Investments are that things that pay dividends. BTC is a speculation
how about gold? it doesn't pay dividends. so buy gold is not investment? for long time holding, i think BTC is one of investment portofolio Gold is a commodity and should be considered speculation as well. There's no guarantee the price goes up. I consider things to be investments are dividend paying stocks, bonds, rental property, income producing businesses |
|
|
|
|
Investments are that things that pay dividends. BTC is a speculation
|
|
|
|
However I don't politicize the information
Well, it was a talk on political power... Having fewer wars? Lack of money never stopped anyone from going to war. But if you go to war you need to finance it somehow
But that's kinda the point. These magical ways to create new money (inflation of money supply is effectively wealth confiscation by stealth) mean that a government always has the ability to fund its wars. If currency is limited, that no longer holds true. Do you realized that govt sells war bonds in order to BORROW from private sector. Don't buy them if you don't wanna support |
|
|
|
|
Easy to say when the economy is niche and tiny. You can't compare Mt Box to TBTF. If AIG was allowed to fail. I wouldnt even wanna imagine.
I realize most people here think of money in terms of micro economics and that's why all the arguments tend to relate back to the individual. What they don't understand is that things are very different at the macro level.
Inelastic money doesn't work at macro level. Some things should be decentralized but organizations need top down control. This should be instinctual if you've gone to school, played on a basketball team, work in a corporation. We humans are social animals. We expect to be governed. That's why our civilization flourish.
Bitcoin has become such a cult that "believers" think its the cure to the worlds ailments. The economic crisis we are facing is mostly about regulation, systemic risk, globalization and wealth inequality. Who cares about central bankers and FRB? Who cares aboit bitcoin except the technology to transfer money. Those are red herrings creating diversion from the real issues that needs discussion
|
|
|
|
What he says is factual but he politicizes it. That's why you shouldn't listen to him.
So you agree he's right, but you want to ignore him because you don't like how he said it? He's a doom and gloomer w no valid proposal to fix the problems he bitches about.
I'm pretty sure the primary purpose of his talk was to illustrate that currencies in limited supply, e.g. gold or Bitcoin, were specifically one way to "fix the problems he bitches about". This is pretty trivial to understand. If a government had to get money from the people to fund a war, rather than just magically creating it, there would be far, FAR fewer wars. I don't agree that he's right. I just said what he says is factual. I just explained how fiat came into existence during Civil War. Yes it was result of war financing. However I don't politicize the information Having fewer wars? Lack of money never stopped anyone from going to war. But if you go to war you need to finance it somehow |
|
|
|
He claims that war is supported by fiat currency and money printing.
I was curious about this as well. Wars and currencies I am curious about, the civil war, the 100 years war. I know the confederacy had confederate dollars, did the union have fiat currency not backed by gold? Salmon P Chase, Sec of Treasury, he took out a bank loan from the NY banks and convert it to gold instead of spending the deposit. The effect was that it depleted the gold reserves of all the NY banks. Because the banks has no reserve they had to "supend convertibility". Then he created the greenback legal tender so banks can back their deposits. He forced the banks to accept fiat money thereby giving value to the greenback. Pretty shrewed guy. The Union has the upper hand because they financed the war w gold while the Confederacy had to use cotton barter |
|
|
|
What he says is factual but he politicizes it. That's why you shouldn't listen to him. He's a doom and gloomer w no valid proposal to fix the problems he bitches about. Typical cynic that tries to rile up controversy You've clearly never listened to any of his work, so why are you talking about him as if you have? Yes I have. I like w some of his shows. Like the one about Trayvon Martin. But he's like all political commentators. He says things he knows are controversial. |
|
|
|
|
The dominant theory of 2008 crisis is caused not by monetary policy but by:
Deregulation
Repeal of Glass Steagal
Increased shadow banking
Increased speculative activity (prop trading
derivatives
MBS
sub prime mortgages
over leveraging on toxic assets
Which lead to systemic risk
Bitcoin addresses none of these issues. These issues has nothing to with decentralization vs centralization
Only a tiny fraction of banking is storing peoples money. Most of their business is creating financial products.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds pretty cool. I trade options and I'm really interested in the behavioral economics aspect of markets. I like to study bubbles. I try to discover assets that have formed bubbles and compare the shapes of their charts. So far I found one shape of Apple 2012 bubble. I found at least 4 current stocks that has formed a similar shape. Tesla, Yelp, Facebook, I forgot the other one could be Netflix or Amazon. This interesting thing is that these tickers have no correlation to each other and that the bubbles occur at different times yet they form similar shape in similar timeframe
I've been reading Robert Shillers works on irrational exuberance which is taken from Keynes "animal spirits" ideas. Would interesting to create a game experiment to test if bubbles are indeed psychological
|
|
|
|
|
Its not possible unless dumb dumb Congress refuse to raise debt ceiling. Which is political issue not monetary one.
