Omg you're such an ass...lol
I'll look for your interview on bloomberg tv where you rebut
Why does it matter whether I'm on Bloomberg or not? Ponzi schemes have nothing to do w QE, unless you think the Fed is trying to get investors to buy equities so they can run away w the money. LOL wut? The guy is a contrarian investor. He was probably too early on his short. Happens to me too. I happen to also be a contrarian investor so I know the feeling |
|
|
|
|
If you think so then short the stock
|
|
|
|
This guy is not using the term "Ponzi scheme" correctly. As a hegde fund he should know better. Just sounded to me was bitter not foreseeing the bull rally in equities The reason Bernanke had to resort to QE because the banks had too many MBS's on their balance sheet. As a central banker, Bernanke options were to do nothing and deal w liquidity trap or try something aggressive like QE. I'm sure he studied post bubble Japan and he wanted to avoid the same situation In the eurozone the ECB (Draghi) resorted to QE after they learned that austerity policies caused more harm than helped. QE isn't the end-all solution but it had to be done so it was done. I'm sure Bernanke was aware of the risks of QE. The Fed kept telegraphing the plan to taper, but the greedy market kept buying |
|
|
|
|
Have you ever worked in a corporation before? Imagine if the budgets were left to voting instead of being decided by a board.
|
|
|
|
!But people are still blind to the fact THE FED isn't even a government entity and still think it's run by our government and that we control it?people still think this is the Land of the Free......When in Reality it is HOME OF THE SLAVE LOL People need too WAKE UP first and realize they have been enslaved with Taxes and DEBT and REGISTRATIONS of PROPERTY with the Illusion that these things like Houses,Cars etc are bought and owned by us? When in reality we never owned these things to begin with because they will be taking away if not registered and paid taxes on! If you truly own something it can never be taking away by a bank or gov entity...and when and if that happens and people WAKE UP? only then we can finally rid ourselves of the KABAL and the evil FIAT system;) People need to stop giving Fiat value because it has none only the Illusion of it implanted in our minds over the past century because we are told so..............
Well said, we should get rid of the fiat system but so many people still believe in it, because that's what they teach us in school and on television. And we already have so many poor and homeless in the world, if 1 American would not kill kids or innocent people in yet another shooting overthere. But instead kill some corrupt politicians and bankers, that would be alot better then some innocents again. Nobody "believes" in it. We're required by law to use fiat Kill bankers & politicians. Riight...So you promote murder?  |
|
|
|
We're talking about finance not philosophy here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(finance) w rare metal money you have to think of the time when coins were minted w specie. If the King mints a $100 gold coin using $50 (market price) of gold, the intrinsic value is $50 & the extrinsic value is $50 |
|
|
|
Quantitative easing (QE) is an unconventional monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the economy when standard monetary policy has become ineffective.[1][2][3] A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying specified amounts of financial assets from commercial banks and other private institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasing the monetary base.[4][5] This is distinguished from the more usual policy of buying or selling short term government bonds in order to keep interbank interest rates at a specified target value.[6][7][8][9] The most insidious part of all this is that in 1913 when the federal reserve started printing federal reserve notes in exchange for government bonds they simultaneously passed legislation outlawing the use and ownership of gold bullion as legal tender to settle debts, public and private. Americans were required by law to hand over their gold, effectively eliminating all existing stores of value. Don't be selective about history. The reason the Fed was created after of the Banking Panic of 1907. At that time US bankers saw that other European countries had Centrals Banks and more stable economies. The Fed was created to be "lender of last resort" The gold nationalization didn't happen til FDR 1933. The rationale for that is because people were hoarding gold and making the depression worse. |
|
|
|
QE save not only the American economy, but probably also the world economy. Without it, probably the euro would have ended.
And since didn't provoke inflation, all considerations about its negative consequences didn't materialize (at least, yet).
Need to be careful to balance the trade off between long term and short term. Pushing the problems down the road is not an ideal solution. Not ideal but what choice did we have? Let the Great Depression 2 happen? |
|
|
|
Guys, I don't doubt that some form of crypto currency exists in the future, and I'm looking for a reason to buy into the BTC vision, in fact I own some BTC. I'm trying to get over the challenges I see, so not trying to bash here, but looking for understanding or someone to point out the flaws in my thinking.
