While the 3rd scenario does sound good on paper, in reality it is not. The fact is that government is worse at spending money then the private sector is (in other words it is spent less efficiently). You imply that the government would pay for all this which means that taxpayer money would not be spent efficiently (all money that government spends will eventually be paid for by taxpayers), unless you are part of the 47% who pay no taxes and rely exclusively on government you should care about this. For example the 2009 stimulus package that president Obama and the democrats passed ended up costing around $300,000 per ~$40,000 per year job created as a result of the stimulus.
I haven't read the discussion from the beginning it seems. Because this premise is wrong in the modern monetary system: all money that government spends will eventually be paid for by taxpayers Another problem is that you assume that we need more/better infrastructure. In many cases we do not and the money would be spent on things that would not even be used. One example of this is the $100 billion bullet train to no where in CA. Not only is the project expected to generate vastly less amounts of revenue then it will cost to build, but it is estimated to be greatly underutilized. There's always something to improve. If infrastructure is perfect, then spend money on fundamental science, medicine, education, whatever. All money that government spends does eventually need to be paid for by taxpayers. Even if the government never pays back the debt they incur to spend this money the government will need to have otherwise higher taxes in order to service the debt forever. All of you suggestions for government to spend money on other things (science, medicine, education, ect) could be more efficiently done in the private sector. This is why it is bad to try to "stimulate" your way out of a recession as the money that is used for stimulus will ultimately need to be paid back via taxpayers (with interest). This is not a very efficient way of causing the economy to grow. Another thing that's strange is how the idea of a recession been so made out to be so horrible. A recession is a necessary correction or adjustment to misallocation of resources. There is much reason to believe that if the government would stop intervening and "stimulating" that this would actually lessen the severity of booms and busts, but of course politicians think and teach that it's the opposite. There's a difference between normal recession and what happened in 2008 |
|
|
|
|
Give this man a medal for losing money.
|
|
|
|
|
Im just LMAO. At the fools in denial. Hahahahaha
This what they deserve for pumping their scam
|
|
|
|
Keynes says aggregate demand drives production. In times of recession, AD decreases. Recession can set off deflationary spiral. Max potential output sits there doing nothing and you get rise in unemployment. If govt can artificially stimulate AD via stimulus spending then they should. Keynes isn't against debt, if debt is used to backstop deflationary spiral. But Keynes also says when equilibrium is reached then debt should be paid off. Keynes proposes that govt use their power on counter cyclical policies
The problem with the idea that aggregate demand drives production is that aggregate demand depends on production. After all, you can't get something without producing something else to trade for it. You could also say that aggregrate supply drives consumption. The key to the conundrum is saving and borrowing. Money decouples the direct relationship between production and consumption, and invalidates many of the simplifying assumptions made by Keynesians or Austrians. I'm not arguing if Keynes was right or wrong. Just pointing out that whatever Edrogan posted has nothing to do w Keynes. The question is what to do in a recession Keynes: Boost aggregate demand. Govt should create jobs so that workers have money to spend. But we'll have to go into debt for this to happen Friedman: Govt should pump more money into the economy. Companies have money so they'll invest more. Tide lift all boats Hayek: Don't do anything because OMG! NAZIS! I find it hilariously ironic that bit coiners don't understand the economic ideas of these guys. Keynes should be the one they embrace because he's for the common man. Friedman the Libertarian is for big business. Hayek, well nobody cares about him You mean: Show some respect for authority? No, declined. It's the root of all evil. Where did I say that? Can you read? |
|
|
|
Listen. Some miners are fucked. They bought un returnable, unsellable rigs, they rent storage space. They have absolutely no choice whatsoever but to sell their coins. They're run by businessmen who made a mistake. Not 16 year old boys who suck off satoshi and have wet dreams about the Fed burning down. Not spartans who hodl. This is how the game is. Some miners buy their chips for 1/10th of what you and I would have to pay. Some countries are cold and have cheap electricity. Saying a bitcoin costs $400 to make is naive. Saying this is a good price is retarded. Ontop of that you have tons of factors. Miners will sell because they have no choice. They have to pay their shit using fiat. Some of you guys are so dumb.
You would say the same thing about gold, right? Have you seen gold miners ETF? |
|
|
|
|
Nah short it down to $143. Previous ATH before massive bubble
|
|
|
|
Some of you guys are so dumb.
I'm gonna miss all the comedy gold when bitcoin dies.  |
|
|
|
losing fiat??
