Um right, last year the Winklevii invested $12M in beanie babies. Just recently Tim Draper invested $27M in beanie babies. Last year Silicon Valley invested over $100M in beanie baby startups. Millions of $$ in seed funds keep getting poured into new beanie baby exchanges and mining operations. To the OP I say:  When there's a gold rush, invest in shovels  Tim Draper is an idiot and is already kicking himself for his loss. The Winklevii came out way ahead no matter how you look at it, so they're part of the fortunate elite. Everyone else is investing in the bitcoin services, not bitcoin itself. Even the infrastucture VCs got to be sweating now. Marc Andreesen invested like 25M in Coinbase and Overstock only did 1.6 M of sales first 2 quarters. How much did Coinbase make from that? 2%? That only 16K. Imagine their cash burn and recent reports of late payments. If that series b funding runs out its kaput for Coinbase |
|
|
|
I watched a random bit of the video... he was talking about the fact that ' charity does not solve problems, merely postpone their solution', and i agree. But then, all of a sudden, he mention that ' private property is the problem'. WTF? At that point he lost me. Private property is essential because the difference between us and what we call property are so thin that if we relinquish the right to own things to ' society' then the step toward relinquish the right to ' own ourselves' is short. Of course this is just my opinion. At everybody his own. Dont try to make sense if what he says. He just wants to create controversy. He political views are considered post Maoist and he considers himself a post Stalinist. Serious philosophers like Chomsky thinks hes a charlatans. The people who follow are these bohemian lazy kids I like Chomsky.. but do you think he may be getting a little out of touch these days himself? I dont that much about Chomsky but I know his writing is properly researched and footnoted. Chomsky is known for criticising institutional power. But his angle is more from an empirical/ academic style of writing. His background is linguistics and hes more like a social scientist Zizek is more like Neitchze. Hes like the guy that stands on a soapbox and make people angry. His style of writing has alot of flair but theres no meaning to it when you break it down Chomsky thinks language is for communication so ideas should be expressed in ways that make them simple to understand. Thats because he studies structure of language. Most of the Post Modernists play with language like how a poet does. They make up a lot of words and its hard to decipher what their point is Thats why i hate postmodernism. Usually its people who think they are clever but when you strip away the obfuscating language they dont seem to be saying anything |
|
|
|
I watched a random bit of the video... he was talking about the fact that ' charity does not solve problems, merely postpone their solution', and i agree. But then, all of a sudden, he mention that ' private property is the problem'. WTF? At that point he lost me. Private property is essential because the difference between us and what we call property are so thin that if we relinquish the right to own things to ' society' then the step toward relinquish the right to ' own ourselves' is short. Of course this is just my opinion. At everybody his own. Dont try to make sense if what he says. He just wants to create controversy. He political views are considered post Maoist and he considers himself a post Stalinist. Serious philosophers like Chomsky thinks hes a charlatans. The people who follow are these bohemian lazy kids |
|
|
|
I recommend watching this= http://youtu.be/hpAMbpQ8J7g Slavoj Zizek investigates the surprising ethical implications of charitable giving. It touches on many discussions that have been discussed here in this thread by many (soicety, freedom, (crony) capitalism, property, property is theft, big government,taxation/charity/socialism/welfare state etc) and it reaches a nice crescendo... Slavoj slaying it... even if you do not agree with everything he says he is a pleasure to listen to...brain nourishment. I shared this shit out of this back when I first saw it. Cultural capitalism is such an interesting idea. Yuck. Post Lacanian charlatan. Disconnected from reality. So passe What are your ideas/thoughts/recommended reading/solutions/specific criticisms may I ask? I'm not an academic so I haven't written any papers. But during my undergrad i was neck deep in Post Modernism. After 9/11 I went to a Zizek lecture at The New School in NYC He said that 9/11 was a self fulfilling prophecy because Hollywood movies like Independence Day blew up buildings. At that point the audience giggled w nervous laughter. At that moment I just got sick and walked away from PoMo. Just cold hearted not to sympathize with the victims. I guess their hatred of Bush overrode any humanity they had Just recently a friend of mine did a graduate degree in some kind of 'cultural theory'. Zizek was one of her instructors. She wrote a paper linking debt to violence and sado masochism. Some kind of sexual master slave relationship. Then she asked me to lend her $5000 cause she ran out of student loan money. LOL This is how delusional and disconnected to reality If you want an intellectual pursuit I do not recommend any Post Modernism. Its just a waste of time and the people around that scene are nuts I prefer a more pragmatic philosophy in the British/ American tradition. I currently reading more economics. Mostly MMT/ Post Keynesianism |
|
|
|
I recommend watching this= http://youtu.be/hpAMbpQ8J7g Slavoj Zizek investigates the surprising ethical implications of charitable giving. It touches on many discussions that have been discussed here in this thread by many (soicety, freedom, (crony) capitalism, property, property is theft, big government,taxation/charity/socialism/welfare state etc) and it reaches a nice crescendo... Slavoj slaying it... even if you do not agree with everything he says he is a pleasure to listen to...brain nourishment. I shared this shit out of this back when I first saw it. Cultural capitalism is such an interesting idea. Yuck. Post Lacanian charlatan. Disconnected from reality. So passe |
|
|
|
it's simple, more people using it, mean more people buy it, which mean better price
This logic is twisted. Why would I buy money to spend it? If I wanted to buy something in USD and the merchant accepts USD. Does it make sense for me to convert USD to BTC then back to USD to give the merchant? The only reason to do that was for online drugs buying cause there's no way to send cash online. |
|
|
|
How can you compare the usefulness of 'Beanies' with that of bitcoin? Insanity.
