively avoid having to face that correction, it will be even more harsh when it hits. Capital is not money. Nothing I said in that section was about money. And again, you are the one saying that lack of invested capital is a moral issue. Calling someone immature is only condescension if you believe that it is immoral to be young. If you don't think that hidden taxes = more taxes, I doubt that I'll be able to convince you. It seems like a pretty obvious thing, considering that every government everywhere throughout history has tried to hide taxes from the taxed. Inflation, payroll withholdings, VAT, etc... I don't care about the distribution of wealth because I don't know what the "right" distribution should be. Please tell me, with as much precision as you can muster, that percentage of new income should have gone to the top 1%. Heh, I find it funny that the article doesn't say top 1% by what measure. Height? Popularity? Before you linked it, did you bother clicking through to the study itself to see what the author was talking about? Or did you just start frothing at the mouth at the inequality that you didn't understand? |
|
|
|
|
1682
|
Other / Meta / Re: signature filters
|
on: October 01, 2012, 04:44:33 AM
|
Profile > Look and Layout Preferences > Check "Don't show user signatures."
Read, comprehend, post. Haha. Why would he start now? |
|
|
|
|
1683
|
Other / Meta / signature filters
|
on: October 01, 2012, 04:37:00 AM
|
|
How hard would it be to add a field to the account settings where we could put regex that would block only the signatures that match?
I finally got sick of the paid advertising in signature space and checked the box to nuke them all. But a lot of the sigs were good, so I feel like I'm missing out by having to kill them all.
|
|
|
|
|
1684
|
Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy
|
on: October 01, 2012, 04:23:01 AM
|
What is unnatural about a society being unable to afford that which it produces? Try this on. If merely producing something is as valuable as the product produced, wouldn't it make more sense to produce something else instead? Something that is worth more than the value of the effort that went into production maybe? Isn't that the whole point of production? Did you forget about the value of trade? Economics 101. Trade costs little to nothing yet it increases the wealth of both parties to it. The only point you've made here is mine. You produce something that is not directly valuable to you, and then you trade it to someone else to whom it is more valuable than anything else you could have made, and in return they give you something that is more valuable to you than the effort you put into producing that thing for them. They would be back in the stone age by Friday, I suspect. We'd be fine. Ask yourself why they are in such fierce competition to be our "bitches". Oh hey look the condescension of billions of people. Not at all unlike the mentality of Wall Street. What is the result, in your opinion, of "sound money"? Is it beneficial to society? If so, what benefits will society reap? Will wealth be distributed more equally? Will government have less power? What is the result that you clamor for yet scoff at when I mention the inefficiency of society? I am intensely curious. Are you saying that insufficient capital investment is a moral issue? That pointing it out is the same as calling them inferior people? Yes, I say that sound money is beneficial. The primary benefit is de-funding governments by making taxes explicit. I don't really give a fuck about the distribution of wealth, and find the notion of equality in such a thing nonsensical. |
|
|
|
|
1685
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Usagi: falsifying NAVs, manipulating share prices and misleading investors.
|
on: October 01, 2012, 03:32:51 AM
|
You know, you guys are beating a dead horse. You've made your point.