1) It seems as if the main selling point to encourage business adoption is lower transaction fees. What do you guys envision as the real market for BTC? Are we mainly talking about retail consumer purchases?
a) Big corporations - These multinationals move funds all over the world in large amounts, and transaction fees are extremely small. These entities have the treasury capability to manage multiple currencies, however the main function of the treasury group is to minimize financial risk and maintain liquidity. Therefore, adding another currency to the portfolio merely introduces more friction in that the currency risk must be managed or eliminated. Additionally, given the volatility of the currency, no treasurer on earth would keep his job by taking any BTC exposure. To take BTC on the retail end, the corporation must immediately convert to USD or local currency, relegating BTC to an alternative payment method only. As other posters have correctly pointed out, no suppliers or vendors are going to accept BTC, so as a business-to-business settling mechanism, there would not appear to be any benefit.
b) Small businesses - again, their suppliers are not going to accept BTC, so accepting BTC from retail customers will create an asset/liability mismatch and they will need to convert back to USD. I guess this is where the 'lower transaction fee' argument comes in. Having run a small business I understand the cost of accepting credit cards. I have also experienced the complexity of accepting different payment methods (Paypal, Google) and while the cost of these methods aren't materially lower, the back end complexity of managing the various payment methods definitely increases. I was never able to convince myself that I got any incremental sales from the alternative payment methods either (because everyone HAS to have a credit card today. If I don't accept Paypal or Google, they merely pay with their credit card.)
If, however, I accept BTC, and obtain a lower transaction fee, there must be a compelling reason for the consumer to want to pay with BTC. The only way this happens is if the consumer has a financial incentive.
It's not enough to theorize that the retailer's costs go down, so the product cost should go down. The person choosing the currency to use, must be the one that accrues some financial benefit. If the benefit accrues to the retailer, the retailer either keeps the benefit, or passes along to all customers which means the ones that use credit cards accrue benefits from the BTC payer's actions, diluting any benefit to the BTC payer. Sure there are a few people who want to use BTC just because, but to achieve any mass acceptance, there must be a compelling economic reason. Seems to me that there must become some kind of standard discount, maybe 1% for paying with BTC. Let's say this becomes the standard. The credit card companies won't stand still, they'll respond in order to maintain they're business in some fashion, which will close the gap somewhat, reducing the economic incentive for consumers.
2) Confidence - Today, bank accounts are ensured by the FDIC. This gives people confidence to leave they're money with a bank. I think in order to achieve mass acceptance, there will need to be some type of similar backstop. The average Joe is not going to place 100% confidence in some invisible technology, especially with the daily reports of hackers attacking major corporations, credit card companies, etc. I've heard the counter argument that people can store in offline wallets, etc. This places the currency at a disadvantage to mainstream currencies. I can leave $5k in a bank account and pay electronically anytime/anywhere and have the currency guaranteed against loss. Or I can take the same $5k offline in some cold storage location with BTC and it makes it clunky at best to use. (Maybe I don't fully understand the options, but it seems to get the same level of protection afforded to my USD, I loose some practicality/mobility with BTC.)
Again, I'm looking for someone to counter these points or explain the niche BTC participates in 5-10 years from now. I definitely see the potential similar to the internet in the 90's, but I'm to the point that this could be the best or worst investment of my life so looking for some understanding.
You are pretty much correct and nobody here can argue your points. Don't compare BTC to the internet. Compare it to torrents. |
|
|
|
how about forex?
It sure need skills but seem easy to learn now that video tutorials on youtube are available.
Forex is extremely difficult to trade. I wouldn't advise it |
|
|
|
|
If banks fail, everybody gets hurt. The rich lose more BC they have more to begin w. Except they won't starve or go homeless like the poor. Its because every one pays same price for goods and services
If you have $10M and I have $100K. We both lose 50%. Who is in greater pain?
Greek debt is denominated in Euros, printing Greek currency won't help.
The point is to the OP is that you need money to be elastic in modern economies
|
|
|
|
IMHO, cryptocurrency will become massive but BTC won't become what everyone thinks it will.
It will be come THE store of wealth like gold, it won't be used to buy a bunch of stuff another alt coins will. It will be horded and held to preserve peoples wealth.
I think the 80-20 will apply, the top 20% will hold 80% of the market.
Isn't it already like this? Its actually more skewed than USD  |
|
|
|
The 21 million supply confuses a lot of people. The divisibility of the unit of measurement is infinite and if necessary in the future the developers can even add coins by adding a proof of stake function if it becomes necessary.