Bitcoin isn't useful, aside from speculating, day trading, and online gambling. People aren't using bitcoins to buy things online, unless they already had some to begin with! What we're seeing now is a domino effect of investors losing faith, one by one, because merchant adoption has finally happened, but the general public still doesn't care! When the price stops rallying up, there's nothing left to look forward to anymore! People bought beanies because they were told they were sure to rise in value. People bought bitcoin because they were told they were sure to rise in value. IT'S.THE.SAME.THING! Ah, the old 'moving goal post' maneuver... Let's go back 1 year or so: "Merchants will never adopt Bitcoin. They have no incentive to do so!" Today: "Okay, so quite a few merchants accept Bitcoin, and Bitpay/Coinbase make it possible to pay with Bitcoin even if a merchant doesn't accept them yet, but customers will never adopt them because they have no incentive to do so!We'll see. Next likely step before customer adoption: merchants giving those incentives to pay in Bitcoin, effectively splitting the gains from lower transactions cost with customers in the form of rebates. Lets be honest here. Merchants dont accept bitcoin. They have to be converted by a middleman like Coinbase As a customer. Unless you already have btcs from the easy mining days. Why would you want go through an extra step to buy something w btcs |
|
|
|
the pump I thought might be this month....
not gonna happen, bitcoin is going to nowhere but down, face reality please All of this FUD only confirms Warren Buffet even more: "When in fear, be greedy." Warren Buffet also said bitcoin was a mirage with no intrinsic value |
|
|
|
TL;DR: Yeah, an S-curve could be fitted to any mass adoption scenario at some point in time. The trick is knowing where on that curve you are, and if you're still on that curve (see JorgeStolfi's slide ruler example. There are fewer American households with slide rulers today than in the 50s.).
Indeed.As I said above, I plan to refit the model next year or sooner if we get another bubble peak before the end of this year. The logistic assumption anchors the origin of the graph at the first reported bitcoin price on the left. The right hand side, namely the most current prices, is most important when hand fitting the function. The important idea that this model brings to the analysis of bitcoin price data is that exponential growth of bitcoin prices will end. Here is a logistic model applied to the adoption of smartphones ...  Considering, how small the relative number of bitcoin transactions is compared to the number of credit card transactions, I suppose that we are currently in the Innovators stage, or at the beginning of the Early Adopters stage. So that means a few more crypto coins will come in the future and replace bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Google "Daniel Masters" and see what his funds did the past. Also google "Blythe Masters" his famous wife, the inventor of the credit default swap. She was also the head of JP Morgan global commodities. The one that silver investors malign for suspicion of  manipulating the silver market I bet what they is hold bitcoins for clients and hedge against these positions. I believe thats he did at JP Morgan. He bought physical oil and sold oil futures against it |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to expose. Anything you want to know is on their website
|
|
|
|
The standard of living in South Korea does not even compare to the standard of living to the people in North Korea, it is many times better (to say the least).
A lot of info about North Korea you see on TV and popular websites is the U.S. propaganda, don't trust it! Of course people in NK don't have some freedoms and cult of the leader is inflated, but stories about famine is total rubbish. May be in the past it was true, but now it is only propaganda! Yeah right  . You know this because you've been there? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/secret-state-of-north-korea/ |
|
|
|
|
You're just cherry picking examples of people who guessed the future right.