no, we've collected evidence in one place in public. To properly make the point we will have to contact the FSA in Japan, and the SEC in the US, and the FSA in the UK. Usagi securities are not registered and not regulated by any of this bodies. (FTFY) Which may of course be the biggest problem when those bodies are contacted. Certainly, in the US, it's a significant issue to sell securities to unaccredited, non-sophisticated investors (especially unregistered securities) - thus it's a potential issue for and foreign citizen selling securities to US citizens. The US has brass balls when enforcing money regulations. (it's illegal to sell securities to non-sophisticated investors because a fraudulent issuer could present a rosy picture, much as usagi has, and coerce more money out of non-sophisticated investors than they can actually afford to lose....i.e. the old man's life savings) Also, just because a security is unregistered doesn't mean it's un regulated. Furthermore they are the bodies in those countries that investigate securities fraud, which is what I certainly suspect is going on here. It's not like those agencies will not investigate suspected securities fraud simply because the security wasn't registered. Just because it's bitcoin, not dollars or yen, doesn't mean they won't investigate either. The SEC doesn't care if investments are denominated in USD, EUR, JPY, coal, gold, or bitcoins. Investments are investments; the definition of "security" is quite broad. Agreed. I think there is a shitstorm coming. The question will also come up as to whether these things being traded on the exchanges are securities or not. Both possible answers are potentially very bad. If they are securities, everyone could be in big trouble for violations of securities laws. If they are not securities, everyone could be in big trouble for selling them as securities (aka fraud). |
|
|
|
|
1686
|
Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy
|
on: October 01, 2012, 02:31:09 AM
|
You replied to my post, but I feel like I jumped into the middle of a completely different conversation. Because through your ignorance you think that the sides are actually reversed and things like welfare cloud this massive disconnect. Or, at least, that's the best I can gather from LOL. There are many ways that the rich can avoid looters, being politically active is only one of them. But yeah, in general I see government as the problem. And by "government", I don't mean "government", I mean "you and me". Political activism does not write laws, money writes laws. Political activism very, very rarely gets politicians elected; money gets politicians elected. "You and me" are a big part of the problem because most of "you and me" are completely uneducated as to what the problem is. So a "LOL" comment when I point out an incredible and simple societal disconnect in the "wealthiest country in the world" leads me to believe that you are totally cool with being uneducated as to what the problems with society are. I am not saying that the food that should be thrown out should be given away for free, I am saying that the fact that such a stupid side-effect of this economy exists means there is something wrong with the system. 99% of the 99% of OWS didn't even know what the fuck the problem is, just that there is a problem. I'm not sure that I want to let you draw me into a discussion of the business cycle. Parts of it seem natural, and parts seem artificial. Without honest money on a global scale, it is hard to be sure about any of it. What is natural about a society being unable to afford that which it produces? I will say that cheap labor benefits from us, just like we do from them. Division of labor, theory of trade, key concepts from economics 101.
The question was not who benefits, the question was how long would the collapse take when they decide to stop being the bitches of western society? They are going to eventually wake up and realize that producing money does not produce wealth, but producing money is the majority of what western society does. It is not a sustainable enterprise when there are no more people to walk over. Ignorant? Are you sure you know what that word means? I'll give you a hint, it does not mean "disagrees with me". I kinda suspect that I can guess like 75% of your "side", or more, but I disagree with most of it. Also, a thing does not qualify as "problems with society" or "something wrong with the system" just because you say so. What is unnatural about a society being unable to afford that which it produces? Try this on. If merely producing something is as valuable as the product produced, wouldn't it make more sense to produce something else instead? Something that is worth more than the value of the effort that went into production maybe? Isn't that the whole point of production? They would be back in the stone age by Friday, I suspect. We'd be fine. Ask yourself why they are in such fierce competition to be our "bitches". P.S. Study Chomsky. He is much better at making this sort of nonsense sound good. |
|
|
|
|
1687
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Volume in recent weeks has fallen off a cliff, what do you make of it?
|
on: October 01, 2012, 01:43:18 AM
|
Who will sell me bitcoins for less then what the exchange will sell them to me for? I offer 9 usd per btc. Sound good? Why not?
Becuase u can sell them for more at an exchange.
Now why would i offer 14 usd per btc? I can buy for less at an exchange.
The exchange offers constant buy and asks which help determine what these eleet off exchange people buy and sell for in my mind.
The exchange is not selling them to you. They are facilitating a trade between you and another person. I am typing on a tablet. I have no need to type out extra words. U kniw exactly what i meant. Sorry for your typing problems. I'm happy to hear that you didn't actually believe the things you wrote. Exchange order prices are usually accepted by independent dealers because exchanges are the most accurate and efficient means of price discovery, because they concentrate liquidity in one place. They also make arbitrage easier, meaning that errors in the orders listed on them can be corrected quicker. |
|
|
|
|
1688
|
Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy
|
on: October 01, 2012, 01:24:07 AM
|
And nearly every part of it is funny. If the poor were worth stealing from, they wouldn't be poor. What I usually see is the government stealing from anyone they can steal from, and bribing the poor to not wreck up the place. Generally speaking, the rich have the means to protect themselves from this theft, while the middle class does not.