Not really because half has already been mined. So if the early adopters hoard the supply, it forces future generations to share less of pie Infinitely divisible means we can use the currency in as small a unit of measure as needed. The smallest one currently is the satoshi. Divide the 21 million by that number first for your starting point. There is plenty of room for expansion. I know what it means but its not practical. Much better to have supply that can be expanded knowing for certainty that population and ecomic activity will expand. Why do you think we left Bretton Woods. OPs friend is correct, elasticity is a necessity for modern money. No, elasticity of money is a necessity for Statism and Socialism. Individual Rights begins with the right to hold private property without the State, or anyone else, taking it or devaluing it. A currency that slowly devalues is a currency that slowly steals your property. It is a way to tax the people without their realization. It is an affront to anyone believing in individual liberty and the absolute right to hold private property. So destroy everything and start over? What would happen if ECB didn't print money to restructure Greece's loan. Tough shit? You talk you as if you live on a deserted island disconnected from the rest of civilization |
|
|
|
The 21 million supply confuses a lot of people. The divisibility of the unit of measurement is infinite and if necessary in the future the developers can even add coins by adding a proof of stake function if it becomes necessary.
Not really because half has already been mined. So if the early adopters hoard the supply, it forces future generations to share less of pie Infinitely divisible means we can use the currency in as small a unit of measure as needed. The smallest one currently is the satoshi. Divide the 21 million by that number first for your starting point. There is plenty of room for expansion. I know what it means but its not practical. Much better to have supply that can be expanded knowing for certainty that population and ecomic activity will expand. Why do you think we left Bretton Woods. OPs friend is correct, elasticity is a necessity for modern money. |
|
|
|
|
It'll cost a lot more to build a robot to clean a hotel room than a human
|
|
|
|
The 21 million supply confuses a lot of people. The divisibility of the unit of measurement is infinite and if necessary in the future the developers can even add coins by adding a proof of stake function if it becomes necessary.
Not really because half has already been mined. So if the early adopters hoard the supply, it forces future generations to share less of pie |
|
|
|
|
You are full of shit. What's the difference of some buying BTC because of 'foresight' and someone's great grandfather buying a plot of land in lower Manhattan when it was a dump?
If you are born w no assets and you have a great business idea. You know what you do to finance your business? You borrow money from the bank or find investors. Without FRB it would make it way harder for banks to loan money. The interest would be sky high because of liquidity constraints
I already explained Piketty's theory of wealth inequality resulting from Return of Capital exceeding Growth.
The fix is not to eliminate FRB or fix money supply. All that will do is create give the current holders of capital assets MORE advantage than the people who haven't even been born yet. More rent seeking behavior than our current situation
|
|
|
|
|
Can you give a historical example where growth occurred while money supply contracted?
From this Wikipedia page all examples of deflation led to economic slumps or liquidity trap.
Seems to me deflation is harmful
|
|
|
|
Capitalism is not about fairness or equal playing field. Never have been. Capitalism is about competition
We have crony capitalism in USA
Unfortunately, this is true. But you must also see that the financial system in America today is naturally advantaging those that hold assets against those that don't have any assets, and also those that don't have assets on a net basis. Meaning, asset minus liability = zero assets. The wealthy holding the assets are getting wealthier by virtue of the fact that they own assets. This should not be accepted in America which is supposed to represent the land of opportunity where dreams can be realised. Dude. We all know it takes money to make money. Life is unfair. Rich get richer. Etc. Its been this since civilization existed. With or without FRB. Its like that in rich countries, poor countries, socialist, communist, capitalist, monarchist. Everywhere it is like that. At least in USA there is the possibility for social mobility. How do you explain Snoop Dogg, or Mark Zuckerberg. Or even Satoshi whoever he is. Or just some immigrant whose kids go to college and become professional Stop making it sound you are oppressed when you living in AUSTRALIA! Try living in the shithole 3rd world countries where 90% of people have no choice but to be poor their entire life Stop ranting about banking when its banking that financed practically every entrepreneurial endeavor we know today What about bitcoin early adopters who bought at $1 and now have 500X return on investment. You think that's unfair too? |
|
|
|
|
Capitalism is not about fairness or equal playing field. Never have been. Capitalism is about competition
We have crony capitalism in USA. One idea is to increase inheritance tax. Let people become as rich as their abilities allow. But limit how much they can leave as inheritance
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
