What my continent have failed to realized is that power won't be given to you unless you fight for it.
right, so you need: - Modern, well equipped, well trained army
- Diverse and free journalistic culture
- Diverse and free business culture
- Infrastructure to support all the above (communications, fortifications, transport etc)
- The army must defend all the above equally
If the army just defends the natural resources, then the people cannot act as the 2nd line of diffuse/distributed defense against those trying to interfere with and exploit the minerals. This is what made countries like Iceland, Switzerland and the US difficult to attack. If you get the balance wrong, China, US, Britain or France will launch a propaganda campaign against you, then kick your ass in the ensuing war. Actually fighting for power is not easy. Was literally just going to say this, it's a lot easier said than done when it comes to establishing a country that can hold itself up. I do also think that certain African countries have a vested interest in continuing to be poor, as the foreign aid they get from other countries is only present due to their dire financial situations -- this is while this money is being siphoned by the leaders of the country and the poor get none of it. I also thought this quote was pretty funny, didn't know people took movies like this seriously. From the marvel movie "Blackpanther" i believe the solution to the continent (Africa) problem is to act as the past Kings of wakanda did with their natural resource: Vibranium, they should learn to manage their resources themselves and later they can sell finish products to the outside world. |
|
|
|
I mean, I personally don't like BitcoinCash and I definitely don't hold a single satoshi of it; but in a business perspective, this is just blockchain.com simply catering to a wider audience whether we like it or not. The BCH community is definitely a lot smaller compared to the BTC community, but their number is still significant; hence blockchain.com is trying to capture their demographic. So instead of the BCH community using https://explorer.bitcoin.com/bch, they can now use blockchain.info as well. +1 They're a business which is trying to saturate both sides of the market, as they really don't care what coin you support. They're simply just trying to grow, and then collect fees from people from buying btc and other alts through their platform. I hate when people think that businesses want to cater to their random set of views. |
|
|
|
Do you think is it great idea to invest?
No, it is not. Better buy some dPoS coins and stake on your own or lease it (like CHX or LTO, they're good, check them out) to produce passive income if you can't mine on your own or don't have enough money to do so. The one who profits the most from cloud mining is the host itself, not you. This isn't actually good advice, I wouldn't go ahead and purchase any of the scammy masternode coins as a way to produce dividend type passive income. I'd rather just buy bitcoin, or one of the larger coins and wait for (hopefully) an appreciation of value. There's other things that I suppose you could do in the BTC community, such as casino bankroll investing, loans, etc. From the comments above which all of them oppose the idea of investing in any cloud mining sites, OP should be enlighten that it's not good idea to do so. I guess trading would work just a little work of research than risking in any cloud mining sites.
I see that a good deal of people usually state that there's no reason for a company to cloud mine and to make it profitable for the end user, and I do think that I may have a theory on why some of these companies will lease out the equipment that they've bought -- and the theory is cash flow. These companies are able to secure a mass amount of capital in the beginning, which can be used for further research and development and more mining (which means more cash flow and profits later on) by selling out their own mining to others. While this may not always be the case, I wouldn't say that ALL CLOUD MINING IS SCAM AND NEVER MAKE YOU MONEY. Some companies may be in dire financial situations and may need the capital -- so this may be the smartest thing that they can do. |
|
|
|
Thanks for this, I'm going to leave this here as I do want to see if anyone has ever used the service on here and has some personal reviews on the site. Thanks! |
|
|
|
That is funny because the most intelligent people were socialists (Einstein, Hawking(
It is just greed, plain and simple. Some people get joy from watching others suffer. A lot of life comes down to luck but narcissists believe they did something extraordinary when it was just a roll of the dice.