Debt owed to foreigners are in form of bonds not goods & services
|
|
|
|
|
What do you wanna achieve your left right mouse game? Is it like prisoners dilemma? Each player has 2 choices, and they want to be in the minority to win? Seems easy enough to make this game. But what will the data tell you?
I still dont think you are using the term hedge correctly though because you aren't quantifying risk.
|
|
|
|
Oh lord. Do people actually take this guy seriously? Just another shock jock like Alex Jones et al
What exactly did you find shocking? It's quite obvious the U.S. government has ballooned in size over 40 years and taken us to war over, quite frankly, lies. The dollar has been massively inflated, losing over 96% of its purchasing power since 1913. The fact is war is expensive. Yet there are those who do profit from it. That means in order to have war, where the people don't feel the financial cost you need to inflate the currency, something not possible if it's restrained by a hard gold standard. Shocking? You don't find it shocking the government took us to war over lies? Or has been spying on us in violation of the 4th Amendment, treating innocent people like criminals including invasive pat downs at airports? What's shocking to me is you feeling everything is as it should be. Seems like people are shocked by the truth and will have no problem trying to tear the head of the messenger.. I'm always amazed how someone can hear such damning information and attack the person bringing them the info. What he says is factual but he politicizes it. That's why you shouldn't listen to him. He's a doom and gloomer w no valid proposal to fix the problems he bitches about. Typical cynic that tries to rile up controversy |
|
|
|
Before Central Banks, banking was decentralized and it was a mess.
Well, back then the communication network was not sufficient to support a decentralized monetary/banking system. I think Bitcoin has proven that that is no longer the case. Of course, not everything can be decentralized, but it will be fun to see what happens. It was a mess because each bank issued their own notes. BTC isn't decentralized banking if you are using the term correctly. Its more of a P2P public ledger system. People say its decentralized because there's no Central Bank that regulates the supply of money. I agree that the blockchain is a P2P public ledger system. There are 21 trillion spots on this ledger (each spot is 1 bit). Money is only useful if it helps stimulate economic activity. Otherwise its just an abstract concept.
I disagree here completely. Money is always an abstract concept. It is useful because it helps solve the double coincidence of wants problem that a pure bartering economy faces. Bob is willing to trade Alice his apples for some bits on that unforgeable global ledger because he knows that Carol will clean his house next week for those same bits. But its worse than Central Banks because the supply is artificially limited w known timeframe. That's the reason why it attracts speculators.
I would say that the supply is limited with a known timeframe. It is "artificial" in the sense that the limitation is imposed by code that humans wrote, but by that definition language, religion, countries and borders, the government as a concept, and many other things are "artificial" too. By that definition, Money is "artificial." These things are real and powerful. The incentive of Central Banks are not to make money (profit). This is just some misunderstood myth in the bitcoin world.
The bitcoin world understands this. As we saw with the Fed and the bailouts of 2008, the incentive is often to lose money. This means that someone else is making money (e.g., the banksters who got bailed out). The Central Banks incentive is to keep the economy going. They increase money supply in times where liquidity is needed and the decrease supply when discipline is needed. Elasticity vs Discipline is the money view of Central Bankers.