The food thing is only a mystery if you assume that everyone's time is valueless.
Ahh so it's all about the government for you; the fact that the rich and powerful and the government are intertwined has no meaning for you then? Or do you just shrug it off as "lol they can protect themselves by buying politicians to do favorable things for them"? Is it not the underclassmen that support the rich? Otherwise why do recessions even happen? Money doesn't just disappear. Is the business cycle just a necessary consequence of capitalism? Blame it on credit, sure, but isn't it the people who produced all of these things which credit can buy? Is society really advancing when we are all mortgaging our lives away to the powerful? Does this really help anyone? How quickly would the collapse of western society happen if the countries we take advantage of for cheap labor were to suddenly resist? You replied to my post, but I feel like I jumped into the middle of a completely different conversation. There are many ways that the rich can avoid looters, being politically active is only one of them. But yeah, in general I see government as the problem. And by "government", I don't mean "government", I mean "you and me". I'm not sure that I want to let you draw me into a discussion of the business cycle. Parts of it seem natural, and parts seem artificial. Without honest money on a global scale, it is hard to be sure about any of it. I will say that cheap labor benefits from us, just like we do from them. Division of labor, theory of trade, key concepts from economics 101. |
|
|
|
|
1689
|
Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy
|
on: October 01, 2012, 12:40:28 AM
|
LOL
So you don't think the monetary system and the interests of government are in tune with the rich? They are actually designed for "the people"? Neither of those things is what you said that made me laugh. This is: You do realize that the entire economy of the world is based around stealing from the poor and middle classes to give to the rich and powerful, right? When the US throws out billions of pounds of food annually yet there are millions of people who aren't sure where their next meal is coming from, there is a disconnect in the system.
And nearly every part of it is funny. If the poor were worth stealing from, they wouldn't be poor. What I usually see is the government stealing from anyone they can steal from, and bribing the poor to not wreck up the place. Generally speaking, the rich have the means to protect themselves from this theft, while the middle class does not. The food thing is only a mystery if you assume that everyone's time is valueless. |
|
|
|
|
1690
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Volume in recent weeks has fallen off a cliff, what do you make of it?
|
on: October 01, 2012, 12:26:33 AM
|
Who will sell me bitcoins for less then what the exchange will sell them to me for? I offer 9 usd per btc. Sound good? Why not?
Becuase u can sell them for more at an exchange.
Now why would i offer 14 usd per btc? I can buy for less at an exchange.
The exchange offers constant buy and asks which help determine what these eleet off exchange people buy and sell for in my mind.
The exchange is not selling them to you. They are facilitating a trade between you and another person. |
|
|
|
|
1691
|
Other / Beginners & Help / Re: btcfpga vs bfl labs
|
on: October 01, 2012, 12:08:27 AM
|
right you need to really label your results there chum
doing what you just did up there, which is 4.5/163 = 0.027 (you need to insert the word gigahash here) or 27 megahash PER dollar
Jalepeno gH/$: 0.023489932885906
Single Gh/$: 0.0307929176289453
MiniRig Gh/$: 0.0334459346466437
btcFPGA Gh/$: 0.0504672897196262
Are you concerned that the very clear and unambiguous labels came before the numbers instead of after? |
|
|
|
|
1692
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Volume in recent weeks has fallen off a cliff, what do you make of it?
|
on: September 30, 2012, 11:56:16 PM
|
It indicates that a lot off-exchange sales are happening. People have had time to form the beginnings of decentralized exchanges and trading agreements with each other so that bitcoins are going elsewhere for sale/trade instead of just exchanges. The salad days of the exchanges are winding down as they won't be the only game in town anymore. Banks will also be making it harder and harder for exchanges to operate as the Bitcoin network grows.
I'm long on bitcoin, short on central exchanges.