Of course it's greed. The genius is to let people think they are free, and that they are benefiting themselves by their labor. Then the people will work hard and willingly, for themselves - 'cause they are greedy, too - while you pick up a little bit of profit off each of a big bunch of them. In the Revolutionary war, the rich geniuses who figure out the Constitution needed help to fight King George. What they did was give the people real freedom so that the people would back them. And that almost wasn't enough. Today, government consolidation is pulling the freedom away. It isn't the geniuses in government doing it. It is the Elizabeth Warrens. And the people are falling for it, 'cause they aren't intelligent enough to see what is really happening. But it will ultimately backfire on her. People don't work well under socialistic slavery.  Never understood when people attack greed for being wrong. Greed isn't wrong, it's what started this country and what is going to continue to define it. I see little to no purpose in life if you're not continuously longing for some sort of end goal -- which is you, being greedy, and chasing a goal. Punishing those that are job creators isn't going to work, and its seen in countries such as Venezuela the horrid atrocities that can come out of that mentality. |
|
|
|
|
Even in the presence of these sorts of things such as just leaving the password to my wallet, or my hardware wallet, or the keys to my address I don't think I'd trust any of my family members in attempting to actually be able to sell the bitcoin for their own benefit. As they'd have no clue what they're doing and most likely would send it to the wrong place, or just get scammed all together.
I'd without a doubt try to show family members how to use it, then establish all of this in paperwork with my estate lawyers so they know how to liquidate and how I'd like the funds handed off. You're going to really have to sit down and explain this though, as most people are still going to be confused with Bitcoin and how it works.
We can debate all day about all the complex things we'd do, with multisig and locking the coins up for 10 years. But I'd try to make it as easy as possible for my heirs to have ease of access to money that they may need right then.
|
|
|
|
|
Been looking into different ways to onboard fiat to purchase Bitcoin and I've come across the ABRA app, anyway anyone on here has any experiences with them?
Want to know what their fee/spreads are on purchasing and such like that, would be nice to hear from other members of the community rather than paid shills on other sites. Thanks folks!
|
|
|
|
|
Was just chatting about this whole thing with JackG, and while this doesn't look like a scam as they are paying out -- the returns that their providing do show how badly Bitmain needs cash to prop themselves up.
There's no reason for Bitmain to give out returns of 24 percent per year, as they could (if they were a company without financial issues) obtain a commercial loan for something that is much less than that. I'd say this is a combination of bitmain wanting/needing cash, and them wanting to build an alternate reputation in the cloud mining space. As we all do know that their current reputation in the mining space is not too good. (That's a nice way of putting it, I guess)
We'll see where this goes I guess, I just don't see a company like bitmain shutting this down and running off with money.
|
|
|
|
The wealth tax is actually unconstitutional. The 16th amendment says The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration The 10th amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. As such, since the constitution only allows congress to tax incomes, and not assets, a wealth tax is unconstitutional. The estate tax is constitutional because it is not actually taxing assets directly, but the transfer of assets from the deceased to their estate. So with this said, the states would be allowed to levy a wealth tax -- just not the Federal Government, right? |
|
|
|
Elizabeth Warren released her greatest new idea -- a wealth tax on the super wealthy, would allow for a 2 percent tax on those people net worths that are above 50m. A one size fits all tax program isn't going to be the way, I don't think that some people don't understand that super wealthy people (such as Jeff Bezos) aren't sitting around with piles of cash thinking about what to do next -- they're people with shares of a company that they're not exchanging on a daily basis. You're going to be taxing them on their networth, which isn't easy to analyze -- as the IRS is going to have to enforce this by looking at all of your assets and determining a market value for these assets. But let's think about companies that aren't large, privately held companies that don't have values that are public. To verify if you're paying the correct amount, the IRS is going to have to hire private equity analyzers to find out how much a company is worth -- then probably have it disputed by the other side as they may have their team fighting them on the valuation (as they want it to be lower, to pay less in taxes) None of this even harps on the fact that taxes on wealth are going to cause capital to leave the country and stifle innovation, as people are going to look towards ways to avoid this tax. Also, there are multiple arguments about the constitutionality of such legislation -- as the Income Tax amendment doesn't allow for a tax on wealth by the Federal Government. This is a pipe dream and without a doubt a way to try to please the base. Let's see what everyone else thinks here. Some random articles: https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warren-doesnt-understand-wealth-taxes-11549228772?mod=hp_opin_pos1 https://www.city-journal.org/elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax |
|
|
|
What a load of old tosh.
We are told that we face starvation because we won't be able to import our fish that is caught by EU members states - solution, catch it ourselves, and reduce the cost to the UK
We are told that our farmers face ruin because they can't export meat to the EU. Solution, eat it ourselves - it's higher quality than the stuff produced in the EU.