Central banks are political tools. They increase the money supply when it is politically expedient, for example to bailout banks or to pay for war. Since it is more politically expedient to increase money supply than decrease it, we find ourselves in the situation where the dollar has lost over 96% of its purchasing power since the creation of the Fed. Central banking distorts the economy which leads to malinvestment and the exploitation of our natural and human resources. If economies had no Central controls they would be subject to boom & bust business cycles. And that can lead to catastrophe like what we saw in Great Depression leading to Weinmar hyperinflation leading to WW2
This comment is asinine because the Weimar hyperinflation occurred after a "central control" suspended convertibility of the German Mark to gold and started buying foreign currency at any cost. It was central control that caused the hyperinflation. If the Mark had remained pegged, or if the Germans had been using bitcoin, hyperinflation would have been impossible. So if money is abstract why care about the value? Why not give everyone a billion BTCs so they can trade w it? Why not keep making more BTCs so every newborn receives a billion upon birth? Youre not saying anything different than me. Money is for stimulating economics not hoarding. Any money if it is to be useful needs elasticity and discipline. BTC only has discipline. Weimar hyperinflation was caused by severe reparations demands imposed by Allies. Bitcoin wouldnt have done squat because after Britain and France took their gold, they proceeded to take their factories and productive output. Anyways, my point is that boom and bust cycles can get swung to the extremes and what results is calamity and chaos. Maybe I didn't word it clear enough. Bitcoin doesn't solve any economic problems. Because money by itself can't solve all economics issues. Central Banks can't solve all economic issues. But Central Banks play vital role in that they can backstop a recession before it becomes depression, act as lender of last resort, buyer of last resort, etc.. Seems to me like bitcoiners don't understand why Central Banks exist in the first place. Its not even about money per se, its about liquidity. Invent a crypto that deals w liquidity issues and I'm sure everyone will get on board. Until then good luck convincing the masses to join your pump and dump |
|
|
|
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_14986.htmFederal Reserve is independent but subject to oversight by Congress. It was created through The Federal Reserve Act sign into law by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Its nothing like a private bank like JPM Chase or Citibank. Its the bank for these banks. Get your facts straight before putting on that tinfoil hat
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you wanna read up on game theory and Nash equilibrium.
But what you are are describing isn't a hedge. A hedge is when you take both sides of trade.
For example your car insurance story. Insurance is just insurance and not a hedge. But suppose you wanna frame it as a trade.... The insurance company is betting you won't get in accident. If you crash they lose the bet by paying out more than they collect in premium from you. If you don't crash you lose the bet each month paying premium. A true hedge is if you bet someone else you wont crash and each month you don't crash this person pay you cost of your premium. You are hedged in a sense that whether you crash or not you never lose money
|
|
|
|
Before Central Banks, banking was decentralized and it was a mess.
Well, back then the communication network was not sufficient to support a decentralized monetary/banking system. I think Bitcoin has proven that that is no longer the case. Of course, not everything can be decentralized, but it will be fun to see what happens. It was a mess because each bank issued their own notes. BTC isn't decentralized banking if you are using the term correctly. Its more of a P2P public ledger system. People say its decentralized because there's no Central Bank that regulates the supply of money But its worse than Central Banks because the supply is artificially limited w known timeframe. That's the reason why it attracts speculators. Money is only useful if it helps stimulate economic activity. Otherwise its just an abstract concept. The incentive of Central Banks are not to make money (profit). This is just some misunderstood myth in the bitcoin world. Bitcoin speculators spread this fear to get lemmings into bitcoin and drive up price. The Central Banks incentive is to keep the economy going. They increase money supply in times where liquidity is needed and the decrease supply when discipline is needed. Elasticity vs Discipline is the money view of Central Bankers. If economies had no Central controls they would be subject to boom & bust business cycles. And that can lead to catastrophe like what we saw in Great Depression leading to Weinmar hyperinflation leading to WW2 |
|
|
|
|
Seriously, I'm so sick of people throwing around this term "decentralized". Before Central Banks, banking was decentralized and it was a mess.
You want a Central Bank to create money otherwise itll be like land where aristocratic dynasties own all the land simply cause their ancestors got there first and staked it out
I remember 25 years ago when postmodernism was trendy in academia and this term " decentralization" was all the rage. Didn't mean squat then and it doesn't mean anything now
|
|
|
|
|
Impossible to get consensus without legislation.
Labor market is variable. Doctors paid more than laborer, etc..
|
|
|
|
|
You can't predict the market normally. But you can predict reaction at the extremes. Volatility reverts to mean. <--- This is what you can predict
|
|
|
|
Yeah I'm a big fan of Taleb. What does this have to do with the topic? Well if you understood Taleb then you would realise that options trading is not an option. Umm, I don't change my life just cause I like someones writing. Taleb made his money trading options so I don't know what you are referring to. He just had an extreme way to trade options |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
