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.

That depends, I mean the name is more of an ASIAN name, so people in that part of the world might...

when you take into account the Zimbabwe dollar saga, and now africans are stepping into non government currencies like bitcoin/mpesa.. you have to ask yourself what will the rest of the world do when you cant even buy a loaf of bread for less than 2000 USD/GBP

I am surprised that not a single person here has given the standard advice of a financial advisor.

For the avoidance of doubt, the standard advice is to diversify your portfolio. That advice stands irrespective of whatever may have happened in the past to your investments. Just because they have gone down, does not mean you should not diversify.

Therefore the standard advice would be to sell a large proportion of your Bitcoin and to invest in other asset classes, in order to have a diversified portfolio.

That advice does not rely on a prediction of what the Bitcoin price will be in the future. It relies simply on the fact that YOU do not know what the Bitcoin price will be in the future (neither do I).

I mean how much more coins do you need, the vast majority of Bitcoins are still owned by a circle of only a few thousand people, do they really feel the need to pump and dump just to get more? At what point is enough is enough, hell i'd appreciate it more if they brought some of that BTC into the alt game if they really want to play around and pump some other coins up for profit, at least seed the money around elsewhere in the crypto world if you want to make more BTC.

hi, I invested a lot at the beginning of this year thinking bitcoin would have risen again as usual, I bought many btc when it was 830 and some after when it was 660. I waited for the pump but things are getting bad. I am wo4ried. I am 26 yo I am not rich and I invested a lot of my savings. I can live without, ok, but they were my savings. What should I do now? is this the end? Will bitcoin rise again at least until 830?

Could someone explain this to me?

I have 18 btc long from 528 on BTC-e. That order was not margin called today. But 40 btc long from 453$ was. How the fuck is that possible.

Yes, more than we can believe.

Why do you think that ? To put things into context the labor demanded in our countries is not manual anymore but intellectual.
Why do you think school educates better than work in today's world ? The failure of schools today makes it hard to believe it can be worse.

That's why I'm debating it. But still I don't see why if the child wants to work and make money he should be prohibited to do it.
Education you said ? work nowadays educate better than school because we need brains, we are in a "knowledge economy" in Peter Drucker terms.

If the child wants to practice, learn and make money and company need brains, where is the exploitation ? I fail to see.

But I think we are going round, because you think that a "smart third party" can objectively judge that one is exploiting the other.
For children, the parent judges, and for adult, a washington bureaucrat. But as libertarian I say that only concerned parties are the best judges.

By which standard, you can decide who is weak and need to be protected, and who is strong and need to get robbed ?
To which standard can you point out to someone and tell he is exploited ?
Who judges what the asymmetry is ?
On what standard  the bureaucrats of Washington can judge that the trade between two persons he does not know is asymmetrical, and thus coercion on the strong one should be used to be fair ?
Don't you think that in such system, the bureaucrats will eventually get bribed ?

If an employer is prevented by law to fire his employee, and his employee is not doing his job and profit his position, who is exploited, who lost his free will ? (it is what happen in France)
And then you wonder why enterprise are so fearful to employ someone and on the defensive.
I don't care since I profit from it with my higher rates as fire able consultant, but I am much more secure and free than any employee can be, and always dealt equal to equal with my customers on my free will.

For labor laws, you guessed it right, I am for voluntary child labor, where the child can decide if he works, where he works, and for how much and trade himself for it.
It will solve the dilemma of school being out of touch with economic needs. (Economic need is nothing but the need of society)
The condition of schools today are way worse than work.

Do not compare the condition of today with sweatshop of yesterday.
Compare the life of the worker in sweatshop in a city yesterday with the life of the farmer in the country before yesterday.
Sweatshop was a big deal and an improvement on the alternative. You can't say anyone exploited them, nobody put the gun on their head to flee the country side.

It is great that labor union made things better when it was not at the cost of the tax payer. (ie without using state coercion for their own purpose)

   If thats your point of view, then I don't really think you understand what "ethics" are.  Certainly you've missed that different people hold different ethical views and value assign them different values and priorities.  You apparently hold child labour in far off lands paramount, another might find employment of local population has greater importance. 

The question you pose isn't simple "yes/no", though most would answer "no" to exploitation there are other factors.  Someone might prefer that there isn't child labour in a far off land, but wants to cloth their child or earn a wage, which trumps their objection to sweatshops.

Also, a libertarian view on the "free market is right" is from the point of view of economics.  Not ethics. This illustrates perfectly my point that they should be separated. 

I dunno.  I am not a politician I am not a banker.

Do you think that allowable margin at 3.33 is bad for us?

If people are accepting these jobs out of their own free will and when other jobs are available then they are not at all being exploited. Exploiting someone would be when they would be tricked into accepting a job and then paying them much less then what is promised.

Racism, ageism and sexism will always be here. You can't solve every social issue using law alone.

Is it ethical to deny people employment opportunities to maintain protectionist trade relations?  Is it ethical to exploit the consumer by only allowing them to buy local produce, at greater expense.  

Or should we separate ethics and economics and address them individually?

I wouldn't call it exploitation as they receive capital and jobs that could have been given to a person in the 1st world. But if that's what you call exploitation then sure, that's how the world works, you need a job to obtain wealth. Look at the Japanese, Koreans, and currently the Chinese, they once were "sweatshops" but the foreign capital that was spent on wages and infrastructure has risen salary and living standards for them. So exploitation? No, that would be like calling going to school "exploitation", going to school even if you hate it makes your chances of obtaining more income later in life higher.

But on regards to the original post, I really believe that the unholy hybrid of both Capitalism and Socialism in the form of Cooperatives will solve poverty issues.