There's probably more examples of failed enterprise but it doesn't get documented cause nobody cares about those stories
|
|
|
|
I think international money transfer and offshore banking are two areas where it already beats the established competition hands down.
Those things are niche needs not mainstream. |
|
|
|
I completely disagree we are too late.Golden time was about 4 years ago from now to invest into bitcoin basically.Nowadays investing is expensive as well as a risky game to enter onto The price of Bitcoin is rising as it is gradually de-risked. You could've bought Bitcoin earlier less expensive - but in fact at that point in time it was never clear at all that bitcoin would grow to the proportions we see today. So essentially the risk was much higher back then than it is today. You can't evaluate the past with the knowledge of today, that's unrealistic, because in the past nobody knew what the future (in which we live today) would bring. So looking back in a future yet to come to the (then past) present you might feel the same. ya.ya.yo! Risk just means how much you can lose. If you buy 1BTC for $500 you have $500 at risk. |
|
|
|
|
I hope they succeed Google Wallet. That was a big failure
|
|
|
|
With all this speculation and people blaming the OP of being a scammer, I'm not sure who or what to trust. I think I'm going to wait a little bit and see id BTC starts dropping to 4xx.
Buy in at $400 or $500 isn't much of a difference unless you're going to buy a lot of it. Since after the next spike, it's going to be worth so much more. I'd suggest buying in while you can, but it's your call. Are you joking? Its a 20% difference |
|
|
|
As a president, Obama has done what he thinks is best, he has made economic recovery, so the value of the American dollar is not less than the euro currency, but on the other hand, Obama's foreign policy, made other countries, especially developing countries increasingly depressed, especially with the issue of terrorism in all parts of the world. Hopefully Obama made a policy that will improve the welfare of the people, and still maintain a good relationship between the state  What he thinks is best, and what is best for the economy are not the same thing. Obama has implemented liberal policy after liberal policy which has caused the economic recovery to be much weaker then most economic recoveries, and much weaker then it should be based on how bad the recession was. I'm no Obama supporter but this was no normal recession. Were talking Great Depression magnitude here No economy is gonna recover that easily from a market crash like that |
|
|
|
A government debt is different than a personal debt. Government spending doesnt just burn away, even if its spent on what somebody may "waste" its spent on jobs and contracts and pushes money into the economy. Look at the postal service, a collosal waste and cannot keep up with UPS or FedEx, but where does all that money go?
Additionally debt should be in relationship to the GDP output of the country. If both are increasing at the same rate, then we remain the same. The actual dollar value increases, along with inflation, so sticker shock always seem high.
Its an interesting subject with much to learn about and of course opinions
The most important thing that "u.s. in debt, omg we gonna default" folks don't understand is accounting. Debt issued by someone is an asset to someone else. When debt is issued, say, by a private sector corporation, it becomes an asset to someone in the private sector, but a liability to the corporation. Net assets of private sector don't change. But when debt is issued by US Treasury it becomes asset to the private sector (both domestic and foreign) but a liability to the public sector. So issuing debt is actually adding net financial assets to the private sector, creating financial wealth. This way budget deficits tend to improve private sector's financial health. Of course it's not a magic bullet, but people should really stop being scared of public debt. There's no anything special, it's just an instrument to manage the economy. One thing that you are missing is the fact that in order to buy this asset, someone in the private sector must exchange cash (also an asset) for the treasury bond. There would be no change in the total amount of assets in the private sector. Also the private sector owning a lot of government bonds means they are not able to invest as much money in their own business that will likely be more productive. You just proved his point that you don't understand accounting or financial markets Who do you think are buying these Treasuries? Some corporation trying to decide on opening a new factory or putting the money into bonds instead? LOL If a private citizen buys $1 in government treasuries then they will have $1 less they can invest in a loan to a company that would potentially be borrowing money to build a new factory. This would make the cost of credit more expensive, and when the $1 is a trillion dollars the cost of credit goes up a lot more, potentially making an investment not possible for the factory. You got the concept backwards. The Fed engages in QE. Then buying the bonds from Treasury. This drives down interest rates to encourage private sector to borrow money. The idea is that the corporations take advantage of low rates to build factories. It hasn't produced the intended result but that's the idea. The actual debt held by US private investors is pretty small. I don't think you can draw conclusions about economic output and debt http://www.factcheck.org/2013/11/who-holds-our-debt/ |
|
|
|
Looks like a good reason to go long on S&P then |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