I could fill a page with similar comments.
It's a crazy world for the globalists, I don't understand how they think they can get away with these comments. As of right now, Britian is buying food from the rest of the EU due to it being profitable for the EU to sell it there -- and it's a profitable business relationship for the British to buy this. They're able to grow their own food, it's not like their a nation that's going to starve out due to this. Let them have their way, we'll see what happens. I don't understand how some politicians want to call for a second referendum to disregard the peoples' vote in the first. It's like they think they can keep voting until they get their way. |
|
|
|
3. I divided the 92 by 3 to arrive at 30 hours with rent being 90% of your income. Thats assuming they really stretched their money. The numbers you have are not realistic in high demand areas of California. Not even rent control can get you those sort of prices in the big cities. Your numbers are more appropriate for Anaheim and Long Beach where people sleeping in cars is not as much of an issue. The median 1BR apt: $3600 in San Francisco $2500 in San Jose $2400 in Oakland $2400 in Los Angeles and for 2BR $4600 in San Francisco $3000 in San Jose $2800 in Oakland $3200 in Los Angeles https://www.zumper.com/blog/rental-price-dataSo you're looking at least around 900 for a 2BR split 3 ways and as much as 1500 each. But we are talking about money they already don't have. We are talking about kids who can't even afford the college to begin with and its supposed to be their only way out of poverty. The way you think college students could live in this situation (sharing apartments) is actually the way working class professionals are getting by today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIq8PO18EsoCheck out this video. Entire new developments go to Chinese investors before they are even built. No reason for developers build practical housing for Americans when they can build luxury condos or large family homes and collect all the cash up front. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFcsFOKXsFULonger documentary I was simply using the data you supplied before, from the chart / site that was cited before. Though I do notice my error of failing to use the individual cities, and instead using the state as a whole. I'll come back and edit this with a real response shortly! |
|
|
|
Check back with us in 3 weeks Captain Victory. Curious to really see if this ages well. I do personally think, even though I support President Trump, that it looks like he lost this battle. Unknown on the war yet though!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Same line of thinking I had though, I don't understand why this sort of thing had to come up now. It was without a doubt a horrible thing to have in a yearbook then, imagine all the times' someone was going through their yearbooks in the past years (I know some people do it every so often) and thought, 'oh, this isn't alright'
People that knew him knew about it. He knew he did it, and he knew that it would probably haunt him at some point. I just don't know why it took this long to come out, or what triggered it to come out. As he has been in politics for some time now, it could've been used to hurt him before.
|
|
|
|
1. You are correct. I'm just saying that won't solve this particular problem of broke college students being homeless. This would help people who are close to being able to buy a home. 2. Its not just a supply problem. Its a demand problem as well. Taking away rent controls will lead to an increase in supply, but will also allow upward movement of prices and price a lot of people out. Rent control is the only way to have affordable housing in high-demand areas. 3. It sounds like you think the students are sleeping in their cars because there isn't any housing available near their schools. Thats not the reason. There is housing available near the school but it is far too expensive for students to afford. Building housing near the school at market rate isn't going to affect them in any way. Even if increased supply causes the market rate to drop a bit. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/OOR_2017_Min-Wage-Map_0.pdfMaybe your solutions would best case scenario lead to a 10% decrease in housing costs across the board. It would still take around 30 hours a week to allow 90% of their income to make rent. This is based on the state average which is much cheaper than the major cities where the problem is much worse. You have the Chinese situation wrong. Chinese government owns all rural land and municipalities rezoned rural land to urban land and leased it to developers who built housing. There was a TON of demand coming from people who already had homes. These homes often sold out before projects were built. Before the recessions, real estate was selling like hotcakes and the demand is what drove the building explosion. IT all goes back to why houses are built. They are built to be sold for profit. They are not built to be occupied. There is demand in the US just like there was demand in China during the boom. That demand is from professionals and investors, not from college students or working class people, the people who need homes. The solutions you speak of do not hurt people but they do not solve the homeless crisis. Not one bit. 2. I don't see the same research on rent control personally, I think I'll agree to disagree with you on this one. 3. Interesting chart, never seen something like this. Though I do think the part of this that is flawed, and not advertised (too largely) on the graph is the fact that " In order to afford this level of rent and utilities — without paying more