Yeah as in "This Fucking Bitcoin Is Making Me LOSE MY FIAT!." LOL |
|
|
|
|
You know JP Morgan was accused of manipulating the silver market when Blythe Masters was head of their commodities trading group.
That's wife of Daniel Masters founder of GABI fund. "Vampire Squid"
The story is they amassed a buttload of physical silver and shorted the hell out of the futures. Thats how they crashed the silver price
If GABI gets together their $200M fund expect the same strategy.
All the amateurs here dont know how markets work
|
|
|
|
Isn't it a bit late for selling coins in order to buy Alibaba stock? Exchanges typically do not let you transfer fiat to 3rd party accounts. So I assume you have to transfer to your bank first, then to a stock broker. IPO was Thursday and retail sale is beginning this Friday, so the funds will probably not arrive on time to get in early?
Of course it is stupid story, although it sounds kind of possible on the first sight. Also IPO is not for chinese small people (maybe through some fund). Are you stupid? Initial Public Offering means anyone w a brokerage account can buy |
|
|
|
Yeah... it seems to make sense for a possible explanation... speculators holding off until the last minute to take some funds and push them into the Alibaba P&D... so... question is... how much will come back to mumma Bitcoin and how soon?
Seems like win win, force market down with sell off, walk away with x amount of cash (and a BTC sold figure) profit from Alibaba pump, take profit and either
pop some in the hole in the water fund, or buy back same amount of BTC (at a now lower price) OR buy back even more BTC at a lower price.
You don't sell Bitcoins 1 day before IPO and also IPO is not for small guys. Bullshit mostly this as a reason, this was purely momentum triggered after nice work done the same way as many times before from the same wall-bear. But could still be some guys selling for IPO, but nothing spectacular. Why not? sell BTC 1 day before the IPO, if you feel that BTC could go up a few more dollars? (or down? fair enough) Also, many BTC speculators are .... well speculators... and the biggest IPO of all time is enough to draw in speculators, large and small... as long as they are active in trading in general, I can perfectly see traders taking the risk... it is more than plausible imo.. Most rational people would rather own shares of Alibaba than Bitcoins. At least Alibaba has fundamentals Can I pay someone on the other side of world few $ grands in a matter of seconds without/cents of fees with Alibaba? If something is digital it doesn't mean there is no value or fundamentals. Look up what fundamentals mean. |
|
|
|
Yeah... it seems to make sense for a possible explanation... speculators holding off until the last minute to take some funds and push them into the Alibaba P&D... so... question is... how much will come back to mumma Bitcoin and how soon?
Seems like win win, force market down with sell off, walk away with x amount of cash (and a BTC sold figure) profit from Alibaba pump, take profit and either
pop some in the hole in the water fund, or buy back same amount of BTC (at a now lower price) OR buy back even more BTC at a lower price.
You don't sell Bitcoins 1 day before IPO and also IPO is not for small guys. Bullshit mostly this as a reason, this was purely momentum triggered after nice work done the same way as many times before from the same wall-bear. But could still be some guys selling for IPO, but nothing spectacular. Why not? sell BTC 1 day before the IPO, if you feel that BTC could go up a few more dollars? (or down? fair enough) Also, many BTC speculators are .... well speculators... and the biggest IPO of all time is enough to draw in speculators, large and small... as long as they are active in trading in general, I can perfectly see traders taking the risk... it is more than plausible imo.. Most rational people would rather own shares of Alibaba than Bitcoins. At least Alibaba has fundamentals |
|
|
|
are you still hodling?
at price of how will you sell?