And just who sets the current price of btc? Oohh that is right.. The exchanges. I think you might be confused about the role that an exchange plays in the market. |
|
|
|
|
1693
|
Economy / Economics / Re: A Resource Based Economy
|
on: September 30, 2012, 11:50:58 PM
|
Yeah but what's your plan exactly to provide the means for people to have the comfortable and meaningful life you're talking about? Does it consist on stealing the work and savings of those people who only care about profit and personal wealth?
You do realize that the entire economy of the world is based around stealing from the poor and middle classes to give to the rich and powerful, right? When the US throws out billions of pounds of food annually yet there are millions of people who aren't sure where their next meal is coming from, there is a disconnect in the system. LOL |
|
|
|
|
1694
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How bitcoin could turn into a 'Big Brother' nightmare
|
on: September 30, 2012, 10:48:53 PM
|
Who will decide which coins are 'tainted' ?
Heh. You didn't read the thread, did you? In this thread, the discussion assumes that some entity is making that taint decision. Pretend that it is the United Nations Special Committee on Bitcoin Taint, or whatever. Fortunately, the conclusion seems to be the same. Even if that first barrier is overcome, the system is still unworkable. |
|
|
|
|
1695
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Increasing the number of keys in key pool
|
on: September 30, 2012, 10:45:41 PM
|
1. +1 to this whole backup/encrypt wallet issue. I think this is really important, especially to people who are new with bitcoins (but apparently not only for them)
2. I do not think that flushing the key pool when the wallet is encrypted is a good idea. I understand why it's done, but when a program gives you the option to encrypt something I expect it to do right that: encrypt. I don't expect it to somehow modify/change my data.
The keys existed on your disk in an unencrypted state. They are not safe, they should not be used. Marking them and generating new ones is the right thing to do. Key encryption has been around for something like a year, and we are just now noticing that a few people have lost keys in strange situations. |
|
|
|
|
1698
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who would you like on a Bitcoin Council that represented the BTC community?
|
on: September 30, 2012, 09:13:20 PM
|
If any one wants an invite to the Bitcoin Business Alliance ( BBA ) PM me.
Its free and theirs only one requirement really, you contribute to the improvement of bitcoin.
In light of the pandemonium unleashed by the Bitcoin Foundation announcement, aren't you worried that 1) your name makes it sound like you speak for all bitcoin businesses when you clearly do not, and 2) you are excluding individual bitcoin users? (This is only partly a troll.) |
|
|
|
|
1699
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How bitcoin could turn into a 'Big Brother' nightmare
|
on: September 30, 2012, 09:09:25 PM
|
He's saying return them to the person they were stolen from, not return them to the latest sender. It is a huge difference.
I agree and I apologize for dismissing the point too quickly. I presume that when bitcoins take over the world and become the dominant means of exchange, court orders and judgments will be more or less "send X BTC to address Y before date Z". Having a thief convicted by a court and forcing him/her to pay back is of course possible, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Bitcoin or with any kind of tainting mechanism. Right. I was just pointing out that that part would work. If we overlooked all of the other problems with taint in general, stolen coins could be returned to their rightful owners using a mechanism that will presumably be in widespread use by courts. |
|
|
|
|
1700
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How bitcoin could turn into a 'Big Brother' nightmare
|
on: September 30, 2012, 08:13:59 PM
|
It would also not result in destroying bitcoins, since they should of course be sent back to the person they were stolen from.
This would result in many lost coins, because in general you cannot expect the sender to have the private key for the transaction (think: online wallets). Also: "oh, so you have a super secure, offline, cold storage, long-term savings Bitcoin wallet - wouldn't it be a shame if some tainted coins got sent there and you would be required by Bitcoin law to send them back immediately!" If you're still in doubt over such a mechanism's (non-) viability and don't want to do some research, I really can't help you! He's saying return them to the person they were stolen from, not return them to the latest sender. It is a huge difference. There are practical problems with proving the theft, etc, etc, but if we overlook those, sending them to a new address controlled by the victim should be easy enough. I presume that when bitcoins take over the world and become the dominant means of exchange, court orders and judgments will be more or less "send X BTC to address Y before date Z". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