than 30% of income on housing" I think that's a pretty large portion of this, as most college students expenses are going to mostly be food, housing, tuition, and entertainment (which they should cut anyway if their struggling to make ends meet) To meet the current prices in California, you have to work 121 hours in the month to JUST cover this rent expense. I do think that if you were to have roomates though, as most college students do (in dorms, and apartments), this would be more feasible. Think about a 2 bedroom, with 3 people inside which would be able to be split 3 ways now. So the Fair Market Rent (FMR) in California for a two bedroom is 1699, split 3 ways = $567(ish) for each person for the month. Working at minimum wage this would require approximately 52 hours of work to JUST cover rent. This sounds more feasible to me, though it is a large chunk of your income being spent on housing without a doubt -- which is why I think a decrease of EVEN 10 PERCENT for housing costs would be amazing to see. That would be a decrease in 10 percent of working income being spent on rent, and could either be used for other budgeting items (food, utilities, entertainment) or -- you could cut your hours for studies. SIDE NOTE: I want to research the China thing before commenting further. |
|
|
|
1. They prefer to sell them before they even build the property but if they are rented its not going to bring the cost down so far that COLLEGE STUDENTS will be able to rent them. Thats really preposterous. I don't think you realize the cost of living and just how far college students are below it. The price only comes down to the point where people are willing to pay. There are plenty of working people who would occupy new supply before students. There are people making 6 figures in SF who have to share rooms. You seem to be under the impression that development will continue with sinking prices and rents until everyone has housing. Developers don't have a goal of everyone getting housing. They would stop investing long before the supply got that high because at a certain point, commercial development and other types of investment would become more profitable. It will never be profitable to house everyone.
2. What do you mean it doesn't work? The goal of rent control is not to give developers easier opportunities to make money. The goal of rent control is to keep housing affordable for more people. Its not the best idea but it most certainly works. People who live in rent controlled units will attest. There is a limited supply of land. Letting a developer build units that will cost 5000 per month is not going to help anyone. Those units are going to be vacation homes, AIRBNB, 2nd or 3rd homes, or investment properties.
3. Local governments can't mandate people to build housing. They could build housing or invest in housing but those actions require funds. There is nothing else a government can do to make sure that housing is built. There is no "unfunded mandate".
Your ideas are exactly what has happened in China. Governments reallocated rural land to urban land which was sold to private developers. These private developers built housing and wealthy people bought 1,2 or 3 homes with their savings. Instead of holding Yuan or stocks, Chinese people have bet on holding real estate as social security with the idea that poor people will eventually afford it. It has led to millions of homes owned but they are vacant homes that most people cannot afford.
Chinese investors are also buying everything up in North American hot spots as well.
1.I understand that the properties are going to be sold, yes, but what I'm saying is that with more houses in the housing market -- prices are going to decrease. There's no way in my mind that I can be convinced that more supply, in a market which is obviously having a supply problem, is going to hurt people. I'm also not saying, in the least, that people are just going to build until everyone has their own house -- that makes little to no sense. But, builders WILL build in a market which has a supply problem and inflated prices. 2. Rent Control works if you define it a certain way. It only controlls the rents for the units it has designated, yes, can't fight you on that one. But the problem with that is that isn't the market rate for housing, so developers have less of an incentive to build in areas that have these policies which further hurts the supply problem in California. 3. My idea was more along the lines of being used in areas that have students in cars, emergency zones. Where you speed licensing and ease regulations for the ability to build more housing in an areas that desperatetly needs it. My idea isn't like China, I'm not talking about giving lands to people -- seizing it, etc. There was little to no demand in China and an abundance of supply. -- there's demand in the US (California in this circumstance) with no supply. |
|
|
|
1. You are assuming that if new housing is built, students would be able to afford that new housing which is not the case. New housing would mostly be gobbled up by investors and the remainder would be split between first time home buyers, and professionals currently living with roommates. Just because new housing is built, doesn't mean students who cannot even afford to be in school to begin with, will suddenly be able to afford said new housing.