If someone offered you 1000 dollars for your car or 2000 dollars for your car, which offer would you be more likely to accept? Its weird to me that in bitcoin sometimes people are more inclined to accept low offers than high offers. Well not me. Just like everything else in life. the more you offer me for it the more likely i will be to sell it, so as the price of bitcoin falls i become LESS inclined to sell my bitcoins, not more. Is that how the market works? You just imagine a price and that's how much the asset is worth? LOL The market is comprised of actors who, by definition, disagree on value and agree on price. Exactly! the market is always right. Too bad you want $10K for your bitcoin. Its only worth $420 right now. Maybe it'll only be worth $100 next year. Everything you believed turned out to be wrong. Merchant adoption - price drops. GABI Fund - Price drops. Draper buys FBI auction - price drops. I'm more curious to why "HODLERS" think price will rise when every news event that's suppose to make it rise, instead drops the price. As an outside observer, it looks to me like cognitive dissonance |
|
|
|
Keynes says aggregate demand drives production. In times of recession, AD decreases. Recession can set off deflationary spiral. Max potential output sits there doing nothing and you get rise in unemployment. If govt can artificially stimulate AD via stimulus spending then they should. Keynes isn't against debt, if debt is used to backstop deflationary spiral. But Keynes also says when equilibrium is reached then debt should be paid off. Keynes proposes that govt use their power on counter cyclical policies
The problem with the idea that aggregate demand drives production is that aggregate demand depends on production. After all, you can't get something without producing something else to trade for it. You could also say that aggregrate supply drives consumption. The key to the conundrum is saving and borrowing. Money decouples the direct relationship between production and consumption, and invalidates many of the simplifying assumptions made by Keynesians or Austrians. I'm not arguing if Keynes was right or wrong. Just pointing out that whatever Edrogan posted has nothing to do w Keynes. The question is what to do in a recession Keynes: Boost aggregate demand. Govt should create jobs so that workers have money to spend. But we'll have to go into debt for this to happen Friedman: Govt should pump more money into the economy. Companies have money so they'll invest more. Tide lift all boats Hayek: Don't do anything because OMG! NAZIS! I find it hilariously ironic that bit coiners don't understand the economic ideas of these guys. Keynes should be the one they embrace because he's for the common man. Friedman the Libertarian is for big business. Hayek, well nobody cares about him |
|
|
|
are you still hodling?
at price of how will you sell?
If someone offered you 1000 dollars for your car or 2000 dollars for your car, which offer would you be more likely to accept? Its weird to me that in bitcoin sometimes people are more inclined to accept low offers than high offers. Well not me. Just like everything else in life. the more you offer me for it the more likely i will be to sell it, so as the price of bitcoin falls i become LESS inclined to sell my bitcoins, not more. Is that how the market works? You just imagine a price and that's how much the asset is worth? LOL |
|
|
|
To me, it seems like keynesianism today is about fooling the masses into spending, reducing their self governance, adding government power and pouring their wealth into the pockets of elites.
That has nothing to do with Keynes. Keynes is macro not micro. Furthermore, Keynes isn't political he doesn't care about power of govt. Only that govt should use its power because they have that power Keynes says aggregate demand drives production. In times of recession, AD decreases. Recession can set off deflationary spiral. Max potential output sits there doing nothing and you get rise in unemployment. If govt can artificially stimulate AD via stimulus spending then they should. Keynes isn't against debt, if debt is used to backstop deflationary spiral. But Keynes also says when equilibrium is reached then debt should be paid off. Keynes proposes that govt use their power on counter cyclical policies I've heard this shit. There is nothing micro about the pockets of the elites. Then stop making up shit and calling it Keynesianism |
|
|
|
If this doesn't pick up momentum to the upside soon, this is actually a very bad sign. A short squeeze is to be expected -- but if this is true and we don't reverse.... add another 2k BTC in leveraged longs waiting to be dumped.... There's not gonna be a short squeeze cause its not easy to short BTC. These are real sellers There are always short squeezes. If you look at bfxdata, we often see shorts increasing while the price is moving down -- then when we bounce, short swaps spike down. This is a short squeeze. A short squeeze can be just a little spike -- it has nothing to do with a reversal. What's the short interest then? The only place you can short is bitfinex. And that's just one exchange. If those short positions get squeezed (from rising price). Doubt they would be enough volume to cause lift-off |
|
|
|
to everyone predicting $100..
if you think that its worth only $100 or less. then ill buy your bitcoin off of you right here right now at your low estimates you just gave,,
...
....
.....
oh wait now your not willing to sell for that low... well neither is anyone else. so if no one will sell for $100 or less the price wont go down to $100 or less. its called a resistance point(price people refuse to sell at).
so will everyone who is reading this stop shouting out ridiculous prices unless your willing to sell your hoard for the price you mention
Just think twice about what you wrote and see the dumb logic in that |
|
|
|
If this doesn't pick up momentum to the upside soon, this is actually a very bad sign. A short squeeze is to be expected -- but if this is true and we don't reverse.... add another 2k BTC in leveraged longs waiting to be dumped.... There's not gonna be a short squeeze cause its not easy to short BTC. These are real sellers |
|
|
|
Never.
I will have the drink though. Only thing price decides is if it's beer or champagne.
Drink the Kool Aid its free here!  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