This is a good idea, it just doesn't solve this specific problem . Smaller developers would benefit from this because the larger ones are the only ones currently powerful enough to convince government officials to approve their projects. Without control, these corrupt politicians would lose their ability to collect kickbacks from developers.
2. Eliminating rent control will allows rents to go up. This would open the door for smaller investors to build rental property but in no way would that help students be able to afford the rent. Developers would build a ton of luxury because it is more profitable. Many luxury units are sold to foreign investors who hold them like money in a bank.
3. So there would be federal money given to the state to build student housing, and that housing would then included with the normal price of tuition? This in theory is good as long as tuition does not go up to account for the room and board.
In capitalism, things are built for profit and not built for use so building more does not mean more usage. All of your solutions are centered around building more housing. It doesn't solve the actual problem.
The problem isn't unique to California and is playing out in every desirable area, especially the more desirable metropolitan areas. This is the same sort of mindset that has led to 55 milllion vacant homes in China but Chinese investors are still buying empty homes in the US. 1. You're, wrongly, thinking that real estate developers aren't going to go ahead and rent the properties out. This influx of supply will bring down cost for all properties, meaning that college students would be able to purchase properties in different areas. Also, I would love to eliminate regulations so everyone has an equal playing field when it comes to building. I don't want big businesses having a larger influence over building authorities licensing department just cause they're able to lobby with more funds. 2. Rent Control doesn't work, it just deters builders from building in certain areas if they must have a certain # of units be rent controlled. 3. No. That's not what I said at all. What I was stating was that State governments, who already contribute funds to local governments for different things, must set up an unfunded mandated to increase housing -- attached to current funding to local governments. True, California is just in the news the most for it. |
|
|
|
Capitalism is at fault, we are seeing it implode on itself and this is the result. There are millions of vacant homes and lots of people that can't even afford a house. Marx warned us.
I don't see this in the least, other parts of the USA don't have these sorts of issues (or at least to the same degree) This is without a doubt an issue of over government regulation. Which could be solved by allowing Capitalism to thrive. |
|
|
|
I know most of you may not like FoxNews, but I do browse it alongside the other platforms that I'll listen to during the day. Saw this very weird headline, and in my mind this is one of the more bizarre things about California -- instead of easing regulations in an attempt to get builders to build new housing in areas -- California has announced a bill to allow homeless college students to sleep in cars on campus' ( https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-bill-would-let-homeless-college-students-sleep-in-cars-on-campus-amid-housing-crisis) This seems like a pretty horrible solution to a problem that could be solved through other means. I'll list some potential solutions, and I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on it! 1. Make it easier to build - Obviously.
This is just easing the regulatory process, reducing taxes, fees, and paperwork constraints on those that want to develop within California. Speed up the approval processes for licenses and LET PEOPLE BUILD. I'm not saying to abandon safety standards or anything, that's not smart, but if you're holding up projects to hold up projects then nothing is working. 2. Don't force new builders to set aside a certain amount of units towards Rent Control. (OR LOWER THE AMOUNT NEEDED)
Rent Control is practically a naughty/bad word in the industry of builders. They don't want to be constrained with this sort of thing, as they know it's just going to bring profits down and less real estate investors are going to want to buy the properties. 3. Mandate Certain House Goals
If local government isn't going to act, the state must set a mandate to achieve a certain amount of housing by x point. Attach this sort of requirement to federal funding and force the governments to comply, or lose funding. I'd like to see what the rest of you think about this, I'll also link the FoxNews article up above. |
|
|
|
will do it! thank you.
How stupid is it to argue with me and let me make take over the thread for advertising the competitor.
If it shows anything it's that anyone with more than 2 braincells can see that "our" competitor hires braindead posters to advertise for them, which should definitely be something to take into account when thinking about using their service. You're only discrediting the service you're advertising for by fueling your anti-CM fetish imo. I don't possibly see how you making libelous claims is in any way beneficial to said competitor. But if they pay you for this, hey, be my guest and good luck. This wouldn't be something that Hhampuz would allow, a quick message to him would have you removed for this. Horrible what people try to do. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
